The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:
RIP Llama. Don't fully understand if the Lucas part is for story flavour or not, but I assume the former.

S~V~S wrote:When LC is bad, he has this faux hearty, hail fellow well met kinda feel to his posts, which is totally absent here.

I think of it as LOST Season 1 baddie Sawyer vs. Season 5 upstanding Sawyer. They sound different because they have different motivations. Even if they are saying the same thing. Does that make sense to you?

Turnip Head wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 1 Part 2: Votes MP. Says it's because of his "maximum frustration", but suggests "something really feels off about you here". Mentions AP and Vomps as well as potential vote-getters.

I never mentioned considering a vote for Vomps or AP. That's just not true. It's even in one of the quotes you put in your post:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:TH: You still around? Who are you voting for?

I'm thinking MP but I'm not feeling 100% about it. But I don't think the cases on Vomp or AP are very strong.

Okay. I'll give you that one. I mis-read it as that you were also considering Vomps or AP. The part that doesn't change for me is how the entire sequence with MP is you going after him for a behavior I feel he exhibits in every game he plays. Which paints an easy, lazy target on him.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 2 Vote: Votes Made. Says he wants "the real story" for his Day 1 part 2 vote. I won't pull all the quotes (feel free to go back and examine them yourselves), but it really feels like a good opportunity to throw away one's vote here.

I voted for Made because, after mulling over an MP vote all day, he came into the thread with a really genuine sounding defense that made me not want to vote him. I wasn't trying to throw away my vote like you claim. I explicitly tried to start a counterbandwagon because I suddenly found myself not wanting MP lynched. Nobody joined my vote, so I guess looking only at voting records makes it look like a "throwaway vote" eh? But my explanation here is all stuff I said in the thread, so I don't know why you're ignore those relevant quotes.

I was tired last night and didn't feel like pulling huge pyramid quotes at the time. You may have felt MP's defense was genuine, but you moved your vote to Made because of his crazy, zany reasoning? Seems like a fairly similar reason you went after MP.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 4 Vote: Votes Roxy. But wait. I thought you said the whole Roxy vs. llama thing was civ vs. civ?

Yes, I said her argument with Llama sounded like civ vs civ to me. But as it came down to the end of the lynch I ended up being the only one left to vote and there were three people tied with the lead in votes: MM, Bloops, and Roxy. Upon rereading I really wasn't feeling an MM or Blooper vote, and I saw a few small things in some of Roy's posts that reminded me of her baddie game, and so out of the three of them I chose Roxy.

Fair enough. But it seems like a big swing to me to go from "I think Roxy vs. llama is a civ" to voting for Roxy in that period of time.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:But this here is the real nail in the coffin for me:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Timmer hope your hand feels better.

MM, we cannot look at voting patterns, we cannot look at who voted for civvies, because we haven't lynched a baddie yet. So none of those data points have enough context. That is why it's so important we get a baddie, like RIGHT NOW. Otherwise we will be flailing around aimlessly all game until one by one we're all put out of our misery.

With everything I've gone back and read, this translates IMO to: We can't look at voting patterns. Because it will reveal that I have a not-so-good one. Including 2 obvious throw-away votes.

Translate it however you want BWT, but I stand by my philosophy that voting records are useless without lynched baddies, I've said it before in other games. You can design a narrative around practically any vote at this point. You made up your own narrative of my votes, so that definitely proves my theory

I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.

Turnip Head wrote:Anyways this reminds me of the infodump post that BWT made (as a sock account) against k4j in the X-men game, so I'm pretty sure he thinks he knows something about my role (because this comes out of nowhere)... but he would be wrong to think it.

DFaraday wrote:I haven't gone over the case on TH just yet (I'm about to), but is everyone just ignoring that Llama said he intended to vote for LC today and then gets killed that very night? I doubt LC would be that unsubtle, but I think it strengthens the need to look into his posts/votes more closely.

DFaraday wrote:I haven't gone over the case on TH just yet (I'm about to), but is everyone just ignoring that Llama said he intended to vote for LC today and then gets killed that very night? I doubt LC would be that unsubtle, but I think it strengthens the need to look into his posts/votes more closely.

Ricochet wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I haven't gone over the case on TH just yet (I'm about to), but is everyone just ignoring that Llama said he intended to vote for LC today and then gets killed that very night? I doubt LC would be that unsubtle, but I think it strengthens the need to look into his posts/votes more closely.

Not ignoring, but it's something to be careful about, since we've been fooled before the same way (FZ's night kill).

Except if you intentionally want us to pursue this.

Ricochet wrote:As a joke.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:As a joke.

You have violated my intellectual property.

DFaraday wrote:I haven't gone over the case on TH just yet (I'm about to), but is everyone just ignoring that Llama said he intended to vote for LC today and then gets killed that very night? I doubt LC would be that unsubtle, but I think it strengthens the need to look into his posts/votes more closely.

