The Syndicate

After a game of silence, you've gotten awfully chatty now that I asked people to lynch you, Blooper. Awfully chatty indeed.

thellama73 wrote:After a game of silence, you've gotten awfully chatty now that I asked people to lynch you, Blooper. Awfully chatty indeed.

I knew you'd say that :P And I get the eye when I'm too chatty or too quiet. One day I'll find the balance.

Or I'll just do whatever I feel like

nijuukyugou wrote:

thellama73 wrote:After a game of silence, you've gotten awfully chatty now that I asked people to lynch you, Blooper. Awfully chatty indeed.

I knew you'd say that :P And I get the eye when I'm too chatty or too quiet. One day I'll find the balance.

Or I'll just do whatever I feel like

Did you know I was going to say this too?

thellama73 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:
Oh here's a video. The Academy's tribute to Kate Hepburn, the superior of the two Hepburns.

Um....flase.

No u

thellama73 wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:

thellama73 wrote:After a game of silence, you've gotten awfully chatty now that I asked people to lynch you, Blooper. Awfully chatty indeed.

I knew you'd say that :P And I get the eye when I'm too chatty or too quiet. One day I'll find the balance.

Or I'll just do whatever I feel like

Did you know I was going to say this too?

My sixth tentacle can read minds, so yes.

What does your 4th tentacle do? Do i even want to know? o.O

S~V~S wrote:What does your 4th tentacle do? Do i even want to know? o.O

S~V~S wrote:What does your 4th tentacle do? Do i even want to know? o.O

I do. Visual demonstration pls.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Dom, to answer your questions:

1) I asked because I've seen a similar thing happen before due to a host's error. So I wanted to know if it was that or if I had been rezzed.

2) I never got that impression. I was NKed, and then a few posts later, the hostess says I was rezzed. I have absolutely no idea what happened. My best guess is that someone rezzed me.

Linki: SVS, who do you think had a lack of reaction to my death?

Thank you.

thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.

Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Dom, what do you think of SVS now?

LC where do you stand now?

DF, what are your thoughts now?


These are three people who stated that they think lynching vomps will help us learn something. Dom, specifically saying he would reserve judgment on SVS until after.

I'm off to class. BBL.

I remain neutral on SVS because Vompatti was civvie.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
You and SVS are forcing this topic a little too much. Unless you're trying to build something on SVS, let's move on.

Who's stifling discussion now?[/quote]
T H I S

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?

Roxy. Her vote of AP on Day 1.2 was a complete turnaround from her previous stance.

Roxy wrote:I need to vote now bc my youngest son Nic is here and we are gonna watch Pulp Fiction -
My strongest ping so far is Made but no one seems too bothered by him I am voting AP I think the points are valid and between his vote, timing and lack of anything since the last vote is bewildering even for AP.

Not only this, but she made a big deal about her play style on Day 3. She made some specific comments about it that I found uncivvie-like. She was addressing questions that were never asked. But another point from those comments is this post.

Roxy wrote:What other reason have you given to find me suspicious except my votes?

You seem even more suspicious to me bc suddenly you are willing to conform and vote for vomps - someone you said was prob not bad but ofc today you see suspicion from Vomps lol. You voted others before this lynch - why, suddenly this lynch do you feel the need to conform and vote Vomps?

So on Day 1, Roxy votes AP rather than Made because no one else is interested in voting for Made. But then she accused me of 'conforming' with my vote on Day 3, after she had already done so before.

On top of that, there are the no-u reactions to my suspicions.



Others I am looking at, Bass, LC, and SVS.

nijuukyugou wrote:

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Blooper, if you could specify what you found strange in my behaviour so far or what you find strange about my level of gameplay being so un-newbie-like, I'd like to hear it. All I know is that I'm doing my best to play this game at my best, first game or not. The fact that it's actually a cause for suspicion completely befuddles me.

