The Syndicate

Mongoose wrote:Anyone seen the controversial foreign film I Am Curious (Yellow)?

Yes but a long time ago. I was in college and it was fairly dated then. Iirc it was a film within a film about a moody broody crazy girl.

Ricochet wrote:Also, there's a 1932 version fo Scarface ????

It's the Paul Muni version. Listen to how vibrant the *pop* *pop* *pop* of the guns sound. It is a great example of one of the first films to really exquisitely use sound.

Definitely give it a go, and if you like that, try Angels with Dirty Faces.

I Am Curious is a horrible film, whichever "color" you watch. I highly don't suggest it.

The poll just made me LOL, I've never seen one use nicknames like that hehe.

So llama, what are your thoughts so far, then? SVS? Lots of peeps not around, imo.

timmer wrote:I Am Curious is a horrible film, whichever "color" you watch. I highly don't suggest it.

The poll just made me LOL, I've never seen one use nicknames like that hehe.

So llama, what are your thoughts so far, then? SVS? Lots of peeps not around, imo.

I saw it in a college film course, my teacher, a rabid McLuhanite, thought all Scandinavian cinema was awesome. Hence his job as a Mass Media professor in a party school in the SUNY system, lol. The only thing I really remember commending it was lots of weird artsy sex.

Not much has stood out to me so far. I am assuming at least one or two are hiding in the OT, which I am enjoying BUT if it does not dry up by day 2 or so, it might catch my attention more.

Frankly I'm suspicious of myself myself.

Yay Day 1! (Well, I think, nonetheless yay game!)

thellama73 wrote:We could all abstain from this lynch and let Metalmarsh lynch himself entirely by his own hand.

Lol, this sounds fun. Appropriate as well because I dislike self-voting and it makes no sense for a civilian to do from a logical standpoint.

Nonetheless, I don't know whether MM is bad or not, and he just got lynched D1 in Champions, so I doubt I'll abstain.

What are you thinking, Llama? You seemed to indicate you've observed something that might be worth pursuing. What say you?

I feel a bit film-deficient amongst you aficionados, but I'm sure something will pop up I can discuss heartily

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Serious question: Who wants to discuss lynch possibilities now, and who wants to wait until several hours before the vote ends?

What could we lynch someone based on? We could see who is named MetalMarsh to find someone who matches up to that famous criminal profile.

We could lynch someone based on a wide variety of things. We could randomize, we could self-vote, we could analyze playstyle up to this point, we could go for no posters, high posters, or people we have personal grudges against outside of mafia. There are many options. I have a couple of thoughts already, but I have been lynched before for "pushing an early day 1 lynch" so I want to make sure people are cool with it before I start tossing out names.

I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

I like and appreciate your speculation. Also, it's the weekend and I can stay up as late as I want! can! Plus the weather's shitty, so I hopefully can have more time to read and actually *gasp* converse.

linki - Tell us tell us

Yeah, I haven't seen anything yet that's caught my attention really. I think people are still absorbed in the theme of the game for the most part.

Llama, since you were so eager to get the ball rolling, I'm curious as to if there is anyone you are suspicious of. And if so, who and why?

Well, it is not much of a ping, but I have played an awful lot of games with Vompattti at this point, and while he is hard to read, I tend to think a more active Vompatti is a more bad Vompatti. I know he is excited about the theme and a bit of a film buff, but he is the one I have my eye on today. Also, I don't think I've ever voted for Vompatti on day one, so that might make a nice change.

I'm not as much of a film nerd as others here so I don't have much intelligent film discussion to contribute. I love watching movies though

Mongoose wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Also, there's a 1932 version fo Scarface ????

It's the Paul Muni version. Listen to how vibrant the *pop* *pop* *pop* of the guns sound. It is a great example of one of the first films to really exquisitely use sound.

Definitely give it a go, and if you like that, try Angels with Dirty Faces.

Angels with Dirty Faces is extremely good.

Tonight I'm watching this weird film Wetlands, based on the book of the same title. It's on Netflix, for those that may be interested.

It's pronounced "swamp."

thellama73 wrote:We could all abstain from this lynch and let Metalmarsh lynch himself entirely by his own hand.

Then these will probably be my last words.

It's been a fun ride fellow director peeps.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:We could all abstain from this lynch and let Metalmarsh lynch himself entirely by his own hand.

