The Syndicate

I think I am going to go with MP. He is equivocating and using lots of words without really saying much.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I've actually never had BTSC with SVS... or BR I don't think... and we've been playing together for freakin forever.

That's not a surprise, most games I play I don't have btsc. It's fairly lonely.

Long Con wrote:I can't believe you can remember a thing like that. I've played so many Mafia games that I can't remember who I have had BTSC with, and how many times.

You never remember anything. You have had BTSC with me. In case you forgot. Remember when Scocub (I think) made us civvie ninja's together and we sucked balls? Worst civvie ninjas ever. That was back on LP.

I think I've only had btsc with SVS once a long time ago. Most people in this game I have never btsc'd with.

And for whatever reason, my baddie team usually ends up killing you early on.

Yeah what is with that? It's that your way of telling me I'm alive cause you're civvie?

S~V~S wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I've actually never had BTSC with SVS... or BR I don't think... and we've been playing together for freakin forever.

That's not a surprise, most games I play I don't have btsc. It's fairly lonely.

Long Con wrote:I can't believe you can remember a thing like that. I've played so many Mafia games that I can't remember who I have had BTSC with, and how many times.

You never remember anything. You have had BTSC with me. In case you forgot. Remember when Scocub (I think) made us civvie ninja's together and we sucked balls? Worst civvie ninjas ever. That was back on LP.

I think I've only had btsc with SVS once a long time ago. Most people in this game I have never btsc'd with.

Twice before Fight Club. Once on LP, maybe Heroes? You were both on my team, you & LC. Then you & I were on the bad team in CabinFevers Freemasons game.

Why so quiet/no voting? You all waiting for me to make some stupid bonehead vote?

Wow, your memory is awesome.

Less than an hour before the vote ends and I am still at odds at where my vote should be placed. Any of my suspicions are small or have been quelled.

I am going to do more reading before I decide. If I were to choose between MP and Vompatti I would likely go for MP. I have a small suspicion of him and no suspicion of Vompatti.

I agree Made could stand for some looking at because of the inactivity, but he doesn't have...much to actually look at at the moment, so I suppose it's a moot point right now. Not enough for a vote from me today (obviously).

S~V~S wrote:I think I am going to go with MP. He is equivocating and using lots of words without really saying much.

I agree, but I still haven't made up my mind yet.

Voted for Alex.

I guess I'll jump on this bandwagon then. *votes MP*

Why not FZ?

Wow, what a surprise.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't know what to say to timmer (and others') accusations other than what I've already said. I've been genuinely hunting baddies, but of course if you don't believe I have been doing that then that's your interpretation and I don't think I can change that. I didn't vote AP or Vomps even though I had 2 votes and they each had 3 because it didn't seem like I was really in any danger of getting lynched, and I didn't really find either of them suspicious -- and would never have known which to vote for over the other. So I made my vote and cast it in accordance with who I really felt should be lynched. I suspected BR because I thought what she was doing was suspicious, but I don't really find her suspicious now. I don't know what else to say. I hope people believe me. If anyone has any specific questions I can answer, that'd be great, since I feel I've addressed everything in my posts.

I don't understand why people are finding Rico suspicious over being here and leaving, here and leaving, etc. That's a habit I've developed as well. I don't understand the suspicion at all here to be honest. It doesn't seem like Rico has BTSC to me; having known him for the last few years, even though I haven't talked to him much in a while, I always thought he would love mafia and be fantastic at it, so I'm glad to finally see him take the plunge. I see his behavior as a natural mafia player, perhaps, but no real indication of anyone coaching him.

I guess I'll probably vote Vomps to save myself and because he's not really helping, but I'll wait and see what others think before I do that, since I'm not really feeling he's bad. I don't know who else I'd vote at this point... maybe I should stick with my gut read on S~V~S, BR, FZ., or Dom, even if I've abandoned feeling strongly about any of them (and at different intervals). My gut is still feeling like at least a couple of those players are bad, probably in that order (I suspect Dom the least). That said, I still don't feel anything remotely strong about any of them. Meh.