Sure thing! It's like I said in an earlier post - while at first I chalked up your general know-how to be really careful thread-reading and lurking (I did that a lot when I was new and depended on that to understand the game), it started appearing too...for lack of a better word, knowledgeable to be coincidental. The first instance that made me think along these lines, rather than coincidence/reading, was the Canuck gender thing. You had no prodding in-thread to correct this mistake that I noticed, which just happened to catch my eye. I applaud good playing and participation; however, just to let you know WHY you're garnering suspicion, there have been a few instances of newbies getting a baddie role early in their mafia careers, and they've been caught because they seemed to "know too much" (AKA getting info from BTSC and not in-thread) and didn't hide it well. Hope that answers your question, but I'm happy to address whatever else is necessary.

Why would I have needed in-thread prodding to realize and correct a mistake, throughout an immediate edit, without enough context in the thread to serve as a factor for me realizing my mistake? I'm still surprised that out of three options like "Rico made a mistake, correcting himself right away", "Rico made a mistake and couldn't have realized without in-thread prodding" and "Rico made a mistake and got BTSC alert", the first is the least likely to you and, actually, most around here.

Then again, here are a few other people who understood it the way I explained it (and the way it truly, honestly happened) (1) or at least saw any bit of reason to my explanation (2), in case my words can't convince you (since this isn't actually the first time you bring this up, as a trigger for suspecting me).

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.

Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?

Why would we need to check back previous games for this? Given how typical and casual death/kill/rezz reactions are (intentionally or not), anything outside the norm is, as I've said, open to interpretation.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?

Context or our use of the eye may not be equivalent, but people's reaction to it is. I'm still having to defend, days later, a trivial mistake because, to paraphrase you, you seriously saw "something where nothing is". Instead, I'm suspicious on my suspicion of your reaction.

I have no stated any intentions to vote you either.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy. Her vote of AP on Day 1.2 was a complete turnaround from her previous stance.

Roxy wrote:I need to vote now bc my youngest son Nic is here and we are gonna watch Pulp Fiction -
My strongest ping so far is Made but no one seems too bothered by him I am voting AP I think the points are valid and between his vote, timing and lack of anything since the last vote is bewildering even for AP.

Not only this, but she made a big deal about her play style on Day 3. She made some specific comments about it that I found uncivvie-like. She was addressing questions that were never asked. But another point from those comments is this post.

Roxy wrote:What other reason have you given to find me suspicious except my votes?

You seem even more suspicious to me bc suddenly you are willing to conform and vote for vomps - someone you said was prob not bad but ofc today you see suspicion from Vomps lol. You voted others before this lynch - why, suddenly this lynch do you feel the need to conform and vote Vomps?

So on Day 1, Roxy votes AP rather than Made because no one else is interested in voting for Made. But then she accused me of 'conforming' with my vote on Day 3, after she had already done so before.

On top of that, there are the no-u reactions to my suspicions.



Others I am looking at, Bass, LC, and SVS.

Personally, I dislike your suspicions as well (although I have no opinion on Bass yet, his blendiness is level regardless of alliliation), and am potentially going to vote you today.

I got the impression that she was annoyed at people for telling her how to play when she made the points about conforming. And she did not vote for AP solely becasue other people were doing so; she also was suspicious of him, as it clearly states in the post. Your posts the entire game are this kind of thing; misinterpreting and extrapolating out of context.

And since you don't elaborate here, can you tell us what these "un-civvie like" remarks are?

Turnip Head wrote:

timmer wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:BUT if I vote MP and one of the other two is lynched and flips bad, my vote will (quite reasonably) be deemed opportunistic, so I have to consider that risk when casting my vote as well...

Linki how hard MM what

Voting for MP and one of AP/Vomps flips bad, sure, your vote could look baddie. But you know what else looks baddie? Waiting until AP is at 5 votes, and putting your vote on MP *then*, with the second to last vote, once the lynch seems secured. And that's what you did.

You know what, I always vote at the tail end of every lynch in every game, and in every game it gets me extra eyeballs. Those last few votes can be so scrutinized and over analyzed because you can read anything you want into them. I didn't know that my vote would be second to last, nor could I know that the "lynch seems secured" as you put it. I could not have known that ~6ish players wouldn't vote after me. You're acting like AP's lynch is MY fault because I voted MP.

