The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote: Also, re Ricochet, some people ALWAYS ask noobs that question. I can see Ricochets hesitation at first, but Timmer explained it to him, he acknowledged the explanation, but still refused to answer?

Of course not. I answered to Timmer in a fun way.

Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

S~V~S: Duly noted re: LC. Wasn't there a recent game he did that as civ too?

Also, my experience at Hedville was pretty limited, but I did play some games there. From what I recall, the games did have much more OT than what I'm used to here. I was trying to think of examples from TS of what you were talking about and I just couldn't think of any. And I'm not really "astonished", just intrigued, and it's not something I usually think to look out for. I either participate in the green or just skip it, depending on how much I know and like the theme and how busy I am.

I'll have to go now, but at the moment I'm really leaning towards voting a player who's hardly contributed during D1. I'm not feeling a Llama, S~V~S, or Rico vote still, and while the point on LC is intriguing, I want to hear from him first and I'll mull over it. I'm not sure yet whether it's something I'd vote for him this early.

And agreed with S~V~S, I'm loving playing with Rico so far, and he seems he will be a very worthy opponent or teammate in future games!

S~V~S wrote:Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

I did, but I was just addressing what you said re my reply to Timmer (and hopefully dispel your suspicion on that misimpression).

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:

Long Con wrote:

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.

To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.

I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

I did, but I was just addressing what you said re my reply to Timmer (and hopefully dispel your suspicion on that misimpression).

For future reference, picking what you will respond to out of posts, and ignoring connected bits, looks bad. Pulling that out made it look as if I suspected you, and I do not.

Like I said, I think if you had teammates, you would have just answered the question. And i won't vote for someone on Day One of his first game, even if i did think you are bad, which at this stage, I do not. Probably a lot of the old school people won't vote for you Day 1 either. But they might vote for you Day 2. So i you haven't clearly answered this by Day 2, you might want to consider it.

You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.

If you really think Rico is bad because he didn't just say "No" to your question, by all means. But frankly that's one of the most absurd accusations I've probably ever seen. And the back and forth between you and him was pretty much pointless, IMO. But who knows? Maybe you're actually right. I just didn't see anything in it, personally.

Now really, see you folks tonight/tomorrow.

And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

I did, but I was just addressing what you said re my reply to Timmer (and hopefully dispel your suspicion on that misimpression).

For future reference, picking what you will respond to out of posts, and ignoring connected bits, looks bad. Pulling that out made it look as if I suspected you, and I do not.

Like I said, I think if you had teammates, you would have just answered the question. And i won't vote for someone on Day One of his first game, even if i did think you are bad, which at this stage, I do not. Probably a lot of the old school people won't vote for you Day 1 either. But they might vote for you Day 2. So i you haven't clearly answered this by Day 2, you might want to consider it.

Still not sure we're on the same page with what I wanted to respond, but I fully understood your advice, thanks. Clipping quotes is something by habit for me from regular forums.

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Thats the old school way. You don't vote for nubs on Day One. They never come back if you do, lol. And being right in one game is trumped by getting a new cultist...um, player in the long term. Yeah. Plus it's just polite. It's one of those things like not voting for the silenced or insanified.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.

If you really think Rico is bad because he didn't just say "No" to your question, by all means. But frankly that's one of the most absurd accusations I've probably ever seen. And the back and forth between you and him was pretty much pointless, IMO. But who knows? Maybe you're actually right. I just didn't see anything in it, personally.

Now really, see you folks tonight/tomorrow.

I don't think it was pointless at all. I think drawing people out and getting them to talk is the most useful thing you can do. And I haven't decided to vote for him yet, so relax.

Thanks, SVS. I undertstand your point of view on this, although I don't fully agree with it.

To anyone who still expects an actual, straight, simple answer from me, allow me to do "the right thing" and state that: No, I am not le baddie.

Ricochet wrote:To anyone who still expects an actual, straight, simple answer from me, allow me to do "the right thing" and state that: No, I am not le baddie.

Why should we believe you???? That 's exactly what a baddie would say!

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:To anyone who still expects an actual, straight, simple answer from me, allow me to do "the right thing" and state that: No, I am not le baddie.

Why should we believe you???? That 's exactly what a baddie would say!

