The Syndicate

Vompatti wrote:It was quite delightful for a game of mafia.

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote: More coming soon

I can hardly wait!

Made wrote:I voted to save Llama because he scum hunting in the most outspoken way. While it could be misdirection, imo it's too early to tell and too early to lose a player willing to be so outspoken.

Roxy wrote: Your posts felt like you wanted to vote Boogs

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle.

Made wrote: K here's what I don't get. Why has boogs been so sloppy? I mean it's not that hard to come up with a consistent lie. What does mafia gain by Boog's not voting, if they are lying.

Roxy wrote:I sound hostile? - wow I am very sorry I deffo don't feel hostile when I am posting.

thellama73 wrote:What do you think of Hedgeowl, Rob? I think she's bad for two reasons. 1) I always think she's bad. 2) I don't believe that she doesn't know me well enough to see that I am obviously good this game, and yet she is voting to lynch me.

Roxy wrote:

Mister Rearranger wrote:Good news. I can focus my drunk-ass attention on this game now.

Yay! What are your thoughts of the last lynch? Who are your top 3 suspects and why?

Off to work I may or may not have time to check in from work so Happy Friday everyone!

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle. I generally don't vote for high vote getters unless I feel strongly about them. I do, however, have a history of throwing a vote on someone who has pinged me but is otherwise not up for lynching, just to address them and try to get discussion surrounding them. That's what I did with Bullz; I never felt certain he was bad, but I thought his behavior raised my suspicion enough to bring up discussion about him, hence my nominal vote.

Since then, my view of Bullz has improved a bit (although I'm still not convinced he's a civ), as he does seem to have acquitted himself fairly well. Otherwise, I feel like Llama, Dom and Roxy are probably civvies, and have little read on the rest of the board. Since I believe that Hedge is a baddie, and Elo is currently my second highest suspicion by default, I suggested that they could possibly be teammates (which only makes sense, because we only have one bad team. I'm not sure why that part was an issue).

Were the lynch to come down to Elo and Bullz, I would vote Elo, since I don't have any other outlying suspicions I would want to throw into the ring. Were it Llama vs. Elo, I would vote Elo, again, because I do find her suspicious and don't have anyone to call out. Were it Hedge vs. Elo, I would go with Hedge because I feel more strongly about her.

In conclusion, I did what I set out to do with Bullz: I brought attention to him, and am somewhat satisfied with how he handled it. As of this point, I will be voting to actually contribute to the lynch, unless another obscure ping should arise.

Made wrote:Ahhh shoot, cell phones, fat fingers, and headaches don't mix at all. Don't know how, but I imputed errored. I meant to vote boogs. Is there any way I can get this fixed??

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle. I generally don't vote for high vote getters unless I feel strongly about them. I do, however, have a history of throwing a vote on someone who has pinged me but is otherwise not up for lynching, just to address them and try to get discussion surrounding them. That's what I did with Bullz; I never felt certain he was bad, but I thought his behavior raised my suspicion enough to bring up discussion about him, hence my nominal vote.

Since then, my view of Bullz has improved a bit (although I'm still not convinced he's a civ), as he does seem to have acquitted himself fairly well. Otherwise, I feel like Llama, Dom and Roxy are probably civvies, and have little read on the rest of the board. Since I believe that Hedge is a baddie, and Elo is currently my second highest suspicion by default, I suggested that they could possibly be teammates (which only makes sense, because we only have one bad team. I'm not sure why that part was an issue).

Were the lynch to come down to Elo and Bullz, I would vote Elo, since I don't have any other outlying suspicions I would want to throw into the ring. Were it Llama vs. Elo, I would vote Elo, again, because I do find her suspicious and don't have anyone to call out. Were it Hedge vs. Elo, I would go with Hedge because I feel more strongly about her.

In conclusion, I did what I set out to do with Bullz: I brought attention to him, and am somewhat satisfied with how he handled it. As of this point, I will be voting to actually contribute to the lynch, unless another obscure ping should arise.

Dom wrote: I'm very likely voting DFaraday because this si so so so so false.
He intended to do nothing but lynch bullz. I know this because he literally hadn't mentioned anything of a Bullzeye suspicion until I did. He based his suspicion off of my observations.

In addition, we know that given a choice between Elo and Bullz that Dfaraday will pick Bullz because that's literally what he did last lynch,

So please, DFaraday, please please please, detail your experience with Bullzeye. From accusation (original) to acquittal (as you put it), please tell me why you were bringing "attention to him" and why you are "somewhat satisfied with how he handled it"-- I am having a hard time believing that.

DFaraday wrote:Also, I want to point out that there were already plenty of lynch suspects on Day 2, in particular Llama, Elo, Boogs, and Hedge. If I were a baddie I would either try to save one of my teammates, if any were up for lynching, or else throw them under the bus with a last minute vote if I couldn't save them. What I would not do is make a very half-hearted attempt at fueling a random third party suspicion that didn't have much traction to begin with. Why would I call attention to myself like that when I could just try to blend in with the big names until I needed to cast a decisive vote?

Bullzeye wrote:I don't think it matters too much which shade of green you use, but if you go into the full editor and click OT it puts the proper tags in for you

Mister Rearranger wrote:
Bullzeye - Since your suspicion of me dropped off incredibly fast, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you'd not only been insanified, but had your vote forced as well. But now that the curse is over, you mentioned that you disagreed with my Llama vote. But your focus is now on DF. I'm confused, though have felt good about you from Day 1.

Roxy wrote:Pardon me if I don't trust your read on your wife - you've been wrong before.