Roxy wrote: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.

I've mentioned him before, but he hasn't even been around to talk about his Day 1.2 vote,, I don't think he's posted since then. I'm suspicious of him but that suspicion has plateaued until we get some more content.

I asked everyone's opinions on MP and only got responses from Dom and Timmer. Does that mean people don't want to talk about MP?

Here's my short list of who I'm most likely to vote today, in order of most concerned about to least concerned about:

MovingPictures
Made
Vompatti
SVS

I don't really see myself voting for anyone other than these 4, and I'm most likely voting MP again unless something big happens.

This is your last real post where you discuss Made; you mention him several times after this in context of wanting to vote him, and asking others opinions about him, but not really adding anything. He has said quite a bit since this post; have your thoughts jelled any further? I read back through all your posts, but did not really find much else of substance on Made.

Also re Metalmarsh & Ricochet, any thoughts?

Turnip Head wrote:I'd like to hear her answers to all the questions raised to her, but I'm inclined to agree with you, MP, she's reading like cornered baddie SVS to me right now.

Personally I thought I was reading as "uninvolved becasue I did not have BTS partners to warm me I was in trouble SVS" but that's just me. Do you still feel this way?

thellama73 wrote:I think SVS is acting weird and suspicious, but the number of people who have jumped on that is making me nervous. I also, like MP, acknowledge that I am bad at reading her. Does anyone agree with my "if Vompatti is bad, SVS likely saved shim, so let's lynch Vompatti first and see" logic?

On a tangent, I ran into this on my reread of TH looking for his position on Made, and it is posts like this that make me less likely to think llama is bad. He is showing reasonable doubt & restraint.

As for Ricochet, I have suspected him like the entire game since we had that early AM discussion about the "Big Case". I try to draw him out whenever I see him in thread with me. For various reasons, he cannot be part of two of the three potential civ BTS pairs. Vompatti was Truffault, and even if AP had found David Lean using Math by Day Two, I don't think there would have been much time for giving Ricochet tips. I have someone else in mind for Tarantino/Rodriguez. So as I am convinced that he has BTS, and that leaves baddies imo. But i could be wrong and he could just be mega astute, which is why I have kept him talking rather than just started pushing for him.

I did not get the chance to actually reread Made yet, since I reread TH instead. I will get to that later & do a summary of all three of the people I suspect, although the rereading I have done has clarified quite a bit for me.

I'll probably stop trying to reason that I don't have or require any assistance in what to say in this game and how to play it, because it's apparently hopeless. (And slightly hurtful.)

I'll address the facts for the "BTSC arguments" on me one more time, in the simplest terms possible:

1) Several people raised suspicions on SVS throughout an entire night phase. The discussion looked serious. The next phase, I said I'll catch up with that discussion.
2) I have screwed up a female player's gender in a couple of posts. The first time I didn't notice. The second time I did and corrected my mistake with half a minute later. I don't have any other defence for the gap between my mistakes, because I simply didn't notice it the first time and did the second one (along with slighty contextual aid from Llama earlier's post, to which I was replying).

Any other BTSC arguments on me are welcomed, but yeah, I think I'm done addressing these. I'd say everyone should make what they want out of it, but thing is, they irrevocably already are, so

Don't be hurt, it is not intended that way; quite the opposite. I am totally impressed by you, and am enjoying repartee with you immensely; even if I am correct and you do have BTS help, you are still playing an awesome game. And it is not simply the way you say things, it's is what you say, too.

I realize that and I can also acknowledge how players will opt to fill with doubt, distrust and suspicion the facts or statements of a player. But this is exactly what puts me in a rather dispiriting position - and a slightly defenseless one, too - given that I don't have anything to hide there, but also not really not much else to plead for, really, besides facts (that I for one see as clear). My intentions in those two situations have honestly been good or neutral at best, yet they are ripe for interpretations from anyone.

