The Syndicate

To clarify, i think Llama makes up cases on people that fit his preconceived notions of baddiness, to be blunt. I almost NEVER vote for Llamas suspects or cases in any game because I seldom agree with Llamas reasons as to why they are bad.

SVS hasn't really brought me up as a suspect before. Now she doesn't trust me. She knows I am on her trail and she is scared. Watch for me to be the mindless bandwagon alternative to Vomps tomorrow.

I am not bringing you up as a suspect now. This is an *always* thing. I almost never bring you up as a suspect either in any game anymore, do I? I think it is more that your philosophy of gameplay is so alien to mine, that I just cannot understand anything you do or say ever.

I can't read you at all, so my opinion is next to worthless.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're right. I am a very philosophical player. My philosophy is deep and wide like an azure lake.

I am just explaining my lack of interest in a Vomps vote. You go on encouraging low participators by lynching them for participating. I have no intention on getting involved.

Linki, lol, that was not my meaning, nor the color of the lake I had in mind, but OK, if it makes you happy

I think Vomps is bad. Do you think I should not vote for people I think are bad because of the incentive effects on future games?

Not necessarily, no. Vote for who you want to, as will I. All I am saying is that the reason I am not voting for Vomp is that I do not understand you or your thoughts on how to do things. So I never trust your motivations. That is not your fault; it is mine.

Talking about lynching nubs on Day One, or people who are obviously silenced, low posters just becasue they are not posting, etc.

You and I are never on the same page, and that is OK. I have come to accept it and I act on it by seldom or never acting on it, if you take my meaning. But I will defend myself against allegations of attempting to save someone that you, and only you, are pushing heavily. I have no opinion on Vomps. I am not trying to save him. I am not voting for him becasue, as I said, I almost never vote for people you suspect becasue I always think you have an agenda. I find that I disagree with your motivations or reasons for suspecting people like 90% of the time or more. Certainly, I am watching Vomps, and will come to my own conclusions.

You seem to be saying that disagreeing with you makes me bad. But we always disagree, which is why i tend to ignore your suspicions since I don't care to get into this very argument.

I don't think disagreeing with me makes you bad at all. I think your vote record, especially with respect to timing, makes you look very bad. But as I keep saying, it makes more sense to lynch Vomps first to see whether there really was a save attempt going on. That's what I intend to do unless I get murdered in my sleep, and I expect another save attempt. I just hope this time people won't fall for it. If the civilians are going to fall for the same trick three times in a row, nothing I do in this game matters and we might as well call it quits.

thellama73 wrote:SVS hasn't really brought me up as a suspect before. Now she doesn't trust me. She knows I am on her trail and she is scared. Watch for me to be the mindless bandwagon alternative to Vomps tomorrow.

That won't work if you're NK'd.

I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???

S~V~S wrote:I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???

Well, I respectfully disagree. The timing of your votes makes it look like you are trying to save Vomps, since you keep breaking ties, and to me that looks bad rather than incompetent.

S~V~S wrote:I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???

Because I find llama's persistance annoying.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???

Because I find llama's persistance annoying.

I find your eagerness to make up elaborate and circuitous theories based on nothing rather than follow the evidence that's staring you right in your marmoty face annoying.

Read it how you like. I would have thrown Vomps under the bus days ago, I have never had BTS with him, but I imagine my hyper over mgmt thing as well as his more laissez faire approach to the game would have been a bad train wreck. I don't do baddie bandwagons ever since I got my whole team trashed in Tranqs GTA game at RM.

First you pretended not to understand the meaning of my AP vote, now as soon as I mention your name, you start screaming that i am after you. Again, I don't think this makes you bad. Mafia is not an Ayn Rand novel.

Between the other thread, and now this, I have no stomach for Mafia today. BBL.

I also will BBL, because I genuinely don't understand why no one wants to win the game except me. SVS thinks you shouldn't vote for baddies if they are new, or if it might prove discouraging to them (boo hoo) and MM doesn't think you should persist in your suspicions, even if you think you are right.

Fine, have it your own way. Let the baddies win without a fight. I'm laving before I say something that gets me a stern talking to from our lovely mod.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???

Because I find llama's persistance annoying.

I find your eagerness to make up elaborate and circuitous theories based on nothing rather than follow the evidence that's staring you right in your marmoty face annoying.

Oh, like your laundry list of players that are trying to save vomps?

Has it ever crossed your mind that SVS could just be taking advantage of the fact that you have no interest in lynching anyone but vomps. Not just SVS, but anyone who is a baddie. They now know that they can get away with piling trains on anybody, because you will just reconnect that lynch to vomps, and try to lynch vomps the very next day, again and again.

SVS mentioned she thinks you have an agenda, but she also doesn't think you're bad. Those two don't go together.