Then these will probably be my last words.

It's been a fun ride fellow director peeps.

Don't worry, I am not actually doing it.

thellama73 wrote:Well, it is not much of a ping, but I have played an awful lot of games with Vompattti at this point, and while he is hard to read, I tend to think a more active Vompatti is a more bad Vompatti. I know he is excited about the theme and a bit of a film buff, but he is the one I have my eye on today. Also, I don't think I've ever voted for Vompatti on day one, so that might make a nice change.

Interesting observation. I've seen a civilian Vompatti active as well (Twin Peaks pops to mind), but I'd probably agree with your experience overall.

Far from wanting to vote for him though, especially since the day just started.

Interesting, llama... I don't know Vomps enough to catch nuances in his playstyle, he just always seems Vompy to me. I have absolutely no pings at all yet, so I will observe and report tomorrow.

That's good to know about Vomp's playstyle, and I'll keep it mind as the game gets more game-y and less filmy, but I don't think I'll vote for someone who is usually a low poster just because they seem really into the OT chat and theming. Lord knows if this was, like, "Early Modern Devotional Poets Mafia" or "Photos of Canucklehead's Dog Mafia" my post count/participation level would go up a whole bunch too.
I do understand, though, llama, that you seem to be only a little pinged by Vomps and aren't attenpting to string him up just yet, and I'm glad that people are willing to talk suspicions already which will help make this vote less scattered.

Now, if anyone is willing to put together those games I mentionws above, that would thrill my little heart to no end...

I'd like to see some confirmation that that is indeed Vompatti's "usual playstyle", I don't trust what people say because I think it's easy to CLAIM a "usual" for someone, whose games might actually show a broader variation that fails to conform to the claims.

The more "well-known" someone's playstyle becomes, the easier it is to manipulate people based on that playstyle. This becomes especially alarming when a person starts talking about their OWN usual playstyle, because it demonstrates an awareness of their playstyle. When one is aware of one's own playstyle and how people see it, they can choose to make specific changes in order to deceive.

Well, since I'm on late at night, and not many people are around, I'll go through the roles and make some comments about them. That's always fun.

George Cukor wrote:American Director of Classic Comedies. Can target a player to reference a romantic comedy in each post they make.

Hilarious. Total window-dressing role, it doesn't affect the game too much. Perhaps we could increase this role's value to the Civs by having George target people he suspects.

Jean Luc Godard New Wave Director: Can send one message every day period to protege Truffaut.

François Truffaut New Wave Director: Can send one message every night period to mentor Godard.

Cool, limited BTSC. Between these guys and Tarantino and Rodriguez, we should have four Civs that are slightly more safe from lynching than the rest. These four are very valuable Civs.

Darren Aronofsky Another auteur who can find BTSC with David Lean using math, a common theme in his films.

Interesting. This role could probably benefit from some creative ways to use math, another BTSC Civ pair would be very useful.

Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.

This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.

Cecil B Demille Known for his flamboyant showmanship, he also successfully made the transition from silent to sound. Each night he searches for Howard Hawks. If he finds him, they gain BTSC.

Another opportunity to strengthen the Civs. It would be nice to be able to devise a way to help him find Howard, but I don't know any way that wouldn't simultaneously put Howard in grave danger.

[Orson Welles Excess and the demise of Don Quixote left the former prodigy weak. However, in his early days, he is stronger. For the first 5 votes, his vote will count as 2. And 0 thereafter.

Unfortunate, because it's in the mid to late game that the extra votes really start to make more of a difference.

Ingmar Bergman Evocative Swedish film director who often had religion as a theme in his films. May grant amnesty to a player 3x, which will result in his/her removal from the lynch that day.

Is this something that gets used the night before? Or can Ingmar remove someone from the poll mid-day?

Mafia - The Brotherhood (BTSC). Odd Night Kill.

Coen Bros. Jewish brothers who often use the same actors in their films. Can call upon the Golem to protect a player.

Duplass Bros. Mumblecore creators. Inspired by Cassavetes, their super-realism shows the nuances of every day life.

Wachowskis. Siblings known for their multi-part storytelling.

