The Syndicate

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:08 pm**

Sooooooo.....I'm guessing the chances of moving to a 24/24 schedule after this are pretty low, eh?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:22 pm**

Canucklehead wrote:Sooooooo.....I'm guessing the chances of moving to a 24/24 schedule after this are pretty low, eh?

*votes that*

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:35 pm**

day 10.

matt has died. he was Cukor.

im away for business this weekend, so you have 48 hours to get in your PMs. we can do 24/24 when i get back to Tally Monday if you like.

it is now night 10

sorry so sloppy, on my phone waiting for bbq

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:36 pm**

BLEUGH

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:37 pm**

The terrorists have already won.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:51 pm**

Sorry, AP. There go my hopes for a first-ever TS win.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:06 pm**

Rest in peace AP

I wonder why he didn't use his power to confirm the existence of another civ role... Damn.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:35 pm**

Lame.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:36 pm**

Switching to [Night 10] in the subject to avoid further confusion, everyone should do the same.

R.I.P. Sabie/AP2.0.

So sorry.

What's a TS-win, Canuck?

Since this Night will last until Monday, I should probably repeat my disclaimer that I'll be in London from Monday until Friday, with business on Wednesday specifically, otherwise hanging out in the city much of my time during the rest of the days. I'll try my very best to catch-up here during the evenings, but generally depending on how much time and fuel I'll have left in me (although, since I'll be two hours closer to DST or whatev-ST, 2am-ish deadlines will definitely be much better than 4am-deadlines anyway).I have no objections to switching to 24/24.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:42 pm**

I edited the thread title on behalf of our busy hostess.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:51 pm**

So... are we boned? Honestly, 24/24 doesn't sound like a good idea to me since we're sucking so hard at this. More time to discuss is probably a good thing. Unless the intention is to put us out of our misery quicker.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:13 pm**

Getting out of our misery quicker sounds good to me. It's not like discussion has really been working for us.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:36 pm**

Could someone explain why you didn't just vote Canuck and then Turnip as would have been logical? I'm not saying the A Person vote didn't make any sense at all but cereal-coated donut hole stuffed with milk icing.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:25 pm**

Vompatti wrote:Could someone explain why you didn't just vote Canuck and then Turnip as would have been logical? I'm not saying the A Person vote didn't make any sense at all but cereal-coated donut hole stuffed with milk icing.

Because Canuck isn't bad. As for TH,

Just a bad call, I guess.

And I have no clue about your last sentence, but thanks for your insight.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:58 am**

Epignosis wrote:I edited the thread title on behalf of our busy hostess.

Thank you, uber-mod!

And now a word from Lang.

In any democratic vote a tie is mathematically the least likely and therefore often a very much deliberate outcome. As such it always makes us wonder who would benefit the most from such a non-result.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:01 am**

Listen all y'all, it's a sabotage.

Poll ended at Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:57:56 pm

A Person 2.0
5
Dom (6), Long Con (7), Canucklehead (11), Turnip Head (12), Ricochet (13) 36%
Canucklehead
1
Vompatti (10) 7%
Dom
0
No votes
Made 2.0
0
No votes
Long Con
1
Made (14) 7%
Ricochet
0
No votes
TurnipHead 2.0
0
No votes
Vompatti 2.0
0
No votes
By Being John Malkovich (Host/Mod/Deadie/NP/etc)
7
Mongoose (1), Metalmarsh89 (2), MovingPictures07 (3), zeek (4), Epignosis (5), timmer (8), Black Rock (9) 50%
Total votes : 14

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:40 am**

Why do you think it would be logical to vote for Canuck or myself, Sir Vomps-a-lot?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:57 am**

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This is what I'm drinking tonight.

That's amazing! Also, I think that label might be a meerkat.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:26 am**

Mongoose wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I edited the thread title on behalf of our busy hostess.
Thank you, uber-mod!

And now a word from Lang.

In any democratic vote a tie is mathematically the least likely and therefore often a very much deliberate outcome. As such it always makes us wonder who would benefit the most from such a non-result.

Ok, so Lang is still out there, and Canuck and I (who were tied) are not Lang. Who would benefit from a tie? That is a question indeed. I really feel like no one specifically recalled during that somewhat frantic lynch that Mongoose lets both players live in the case of a lynch tie.