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication, and my vote will probably go to either Vomp or LC

That is an extremely interesting point. I was inclined to believe LC was civvie due to his rejection of my Vompatti suspicion (baddies tend to say things like "oooh, interesting Let me think about that." rather than "you're wrong.") But this makes me want to look at him some more.

That post was a very civvie LC thing to my mind. The very first game I played with him was a Twilight themed game at LP, and he did exactly this kind of post as a civ; he also has done it when bad. He tends to make the civvie roles sound more powerful when he's bad.

It is always a good policy to keep an eye on LC, but I don't see anything there that he would not do as a civ.

And MP, did you ever play at Hedville? That was MY baddie MO, as well as lots of other people. I actually picked up that trick from Aldo. Schmooze the thread, make everyone feel nice about you, chat people up, talk theme. Bolster your post count with crap, make people recall that you posted, just not WHAT you posted. It isn't a biggie, but I am not sure why you seem so astonished at the idea. It is a fairly common thing, I thought.

Also, re Ricochet, some people ALWAYS ask noobs that question. I can see Ricochets hesitation at first, but Timmer explained it to him, he acknowledged the explanation, but still refused to answer?

TBH, I would think if he had teammates they would tell him to answer. So I am less inclined to think he is bad, but I could see why others might think the other way.

I'm not referring to the fact he made a role analysis, but to its content. The way he worded it sounded like a pissed baddie who can't let go of how much "power" the civvies seem to have.

I'm drunk again and got in fro me loan's

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:

Long Con wrote:

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.

To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.

I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.

Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.

I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Frankly, I don't understand how LC wants the claim for Vomps's baddieness = activeness to be definitively proven, especially since there seems to be some dissent, unless he's asking for Llama to provide substantiation for his theory.

I offered one counterexample (Twin Peaks) and Vomps offered another (Occultism), both of which are valid examples. I'd still say I generally agree with Llama, though, since I was on a baddie team with Vomps twice (a game on RM... can't remember which, and the other one was McGyver IIRC), and he did seem a bit more post pushy. It's a weak observation though, especially since the reasons that one would post more or less are much more complicated than alignment-driven.

Offering ANY examples is a good start for substantiating a claim that someone's gameplay is different from the norm. I just like to see things backed up before I just accept that they're true. And saying so is not any sort of attack on Llama - his claim could be 100% true and his intentions 100% Civ for all I know. I'm saying I'll generally disregard an opinion based on a player's past games unless I specifically recall them, or the proof is laid out a little bit.

Lizzy wrote:I'm drunk again and got in fro me loan's

omg how can you vote durnk?! do you think this is some kind of a game?!?!

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S: Duly noted re: LC. Wasn't there a recent game he did that as civ too?

Also, my experience at Hedville was pretty limited, but I did play some games there. From what I recall, the games did have much more OT than what I'm used to here. I was trying to think of examples from TS of what you were talking about and I just couldn't think of any. And I'm not really "astonished", just intrigued, and it's not something I usually think to look out for. I either participate in the green or just skip it, depending on how much I know and like the theme and how busy I am.

I'll have to go now, but at the moment I'm really leaning towards voting a player who's hardly contributed during D1. I'm not feeling a Llama, S~V~S, or Rico vote still, and while the point on LC is intriguing, I want to hear from him first and I'll mull over it. I'm not sure yet whether it's something I'd vote for him this early.

And agreed with S~V~S, I'm loving playing with Rico so far, and he seems he will be a very worthy opponent or teammate in future games!

Yeah, he was the civ protector or something. I think he got lynched because the host worded things wonky and he understood what the host meant.

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:

Long Con wrote:

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.

To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.

I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.

Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.

I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.

Alright. Thanks for the response, LC. I will think it over.

Is my mafia clock correct if it says I can still sleep for 18-19 hours before the lynch, q.m.

Vompatti wrote:Is my mafia clock correct if it says I can still sleep for 18-19 hours before the lynch, q.m.

You're in the wrong place if you want me to do math, sug. Mine says 2:43pm EST (-5GMT).

Vompatti wrote:Is my mafia clock correct if it says I can still sleep for 18-19 hours before the lynch, q.m.