I didn't really want to imply that I'm really feeling hurt by this (hence the OT), it's just what I said: there's a hopelessness I feel in being hooked, for days already, with the same thing, while all my reasoning for it (which I find I've been consistent in) appears to be in vain.

It's afternoon here and again I have to do some test preparations and stuff, so I'll be back later.

Last line in OT color, actually.*

What are your thoughts on MM, Ricochet? Made? Your current thoughts

Also that was supposed to be and NOT

I always read that wink as condescending as that was not what I was trying to convey

S~V~S wrote: Personally, I dislike your suspicions as well (although I have no opinion on Bass yet, his blendiness is level regardless of alliliation), and am potentially going to vote you today.

I got the impression that she was annoyed at people for telling her how to play when she made the points about conforming. And she did not vote for AP solely becasue other people were doing so; she also was suspicious of him, as it clearly states in the post. Your posts the entire game are this kind of thing; misinterpreting and extrapolating out of context.

And since you don't elaborate here, can you tell us what these "un-civvie like" remarks are?

I got the impression she was doing that too, but no one was telling her how to play ever, so I found it weird. And when I pointed out to her that no one was telling her how to play she didn't say "oh, I misunderstood" but rather "I know no one is telling me how to play! Rarrrrr!"

Also, although I still suspect Rico heavily, I think the gender confusion thing is a weak reason for it.

I'm leaning towards a Ninja Blooper lynch, but Roxy is still on my radar.

Hey, all.
I didn't yet have a chance to do the rereads I wanted to do, but I will hopefully get to them today. However, based on recent responses of players since llama and I posted our lists, my current top suspects are Ninja, MM, and Rico, so I will be concentrating my efforts there. I think SVS is very much playing like a civ SVS, I don't suspect llama, I'm on the fence on Roxy but leaning towards civ, bwt I trust (obvs), TH is still feeling nebulous for me, and then there are a whole pile of players that I have very little read on.

Also, I'm going out of town tonight and won't be back until Tuesday afternoon (I'm going to Disney World with my man, my sis, and my nieces!! I've never been!! And I know I'm supposed to be all hip and dismissive and cynical and blase about shit like this, but dammit if I'm not giddy like a fucking five year old right now!! I'm gonna meet Goofy!! AND I'M GOING TO HARRY POTTER LAND!!!!!!!), so I may be sporadic in the next few days. I'll have my phone and wifi in the condo, but posting and catching up will likely be restricted to late nights after the kidlets and the boyfriend have snoozed off for the night.

Canucklehead wrote:Hey, all.
I didn't yet have a chance to do the rereads I wanted to do, but I will hopefully get to them today. However, based on recent responses of players since llama and I posted our lists, my current top suspects are Ninja, MM, and Rico, so I will be concentrating my efforts there. I think SVS is very much playing like a civ SVS, I don't suspect llama, I'm on the fence on Roxy but leaning towards civ, bwt I trust (obvs), TH is still feeling nebulous for me, and then there are a whole pile of players that I have very little read on.

Also, I'm going out of town tonight and won't be back until Tuesday afternoon (I'm going to Disney World with my man, my sis, and my nieces!! I've never been!! And I know I'm supposed to be all hip and dismissive and cynical and blase about shit like this, but dammit if I'm not giddy like a fucking five year old right now!! I'm gonna meet Goofy!! AND I'M GOING TO HARRY POTTER LAND!!!!!!!), so I may be sporadic in the next few days. I'll have my phone and wifi in the condo, but posting and catching up will likely be restricted to late nights after the kidlets and the boyfriend have snoozed off for the night.

Let's team up and both vote for Blooper, Canuck. I have never been on a team with you, so this will be our chance.

Why do I even bother. My points make perfect sense. But you seem to deny everything I say, regardless. Except for my comment on MP, you quickly agreed with that and voted him.

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy. Her vote of AP on Day 1.2 was a complete turnaround from her previous stance.