I have no clue on MM, but he does feel a bit different to me this game than other games. Not really sure what it is though, just can't put my finger on it. And I thought Blooper's echoing of S~V~S's point re: Rico was odd. But IDK about her either.

I just feel I haven't found my bearing yet this game.

I have to continue doing homework, so I'll be back later.

I've read this a couple of times and seems so genuine.

I'm not voting for MP but I will not vote for Vomps either. Since I no longer suspect SVS, I think I will stick to my TH suspicion. I really think he's playing his logical baddie game.

What do you want me to say, guys?

- I get suspected if I talk a lot (especially when it is deemed to not have "enough content" even though I typically have thoughts about players more than most anyone else at any given time)
- I get suspected if I don't talk enough (a ridiculously high bar I've raised too high for myself to ever be anything other than top poster or top few posters)
- I get suspected if I throw out a lot of suspects
- I get suspected if I don't throw out many suspects
- I get suspected if I ask other players what their thoughts are
- I get suspected if people feel like I am not taking their thoughts into account
- I get suspected if I play and defend myself aggressively
- I get suspected if I play and defend myself passively
- I get suspected if I agree with other players too much
- I get suspected if I don't agree with other players enough, and people don't agree with my logic or what I say or my suspects
- I get suspected if people think I'm explaining or overclarifying my thoughts too much because people misunderstand me
- I get suspected if people think I'm not explaining my thoughts enough because people misunderstand me
- I get suspected if I actually ever vote a baddie because of my reputation for throwing teammates under the bus
- I get suspected if I vote civilians consistently because surely with such a track record then I must be bad

These are all reasons I've been suspected consistently the past year in games, with some popping up more often than others. I'm sure there are even reasons I failed to list. I have not gone one game in the past year (and probably the past two) without getting serious suspicion. I am NOT exaggerating.

If any game cements in my mind that I should develop a new less talkative or less helpful playstyle, it's this game. Sad but true. Anyone who posts a lot inevitably attracts suspicion, and I recognize that and always have, but it's insane to think about the last year's worth of games and how much suspicion I come under every time, and usually right off the bat. I know it's a mafia game and that plenty of others attract suspicion as well, but it truly boggles my mind when I think about the fact that every game I essentially have a 100% chance of attracting attention to myself, and not just a vote or two, but serious cases and sometimes for days and days from many players, if I'm even lucky enough to last that long.

The only reason people have even been so lucky nabbing me as bad in the past (with a few exceptions where someone actually caught me doing something suspicious, usually Daisy, Epig, or BWT; don't get me wrong, I'll acknowledge those) is because I had such a long string of games where I was bad over and over and over again, and so people started picking up behaviors that I do and thereafter began thinking that they are an indication of my baddie game (like talking a lot and "not saying much", overexplaining my own viewpoints when people misinterpret them, etc.), but they're really just aspects of my personality that don't go away regardless of alignment. I would think that since I have played with so many of you so many times that at least some people would recognize this by now, but I suppose that's naive and unfair of me to expect in a game so characterized by complexities of circumstance, emotion, rationality, and deception.

That said, to be suspected so heavily so often is just disappointing. I'm not asking for sympathy, nor am I even mad or trying to whine with this or anything; it just is what it is. The only emotion I am only expressing disappointment.

And I want people to finally recognize the incredible standards that I always get held up to, and the inconsistencies I get suspected with. Some of it, hell even most of it probably, may be my own fault.

But even if it is, if I'm going to get continuously eyeballed game after game by practically everyone, and lynched on D1 or D2 about half the time I play anymore, then maybe it's about time I finally forced myself to play the game differently. Not just because it is disheartening, but also because whichever team (civilians or baddies) is depending on me loses an asset just because I never can seem to play a game anymore without attracting too much suspicion.

Well, good luck, civilians. Truly sorry I couldn't be of any more help than what little I did manage to accomplish with my role. I just have not been able to find much certainty in suspecting anyone this game quite yet. Pay close attention to how people handled the suspicion against me and I only hope that will help too.