Yeah i think so, if you have your forum time set properly. It's just 7 hours behind for you if you're using EST though, so just subtract 7 from the time.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Is my mafia clock correct if it says I can still sleep for 18-19 hours before the lynch, q.m.

Yeah i think so, if you have your forum time set properly. It's just 7 hours behind for you if you're using EST though, so just subtract 7 from the time.

Thanks, Mattmatt!

Epignosis wrote:Voted Herschel Savage.

Oops, I had to google who that was. Well played, Epi.

Mongoose wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Voted Herschel Savage.

Oops, I had to google who that was. Well played, Epi.

Expect a new one every day.

Mongoose wrote:

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Is my mafia clock correct if it says I can still sleep for 18-19 hours before the lynch, q.m.

Yeah i think so, if you have your forum time set properly. It's just 7 hours behind for you if you're using EST though, so just subtract 7 from the time.

Thanks, Mattmatt!

The cases on Llama, Con and Sir Vomps-a-Lot have been examined, and they have been found wanting. In addition, I have found nothing during my reading of the Day's events that seemed noteworthy or suspicious of any sort to me. I am at a loss for where to place my vote today.

Well that was a fun read. Caught up... It's interesting comparing my first game with (from my perspective) Rico's and how players are choosing to interact with them. While I get being helpful, and I also get being hard on a new person in a jokey kind of way, I feel that the fact that we're even discussing the nuances of how to treat new players is strange.

Just feels a little too on the nose to me. Sure, there's not much to talk about yet, but i'd consider this almost unspoken rule territory. Maybe this is people wanting to add to the discussion of whatever being discussed to seem involved?

Gonna go read my role now

Turnip Head wrote:The cases on Llama, Con and Sir Vomps-a-Lot have been examined, and they have been found wanting. In addition, I have found nothing during my reading of the Day's events that seemed noteworthy or suspicious of any sort to me. I am at a loss for where to place my vote today.

It's like you were in my head. Get out of there. I need to think for myself.

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?
You really find THAT strange?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.

MP, what did you mean to indicate by "serious assumptions", then? Do you intend to make them in your vote?

MovingPictures07 wrote:And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

Now, MP, is that really strange for me at Day 1?
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking.
Is questioning people bad?
Why are you concerned with my questions?
Is this an unusual way for me to play?
(Hint: it's not)

So yeah, Llama's got my eye. I thought that much was obvious.

I would like to know why on this site do people have to come after noobs on day 1??
We do want them to play again, right?

Llama - inre:Ricochet - you did the same thing with sabie her first game and I came after you hard for it - remember sabie was civ. MP did the same thing to zeek - remember he was civ. I would hope you would have learned from past experience I guess I shouldn't be too shocked that you have not .

I won't be voting for Ricochet bc he/she is new.
I also won't be voting MM bc he is not around to defend and without prior suspicion of him its hard for me to justify a vote for him as he has self voted in past games.

Imma wait and see what happens this morning/afternoon before I place my vote.

If I had to vote right now I would random - whats everyone else feeling?

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?
You really find THAT strange?

I find it strange that people say they want to play a game and then they don't try to win that game, yes. But as I said, I understand her perspective on this. It's just a difference of opinion.

Roxy wrote:I would like to know why on this site do people have to come after noobs on day 1??
We do want them to play again, right?

Llama - inre:Ricochet - you did the same thing with sabie her first game and I came after you hard for it - remember sabie was civ. MP did the same thing to zeek - remember he was civ. I would hope you would have learned from past experience I guess I shouldn't be too shocked that you have not .

I won't be voting for Ricochet bc he/she is new.
I also won't be voting MM bc he is not around to defend and without prior suspicion of him its hard for me to justify a vote for him as he has self voted in past games.

Imma wait and see what happens this morning/afternoon before I place my vote.

If I had to vote right now I would random - whats everyone else feeling?

By "come after" do you mean "ask questions"? It's because they are a player like everyone else, and I don't think anyone should get a free pass. Also, I wasn't giving Ricochet a hard time because he was new, I was giving him a hard time because he was unwilling to say he wasn't bad. I don't see why that should be off limits. If the host wants to make it illegal to vote for new people, they are welcome to do that, but I am going to play the game to the best of my ability within the rules.