But let's say that everyone remembered, and said nothing for their own purposes. When Canuck and I were tied at 2, I was trying to convince Canuck to vote for AP with the hope that a 1-in-3 chance of dying (lynch tied 2-2-2) would be the most ideal. If I did indeed secretly remember that a tie means no death, then I could have just reasoned with Canuck to vote off and let the tie stand, ensuring both our survivals.

Canuck held off her vote because Made hadn't voted yet. It seemed like she was genuinely unsure about the right way to make the lynch good. If she were a baddie, then she could have easily just voted me and said it was what she had to do, and been safe. If she had voted me before Made had voted her... well she would have been safe either way had she remembered the tied-lynch outcome.

So, a deliberate outcome. Who made it be a tie? I contributed, I guess, by putting my vote on A Person too early, and opening myself up a risky situation.

Made is really the one who FORCED it to be a tie by voting Canuck. That forced her to vote for me. But if Made is a baddie, then why would he want to force a tie? His main interest would be to get a Civvie or other baddie lynched. Forcing a tie does the opposite of that. If Canuck were his teammate, then he could have just voted for me, or voted off, and had a fine result. A tie is not the result a baddie wanted.

I dunno, just spitballin'. Feel free to jump in if any of this sparks any ideas.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:40 am**

To Kill a Mockingbird is the only one on this list I've seen, but One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest is good too.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:20 am**

Turnip Head wrote:Why do you think it would be logical to vote for Canuck or myself, Sir Vomps-a-lot?

Because recently we've been voting for civs as opposed to voting for you, therefore you must not be civs. //

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:11 am**

I'll try to think over Lang's message, re-read extensively D9's votes and such. I think there were two important moments in that lynch. In reverse chronological order:

But for now, I would like ask LC if he could clarify two posts he made on that Day

Long Con wrote:Canuck, if you're not a baddie, then perhaps a vote for A Person and some faith would be in order here. I promise you, I am a Civ. I think I was foolish with my vote.

Long Con wrote:I can't believe I made such a silly mistake. BR is laughing at me right now.

What did you mean by "being foolish with your vote", then "making such a silly mistake", in the context of the voting back then?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:20 am**

EBWOP: I left "I think there were two important moments in that lynch. In reverse chronological order:" in my post above. I wrote that down, planned to re-read the D9 lynch and add thoughts, then decided to elaborate later, but left that part by mistake.

But since I accidentally hinted at it, I'll now say that those two moments are:

1) LC & Canuck tied at two votes each. Made and Can add the last two votes. (LC already weighed down on this)
2) LC & Canuck are at 1-2. A lot of spreaded votes happen, instead of people focusing on this possible two-way lynch path.

I'll elaborate later, because right now I have to make preparations for my departure early tomorrow morning.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:12 am**

Ricochet wrote:I'll try to think over Lang's message, re-read extensively D9's votes and such. I think there were two important moments in that lynch. In reverse chronological order:

But for now, I would like ask LC if he could clarify two posts he made on that Day

Long Con wrote:Canuck, if you're not a baddie, then perhaps a vote for A Person and some faith would be in order here. I promise you, I am a Civ. I think I was foolish with my vote.

Long Con wrote:I can't believe I made such a silly mistake. BR is laughing at me right now.
What did you mean by "being foolish with your vote", then "making such a silly mistake", in the context of the voting back then?

I voted for A Person when Canuck had 2 votes and I had 1... and A Person still had to vote. I should have predicted that AP would counter-vote for me, tying me for the lead with Canuck... which would then be likely to force Canuck to vote me to save herself. A wiser move would have been to hold on to my vote until I was sure I wouldn't need it to save myself.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:22 am**

And the part about BR?

Would you have pursued something different if you would have held on to your vote, but AP would have still voted for you and tied you with Canuck?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:26 am**

tbh th ur bad i think

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:09 pm**

Ricochet wrote:And the part about BR?

Would you have pursued something different if you would have held on to your vote, but AP would have still voted for you and tied you with Canuck?

BR is my wife, and she saw what I did and called me a Mafia noob.

Yes, I would have voted for Canuck, or for the not-me person she voted for to put to 2 votes , whichever I thought was more likely to be bad.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:44 pm**

Dom wrote:tbh th ur bad i think

You have said nothing to back this up. Didn't you think I was doing the same to you (I wasn't), and you thought it was suspicious?

Dom wrote:tbh Turnip Head, maybe I'd take your suspicion of me seriously if you had a single reason to back it up so I can actually say something about it. But I think that's what you're going for.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:06 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:tbh th ur bad i think
You have said nothing to back this up. Didn't you think I was doing the same to you (I wasn't), and you thought it was suspicious?