Roxy wrote:I need to vote now bc my youngest son Nic is here and we are gonna watch Pulp Fiction -
My strongest ping so far is Made but no one seems too bothered by him I am voting AP I think the points are valid and between his vote, timing and lack of anything since the last vote is bewildering even for AP.

Not only this, but she made a big deal about her play style on Day 3. She made some specific comments about it that I found uncivvie-like. She was addressing questions that were never asked. But another point from those comments is this post.

Roxy wrote:What other reason have you given to find me suspicious except my votes?

You seem even more suspicious to me bc suddenly you are willing to conform and vote for vomps - someone you said was prob not bad but ofc today you see suspicion from Vomps lol. You voted others before this lynch - why, suddenly this lynch do you feel the need to conform and vote Vomps?

So on Day 1, Roxy votes AP rather than Made because no one else is interested in voting for Made. But then she accused me of 'conforming' with my vote on Day 3, after she had already done so before.

On top of that, there are the no-u reactions to my suspicions.



Others I am looking at, Bass, LC, and SVS.

Personally, I dislike your suspicions as well (although I have no opinion on Bass yet, his blendiness is level regardless of alliliation), and am potentially going to vote you today.

You dislike my suspicions as well? Are you agreeing with somebody? Nobody else mentioned them.

S~V~S wrote:I got the impression that she was annoyed at people for telling her how to play when she made the points about conforming. And she did not vote for AP solely becasue other people were doing so; she also was suspicious of him, as it clearly states in the post. Your posts the entire game are this kind of thing; misinterpreting and extrapolating out of context.

And since you don't elaborate here, can you tell us what these "un-civvie like" remarks are?

You misunderstand SVS. I said Roxy did a complete turnaround on her stance, not her read. She stated here that she would not vote AP unless he would not offer any thoughts about his self-vote, but than she voted him 25 minutes later while even including her stronger suspicion in that post.




Moving on to the whole fiasco with vomps, we know that the top three vote-getters on Day 1.1 were all civ, so there was no save involved. But I still think that the baddies knew they had the opportunity to utilize llama's push of vomps in their favor. If ever they would have a teammate in danger, they could pile the votes on vomps, otherwise just throw them anywhere. They had a nice backup option, and they knew they could get away with it too. Who's even looking at the vomps voters now? Nobody really. For all the chatter that lynching vomps will help us learn some things, we've made no progress from it. I don't think the lynch will tell us much on its own, but the people shouting for his lynch from the sidelines can tell us something, since they waited for the day that his lynch was unanimous to vote for vomps.

Here are all the players that voted for vomps in his lynch.

12
Long Con, Dom, thellama73, Canucklehead, Made, timmer, DFaraday, birdwithteeth11, Bass_the_Clever, Black Rock, Ricochet, nijuukyugou

Of those players, nine of them never voted him before Day 3. So llama, Rico, and ninjabloops come off that list. Speaking of those three, Rico and ninjabloops are the highest on llama's radar. Also BWT comes off being an obvious civ.

8
Long Con, Dom, Canucklehead, Made, timmer, DFaraday, Black Rock


As I posted before, LC, Dom, and DF all mentioned that we will learn something after vomp's lynch. I'm still waiting to hear from LC and DF. I don't have time to look into all these players again now, but I will later.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'd like to hear her answers to all the questions raised to her, but I'm inclined to agree with you, MP, she's reading like cornered baddie SVS to me right now.

Personally I thought I was reading as "uninvolved becasue I did not have BTS partners to warm me I was in trouble SVS" but that's just me. Do you still feel this way?

Just because you've conveniently paid more attention and become more active doesn't make you a civ if you are a baddie. That's a rigged question.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Who's even looking at the vomps voters now? Nobody really.

I am! I'm probably voting Blooper.

thellama73 wrote:All right, here are my reads on The Llama Six, as I am calling them.

DF - He's a civ. No worries.
Rico - He's bad. Vote for him.
TH - He's probably civ.
Blooper - She's bad. Lynch her.
Bass - I could go either way. A very non-committal game.
BR - Do not trust.

Roxy, I am very decisive. It's one of my best and worst qualities.