S~V~S wrote:Between the other thread, and now this, I have no stomach for Mafia today. BBL.

Take care.

I'll be out-of-town all day, so see you guys on the flipside.

Sorry I missed the vote everyone! I never got a chance to finish catching up yesterday, but I'm trying to do so right now.

S~V~S wrote:

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.

How is that any different than a normal MP play style?

<<never seen these movies>>

Alright. I think I'm caught up now. So a few thoughts:

1) I don't really get the MP lynch at all. Maybe because I just didn't read him as a baddie this time around. He seemed like he was REALLY passive and taking a back seat this time around, and I guess I interpret that as him being more likely to be civ. Oh well. Glad you at least were able to rez me though, dude! Hopefully it helps in the long run!

2) I don't know if this is still a thing, but I read the John Waters thing as him silencing someone during a day period and blocking them the FOLLOWING night. So in regards to Canuck, I don't think there is anything indicative of her being bad.

3) Call me crazy, but I'm actually starting to wonder if there is a thing to Vomps being saved in 2 lynches now.

4) Before Vomps though, my biggest suspicion right now is clearly on Rico. Here are some handy-dandy quotes to explain it in more detail!

nijuukyugou wrote:
I agree SVS seems a bit more reaction-y to these accusations than I'm used to, but I can understand it, especially since the case is easily jumped upon. Her exchange with Rico this morning gave me pause - it looked like she was baiting him with the "that's what was said in chat" comments when he referred to people's talking about her in-thread, when I thought he made a legit comment. Could make her bad. Could make her a baddie hunter. Not feeling strongly, but I'll keep an eye out.

Referring back to when Rico said he needed to look back and see why people were talking about her and Vomps in-thread, the bolded part was how I interpreted her side of the conversation with Rico. Not sure what it says about her, but I feel like Rico might have been pulling up a topic that was discussed in a chat room. I know there is civ BTSC in this game, but what he said still feels odd to me. Especially coupled with...

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote: I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

This is a bit pingy. This, considering Rico wouldn't go find evidence of it for SVS, sounds like baddies had been chatting all night in btsc and "the plan" was to push the SVS angle.

I do understand what could seem pingy about my exchange with SVS, but I'd argue that it was all very unfortunate and a misinterpretation of my intentions - which was to simply say look into what others have said. To say I was out to "push a SVS angle", after "btsc team chats", would be to ignore the fact that the angle was already being pushed and discussed by several people in the thread.

The fact that I didn't quote "evidence" for her (although I did motivate that I had to leave soon) or that I referenced page numbers instead of quoting the relevant posts - I'd call it another rookie lapse on my behalf (just like, on Day 1, I was pointed out that I shouldn't snip player's posts, because it might make me look bad), for which I apologize. Would I have not been pressured by time, or be aware that it's preferable to quote rather than say "go read page x", I would have done so, obviously. When I came back, I offered to quote any other fragments SVS might still require, but llama already pointed out to her what was the most significant part.

Could be a rookie mistake, sure. But given your conversation with SVS earlier, and then this on top of it, I really started to question it. And to top it all off, we have...

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I mean she. Sorry. More d'oh.

That was not the first time you messed up Canuck's gender. Where did you learn it?

From the person who posted right before I did, as well as all the others in this thread.

This might seem minor, but I think Rico made the same mistake again. And given the other evidence we already have, I have an firmly planted on Rico.

I think Rico and Vomps are both bad, and I think my vote tomorrow will go to one of them. Leaning stronger on Rico though.

Also, OMG I've seen more than one movie on this list (a whole two)! Voted for my favorite though.

Mongoose wrote:Happy Saturday, sweet players.

I'll be out this afternoon doing indoor rock climbing, but I should not have any problem getting the Night 2 post up on time.

Indoor climbing is super duper the best. Have fun!

I'm caught up on the events that transpired during the last day, but might not be home and able to post until after the boy goes to sleep tonight since we have lots of Saturday thugs to do today. Will post my thoughts when I get a chance, though! But for now, running out the door!

The Fall is a spectacular movie. I like all of Wes Aderson's films (except Rushmore and Bottle Rocket, but he was still learning) but Moonrise Kingdom perfectly captures the magic and humor of his work to me.

I also feel I should apologize to SVS for being overly combative with her. I know we always see things really differently, and it doesn't mean either of us are bad or dishonest. We just don't understand each other.

I'm sorry, SVS. It is just frustrating to feel like you're screaming into the void with no one listening. I still think you might be bad, but I should have been more respectful.

Canuck, two people have asked if you were silenced yesterday. I'll be the thrd. It really makes a difference so we would like to know.

Canucklehead wrote: since we have lots of Saturday thugs to do today.

Ay dios mio 0_0

birdwithteeth11 wrote:2) I don't know if this is still a thing, but I read the John Waters thing as him silencing someone during a day period and blocking them the FOLLOWING night. So in regards to Canuck, I don't think there is anything indicative of her being bad.

