The Syndicate

Made wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: Made, can you explain the thought process behind your vote for Canuck yesterday? I'm still a bit confused about what you were trying to convey there.

Ok context. The reason I felt I had to commit to a Canuck vote is because this(from misfits): http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 214#p77214 Canuck( as well as svs, bloops, and dh) are players who i've been grossly wrong about, so i'm hesitant to release a theory i have just because their pathos is on point.

Thanks for the context. I read a little bit of that game thread and I understand your perspective a bit more. I haven't played a game with Canuck in a looooooooong ass time, so maybe I'm getting fooled by her charm here too. (Though in the game you linked, I can't help but notice that you were the only one who was fooled by her :P )

But the MM connection feels too obvious to me. You rarely ever see baddies openly defending each other in the thread anymore, it's just not considered a smart tactic. The minute one of you gets lynched, the other becomes Prime Suspect #1. Which means that when it DOES happen it's somewhat of a blind spot for me. For example, Lent completely fooled me in Recruitment Mafia because she defended her super suspicious teammate Aapje, and I thought there was no way in hell she would ever do that, so I defended her, and I was wrong. So it happens.

But one thing I want to point out is how the MM lynch went down. Canuck was the last person to vote before the thread lockdown, and she voted for MM's opposition. So... what's the exit strategy there? If Canuck was with MM, she should have either voted for him or waited for the lockdown so she wouldn't have to vote, right? The way it went down, I don't see the benefit. So I'm more inclined to believe the theory that MM's teammates just weren't very active, or maybe intentionally missed the vote, or they were able to sneak their votes onto MM before the lockdown.

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:I've also referenced a "I would have voted Metalmarsh" from AP that pinged me a little. That is the one difference that made me vote for him last time.

What post was this???

Long Con wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ok, so Sabie had no real on-topic posts, and then was replaced by A Person, who has had basically one on-topic post, plus two more discussing how he doesn't know how the Uwe Boll lock works. His one post is "I had wanted to vote MM but the thread was locked I've felt he was fishy all game."

So that's a likely place to put my vote.

That's my take on Sabie/AP thing. That distancing thing with MM is what draws my eye the most. *votes AP*

I understand now.

Dom the Don?
This think is a fun place to start, and make for a good transition from my last post.

Dom wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Dom wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I think Rixy, or maybe LC, or maybemaybe old sabie/lizzy would be good for lynching today.

Why LC?

Why not?

I'm curious.
I had a theory earlier in the game that proved to be wrong, I think. Very early theory just thinking about who might be on a team together--

LC was one of those people.
So, why LC? Why should I vote LC instead of you?

Canucklehead wrote:

Long Con wrote:Because I'm not bad, and several of you are.

I'm not bad, either, but the problem is I really don't know who is. I've been so wrong about everyone I suspected, that maybe it's time to start suspecting the people I've trusted. Maybe you? Mate Dom, who has done little but ask deflecting questions all game? Maybe the players who were replaced because their baddie teammates were desperate to drop the dead weight of no-shows? I dunno. I'm lost.


I know my head is on the chopping block today, but I'm a civ and ice played like a civ (i.e. blindly and without success) the entire game.

That is a statement that is very misrepresentative of my game.

How would you describe your play this game then? We butt heads. A lot, which has over time has biased me to second guess suspicion, but typically it's us not seeing eye to eye. In this game on the contrary, I've found myself agreeing with the train of thought behind your post, but i'm curious if the reasoning is the same.

Quiz show time!

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:Baddies have been laying very low.

Ok, so Sabie had no real on-topic posts, and then was replaced by A Person, who has had basically one on-topic post, plus two more discussing how he doesn't know how the Uwe Boll lock works. His one post is "I had wanted to vote MM but the thread was locked I've felt he was fishy all game."

So that's a likely place to put my vote.

Lizzy had a handful of on-topics, casting some suspicion at Llama, and voting Metalmarsh with no real reasons stated. Made has been much more active, with some real analytical posts on DFaraday.