Considering this is the first time you mention her, llama, and the sudden extremity, I see no reason to believe you.

Sudden extremity is my middle name.

Do you not believe that Blooper is bad, or do you not believe I believe she's bad?

It's also not the first time I mention her, but who wants to split hairs?

As I've said, I find it llama's solution to focus on third party and most consistent voters, after Vomps' lynch, highly undesirable, considering that, excluding myself and Blooper as the latter category & BWT as the immortal king of civs, there are 10 other people who contributed to that lynch. As always, I can't say this would necessarily shout baddie from Llama, but it could well be another misguided path he's following.

Actually, I might do this, in the time I'll have left: look back myself and try to filter through the Vomps lyncher. And I'll also reread MM and Made, since SVS asked.

Ricochet wrote:As I've said, I find it llama's solution to focus on third party and most consistent voters, after Vomps' lynch, highly undesirable, considering that, excluding myself and Blooper as the latter category & BWT as the immortal king of civs, there are 10 other people who contributed to that lynch. As always, I can't say this would necessarily shout baddie from Llama, but it could well be another misguided path he's following.

Actually, I might do this, in the time I'll have left: look back myself and try to filter through the Vomps lyncher. And I'll also reread MM and Made, since SVS asked.

My initial focus was on the third parties, but after doing my reread I found Blooper, a Vomps voter, more suspicious than any of them.

Thanks for bringing my Made posts to the forefront SVS. It reminded me that I hadn't brought up a few things, such as Made's Vomp suspicion:

Made wrote: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.

It seemed opportunistic to me, and for some reason he demanded Vomp play a certain way or he would earn Made's vote.

Made's most recent post also felt to me like Made was taking advantage of other people's suspicions:

Made wrote:I don't know what it is, but the previous page, (or last 40 or so post for those on weird page formats) just felt off to me too re:Canuck . I know what I was doing on that page, but just like early in the game( with everything surrounding RIco), the things people say just seems so on the nose. I'm known (among irl friends) for being really bad at picking up on subtlety, as well as having other notice when i'm low key saying something. That all said, It seems like every little thing anyone's doing this game is being spelled out, almost as if people want to be see as adding something to the conversation, but not really adding anything at all, just explaining subtleties.

Two people who I feel are doing this right now is
Dom- with his Juliet tier questioning
And
TH-

Turnip Head wrote:Roxy, my point about BWT was that he's the closest thing we have to a confirmed civ, and he isn't even on the poll, so we shouldn't keep discussing him when we have to talk about somebody to lynch.

Iunno, thoughts?

I'll be back later, Job interview!!!

All he did was quote my reply to Roxy out of context and asked for thoughts, but his only thought was "Iunno"... Seems like he's just trying to stir the pot for pot-stirring's sake.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:As I've said, I find it llama's solution to focus on third party and most consistent voters, after Vomps' lynch, highly undesirable, considering that, excluding myself and Blooper as the latter category & BWT as the immortal king of civs, there are 10 other people who contributed to that lynch. As always, I can't say this would necessarily shout baddie from Llama, but it could well be another misguided path he's following.

Actually, I might do this, in the time I'll have left: look back myself and try to filter through the Vomps lyncher. And I'll also reread MM and Made, since SVS asked.

My initial focus was on the third parties, but after doing my reread I found Blooper, a Vomps voter, more suspicious than any of them.

And more than any of the 10 other lynchers? Or, better yet, what do you think about the 10 other lynchers?

You also asked for my thoughts on Rico and MM so I'll sum them up: Rico makes me uneasy with how smoothly he has slid into our culture but I'm trying to not hold that against him. The little points against him that point to BTSC (like Canucklegate) aren't compelling to me as I found his explanation of those events believable. I remain on the fence about him.

Marshy is playing a different style game than I have ever seen from him, and I'm unsure what this means quite yet.

thellama73 wrote:Sudden extremity is my middle name.

Do you not believe that Blooper is bad, or do you not believe I believe she's bad?

indeed.

Not the former because I haven't given her a read yet, so the latter.

