The Syndicate

Made wrote:

Mongoose wrote:
It is now Night 4. You have 48 hours to submit your PMs (notice extended time).

oh

I didn't notice that either. I guess I should stop seeing if the night was over.

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Why do you think llama is bad?

I don't make cases. Why are you obsessed with my opinion!!?!?!?

Black Rock wrote:
I thought you said that you think Llama is civvie?

I didn't say that, BR. I said that I think the Llama/Roxy conflict was either civ v civ or bad v civ (and I believed that Llama would be the baddie here).[/quote]

That's right, you did say that. I got stuck on the civ vs civ because I disagreed with it.

Everybody, from now on, in any game, when Llama asks for your opinion, say:

I don't make cases. Why are you obsessed with my opinion!!?!?!?

Or maybe just this video:



Or both...

Made wrote:

S~V~S wrote:And why would he still be looking at me, Made?

You're right, logically, he would of dropped the case as his reason for thinking you or roxy were mafia was chained directly to Vomp right? Once Vomp died, Llama should have no opinions of you or Roxy, and his cases against you and Roxy should of dissolved. But they didn't, not truly anyways. There are very many points independent of Vomp that suddently Llama has forgotten in favor of a Ninja Bloop vote.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 28#p110728

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.

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.

Arguments against Blooper?

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

Which If i'm correct He's said early this game to someone else.....

thellama73 wrote: Vompatti - I still think his level of participation so far is unusual and I don't trust him. He might well get my vote today.

But what do you I know?

Sorry, I'm not entirely following this. You point out that Llama's supicion of SVS and Roxy was tied to Vomps, and thus should have faded once he flipped civ. But you then say that Llama suddenly forgot a bunch of points in favor of lynching Ninja. Wouldn't that be the expected thing to do once his suspicion against his top suspects was dissipated?

DF coming in hard with sound logic. There's a reason I don't think you're bad, DF. Made's post made no sense whatsoever.

But does that make made bad

Dom wrote:But does that make made bad

Only the role he was given by the host can "make" him bad or good. At present, I do not think he is bad.

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Why do you think llama is bad?

I don't make cases. Why are you obsessed with my opinion!!?!?!?

Sorry. I'll ask someone else then.

LC, why does Dom think that llama is bad?

Maybe it's because he has used his influence to lynch a couple of Civvies. Maybe it's because he can see, like I do, how Llama's whole game so far could be an elegant yet aggressive baddie ploy. Or, he could be getting desperate and grasping at the very straw for which the baddies want us to grasp, and we'll fall for it yet again: the Baddies Sit Back And Watch Us Kill Ourselves plan.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Why do you think llama is bad?

I don't make cases. Why are you obsessed with my opinion!!?!?!?

Sorry. I'll ask someone else then.

LC, why does Dom think that llama is bad?

I can answer this. He doesn't think I am bad, but he wants the thread to think so because he thinks I will be an easy lynch.

L O L

just like blooper was an easy lynch right

I am bored of not making cases, and since it seems like there is contingent of people eager to lynch me tomorrow, I guess I better start preparing my defense. MongooseLawyer would approve.

Has anyone read Dom lately? I just did, and a couple of things really stand out.

1. Have you noticed that almost every one of his on topic posts (at least for the first few days) was a question? This is always a red flag for me. It's a great way to participate without committing to much.
2. His campaign against MP, who we now know was as civvie as the day is long.
3. The thing that inspired me to do the reread was the way he jumped onto me after the Blooper lynch (for which he missed the vote.) It feels like the height of opportunism, because no player has stuck his neck out as much as I have. I would be an extremely easy lynch, and when I flip civ, anyone could reasonably say "well, what was I supposed to do? He kept leading campaigns against civvies!"

Anything that allows a player to dodge accountability sticks out as baddie-esque to me, and Dom's Socratic method combined with his opportunistic pouncing on me are both great examples of accountability dodging.

Here's an intro, blah blah blah.



Here is why I think llama is good.

He has been consistent (sign of civ or good baddie). He has done some research, specifically about vomps. For the first three days of the games, he has seemed like a civvie llama. And above all else, I'm pretty sure he was the one who rezzed BWT. I have a couple reasons for this. Only llama and I were online and posting between the Day start and the rezz, and it only took 11 minutes to send the rezz in. llama also posted a lengthy film critique that may have won him a prize. I'm open to input on this. I know it's terrible to share ideas about a possible civ, but I feel my read on llama has come to a crossroads.