Dom wrote:tbh Turnip Head, maybe I'd take your suspicion of me seriously if you had a single reason to back it up so I can actually say something about it. But I think that's what you're going for.

Where did I say that made it more suspicious?

Pray tell.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:07 pm**

Also I have previously said reasons why I think you're bad.

Nice try though (:

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:11 pm**

Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:tbh th ur bad i think
You have said nothing to back this up. Didn't you think I was doing the same to you (I wasn't), and you thought it was suspicious?

Dom wrote:tbh Turnip Head, maybe I'd take your suspicion of me seriously if you had a single reason to back it up so I can actually say something about it. But I think that's what you're going for.
Where did I say that made it more suspicious?

Pray tell.

You said "But I think that's what you were going for", implying I had ulterior motives for suspecting you. If that wasn't your intention, please clarify.

Also, please point out where you have stated your reasons for thinking I'm bad, because I can't find it.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:33 pm**

So before I go to sleep and head into my journey tomorrow, here are my thoughts on Lang's message regarding the D9 lynch, based on two relevant moments in that lynch process

1) LC-Canuck tied 2-2, Made and Canuck giving the last two votes. Canuck was forced to tie herself with LC, so it's pretty explanatory what purpose she saw in that. Indeed, she apparently did not remember that ties would result in no lynch, still she obviously found it better to give herself a 50-50 chance, anyway. What LC points out about why would Made be motivated to force a tie, if he's bad, makes sense. He suspected Made the other day, for that reason, but only as an attempt to not push AP into lynch zone as his teammate - this is obviously no longer a good argument, since AP flipped civ. In my opinion, Made2.0, so far, has strongly voted according only to his own leads and cases i.e. not being influenced by other players' lobbying for any kind of votes, bandwagoning or anything of that kind.

2) LC-Canuck at 1-2. At this point, Bass wasted his vote on a replaced Roxy/unlynchable TH, LC went forward with his vote for AP and TH went forward with his vote for Dom. It is important to note that LC's "lobby" for voting AP came *after* all these votes (and TH also wanted to take advantage of the same sort of situation and lobby for voting Dom). I would also note that LC and Canuck didn't really saw each other as likely candidates throughout the entire day, LC even going to the length to ask at one point "what does Canuck have to do with SVS being killed" as if the answer wasn't obvious. Assuming that, with a bit more suspicion on Canuck, he might have considered keeping the lynch more focused on a two-way situation and voting for her, I must have slightly mixed feelings about his vote. Yes, he did focus very (or too) much on AP and found him the best lynch option. But maybe he also did not intend to push Canuck into near-certain lynch.

So to answer Lang's food for thought: no, I can't fully discern what would anyone have wanted out of a non-result. I mentioned in 1) my ideas on why those who did in fact push it towards a tie did it that way, but it doesn't make me believe there was any plot there.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:12 pm**

I see I am the only person voting for The Birdcage & Pink Flamingos. Both of those were so funny, I like a smart comedy. Also voted for a few of the more srs bsns birdie films.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:33 pm**

I haven't seen any of the movies in the poll... I would definitely vote for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest in any poll it showed up in though.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:45 pm**

Mongoose said we could pick up to 10, so I voted for the 10 that weren't Mockingjay.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:10 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:tbh th ur bad i think
You have said nothing to back this up. Didn't you think I was doing the same to you (I wasn't), and you thought it was suspicious?

Dom wrote:tbh Turnip Head, maybe I'd take your suspicion of me seriously if you had a single reason to back it up so I can actually say something about it. But I think that's what you're going for.
Where did I say that made it more suspicious?

Pray tell.
You said "But I think that's what you were going for", implying I had ulterior motives for suspecting you. If that wasn't your intention, please clarify.

Also, please point out where you have stated your reasons for thinking I'm bad, because I can't find it.

It IS a strategy to hold your cards close to your chest and I think that's what you were going for.

Also, I have stated it over and over again-- your refusal to see that is evident. I don't have time to pull the quotes now-- I will try later.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:14 pm**

I'm not "refusing" to see anything. I'm asking you to show me. I look forward to the quotes in any case because I want to know what you see in me.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:37 pm**

As i have 3 project due in the next 24 hours (one due at midnight

) I will not be back till tomorrow after school

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:36 pm**

I could totally kick all your asses at this game.................