Why should we lunch lynch her?

Linki: @ TH. I have no idea what you mean either. What's different?

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.

Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?

Why would we need to check back previous games for this? Given how typical and casual death/kill/rezz reactions are (intentionally or not), anything outside the norm is, as I've said, open to interpretation.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?

Context or our use of the eye may not be equivalent, but people's reaction to it is. I'm still having to defend, days later, a trivial mistake because, to paraphrase you, you seriously saw "something where nothing is". Instead, I'm suspicious on my suspicion of your reaction.

I have no stated any intentions to vote you either.

If it's not characteristic of me to express disappointment in the thread (who the hell would do this?), then why would you interpret this as such? Do you know what I normally post?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy. Her vote of AP on Day 1.2 was a complete turnaround from her previous stance.

Roxy wrote:I need to vote now bc my youngest son Nic is here and we are gonna watch Pulp Fiction -
My strongest ping so far is Made but no one seems too bothered by him I am voting AP I think the points are valid and between his vote, timing and lack of anything since the last vote is bewildering even for AP.

Not only this, but she made a big deal about her play style on Day 3. She made some specific comments about it that I found uncivvie-like. She was addressing questions that were never asked. But another point from those comments is this post.

Roxy wrote:What other reason have you given to find me suspicious except my votes?

You seem even more suspicious to me bc suddenly you are willing to conform and vote for vomps - someone you said was prob not bad but ofc today you see suspicion from Vomps lol. You voted others before this lynch - why, suddenly this lynch do you feel the need to conform and vote Vomps?

So on Day 1, Roxy votes AP rather than Made because no one else is interested in voting for Made. But then she accused me of 'conforming' with my vote on Day 3, after she had already done so before.

On top of that, there are the no-u reactions to my suspicions.



Others I am looking at, Bass, LC, and SVS.

Can you elaborate on LC and SVS?

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Who's even looking at the vomps voters now? Nobody really.

I am! I'm probably voting Blooper.

Did I miss the case on Blooper or??
Can I have the TL;DR version?

MM, you are more aggressive and involved than I usually see from you.

Turnip Head wrote:MM, you are more aggressive and involved than I usually see from you.

So you must be having nightmares about Jennet Bierley again.

Touché.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Sudden extremity is my middle name.

Do you not believe that Blooper is bad, or do you not believe I believe she's bad?

indeed.

Not the former because I haven't given her a read yet, so the latter.

Why should we lunch lynch her?

Linki: @ TH. I have no idea what you mean either. What's different?

I'm not going to make cases for baddies to pile onto right now. I feel like that's what they want me to do. Someone else do some work.

I'm going to vote for Blooper, you vote for whomever you like.

^ok

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.

Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?

Why would we need to check back previous games for this? Given how typical and casual death/kill/rezz reactions are (intentionally or not), anything outside the norm is, as I've said, open to interpretation.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?

Context or our use of the eye may not be equivalent, but people's reaction to it is. I'm still having to defend, days later, a trivial mistake because, to paraphrase you, you seriously saw "something where nothing is". Instead, I'm suspicious on my suspicion of your reaction.

I have no stated any intentions to vote you either.

If it's not characteristic of me to express disappointment in the thread (who the hell would do this?), then why would you interpret this as such? Do you know what I normally post?

Again, it's not so much what's characteristic of you, but what stood out as uncharacteristic from all the reactions, in that moment.

TH, my thoughts on Blooper are that she has been posting just enough (both in terms of frequency and content) so that she seems involved but distracted, but without ever really saying everything. If you read through her posts, they're all a bunch of summaries, gestures towards other people's thoughts, banal statements, and not much input of her own. She never addressed my initial prodding of her/call out of her lack of posting (which was odd since many other people commented on the jokey/over the top language of the post, many thinking I was possibly cursed), yet as soon as her name comes up as a suspect, rather than just a low poster, she's instantly available to address llama's suspicions and modify her behaviour. That, coupled with her supremely blendy behaviour and her record of latching on to llama's Vomps suspicion early and sticking unquestioningly with it, seems vote worthy to me. Read her posts. They're a beautiful example of seeming involved without doing/saying anything that could possibly be controversial or draw an eye.