Here is why I think llama is bad.

My pingdar on llama has done a complete turnaround on Day 4. As Dom pointed out, blooops was an easy lynch, which very well could have been why llama picked her out of the crowd. llama said she was bad. We had this interaction, which makes less sense than a post from Made (sorry bud). And the read on blooops that he offered is both meaningful and useless at the same time.

And now there is the no-u on Dom. Llama is accusing Dom of avoiding accountability, not long after llama has led a couple civvie lynches (as he admits). I don't get it.

thellama73 wrote:I am bored of not making cases, and since it seems like there is contingent of people eager to lynch me tomorrow, I guess I better start preparing my defense. MongooseLawyer would approve.

Has anyone read Dom lately? I just did, and a couple of things really stand out.

1. Have you noticed that almost every one of his on topic posts (at least for the first few days) was a question? This is always a red flag for me. It's a great way to participate without committing to much.
2. His campaign against MP, who we now know was as civvie as the day is long.
3. The thing that inspired me to do the reread was the way he jumped onto me after the Blooper lynch (for which he missed the vote.) It feels like the height of opportunism, because no player has stuck his neck out as much as I have. I would be an extremely easy lynch, and when I flip civ, anyone could reasonably say "well, what was I supposed to do? He kept leading campaigns against civvies!"

Anything that allows a player to dodge accountability sticks out as baddie-esque to me, and Dom's Socratic method combined with his opportunistic pouncing on me are both great examples of accountability dodging.

LOL

"Dom lynched a civvie"

*has lynched 2 civvies*

True enough about the move to lynch you, Llama. But it's a really tough decision, and if you're a baddie, we can't let you keep going. Very tough decision.

Dom plays like that pretty regularly, as I recall. Asking questions, so very much. Asking this person what they think of that person. Might be worth looking back at his games, though, to see if he does it all the time, or just when bad.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here's an intro, blah blah blah.



Here is why I think llama is good.

He has been consistent (sign of civ or good baddie). He has done some research, specifically about vomps. For the first three days of the games, he has seemed like a civvie llama. And above all else, I'm pretty sure he was the one who rezzed BWT. I have a couple reasons for this. Only llama and I were online and posting between the Day start and the rezz, and it only took 11 minutes to send the rezz in. llama also posted a lengthy film critique that may have won him a prize. I'm open to input on this. I know it's terrible to share ideas about a possible civ, but I feel my read on llama has come to a crossroads.



Here is why I think llama is bad.

My pingdar on llama has done a complete turnaround on Day 4. As Dom pointed out, blooops was an easy lynch, which very well could have been why llama picked her out of the crowd. llama said she was bad. We had this interaction, which makes less sense than a post from Made (sorry bud). And the read on blooops that he offered is both meaningful and useless at the same time.

And now there is the no-u on Dom. Llama is accusing Dom of avoiding accountability, not long after llama has led a couple civvie lynches (as he admits). I don't get it.

To address your last point, my leading civvie lynches is the exact opposite of dodging accountability. I am responsible for those lynches. I led them, I argued for them, I voted for them. Anyone can look at the record and see that they are my fault and judge me accordingly. In my experience, baddies are more careful than that. That's why I suspect people who are cautious about taking hard stands. You're a smart cookie, MM, and I hope you realize that your read of me in the top art of your post is the correct one.

linki Dom: I've seen this argument many times and it continues to mystify me. Someone who has lynched civvies is not allowed to continue to play the game and hunt baddies? I should just sit quietly and wait for you to lynch me? It is opportunistic and you know it.

llama you're a hypocite and tbh i'm making fun of your game

Dom wrote:llama you're a hypocite and tbh i'm making fun of your game

I don't think it's hypocritical of me to continue to baddie hunt rather than roll over and wait for death, even if that is what you would prefer I do.

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:llama you're a hypocite and tbh i'm making fun of your game

I don't think it's hypocritical of me to continue to baddie hunt rather than roll over and wait for death, even if that is what you would prefer I do.

you don't get it


i'm literally doing exactly what you did to blooper
and you're calling me a baddie for it
and i'm sitting here laughing my ass off

I just realized that blooops didn't actually win the lynch. Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?

i'm not actually that sure you're bad
i'm just pointing out how flawed your logic is and that you aren't he infallible god you act like you are.