Hostest: Is this the way that Waters works?

Turnip Head wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:2) I don't know if this is still a thing, but I read the John Waters thing as him silencing someone during a day period and blocking them the FOLLOWING night. So in regards to Canuck, I don't think there is anything indicative of her being bad.

Hostest: Is this the way that Waters works?

Water Works?

*eyes Metalmarsh*

For what it's worth, when I saw Rico correct himself about Canuck's gender, I had been following along with the thread, look how he earlier calls Canuck "he", and then there's a bunch of posts, and then Llama calls Canuck "she". I remember thinking that Rico might notice it, but then I read then very next post, where Rico says "he" again. Immediately (within a minute) he posts the correction. Likely immediately for a post, then a BTSC conversation and another post... I definitely read it as he posted and looked at the post and Llamas, and realized and corrected himself due to that.

That's what I believed before he claimed it, and so I believe his claim.

I still don't see anything in Vomps' gameplay to suspect him, but Llama does raise a good point about the seeming repeated saves on him. I don't know as Roxy and SVS would be so transparent in saving a teammate, but it's something to keep in mind.

I don't have any suspicion of them outside of that possible Vomps connection, though.

thellama73 wrote:
Canuck, two people have asked if you were silenced yesterday. I'll be the thrd. It really makes a difference so we would like to know.

(The Boy is being a butt and doing work in the middle of Saturday, so I will be around the thread until he decides to stop being a stick in the mud and enjoy our fucking day. )

I definitely saw both questions, and think silencing is one of many perfectly mausoleum reasons why I wasn't super chatty yesterday. I dont agree that it makes a difference, though, because I have a very different interpretation of how the silencing/blocking role works than most people in the thread.

"Mausoleum" should read "plausible", because autocorrect is a pretentious bitch.

I'm somewhat tempted to vote Vomps next, but if I were to do so, it would be solely a "lets do this thing so we can gain whatever info is to be gained and move on" type of thing, rather than based on any really suspicions. I agree that the last two lynches could very well have been attempts to save Vimps, but since I was in the non-Vomps voter pool both times, I'm not particularly inclined to see it that way.
For realz, though, it does look like a lot of different cases and suspicions seem to be based on how Vomps flips, so despite the fact that I don't personally suspect him (I think people who are zany players tend to be zany in all games regardless of alignment), I will be considering a vote for him Pfau.

I am also intruded by the suspicijs of Roxy and SVS. I have had a civ vibe from SVS all game, but there's no denying that her voting record is eyebrow worthy (but so is mine, and I know I'm civ). Roxy is an interesting case, though, and I will plan to do a read-through of her today or tomorrow.

Of course, as has been mentioned, both the cases against these players rest on Vinps being bad, so it's hard not to want to follow along with that plan and see where it leaves us.

My thumbs are just not cut out for this whole pig ears-posting thing. Sorry for the typos, all.

OmfuckingG. I wrote "phone-posting", not "pig ears-posting". What in the actual fuck.

I love you, Canuck, funniest posts around!

Canucklehead wrote:"Mausoleum" should read "plausible", because autocorrect is a pretentious bitch.

Canucklehead wrote:OmfuckingG. I wrote "phone-posting", not "pig ears-posting". What in the actual fuck.

LOL

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:"Mausoleum" should read "plausible", because autocorrect is a pretentious bitch.

Canucklehead wrote:OmfuckingG. I wrote "phone-posting", not "pig ears-posting". What in the actual fuck.

LOL

She called it a pretentious bitch, it got revenge with 'pig ears'. Theirs is a complicated relationship.

Canucklehead wrote:OmfuckingG. I wrote "phone-posting", not "pig ears-posting". What in the actual fuck.

Mongoose wrote: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

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?

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

Dom wrote:

Mongoose wrote: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

thellama73 wrote:So you're refusing to say whether you were silenced or not, is that correct, Canuck?

Nope, I don't think refusing is the right word in this case.

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

thellama73 wrote:

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.

You know who else just caught my attention? BR. First she says she's going to wait more to decide who to vote for. Then, after MP gets 4 more votes, she comes in and says that MP sounds genuine so she's not going to vote MP, nor Vomps, but gives TH the vote. This really screams baddie to me. It feels like she's trying to find really weird reasons to suspect TH, and she says he's playing his smart baddie game...because when he's a civ, he plays his stupid game, right? I don't buy it.

I'm not sure whether the hostess has been especially strict in prohibiting people from saying "I was silenced" "I was forced to miss the vote" etc, but if that is not the case, I want to posit the following to the thread.

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?

That's a good point on BR, Roxy. I feel like I had something to say about her, but now I've forgotten. I shall have to look back.