These baddie teams are somewhat weak, unless there are secrets, it looks like Duplass and Wachowski are pretty vanilla. And these guys seem to have the only protector role in the game, will they protect only themselves, or try to protect someone else to push suspicion on them? Probably the latter in earlier game, and the latter, later.

Mafia - The Hacks (BTSC). Even Night Kill.

Michael Bay Known for explosions over plot, this director, can distract civs and turn their minds off (role block).

Uwe Boll Known for video game adaptations, he can twice lock the thread when his work gets criticized.

Roland Emmerich Natural disaster movie guru, his over the top films do not garner much critical acclaim.

A roleblock and a thread-locker. Thread locking seems really annoying. What does it mean, no one can post until the Day or Night is over? I think it would take some skill to do this at the right time to gain a baddie advantage.

Looks like it's going to be, as advertised, mostly a down-to-earth straight-up Mafia game with few surprise angles from the roles... but the number of events may shake that up. Prizes and results of events could be the real bread and butter of this game, with the team that wins gaining a real advantage.

thellama73 wrote:

timmer wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I like the use of color in Chris Nolan's Memento. Very blue palette for the bulk of the film, and more yellow for the flashbacks. It gives it a nice consistent feel that is almost subconscious to the viewer.

I like using colour palettes as well, but man it has GOT to be subtle, or at least not garish and distracting. Peter Jackson did some wonderful work with colour tinting in the LOTR trilogy, for instance. It was noticeable, but added such an otherworldly feel to everything. I wasn't a fan of Soderbergh's blue/red/yellow work in Traffic, though. It was just so THERE, I found myself distracted. Maybe it's my own problem, but such things are important.

I completely agree with you. There was some movie I was watching (I forget which one, I want to say Swordfish or something like that) where everything was SO YELLOW it was terrible and distracting. I think you can get away with a little more of it in an artier film like Memento, but it can easily be taken too far.

Have you seen the cinematic classic, Magic Mike? I mean, really. That use of Instagram® Filter Kelvin is AMAZING,


llama, what makes you think vompatti is 'active"? Do you consider off topic banter "activity"?

If I don't get lynched today I promise to pretend to be silenced tomorrow.

Just catching up - I don't have anything to add right now. I don't get the Vomps suspicion from llama bc to me Vomps does not seem anymore involved than other games.
Happy Saturday everyone.

Ah well, it probably won't be long now until I'll get overwhelmed by the level of debating here. Needless to say, I didn't pick up anything from anybody, either. I personally appreciated anyone's immersion into the theme during day 0. Without any background in past behaviours, I'd also like to know more on why Vompatti would make a suspect for having been more active. No intention to vote for him, at the moment. That being said, I somehow also can't really imagine him getting an ordinary role, civ or not, either. I'll try to make up my mind who to actually vote, later or tomorrow.

So it has begun. (Tablet here, so still struggling, better than my Bb though)

The only interesting thing thus far for me is llama's subtle suspicion casting on vomps who is more active-ish than in other games. I personally think it has to do with the theme and the host of the game, which Mr llama knows very well. I shall be watching you, llamster

I think llama's thoughts on Vomps are potentially worthwhile, but not enough for a vote. And honestly, I'm not really sure where I want to look yet.

Interesting range of responses to my Vomps post, particularly the "you have a suspicion I disagree with, therefore I suspect you" variety.

My internet is down and it's a pain to post from my phone. Expect a quiet llama today.

Did everyone eventually check in on Day 0? Or are there any no-shows?
*goes to check Day 0 poll*

Llama should remember I was also a relatively active civilian in the relatively recent occult mafia for the very same reason.

There were 23voters in the Day 0 poll, including our fair host, so that means 1 player didn't voter and probably has yet to check in (I didn't bother going through to compare player list with voters, so I don't know who we're missing....but that should be easy enough to find out).

I'm currently leaning towards a vote for the no-show (unless they show up in the interim). I know the received wisdom is that low/no-posters are likely to be civvie (b/c they don't have teamies urging them to participate), but I'd honestly rather be down a civvie and have a roster full of participants (especially early in the game), than lynch someone Day 1 who is actively playing...

Thoughts?

The Hostess said she is actively looking for a replacement. I would rather give her a day to do that. Since she had to cut several roles, she probably loves the ones that are left, and having your roles wasted that way is painful.