Made, why did you look at the votes on Days 5 and 6, and call out S~V~S and Roxy, but not Ricochet or Canuck?

So we should look at low liers?


Interesting.

I agree, but why do you feel that we shouldn't go after the low-liers?

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Sorry everybody. I got sucked in by puzzle solving in Death Note. I'm not even good at it, but I caught the bug as soon as I saw a few things I could solve.

I'm open to more reasoning on the inactives being potentially bad, because I do acknowledge this is way beyond worrying now that we are so few left. For one, the baddies eliminating active, significant players one by one is likely telling, but in hindsight we probably shouldn't have let those players fly by either. But I'd like all the replacements to be discussed, with both views on the past player and whether you find the current players has made himself suspicious with or may try to conceal. I promise to come with thoughts on them and others tomorrow.

Do you have thoughts on Roxy/TH?

What are your thoughts on Roxy/TH?

I might vote Dom, depending the answers to these questions


It's getting late.... I really want to finish this tonight, so i might start tonight post tomorrow? till then..... yo LC....

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:So, Made as a baddie... he could have voted AP and given Canuck the ability to lynch AP, but he didn't. If he believed Canuck and I are both Civ, then the lynch was already cool whether it was two or three necks on the line. I'm assuming that since no one mentioned it, no one active at the end remembered Mongoose's tied-lynch ruling. SO, he didn't want to see AP in the mix for this lynch.

I'm not sure how i'm suppose to respond to this? With the amount of post and votes available to draw from, iunno, this just feel like a backwards approach. More like you want me to be rather than genuinely thinking I might be.

This might sound like a weird question, but with the above in my LC, what are you opinions on me?

Yo Made, sing me a song!

Made wrote:Dom the Don?
This think is a fun place to start, and make for a good transition from my last post.

Dom wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Dom wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I think Rixy, or maybe LC, or maybemaybe old sabie/lizzy would be good for lynching today.

Why LC?

Why not?

I'm curious.
I had a theory earlier in the game that proved to be wrong, I think. Very early theory just thinking about who might be on a team together--

LC was one of those people.
So, why LC? Why should I vote LC instead of you?

Canucklehead wrote:

Long Con wrote:Because I'm not bad, and several of you are.

I'm not bad, either, but the problem is I really don't know who is. I've been so wrong about everyone I suspected, that maybe it's time to start suspecting the people I've trusted. Maybe you? Mate Dom, who has done little but ask deflecting questions all game? Maybe the players who were replaced because their baddie teammates were desperate to drop the dead weight of no-shows? I dunno. I'm lost.


I know my head is on the chopping block today, but I'm a civ and ice played like a civ (i.e. blindly and without success) the entire game.

That is a statement that is very misrepresentative of my game.

How would you describe your play this game then? We butt heads. A lot, which has over time has biased me to second guess suspicion, but typically it's us not seeing eye to eye. In this game on the contrary, I've found myself agreeing with the train of thought behind your post, but i'm curious if the reasoning is the same.

We butt heads a lot because I often suspect you, and I remember being right on a few occasions.

Made wrote: Quiz show time!

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:Baddies have been laying very low.

Ok, so Sabie had no real on-topic posts, and then was replaced by A Person, who has had basically one on-topic post, plus two more discussing how he doesn't know how the Uwe Boll lock works. His one post is "I had wanted to vote MM but the thread was locked I've felt he was fishy all game."

So that's a likely place to put my vote.

Lizzy had a handful of on-topics, casting some suspicion at Llama, and voting Metalmarsh with no real reasons stated. Made has been much more active, with some real analytical posts on DFaraday.

Made, why did you look at the votes on Days 5 and 6, and call out S~V~S and Roxy, but not Ricochet or Canuck?

So we should look at low liers?


Interesting.

I agree, but why do you feel that we shouldn't go after the low-liers?