That first sentence should read "without ever really saying ANYTHING" not everything.

Llama, you don't have to hand out verdicts if you don't want to, but why do you feel the 10 other Vompy lynchers are not really worth looking into?

Canucklehead wrote:TH, my thoughts on Blooper are that she has been posting just enough (both in terms of frequency and content) so that she seems involved but distracted, but without ever really saying everything. If you read through her posts, they're all a bunch of summaries, gestures towards other people's thoughts, banal statements, and not much input of her own. She never addressed my initial prodding of her/call out of her lack of posting (which was odd since many other people commented on the jokey/over the top language of the post, many thinking I was possibly cursed), yet as soon as her name comes up as a suspect, rather than just a low poster, she's instantly available to address llama's suspicions and modify her behaviour. That, coupled with her supremely blendy behaviour and her record of latching on to llama's Vomps suspicion early and sticking unquestioningly with it, seems vote worthy to me. Read her posts. They're a beautiful example of seeming involved without doing/saying anything that could possibly be controversial or draw an eye.

Thanks Canuck! I don't remember asking for your thoughts on Blooper, but it's nice to have them all the same

I will take your advice and read her posts though.

Just to add to my above Blooper comments, the only suspects she's stated all game are Vomps (zany player), Rico (new and seemingly super adaptable player), and Made (zany player). These are the absolute PERFECT suspects for a baddie to stick to, because they are so easily justifiable if they flip civ. They're easy votes, and they're easy to use as a shield of consistency, and they're easy to explain away if and when they flip civ.

Blooper hasn't had a single vote-related suspicion, or a single association-related suspicion, or a single suspicion based on anything other than zany-ness or newbie-ness. It's bizarre, for a player as smart as she is.

linki: oops. I thought you asked for the case on Blooper?? But maybe that was MM.....

Nevermind, it was Dom who asked for the Blooper case.

Hi, Dom!

You bring up some very valid points. If those are Bloop's suspicions, they do seem easily justifiable ones for a baddie to have.

Turnip Head wrote:You also asked for my thoughts on Rico and MM so I'll sum them up: Rico makes me uneasy with how smoothly he has slid into our culture but I'm trying to not hold that against him. The little points against him that point to BTSC (like Canucklegate) aren't compelling to me as I found his explanation of those events believable. I remain on the fence about him.

Marshy is playing a different style game than I have ever seen from him, and I'm unsure what this means quite yet.

I'm very much with you on Rico, I don't believe there's any meat to the "has BTSC" idea. That could just be that I don't have the Mafia sense that S~V~S does, but I found his explanations to be exactly in line with what I assumed happened, both times.

Darsh, however, is a different story, I suspect that marmot the most, and will likely vote for him. I'm gonna go grab a quote now to help explain my suspicion of Llama.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I think SVS is acting weird and suspicious, but the number of people who have jumped on that is making me nervous. I also, like MP, acknowledge that I am bad at reading her. Does anyone agree with my "if Vompatti is bad, SVS likely saved shim, so let's lynch Vompatti first and see" logic?

On a tangent, I ran into this on my reread of TH looking for his position on Made, and it is posts like this that make me less likely to think llama is bad. He is showing reasonable doubt & restraint.

It's this kind of thing that makes me MORE likely to think Llama is bad.

IF Llama is bad, then he knows better than any Civ who's not bad. He doesn't know if his non-teammates are Civvies or Other Baddies, but the chances are that they're Civvies. So, he assumes S~V~S is a Civvie, and he'd love to have her killed for it, but he also wants people to think HE'S Civvie. So he first goes after her like a real suspicion, like the Vompatti suspicion, and when people "jump on that" he acts concerned. To me, that looks like clever baddie stuff, maybe I'm just cynical.

I don't think that's the first time I've felt this way about Llama's gameplay. I think he might be doing a Baddie Thread Leader tactic.