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:48 pm**

rabbit8 wrote:I could totally kick all your asses at this game.................

Who is this? Everyone knows rabbit8 died.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:24 pm**

Well, well, TH-- how you have misled. You are partially correct in that I never fully articulate it in my own, original content why I suspect you-- but I certainly agree with what others have said:

Dom wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok my thoughts so far.
1. I really think we need to look at roxy. If you go back and re-read her you will notice that earlier this game she would always vote someone else instead of MM but she always said she found the case on MM to be valid. To me it seems that both her and MM could have been distancing from each other. Would love to hear others thoughts.
2. I need to go back and re-read DF.
3. Canucklehead you sticking up for MM so much really doesn't look. I want to go back and re-read you before making my mind up on you because we all make mistakes.
I would be willing to consider a Roxy vote-- is your only suspicion of her that she "suspected" MM?

....
there's this.

Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:To answer your question Dom, Roxy only voted for MM on the day he was lynched. That doesn't look good, does it?
Yet she suspected him for many days, no?

And considering you replaced her-- well... I'm beginning to think that Roxy had no say in the NK of SVS if she's on that team.

That does change things for me, that Roxy did end up getting replaced.

And this. You know, where I debated whether SVS being NK'd by what I suspect is Roxy's team makes Rox (you) civvie or baddie...

You know... you didn't intentionally mislead anyone for a hot second there or anything.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:30 pm**

How can I be intentionally misleading anyone if I'm specifically asking for you to clarify your thoughts on me? You're the one putting spin on this situation, not me.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:33 pm**

wat
r
u srs

I just showed that your claim that I never expressed why I'm suspicious of you were incorrect.
I just showed that your attempted comparison between my post and my actions were incompatible.
How the hell am I misleading anyone?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:59 pm**

Dom wrote:How the hell am I misleading anyone?

Because you keep accusing me of intentionally misleading, when that's not at all my objective and I think that's evident in the way I've approached this discussion. All I wanted to know was why you were suspicious of me. I now see that your suspicion of me is based on Bass' read of Roxy and because you think Roxy would not have allowed the SVS kill but she was replaced so you flipped the other way on it. Okay. I have no idea how to defend against any of that because it predates my time in this role, it seems none of your suspicions pertain to me specifically but rather my predecessor, but that's your prerogative and at least I know where you stand.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:41 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:How the hell am I misleading anyone?
Because you keep accusing me of intentionally misleading, when that's not at all my objective and I think that's evident in the way I've approached this discussion. All I wanted to know was why you were suspicious of me. I now see that your suspicion of me is based on Bass' read of Roxy and because you think Roxy would not have allowed the SVS kill but she was replaced so you flipped the other way on it. Okay. I have no idea how to defend against any of that because it predates my time in this role, it seems none of your suspicions pertain to me specifically but rather my predecessor, but that's your prerogative and at least I know where you stand.

I'm not asking you to defend it-- I'm asking you to prove otherwise. They are entirely different tasks. Show me a viable lynch candidate, then. Find me a baddie. If you're not bad, who is?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:03 am**

Rezz please.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:19 am**

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Rezz please.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:03 am**

Dom wrote:I'm not asking you to defend it-- I'm asking you to prove otherwise. They are entirely different tasks. Show me a viable lynch candidate, then. Find me a baddie. If you're not bad, who is?

I'm trying to do this, I've been trying ever since I rejoined the game. Although, with two teams still around, finding a single baddie proves no one's innocence anyway. Right now I'm as lost as ever, and find myself trusting too many people. But I have the same question for you. I'm not bad, so who could be?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:13 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:I'm not asking you to defend it-- I'm asking you to prove otherwise. They are entirely different tasks. Show me a viable lynch candidate, then. Find me a baddie. If you're not bad, who is?
I'm trying to do this, I've been trying ever since I rejoined the game. Although, with two teams still around, finding a single baddie proves no one's innocence anyway. Right now I'm as lost as ever, and find myself trusting too many people. But I have the same question for you. I'm not bad, so who could be?

Perhaps Canuck.

Made and LC have given me a nervous tick once or twice, but nothing major I've noticed yet. I haven't been able to read them closely.

But you are, by far, my biggest suspect at this point.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:41 pm**

There is little to add to what has already been said.

The Syndicate

[ENDGAME]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [POLLS]: Film Director

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 8]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 10]: Film Directors.