And as I said to MP, I haven't voted or declared my intention to vote for Rico, so relax.

OK, I feel like I have to address this because too many people seem unsure about it:

I'm a he.

The poll is signaling me that there are less than six hours left to vote and it's just incredibly difficult to bring charges against anyone. The only big cases that stood out for me, from what was thrown into debate, are Vompatti, MM and LC.

I don't think I'll vote for Vompatti on the grounds of being more active on Day 0; the game theme is of undoubtable interest for him and I believe that's why he posted (more) about it on that day (besides, much of what he posted was replying to other members' questions). I already said I personally appreciated the movie conversations on Day and I stand by it. (Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

I've said already that MM's self-vote and its entire context was somewhat weird, but also possibly simply ironic. He definitely said he'll just vote for himself because he'll be away and have no time to build a case against somebody else. He probably won't make it in time today, either, to defend his position. I don't I'll vote for him because of his self-vote because I haven't fully embraced yet the principle that self-voting would be bad, the way MP did.

I have to say, the most surprising and interesting theory was about LC's overview, but it requires extensive background in playing this game, which I don't have, so I can't really comment upon it. Besides, it's been pointed out already that he did this before and it didn't weigh much on him being a civ or a baddie. I'm more curious why would a good player, as a baddie, intentionally show discontent about civ roles being too overpowered as opposed to bad roles. Wouldn't that be a tactic 101 fail?

I think this will be my final input for Day 1, excepting really significant changes. Again, I have no idea who to vote for.

Can the vote simply be a negative / disapproving vote on one's actions (ideas) or does it have to mean a vibe that that person may be bad?

Ricochet wrote: Can the vote simply be a negative / disapproving vote on one's actions (ideas) or does it have to mean a vibe that that person may be bad?

You can vote for any reason you like, but recall that the person with the most votes will be killed. People typically try to kill the people they think are bad, and an intentional abstention or a symbolic vote could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid accountability. Of course, as you have seen, some people vote for themselves, and som people vote randomly, so you should do what you think is best.

Ricochet wrote:OK, I feel like I have to address this because too many people seem unsure about it:

I'm a he.

The poll is signaling me that there are less than six hours left to vote and it's just incredibly difficult to bring charges against anyone. The only big cases that stood out for me, from what was thrown into debate, are Vompatti, MM and LC.

I don't think I'll vote for Vompatti on the grounds of being more active on Day 0; the game theme is of undoubtable interest for him and I believe that's why he posted (more) about it on that day (besides, much of what he posted was replying to other members' questions). I already said I personally appreciated the movie conversations on Day and I stand by it. (Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

I've said already that MM's self-vote and its entire context was somewhat weird, but also possibly simply ironic. He definitely said he'll just vote for himself because he'll be away and have no time to build a case against somebody else. He probably won't make it in time today, either, to defend his position. I don't I'll vote for him because of his self-vote because I haven't fully embraced yet the principle that self-voting would be bad, the way MP did.

I have to say, the most surprising and interesting theory was about LC's overview, but it requires extensive background in playing this game, which I don't have, so I can't really comment upon it. Besides, it's been pointed out already that he did this before and it didn't weigh much on him being a civ or a baddie. I'm more curious why would a good player, as a baddie, intentionally show discontent about civ roles being too overpowered as opposed to bad roles. Wouldn't that be a tactic 101 fail?

I think this will be my final input for Day 1, excepting really significant changes. Again, I have no idea who to vote for.

Can the vote simply be a negative / disapproving vote on one's actions (ideas) or does it have to mean a vibe that that person may be bad?

To answer your question regarding why a baddie would show discontent about civ roles being too overpowered, I don't think that's what LC did. I think he did feel it but tried to conceal it with his "helpful" input on the roles. The way I see it, it wasn't helpful (no offence, LC), and I believe it showed his true colours. I'm not asking anyone to vote because of that, but it's something that I have to bring up, because when people talk about baddie slips, this is one that is far more likely to occur than some of the "slips" people usually vote for

Also,

Oops, got sent in the middle.

Also, is no one worried about Lizzy's early vote? Just MM's? Did she say anything about not being here until the rest of the day? Because voting for llama for his suspicion, that seemed valid to me, not to mention he didn't even vote on that feeling, makes me feel she was looking for a quick reason to vote someone so she doesn't later have to get in the middle of the action.