Dom wrote:RIP Llama

Hey guys-- I'm here, but I'm going to have a busy couple of days. :/


TH-- "See, there you go BWT, looking simply at voting records and not at all looking at the context those votes were made in." was the first thing you said upon BWT's case against you. You then said nothing until SVS pointed out how poopy of a response that was. Why so dismissive?


MM-- who should we lynch today?


SVS-- if LC is not bad, can you still draw some similarities in his tone to the Monty Python game, or is that something I'm imagining? That's the reason I'm on the fence about him-- I feel like his tone is similar here. Maybe I'm misremembering or wrong, but that was my initial reaction.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I haven't gone over the case on TH just yet (I'm about to), but is everyone just ignoring that Llama said he intended to vote for LC today and then gets killed that very night? I doubt LC would be that unsubtle, but I think it strengthens the need to look into his posts/votes more closely.

Certainly not. And I'm glad I didn't discuss it last night because that may well have been why llama met his fate. I know this doesn't clear llama as civ, but the odds are much higher, even than before.

I also don't trust you one bit DF. You were speculating on whether we should trust BWT several days ago for dying and coming back twice, and now I get the feeling you are diverting attention from his case on TH. You also never answered my question from a couple days ago.

Dom wrote:TH-- "See, there you go BWT, looking simply at voting records and not at all looking at the context those votes were made in." was the first thing you said upon BWT's case against you. You then said nothing until SVS pointed out how poopy of a response that was. Why so dismissive?

Ricochet wrote:Not sure I fully understand how BWT's role could help him find out info about certain players, either. Doesn't he simply adopt a power from the roles still active, without finding out who is using it?

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for your input, BTW, btw (nice anagramming, there). If voting record is the main criteria, then I would agree TH is worth re-reading (and will do that myself) and that his remark on voting record being pointless till the point of nailing a baddie pinged me, too. However, if the voting record is the main criteria, then I also think BR and Dom are worth re-reading. What to make, however, off the case TH's built on Made? Yesterday many felt it was compelling. Does a baddie TH usually make a more purposefully convincing hunt than a civvie TH?

Canucklehead wrote:Perhaps unsurprisingly

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:That was way different. In that game, I made a case, but made it incredibly obvious it was based off of info I had gotten in a PM from the host on a previous night. If you feel like it came out of nowhere, it's because I spent almost 6 hours yesterday reading up on you and several other people I've been wondering about. So yeah, re-reading that much in a mafia game might change my mind a bit.

Turnip Head wrote:I guess BWT's vote could also be forced, maybe an Emmerich thing? That's another possibility for sure.

Turnip Head wrote:So you haven't even read it?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:You may have concluded that, but I could find no such statement that said what you thought of him. Your post that you mention was a summary of his gameplay up until now. Thanks for answering. What changed your mind from indifferent to civ?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Or are you talking about your earlier one?

Turnip Head wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.

BWT, ALL of our voting records are incriminating. We have all voted for civilians, and none of us have helped lynch baddies. Do you see that that's my point? That you could make any individual's voting record look bad at this point? You yourself have thrown away your vote onto Ricochet every single lynch until today. Couldn't someone make a case that your voting pattern looks bad, like you've done here for mine? Until we lynch baddies, we don't have enough context. The irony is real.

Turnip Head wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:That was way different. In that game, I made a case, but made it incredibly obvious it was based off of info I had gotten in a PM from the host on a previous night. If you feel like it came out of nowhere, it's because I spent almost 6 hours yesterday reading up on you and several other people I've been wondering about. So yeah, re-reading that much in a mafia game might change my mind a bit.

The circumstances might have been different but the end result is the same. You posted your case on me like 5 minutes into the Day phase, voted for me right off the bat in a game where we can't change votes, didn't wait to hear my response or anything, after having NEVER brought up my name before this... in a game where your role is outted thread info... my mind immediately went to certain conclusions as to what you could be doing. I'm sure the baddies' did as well. That's why this is so brilliant. All the baddies can hop on this bandwagon guilt-free. I wonder why no one's defending me?

thellama73 wrote:Supatown.

Mongoose wrote:RULES.

11. No one is Supatown.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't know MM. I'm lost as fuck. I honestly don't mind being lynched today... As a civvie, this game has been a miserable existence. (Not that I haven't enjoyed it immensely Mongoose, because I have!) Being lynched would validate my thoughts on voting records, for one. It would also be a fun exercise in how discovery roles can be healthy for the game because of how easily they can be misinterpreted.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm saying that the info that those roles obtain can be misinterpreted... what did you think I meant?

Turnip Head wrote:I don't know MM. I'm lost as fuck. I honestly don't mind being lynched today... As a civvie, this game has been a miserable existence. (Not that I haven't enjoyed it immensely Mongoose, because I have!) Being lynched would validate my thoughts on voting records, for one. It would also be a fun exercise in how discovery roles can be healthy for the game because of how easily they can be misinterpreted.