I really don't know vomps play style to know if he is a more active civ or baddie. He seems like a off the wall player in general to me. I also find it odd the MM would self vote on day one and on a poll you can't change your vote so that has caught my eye a little.

S~V~S is anything catching your attention yet?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I really don't know vomps play style to know if he is a more active civ or baddie. He seems like a off the wall player in general to me. I also find it odd the MM would self vote on day one and on a poll you can't change your vote so that has caught my eye a little.

I think I have seen him self vote before, and i am not sure that we knew we could not change votes until he said he had already voted and could not change it? But it is possible that I missed it if Mongoose said it prior to MM saying it.

I don't find day 1 self votes all that odd. Ask me again Day 3. If you have nothing else and will be away from the thread, why drop a vote on someone else and start a potential Day 1 bandwagon?

At this stage, i might go back and see (I am mid reread in the other game, but tomorrow AM I should have time) if there is anyone who has posted ONLY OT towards the end of the poll and vote there. Lots of OT is a way to get your name out there, so people remember you favorably, without actually saying anything. Plus on Day 5 or so when people start looking at post counts, all that Day 0/Day 1 OT can make a blendy low lying baddie look better. Especially since alot of the OT is not in green (and I have to admit I have done that this game, too, formatting is harder on phone, but I will force myself to do it from here on in) which could make it look like civvie content to a skimmer.

I'm personally fine with Canuck's plan, assuming I see nothing that is actually worthy of a vote.

I don't see eye to eye with S~V~S's OT thing; I honestly don't believe it makes any difference. If I try to recall a player's content, I never think about their OT. And what does an extra 5 posts help anyway if that person hasn't contributed on-topic at all? If anything, it makes them look worse, since you think, 'Wow, how does so and so have 10 posts and I can't remember a single thing they said?'

That said, I am nonetheless intrigued by her analysis, and am interested to see what she comes up with. I just won't make it a framework for my vote today, personally, that's all.

Also, I understand spurring on-topic discussion is most favorable, but I don't want to harbor an environment where players are afraid to post OT in Day 0 because they fear it will get them lynched the following day. I just hate the idea of that. I know that if I'm super excited about a theme, and there's at least someone else to discuss it with, I have fun doing so.

All I know is I won't be casting a vote for Llama today. It's too soon, and at least he threw a theory out there.

Bass, I do agree that MM's self-vote is odd. I know he's done it before, but I still fail to see how it makes sense for civilians to do this. If you're a civilian, chances are you are the only person you know is 100% civilian. Why risk putting a vote on yourself when you at least have some chance of hitting a baddie with someone else? So what if you start a bandwagon? It's better than risking your own life, which YOU know is 100% civilian. Just seems silly to me. Always will.

Sorry folks, should have included all this in my previous post as well. Got "Submit" button happy. :P

I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

S~V~S wrote:I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

Where did I say you did?

Even if it sounded like it, my post wasn't really a direct response to your post. I was just stating all of my thoughts thus far on what people have proposed.

Llama, who has suspected you?

Llama, why did you not answer my question?

S~V~S wrote:The Hostess said she is actively looking for a replacement. I would rather give her a day to do that. Since she had to cut several roles, she probably loves the ones that are left, and having your roles wasted that way is painful.

You're right, I do remember there being a mention of a replacement being sought....
However, I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning re: "wasting roles". I mean, someone has to be lynched Day 1....one of her carefully curated roles is going to be lost/"wasted" regardless, so I don't see why we shouldn't make it the one that seems the least likely to be used/enjoyed? I guess I'm just not sure why wasting (through a day 1 lynching) the low poster's role is any worse from a host's point of view than wasting (throughthe a day 1 lynching) an active participant's role. I imagine as a host you have to be prepared to lose any role at any time, regardless of how much you love creating it....

But, of course, I have never hosted! Because I am a lazy coward!

I do like your line of thought about OT-heavy content , though. I know that in the later game (again, because I am lazy), I often do a quick browse of a player's number of posts to get a sense of their activity level/contribution when I'm feeling unsure about their blendiness, and don't always religiously comb through the content vs filler ratio, so I can see how that might be a good foundation for te baddies to establish early. I can also see MP's point about squashing enthusiasm, though....but I like the foresight of this observation, SVS, and I think I will join you in keeping it on the back burner going forward.

I'm still leaning more towards a no-show vote, though.