I don't entirely remember the context of that quote nor do I have the energy to really look into it, but without a reason to vote low-liers... why should we? I think LC has brought up an excellent point about AP, but I'm unsure beyond that because there's nothing to go on.

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Sorry everybody. I got sucked in by puzzle solving in Death Note. I'm not even good at it, but I caught the bug as soon as I saw a few things I could solve.

I'm open to more reasoning on the inactives being potentially bad, because I do acknowledge this is way beyond worrying now that we are so few left. For one, the baddies eliminating active, significant players one by one is likely telling, but in hindsight we probably shouldn't have let those players fly by either. But I'd like all the replacements to be discussed, with both views on the past player and whether you find the current players has made himself suspicious with or may try to conceal. I promise to come with thoughts on them and others tomorrow.

Do you have thoughts on Roxy/TH?

What are your thoughts on Roxy/TH?

I might vote Dom, depending the answers to these questions


It's getting late.... I really want to finish this tonight, so i might start tonight post tomorrow? till then..... yo LC....

My thoughts on Roxy/TH?
I've said them in the thread a few times, but I thought it was interesting that Bass found them suspicious. I think Bass has good insight into his mom's play. I think he brought some good points up. I don't think TH has done anything to dispel this suspicion.

Dom wrote: I think Bass has good insight into his mom's play. I think he brought some good points up. I don't think TH has done anything to dispel this suspicion.

How would I even go about dispelling your suspicion of Roxy? The only way would be playing my own game and giving you things to consider about TH2.0 as a player, but we're running out of time and I can see I'm not going to get the benefit of the doubt here, so... I guess it is what it is.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote: I think Bass has good insight into his mom's play. I think he brought some good points up. I don't think TH has done anything to dispel this suspicion.

How would I even go about dispelling your suspicion of Roxy? The only way would be playing my own game and giving you things to consider about TH2.0 as a player, but we're running out of time and I can see I'm not going to get the benefit of the doubt here, so... I guess it is what it is.

pretty much where i am at this point in relation to you. Just playing it by ear i guess...

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for clarifying, LC. In that case, I really don't understand either why Made did nothing all game long. Probably because Made.

wait, time out.... how did you know what kind of play I'm know for?

I didn't say I "know". Where have I expressed such certainty?

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Sorry everybody. I got sucked in by puzzle solving in Death Note. I'm not even good at it, but I caught the bug as soon as I saw a few things I could solve.

I'm open to more reasoning on the inactives being potentially bad, because I do acknowledge this is way beyond worrying now that we are so few left. For one, the baddies eliminating active, significant players one by one is likely telling, but in hindsight we probably shouldn't have let those players fly by either. But I'd like all the replacements to be discussed, with both views on the past player and whether you find the current players has made himself suspicious with or may try to conceal. I promise to come with thoughts on them and others tomorrow.

Do you have thoughts on Roxy/TH?

I can see how people are drawn in to the idea that she willingly played from the shadows, but I still can't fully read it as such. You said Bass made good points, but I would argue his points were actually shallow or gut-based throughout much of the game and the last time he actually made a case on her, he might have easily missread her two replacement pleads: the first one, I think, was because of personal Mafia frustrations; the second because of RL issues. Her apologetic posts in the thread make me believe she could just as well have excused herself as a civ, for not being a better player and more helfpul to the cause. As for TH, I think he's facing the replacement challenge the most, given how many are inherently suspicious of the role he's taken over; I'm noticing a few instances where he's been tested with questions, but I can't say if I read anything out of order from his answers.

I'd like to also put the above in context of all the replacements, much like I said it would be good to do in my initial post. I think Sabie and Lizzy were replaced by Mongoose (as her alternative to modkilling them and getting those roles back into play somehow) and Spacedaisy and Roxy asked to be replaced - of course, Mongoose probably contacted Sabie and Lizzy too in order to get their opinion, but overall I believe this is the big picture.
If there's a way to read Sabie's inactivity, for instance, I myself still have to learn it.