Thanks for hosting, Mongoose.

Sorry, MP

MovingPictures07 wrote: me

It was an honor to get to give BWT and the civilians a second chance.

No problem, Mongoose, anytime.

I'm sorry. Definitely an error in judgment.

:*(

I love Jacques Cousteau in an erotic way.

Folks, this is bad journalism:

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/lukas- ... eekly.html

RIP MP07! I feel for your difficult Mafia path. You are, though, one of the top six players on the site with 7 wins, so you must be doing something right!

Rest in peace MP

What! Another Vomps save? When are you people going to start listening to me?

RIP MP, but at least you got to use your power and saved a valuable civ. I'm glad I didn't fall into the trapping of gunning for you like I so often have.

And oh look, SVS was again the one who broke the tie against him. And Roxy was in there too. Is anyone else seeing a pattern?

thellama73 wrote:And oh look, SVS was again the one who broke the tie against him. And Roxy was in there too. Is anyone else seeing a pattern?

And yet, you're still probably going to vote vomps tomorrow.

Also, I just got a ticket to see Steven Wilson on June 16th.

Btw llama, what are your thoughts on Roxy? Does she usually just post thoughts about players without addressing actual game content?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Btw llama, what are your thoughts on Roxy? Does she usually just post thoughts about players without addressing actual game content?

Damn straight I'm going to vote Vomps tomorrow. SVS or Roxy or both are desperate to see absolutely anybody but him lynched. What better reason to lynch him is there than that?

My suspicions go:
1. Vomps
2. Roxy
3. SVS

SVS is only below Roxy because I think she mostly sounds sincere, and I have a hard time believing she is playing the most blatant baddie game ever rather than just being a victim of bad luck, but the vote record looks VERY bad for her. Roxy has been wiffle waffly and non-committal, barely brought up suspicion of MP before this lynch, and her voting record is as bad as SVS'. I don't trust her one bit.

MP, sorry I was wrong about you

I still don't see the vomps suspicion, but a Roxy-SVS would be worth looking into.

Also, I have not seen any of the movies in the poll, so no vote.


Linki: were you silenced Canuck?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:And oh look, SVS was again the one who broke the tie against him. And Roxy was in there too. Is anyone else seeing a pattern?

And yet, you're still probably going to vote vomps tomorrow.

The whole idea of a Vomps save hinges on Vomps being bad.

Linki: MM, you're my new #1 for that statement. Due to the one I was just posting.

Long Con wrote:Linki: MM, you're my new #1 for that statement. Due to the one I was just posting.

Come again?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I still don't see the vomps suspicion, but a Roxy-SVS would be worth looking into.

Also, I have not seen any of the movies in the poll, so no vote.


Linki: were you silenced Canuck?

Why the heck would you go after Roxy/SVS when the case against them is hta they tried to save Vomps, and you don't believe Vomps is bad?

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I still don't see the vomps suspicion, but a Roxy-SVS would be worth looking into.

Also, I have not seen any of the movies in the poll, so no vote.


Linki: were you silenced Canuck?

Why the heck would you go after Roxy/SVS when the case against them is hta they tried to save Vomps, and you don't believe Vomps is bad?

I think there could be a connection regardless of your vomps' suspicion. I don't recall Roxy mentioning SVS in her daily digests.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think there could be a connection regardless of your vomps' suspicion. I don't recall Roxy mentioning SVS in her daily digests.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Linki: MM, you're my new #1 for that statement. Due to the one I was just posting.

Come again?

Because of this:

thellama73 wrote:Why the heck would you go after Roxy/SVS when the case against them is hta they tried to save Vomps, and you don't believe Vomps is bad?

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I still don't see the vomps suspicion, but a Roxy-SVS would be worth looking into.

Also, I have not seen any of the movies in the poll, so no vote.


Linki: were you silenced Canuck?