Also, I apologize in advance if I don't respond to things immediately, even if I'm in the thread. I'm currently trying to work on a Pomodoro system, so during the daytime I will only be reading and responding every 30 mins, and will only have 5-10 minutes to do so, so I may not get to everything every time....just a warning!

So who is that one no show anyway? I'll try and find out here.

HOST: Just a request, but for future polls and for the main player listing, is it possible for the names to be alphabetized? I know it's rather trivial, but it helps for better organization: to keep better track of who is playing, who has votes, etc.

Thanks!

Okay, so oddly enough, it appears all players on the poll have actually posted at least once. So everyone is technically accounted for.

Regarding the D1 vote, it appears that Black Rock missed the vote.

So I suppose the motivation to vote BR is less, IMO, since she has actually checked in. I don't know who the replacement is for then, since I can't recall anyone mentioning it.

I think the non-voter is Black Rock.....though I seem to rember her posting in the thread, so maybe I'm wrong??

Lulz. Jinx, MP.

Haha, sorry about that, it seems better coordination is needed. :P

Well, what are players thinking in the absence of a no show vote? (I know some likely weren't considering that anyway).

Typically I find something to vote for on D1, but I'm trying to be more reasonable in jumping on little things early on (since I'm usually wrong), and regardless in this game I haven't even seen anything to jump onto.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

Where did I say you did?

Even if it sounded like it, my post wasn't really a direct response to your post. I was just stating all of my thoughts thus far on what people have proposed.

Gotcha, it DID sound that way to me. You responded to my points, then you said, "In any case I am not voting for Llama", as if you thought he was someone to whom I referred.

Canucklehead wrote:

S~V~S wrote:The Hostess said she is actively looking for a replacement. I would rather give her a day to do that. Since she had to cut several roles, she probably loves the ones that are left, and having your roles wasted that way is painful.

You're right, I do remember there being a mention of a replacement being sought....
However, I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning re: "wasting roles". I mean, someone has to be lynched Day 1....one of her carefully curated roles is going to be lost/"wasted" regardless, so I don't see why we shouldn't make it the one that seems the least likely to be used/enjoyed? I guess I'm just not sure why wasting (through a day 1 lynching) the low poster's role is any worse from a host's point of view than wasting (throughthe a day 1 lynching) an active participant's role. I imagine as a host you have to be prepared to lose any role at any time, regardless of how much you love creating it....

But, of course, I have never hosted! Because I am a lazy coward!

I do like your line of thought about OT-heavy content , though. I know that in the later game (again, because I am lazy), I often do a quick browse of a player's number of posts to get a sense of their activity level/contribution when I'm feeling unsure about their blendiness, and don't always religiously comb through the content vs filler ratio, so I can see how that might be a good foundation for te baddies to establish early. I can also see MP's point about squashing enthusiasm, though....but I like the foresight of this observation, SVS, and I think I will join you in keeping it on the back burner going forward.

I'm still leaning more towards a no-show vote, though.


Also, I apologize in advance if I don't respond to things immediately, even if I'm in the thread. I'm currently trying to work on a Pomodoro system, so during the daytime I will only be reading and responding every 30 mins, and will only have 5-10 minutes to do so, so I may not get to everything every time....just a warning!

I think you have the jist of it~ when I host, and I have announced that I am looking for a replacement, I hate it when the players "help me out" by lynching the person I am trying to replace. I just meant I would rather give the host who just cut 10 roles a chance to salvage another. Sure, one of her roles is going to be lynched, but at least that person gave the role a chance.

Apparently BR forgot to vote when she checked in?

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

Where did I say you did?

Even if it sounded like it, my post wasn't really a direct response to your post. I was just stating all of my thoughts thus far on what people have proposed.

Gotcha, it DID sound that way to me. You responded to my points, then you said, "In any case I am not voting for Llama", as if you thought he was someone to whom I referred.

Yeah, in reviewing my post after I saw your response, I realized it was wording misleadingly. I was really just trying to express everything I was currently thinking; some of it just happened to be in response to you.

Frankly, I might just do a reread, since I can't imagine it'll take that long. I'll try to look out for anyone being heavy in OT and refusing to participate at all, since you may be onto something. I do think everyone should at least have something on-topic to say in 48 hours.

I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?