S~V~S wrote:Just at work, enjoying the show.

I need to finish reading TH and you.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't know MM. I'm lost as fuck. I honestly don't mind being lynched today... As a civvie, this game has been a miserable existence. (Not that I haven't enjoyed it immensely Mongoose, because I have!) Being lynched would validate my thoughts on voting records, for one. It would also be a fun exercise in how discovery roles can be healthy for the game because of how easily they can be misinterpreted.

Turnip Head wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.

BWT, ALL of our voting records are incriminating. We have all voted for civilians, and none of us have helped lynch baddies. Do you see that that's my point? That you could make any individual's voting record look bad at this point? You yourself have thrown away your vote onto Ricochet every single lynch until today. Couldn't someone make a case that your voting pattern looks bad, like you've done here for mine? Until we lynch baddies, we don't have enough context. The irony is real.

Not really. I've given clear-cut reasons why I've voted for Rico and continued to do so. And I've already stated I felt like you went after certain people because they were easy cases (Made and MP). Maybe I shouldn't say you threw away other votes. Rather, you threw a vote onto someone you knew wouldn't get lynched so you could come back later and say, "Sure. I have a bad voting record. But then again, EVERYONE ELSE DOES! (:P)

birdwithteeth11 wrote:That was way different. In that game, I made a case, but made it incredibly obvious it was based off of info I had gotten in a PM from the host on a previous night. If you feel like it came out of nowhere, it's because I spent almost 6 hours yesterday reading up on you and several other people I've been wondering about. So yeah, re-reading that much in a mafia game might change my mind a bit.

The circumstances might have been different but the end result is the same. You posted your case on me like 5 minutes into the Day phase, voted for me right off the bat in a game where we can't change votes, didn't wait to hear my response or anything, after having NEVER brought up my name before this... in a game where your role is outted thread info... my mind immediately went to certain conclusions as to what you could be doing. I'm sure the baddies' did as well. That's why this is so brilliant. All the baddies can hop on this bandwagon guilt-free. I wonder why no one's defending me?

The circumstances dictate everything. After my re-reading and then seeing how the night post went down, you were the first person I looked to. How you think I have certain info is beyond me however. But if you actually ARE curious, you have had chances to ask the host questions about my role and have not...

No one is defending you because I have a fairly solid (albeit not air-tight) case on you. And your baddie teammates are probably prepared to vote for you depending on if there is not a chance to save you.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't know MM. I'm lost as fuck. I honestly don't mind being lynched today... As a civvie, this game has been a miserable existence. (Not that I haven't enjoyed it immensely Mongoose, because I have!) Being lynched would validate my thoughts on voting records, for one. It would also be a fun exercise in how discovery roles can be healthy for the game because of how easily they can be misinterpreted.

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:My initial read was very interesting. MP/Dom, you're out of control. I can't decide who I'm more suspicious of out of you two but you have both made my radar. Although I doubt I'll be voting for either of them because TH has gotten my eye His posts are reading baddie TH to me. I don't like how he is so dismissive of MP/Dom. Like he's trying to lead eyes away from a teammate.

Look at them if you want. I don't suspect them but that's just me. Other people were just as dismissive about this same issue, so it's weird that you're focused on me. You always think my posts read like baddie TH, you know that.

It's not just the dismissive but your posts in general. I'm not getting the baddie hunting civvie TH from any of them. I know I often (not always) suspect you, you're just that damn evil. I don't know TH I just have a feeling... tell me that I'm wrong and tell me why. I'm still open to new ideas at this point. I felt the same dismissive, baddie feeling from this post.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:It's primarily tone.

This post:

Long Con wrote:Sorry, Made, at the risk of sounding cliché, I really thought we had a baddie that time.

I PMed the host, and she told me that Uwe Boll can use the power at will, there doesn't seem to be a triggering mechanism.

We're being really crappy Civvies. I may have forgotten how to be an effective Civvie, after being Black Knight and Gollum and Miles Axelrod, and in the Monopoly game I was LMS very early on... I am just not a good Civvie anymore.

and this one:

Long Con wrote:TH, fantastic job on the Made research! That's looks like some top-quality analysis to me, and it put Made on top of my list, so I will vote for him now.

*votes Made*

Feel completely hollow and insincere. "We are being bad civvies" is I line I'm sure I've heard baddies say before, and his "goshamagolly, TH! You sure are smart! Made must be bad after all!" felt way too easy.

Combine that with the fact that he was one of the few people to get votes in before the thread was locked, and that is enough for me. I'll be voting Long Con tomorrow, but I would prefer if I were not alone.

You should have listened to me earlier.

Turnip Head wrote:Seems like you're trying to push my buttons, MM.