I find it reasonable that both teams might have at least one such player and that they would have agreed to replace them as we advanced more towards the endgame, but I'm still inclined to see the low-lying rather than absentees as likely candidates. But I also understand better now the "AWOL theory" Canuck has put forth - although, to be fair, I would have preferred to have heard it from the beginning rather than to feel like two WIFOM-suspects - her and LC - are desiring to gun for the most absent player in the room.

That definitely puts Spacedaisy/Vomps and Roxy/TH in the spotlight, except that I'm conflicted about both separately and I'm getting the opposite feedback on each, as well. I thought Spacedaisy would make the perfect low-poster candidate, with Vomps not about to break character no matter what role he is now. I now find Canuck's ideas about why Spacedaisy would not be a candidate for either teams quite sound.

Ricochet wrote:

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for clarifying, LC. In that case, I really don't understand either why Made did nothing all game long. Probably because Made.

wait, time out.... how did you know what kind of play I'm know for?

I didn't say I "know". Where have I expressed such certainty?

You hadn't said know, but my question still stand. If this is your first game with me, how are you able to justify my behavior with "Because made". Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure it was the first reference to my play in that light this game.

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for clarifying, LC. In that case, I really don't understand either why Made did nothing all game long. Probably because Made.

wait, time out.... how did you know what kind of play I'm know for?

I didn't say I "know". Where have I expressed such certainty?

You hadn't said know, but my question still stand. If this is your first game with me, how are you able to justify my behavior with "Because made". Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure it was the first reference to my play in that light this game.

It was, but honestly I didn't intend to put so much weight into it, meant it more as an irony, although I can see why it didn't come off like that. I was also influenced by remembering a lot of players commenting on how odd your gameplay is, on several occasions, in here as well as in other games (Death Note). Some even hesitated to vote for you on D5, thinking you are just playing in a very "strange" way.

To sort of wrap up for now:

Canuck catching a second wind, on top of sounding quite genuine the whole time, is making me more uneasy rather than satisfied. I would echo, in this regard, LC's point and say that I'll be very frustrated if it turns out she got herself out of a very tight situation and that we should have gone for the simple solution, wether she is indeed MM's teammate or if she is on the other team, but got herself cornered because of the MM issue. This is why I can slightly understand Made's vote and I noticed TH sort of shares the same mistrust. I didn't really like her initial thoughts on why to go for AWOLs such as AP, but since then she, again, developed much better thoughts.

I honestly can't shed my overall suspicion on LC either, but it's kinda gut-based rather than being able to connect the dots. I just have the nagging feeling much of his posts can be read in a bad light. The Llama-kill/DF-frame context is still most unfavourable to him, but I'm still feeling he'd have all the reasons to push it away from him for a couple more days, until it might not matter anymore. Why, for instance, would he call for no more spreading votes, when he himself contributed to it the other day? I'm ok in theory to pursue a certain lynch, but I'll still be wary about who intends to propose it.

LC's also catching a second wind, after days of rather moping that the civvies are playing lousy or that he is, of taking a back seat and just insisting on DF and such. Again, I personally can't read this in an entirely genuine way. It's almost as if SVS and a few other important players were "cleared" in order for certain players to take the floor, instead. And speaking of self-deprecating tone, the ones I get from LC, Canuck and sometimes even Dom aren't really relaxing me either, but on the contrary, make me believe there might be a "three's a crowd" thing going on there; on in this case, "three's a team".

^That's rich tbh

Shall I presume the last part or my entire post? If the former, yes I realize that, but these are similarities that I notice.

Ricochet wrote:Shall I presume the last part or my entire post? If the former, yes I realize that, but these are similarities that I notice.

Yes, the former.

Admitting that you are incorrect and regret your decisions is a baddie trait now?



TH, if it were between me and AP who would you pick? Why should I vote for AP over you?

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Shall I presume the last part or my entire post? If the former, yes I realize that, but these are similarities that I notice.

Yes, the former.

Admitting that you are incorrect and regret your decisions is a baddie trait now?