Mongoose wrote:FYI - I no longer need a replacement. Thanks!

Who is it and who is it replacing? This information is highly relevant to the vote.

All right, let's see what we got here:

A Person - Nothing out of the ordinary. Typically ff topic and low-participation.
Bass the Clever - Seems like normal Bass.
BirdWithTeeth11 - I generally don't like/trust an eagerness to speak on another player's behalf "what I think he meant by that was..." Let people speak for themselves. It may not be a baddie move, but it certainly helps baddies cover slips if they make them.
BlackRock - No read.
Canucklehead - Textbook sexism on Day 0, but apart from that, no read.
DFaraday - No read.
Dom - I am enjoying Dom this game. I think he has been helpful and on-topic, which I appreciate. I won't vote for him today.
FZ. - Typically sharp with that LC ping, although I do not think LC is bad currently.
Lizzy - Lizzy is hard to read. She is impulsive and typically not a very on topic poster, which is what we've seen here. I don't like her early vote for me, but it doesn't make her bad.
Long Con - Despite FZ's observation, his response to my Vompatti suspicion makes me think he is on the level.
Made - Not sure about Made yet. Stay tuned.
MetalMarsh - I don't see anything unusual about his self-vote since he said he was not going to be around for the vote.
MovingPictures07 - I always think MP is bad. His style involves appearing to take everyone's opinion seriously and a lot of thinking out loud and asking questions. This is behavior I usually associate with baddies, but experience has taught me that MP always does it, so I am not really suspicious of him yet.
Ninjablooper - No pings from her, but after being her teammate I know how subtle and crafty her baddie game is, so I will be keeping a close eye on her.
Ricochet - I still think not saying "no" to my question looks bad, but I can see there is no appetite to vote for him today, so I will have to look elsewhere.
Roxy - I think her baddie game is smoother and less reactive than what I have seen so far.
sabie12 - No read.
SpaceDaisy - No read.
S~V~S - Always imposible for me to read, I have no reason to suspect her as yet.
thellama73 - a really great guy. He is just the best.
Timmer - If any player is capable of hiding behind the theme while simultaneously making everyone like him and trust him, it's Timmer. His lengthy and highly informed theme-related posts are loads of fun and make me want to keep him around, and for that very reason, I suspect him.
TurnipHead - Not much to go on, but I know he has a very dangerous baddie game. I'll keep my eyes open.
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.

One other thing about Vompatti. When I said I suspected him, he tried to appease me and addressed the suspicion. I think a civ Vompatti would have shrugged it off and ignored it.

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?
You really find THAT strange?

I find it strange that people say they want to play a game and then they don't try to win that game, yes. But as I said, I understand her perspective on this. It's just a difference of opinion.

That's not how you just framed it.
You framed it quite differently. You framed "strange" as unexpected or suspicious. You did not frame "strange" as being foreign or unlike.

Ricochet wrote:(Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

What makes you feel that way?

FZ. wrote:Oops, got sent in the middle.

Also, is no one worried about Lizzy's early vote? Just MM's? Did she say anything about not being here until the rest of the day? Because voting for llama for his suspicion, that seemed valid to me, not to mention he didn't even vote on that feeling, makes me feel she was looking for a quick reason to vote someone so she doesn't later have to get in the middle of the action.

To be fair, Lizzy is having computer troubles, is she not?

I voted.

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?
You really find THAT strange?

I find it strange that people say they want to play a game and then they don't try to win that game, yes. But as I said, I understand her perspective on this. It's just a difference of opinion.

That's not how you just framed it.
You framed it quite differently. You framed "strange" as unexpected or suspicious. You did not frame "strange" as being foreign or unlike.

I did not mean to imply suspicion of SVS. I just meant that it is very different to my point of view. Apologies for any confusion.

Re: Lizzy, she is always very loyal to Vomps, so I am not surprised she came after me just for mentioning his name.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:(Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

What makes you feel that way?

If he'll just vomperdoodle as usual, I don't see how I'll manage to profile that in any way as good or bad. But you (collectively) certainly have much more experience with that already.