Dom wrote:i'm not actually that sure you're bad
i'm just pointing out how flawed your logic is and that you aren't he infallible god you act like you are.

If I were an infallible god I wouldn't have lynched two civvies. I am the first to admit that I have a terrible record, not just in this game, hunting baddies. But at least I show up and try. I try over and over again, which is more than can be said for all the inactive players in this game.

So I'm a highly fallible god at best.

MM, it has been discussed a little by SVS and me.

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:i'm not actually that sure you're bad
i'm just pointing out how flawed your logic is and that you aren't he infallible god you act like you are.

If I were an infallible god I wouldn't have lynched two civvies. I am the first to admit that I have a terrible record, not just in this game, hunting baddies. But at least I show up and try. I try over and over again, which is more than can be said for all the inactive players in this game.

So I'm a highly fallible god at best.

MM, it has been discussed a little by SVS and me.

Thanks, I just saw that. Two posts is hardly enough to sneeze at though.

well what do you want to make of it, mm?

Since you ask, I'm voting Roxy again tomorrow.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that blooops didn't actually win the lynch. Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?

I don't think it's worth it. *touches nose*

Anything could have affected it though. There has been a few prizes given out so I am leaning towards that thought, otherwise let's not worry about it ok?

What I am really worried about is... wait for it.... who are the baddies? Cause I have no idea.

I'm still looking at Roxy, only because she's my best guess at this point.

thellama73 wrote:To address your last point, my leading civvie lynches is the exact opposite of dodging accountability. I am responsible for those lynches. I led them, I argued for them, I voted for them. Anyone can look at the record and see that they are my fault and judge me accordingly. In my experience, baddies are more careful than that.

So, you are an experienced player, so you would know that baddies might be expected to be more careful than that... so you could act in a different way, and then say the above.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:To address your last point, my leading civvie lynches is the exact opposite of dodging accountability. I am responsible for those lynches. I led them, I argued for them, I voted for them. Anyone can look at the record and see that they are my fault and judge me accordingly. In my experience, baddies are more careful than that.

So, you are an experienced player, so you would know that baddies might be expected to be more careful than that... so you could act in a different way, and then say the above.

Yes, I could. But I'm not.

Black Rock wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that blooops didn't actually win the lynch. Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?

I don't think it's worth it. *touches nose*

Anything could have affected it though. There has been a few prizes given out so I am leaning towards that thought, otherwise let's not worry about it ok?

What I am really worried about is... wait for it.... who are the baddies? Cause I have no idea.

I'm still looking at Roxy, only because she's my best guess at this point.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

S~V~S wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that blooops didn't actually win the lynch. Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?

I don't think it's worth it. *touches nose*

Anything could have affected it though. There has been a few prizes given out so I am leaning towards that thought, otherwise let's not worry about it ok?

What I am really worried about is... wait for it.... who are the baddies? Cause I have no idea.

I'm still looking at Roxy, only because she's my best guess at this point.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

I think I know what Llama means, but I don't want to say because I don't think the host would appreciate it.

But it would have no bearing on his alignment, if I'm right about why he knows.

I thought the same, but MM was acting like this had not been discussed, so I pointed out to him where it had been.

gotcha.

I apologize for falling out of touch with this game, but I am back now and want to give it my best. I will try to catch up but any help getting the gist of where we are now would be greatly appreciated.

We need to find some baddies. It's hard.

You said a mouthful, LC.

Long Con wrote:We need to find some baddies. It's hard.

The stores are usually out of them. I usually order them online-- but shipping a baddie costs some serious $$$

Baddies are probbly expansive in finalnd

The last four posts

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Baddies are probbly expansive in finalnd

They take up a lot of space?

Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I said I didn't like his reevaluation after the Vomps flop - because he didn't reevaluate much at all - but I just felt it was misguided. On the bright side, just like MM, I too have an idea of how BWT's rezz might have happened. I also have an idea of how Blooper's lynch might have happened, outside the poll tally, but curiously, in case it's a power we're talking about, it'd be a civilian-esque one, so the lynch would still stand as simply unfortunate. The only thing that pinged me from today's conversation is that he sort of did exactly what he blamed Roxy for doing, days ago: being suddenly overdefensive about what his gameplay, in a manner of stating that players would want him now to stop chasing baddies, without anyone actually saying they'd want him to do that.

No eager to jump to conclusions, so far.

MM, why are you decided to vote for Roxy again? BR, why do you reckon Roxy is still your "best guess"?