Surely not because that was not quite what I was referencing, but more like downbeat gameplay statements.

Holy shit I'm terrible at endgame. I've now convinced myself that RoxNips and Rico are teamies.


...which leads me to ask: who is it more important to get rid of today, an MM teamie (who I bleieve to be either AP or Made)? Or someone from the other team (RoxNips or Rico)?

LC, Dom, Vomps (and others, but I'll take everyone else's opinions with a large salt lick at this point): What are the obvious holes in these teamie assumptions? What am I stupidly overlooking? We need o get this right today, and we need to be unified.

Canucklehead wrote:Holy shit I'm terrible at endgame. I've now convinced myself that RoxNips and Rico are teamies.

And what convinces/d you of that?

Fark.

http://www.avclub.com/article/rip-leonard-nimoy-215878

Dom wrote:TH, if it were between me and AP who would you pick? Why should I vote for AP over you?

I'm leaning towards voting AP. Made's recent posts made me feel better about his vote yesterday, which raises AP's vote to the top of my suspicions. I think LC made some good observations about him and I pointed out some things that concern me about AP as well, notably that he pulled the "Baddies want to lynch low posters" card as soon as he possibly could. So, you should vote for AP over me if you think there's any merit to that case.

AP, what say you?

Canucklehead wrote:Holy shit I'm terrible at endgame. I've now convinced myself that RoxNips and Rico are teamies.


...which leads me to ask: who is it more important to get rid of today, an MM teamie (who I bleieve to be either AP or Made)? Or someone from the other team (RoxNips or Rico)?

LC, Dom, Vomps (and others, but I'll take everyone else's opinions with a large salt lick at this point): What are the obvious holes in these teamie assumptions? What am I stupidly overlooking? We need o get this right today, and we need to be unified.

Either AP or TH...

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH, if it were between me and AP who would you pick? Why should I vote for AP over you?

I'm leaning towards voting AP. Made's recent posts made me feel better about his vote yesterday, which raises AP's vote to the top of my suspicions. I think LC made some good observations about him and I pointed out some things that concern me about AP as well, notably that he pulled the "Baddies want to lynch low posters" card as soon as he possibly could. So, you should vote for AP over me if you think there's any merit to that case.

If AP flips civ-- should we lynch you?

Uh, no?

I'll bite.
It's opening night. I'm voting for AP

I have also voted for AP.

I really want AP to come back before I vote for him... going to start a case on LC by the hour. stand by.

It's 2:43am here and I'm too tired to stay another two hours, I almost fell asleep an hour ago. If we are to go the consensus way, I will try to revisit the viewpoints on AP and decide. Otherwise I could see myself voting for Canuck or LC as well.

Made wrote:AP, what say you?

I still say there are some people seeming to be leading lynches against civs, but I'm not sure how much it matters. I still vote for LC. I'm also becoming more suspicious of TH, but otherwise I'm not sure. I trust Rico, but that's about it.

I see no reason not to *vote for Canuck* again.

Vompatti wrote:I see no reason not to *vote for Canuck* again.

I didn't really notice you giving a reason in the first place, apart from your toss coin moment.

Vompatti wrote:I see no reason not to *vote for Canuck* again.

Lulz.

I voted AP, for all thee reasons I've been yammering on about, and because people I trust did so, and I beleive in solidarity.

I voted for AP as well.

AP it is then. The ideas on him are balanced between good theories and gameplay interpretations/speculations. I think this lynch can go either way. Would have gone with LC or Canuck slightly more, but not much can happen anymore in that regard.

The Longest Con?
I guess it's fitting that i start with the first post that pinged me.

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

I dismissed this previously because of how crazy ballzy Long con hypothetically would be by setting himself up, but at this point, iunno.

Long Con wrote: Ok, so Sabie had no real on-topic posts, and then was replaced by A Person, who has had basically one on-topic post, plus two more discussing how he doesn't know how the Uwe Boll lock works. His one post is "I had wanted to vote MM but the thread was locked I've felt he was fishy all game."