Why the heck would you go after Roxy/SVS when the case against them is hta they tried to save Vomps, and you don't believe Vomps is bad?

Why do you think someone like SVS or Roxy (or both) would try to save a 'teammate' like vomps?

I would like to thank Long Con for being the only person in this game talking any sense.

Why didn't you vote, LC?

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

thellama73 wrote: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?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: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?

I think this should explain it.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: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?

I think this should explain it.

I didn't find an answer there. Rather, I sensed a hint of snark.

Why would SVS try to save vomps on consecutive day phases? What good would it do her?

I honestly, honestly don't know how to answer the question "why would a baddie want to save a teammate" without sounding unbelievably condescending.

Someone else will have to take it.

This is not a general question involving person A and person B. This is a very specific question, created for you, because of your beliefs, that involves SVS and vompernoodles.

Maybe I've got a different view of this because of how I play. In Monopoly, when Rob came forward with his big case on BWT, I immediately voted him, even though BWT was my only baddie partner (sorry bud), but that got us pretty close to a win. Anyway, I'm a believer in sacrificing for the good of the team if it helps in the long run.

thellama73 wrote:I would like to thank Long Con for being the only person in this game talking any sense.

I wish I could hear someone say that in most games I'm in. I love you, man!

Why didn't you vote, LC?

There are many reasons why someone would not vote. Maybe I was too busy.

MP, I am sorry I was wrong about you.

S~V~S wrote:I think I am going to go with MP. He is equivocating and using lots of words without really saying much.

THIS is why you suspected MP?
Really?





Anyway, Maybe I have to reconsider my suspects this game. I was convinced MP was bad.

RIP Alex. And thank you, Mr. Kubrick.

I'll agree that, statistically at least, SVS' and Roxy's votes look bad for two consecutive lynches. And the dynamic of the voting is telling: three strong, consistent votes (i.e. players who have mostly suspected and voted for him throughout the whole game), followed by four not so strong ones. Llama, do you believe there would have been more support for Vompatti, besides the four votes given?

At this point, surprisingly, I'm most baffled by Vompatti's reasoning for "bandwagoning":

Vompatti wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

6 to 4 votes for MP already (vs. Vompatti), momentum for voting Vompatti pretty much dead (imo), and yet Vompatti feels threatened and in need to boost the gap? Meanwhile, not backing up a vote at all for the two people you actually insinuate could be bad ("terrorists")? I was torn enough of what his gameplay meant before, but right now my untrust of him is spiking.

---

Few more things:

Canuck, were you silenced during D2?

Six votes missing, if I'm not mistaking, but this is also making me believe Almodovar made two players not vote. Very inactive players notwithstanding (Sabie, Lizzy), I have to question if, for instance, Long Con or BWT (or Made) may have been forced to miss out on voting.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Why didn't you vote, LC?

There are many reasons why someone would not vote. Maybe I was too busy.

Careful, there. I can tell you from experience that Llama doesn't enjoy not receiving straightforward answers.

---

Nauru is a real place on the planet, but a fictional location in my profile. If I'm required to state a real location or refrain from mentioning any in case I don't want to reveal my real location, kindly let me know.

I wasn't in my right mind when I voted and I still think my teeth are probably falling off.

Dom wrote:MP, I am sorry I was wrong about you.

S~V~S wrote:I think I am going to go with MP. He is equivocating and using lots of words without really saying much.

THIS is why you suspected MP?
Really?





Anyway, Maybe I have to reconsider my suspects this game. I was convinced MP was bad.

Really. He seemed to be making a Lt of nothing into something IMO. Is that such a bizarre reason for suspecting someone?

And I think we all have to reevaluate. Last night I felt like everyone was waiting for me to vote, it was very strange.

MP I am really sorry.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: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?

I think this should explain it.

I didn't find an answer there. Rather, I sensed a hint of snark.

Why would SVS try to save vomps on consecutive day phases? What good would it do her?

I wasn't trying to save him, I don't trust llama and I think his case is BS. I have no clue if Vomp is bad or not.