Ricochet wrote:Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I said I didn't like his reevaluation after the Vomps flop - because he didn't reevaluate much at all - but I just felt it was misguided. On the bright side, just like MM, I too have an idea of how BWT's rezz might have happened. I also have an idea of how Blooper's lynch might have happened, outside the poll tally, but curiously, in case it's a power we're talking about, it'd be a civilian-esque one, so the lynch would still stand as simply unfortunate. The only thing that pinged me from today's conversation is that he sort of did exactly what he blamed Roxy for doing, days ago: being suddenly overdefensive about what his gameplay, in a manner of stating that players would want him now to stop chasing baddies, without anyone actually saying they'd want him to do that.

No eager to jump to conclusions, so far.

MM, why are you decided to vote for Roxy again? BR, why do you reckon Roxy is still your "best guess"?

I don't have much going in the suspicion department right now. I have enough suspicion of Roxy to hold to for now. Someone has to be a baddie.

Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

Ricochet wrote:Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

What are you getting at?

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

What are you getting at?

I'm not getting at anything. I only asked your reason for (very likely) sticking with voting Roxy, much like I asked MM the same thing.

Made wrote:

S~V~S wrote:And why would he still be looking at me, Made?

You're right, logically, he would of dropped the case as his reason for thinking you or roxy were mafia was chained directly to Vomp right? Once Vomp died, Llama should have no opinions of you or Roxy, and his cases against you and Roxy should of dissolved. But they didn't, not truly anyways. There are very many points independent of Vomp that suddently Llama has forgotten in favor of a Ninja Bloop vote.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 28#p110728

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.

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.

Arguments against Blooper?

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

Which If i'm correct He's said early this game to someone else.....

thellama73 wrote: Vompatti - I still think his level of participation so far is unusual and I don't trust him. He might well get my vote today.

But what do you I know?

Ok as there is confusion.

TLDR: Llama is shifty because he suspected a Squid before SVS or Roxy. While Yes, part of his suspicion was based on Vomp, Not all of his stated suspension was. Above i listed all the loose ends in the cases that llama created that are separate from Vomp

The second post with the quote from Llama re:bloops are drawing parallels between the reasons Llama found Vomp suspicious and why he found bloops suspicious. I find these parallel noteworthy because you'd assume that if someone suspects someone for one reason, and is prove to be wrong, they wouldn't push for a lynch against another person for the same exact reason, or at least wait a cycle before doing so because they were just wrong.

Ricochet wrote:Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I think the best option as of now is to keep him alive, not lynch him unless we find a tie to a baddie, but not listen to him, or let him lead a lynch as he is very good at doing that.

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

What are you getting at?

I'm not getting at anything. I only asked your reason for (very likely) sticking with voting Roxy, much like I asked MM the same thing.

I was understanding the question, that's why I asked. I think I was reading it wrong.

I think Roxy was sounding like a testy baddie and was misinterpreting some of what Llama was saying. Sometimes that is used to create confusion and make the other person look bad. It's what I got.

Made wrote: Ok as there is confusion.

TLDR: Llama is shifty because he suspected a Squid before SVS or Roxy. While Yes, part of his suspicion was based on Vomp, Not all of his stated suspension was. Above i listed all the loose ends in the cases that llama created that are separate from Vomp

The second post with the quote from Llama re:bloops are drawing parallels between the reasons Llama found Vomp suspicious and why he found bloops suspicious. I find these parallel noteworthy because you'd assume that if someone suspects someone for one reason, and is prove to be wrong, they wouldn't push for a lynch against another person for the same exact reason, or at least wait a cycle before doing so because they were just wrong.

I don't agree with this. Just because the conclusion is wrong, doesn't mean the reasoning leading there is.

Suppose you were a police officer and you found someone next to a dead body with a bloody knife in their hands. You would assume that person did it, yes? It's possible they didn't, but the balance of the evidence is that they did.

Now suppose you later find out that they were framed and are innocent. Okay, fine. Next day, you go out on the homicide beat, and find a guy with a literally smoking gun fleeing the scene of a murder. Would you say "well, I was wrong about the last guy, this guy must be innocent too?" Of course not. You would assume that the evidence is what it appears to be unless given a good reason to think otherwise.

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I think the best option as of now is to keep him alive, not lynch him unless we find a tie to a baddie, but not listen to him, or let him lead a lynch as he is very good at doing that.

I'm not trying to!