So that's a likely place to put my vote.

Lizzy had a handful of on-topics, casting some suspicion at Llama, and voting Metalmarsh with no real reasons stated. Made has been much more active, with some real analytical posts on DFaraday.

Made, why did you look at the votes on Days 5 and 6, and call out S~V~S and Roxy, but not Ricochet or Canuck?

Caught this on a re-read, and noticed that LC never responded to this

Ricochet wrote:
LC, by the way, is looking bad to me. Back-seat-taking for days now, yet sturdy to lynch DF throughout the same period. His comments also add up, because some of them can be really red in a baddie light. For instance, his latest

Long Con wrote:Sorry DF, the baddies' trick worked like a charm on this sucker.

He shouted that DF is framing him and supported his lynch for two consecutive days, yet now he sees him as a "sucker" who was lynched because of "baddies' trick". What?

He also never responded to this

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:So, Made as a baddie... he could have voted AP and given Canuck the ability to lynch AP, but he didn't. If he believed Canuck and I are both Civ, then the lynch was already cool whether it was two or three necks on the line. I'm assuming that since no one mentioned it, no one active at the end remembered Mongoose's tied-lynch ruling. SO, he didn't want to see AP in the mix for this lynch.

I'm not sure how i'm suppose to respond to this? With the amount of post and votes available to draw from, iunno, this just feel like a backwards approach. More like you want me to be rather than genuinely thinking I might be.
As it stands, I suspect you and Canuck more than I suspect AP. That said, AP hasn't said very many words, especially of substance of recent aside from his suspicions of you, which while i agree with, I was taken back that he didn't want to share them till asked.

or this

Made wrote:

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:So, Made as a baddie... he could have voted AP and given Canuck the ability to lynch AP, but he didn't. If he believed Canuck and I are both Civ, then the lynch was already cool whether it was two or three necks on the line. I'm assuming that since no one mentioned it, no one active at the end remembered Mongoose's tied-lynch ruling. SO, he didn't want to see AP in the mix for this lynch.

I'm not sure how i'm suppose to respond to this? With the amount of post and votes available to draw from, iunno, this just feel like a backwards approach. More like you want me to be rather than genuinely thinking I might be.

This might sound like a weird question, but with the above in my LC, what are you opinions on me?

actually, wait no. He did reply to that one:

Long Con wrote:Yo Made, sing me a song!

Am i just missing something?
TH, Canuck, you've said it for a while now: Why do you trust LC?

My vote's irrelevant. Voting LC to hopefully bring more discussion to him.

quit killing me you guys, I'm a civ Apparently, I didn't vote even though I thought I did.

Also, I typed this this morning and completely forgot, but luckily I didn't close the tab:
My personal favorite director of music videos is Chris Cunningham. The music video for Bjork's All Is Full of Love is practically pornographic. Also, Rubber Johnny is my favorite music video probably. The music video he did for Squarepusher's Come On My Selector is fun too. And of course so are Aphex Twin's Come to Daddy and Windowlicker videos. I wish I could see Flex in its full form.

This is what I'm drinking tonight.

Me? Fourteenth one of these.

[slightly-deadish]I am drinking a Wuyi oolong, it's a darker oolong so it's kind of nutty flavored. I'm drinking it on ice, it's pretty good.[/slightly-deadish]

Just poured my first rye and coke!

It looks scary

Ricochet wrote:

Vompatti wrote:I see no reason not to *vote for Canuck* again.

I didn't really notice you giving a reason in the first place, apart from your toss coin moment.

It's complicated. I don't wanna talk about it.

S~V~S wrote:Happy Kalevala Day to Vomps!

omg k

Ricochet wrote:Waiting for Alison, Part II (she's travelling and meeting with friends over the weekend, but that's all I know or think I know)

Yeah, she's back in St. Pete but she may find time to end the day later today.

Epignosis wrote:My first of two or three cups of roobios red.

Lapsang souchong for me.