Boogs wrote:Epignosis- I honestly meant everything i said about missing the vote. We went to play games Wednesday straight after work and i was trying to vote there. I thought i hit submit, went home thinking so. Woke up, checked for a quick second the site and went to work. Looked at my phone on my break only to see the poll ended and i didnt see no vote from myself then. Take it or leave it, its the truth.

Elohcin wrote:I wouldn't say Made's behavior is the same as it was in Misfits. In misfits, he got into "gansta" character. Here, he pretended (I guess) to be insanified. I am not sure who I am voting for though. I have a gut ping about llama, but am confused by it because of my vote on day 2. But, his response to my vote brings about more pings. Hmm...I am going to go ahead and vote Llama.

Elohcin wrote:I wouldn't say Made's behavior is the same as it was in Misfits. In misfits, he got into "gansta" character. Here, he pretended (I guess) to be insanified. I am not sure who I am voting for though. I have a gut ping about llama, but am confused by it because of my vote on day 2. But, his response to my vote brings about more pings. Hmm...I am going to go ahead and vote Llama.

Roxy wrote:Elo - I am trying to understand your flat out refusal to respond to any of my post yet you expect others to comment on yours. You responded to everyone but me. It is quite aggravating -

No one else has this prob with you except me - I want to know why.

Dom wrote:

DFaraday wrote:Also, I want to point out that there were already plenty of lynch suspects on Day 2, in particular Llama, Elo, Boogs, and Hedge. If I were a baddie I would either try to save one of my teammates, if any were up for lynching, or else throw them under the bus with a last minute vote if I couldn't save them. What I would not do is make a very half-hearted attempt at fueling a random third party suspicion that didn't have much traction to begin with. Why would I call attention to myself like that when I could just try to blend in with the big names until I needed to cast a decisive vote?

Piggy backing on something I am saying is half hearted?

Epignosis wrote:

Boogs wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I hope supatown stays a thing, I like it.

Also, I'm feeling like Llama is probably a proactive civ, so I need to look over the rest to see where I stand on the board. Most players haven't made much impression so far.

A proactive Civ? All I have seen is him act unusual and try to "stir the pot" to get certain people to cause conflict. Doesn't seem Civ like behavior in the least to me. Voting for a non participant always is a bad idea if you are Civ, and considering the game started a few hours on a holiday weekend before I can check in that he says he wanted to "get us to react" etc. doesn't feel any good to me. I'm most likely giving him my vote tomorrow. I don't what proactive Civ you see in him by most of the talk here about apples and off topic being helpful. Which makes me worried about you as well to say that about Llama.

No one has ever successfully defined "civ-like behavior." That's because there is no definition. If pressed, I would argue that stirring the pot is a much more civilian tactic than a Mafia trait.

I also fail to see why voting for a non-participant if you are a civilian is always a bad idea. That's a rather naive position. I have seen my share of Mafia coast right on through and even miss votes on purpose to know that it isn't necessarily a bad idea at all.

In your estimation, then, not participating (including not voting, which is how civilians get rid of Mafia) is more civ-like behavior than gauging reactions.

Boogs wrote:

bea wrote:so boogsy - you are cranky at the llama because he didn't give enough time for low poster to check in before he started to suspect them?

Is that right? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I'm not cranky, I'm saying it's very suspicious to me to make such a bold statement and assumption THAT early and be acting so cocky that he is sure he is awesome etc. He's really rubbing me the wrong way and Dfaraday trying to vouch for him that he's Civ isn't setting right with me either. I think he's acting very off compared to the games I have played with him recently. Either he's being weird on purpose, or he's confident you his teammates can assure he isn't going anywhere for a while for the behavior he has been showing in the thread, but in no way has he been contributing as a proactive civ as DFar stated.

I would be far more suspicious of llama if he was not arrogant. Your post here also includes an either-or fallacy: "Either he's being weird on purpose, or he's confident his teammates can assure he isn't going anywhere for a while for the behavior he has been showing the thread..." I can come up with several alternatives to this statement, such as llama being decidedly ordinary. As for the notion that llama is confident that his teammates can assure he isn't going anywhere for a while, look at the votes and tell me if that's working out for him.

As for your claim that "in no way has he been contributing as a proactive civ," would you mind sharing who here HAS been contributing as a proactive civilian?

Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,

Boogs wrote:Llama if you are Civ, you would want to keep all Civs alive. Not try to accuse players of Civ roles and let them die because you feel your role is more important or whatever the case may be. I don't understand how you think I'm keterman's partner, but okay. But by you trying to make it look like I am and saying it's okay for me to die isn't cool. I just think you're acting like you're caring less who dies because you're bad and know that you it won't be you, or you are Indy and want us to die for your personal agenda to win. You are NOT playing a Civ friendly game which is why I'm wanting to vote you out. It's been Day 0 and rolling now. People defending you and not seeing this or thinking you are Civ it making me MORE worried they're acting Civ themselves to make sure their Baddie Llama teammate stays out of discussion for votes. So I highly doubt you're dying tonight because your teammates wouldn't do that to a member of their group. I also want to point out Keterman's role said secrets, so I hope this doesn't have anything to do with him or his teammate being recruited and you just threw that out in the open and gained the baddies another partner. I'm just saying.

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,

Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?

Bullzeye wrote:

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,

Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?

I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,

Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?

I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.

Didn't mean to misquote, just didn't remember the exact phrasing...
Also, Boogs never defended Ketterman before he died....so there's that...

thellama73 wrote:Sorry Keterman. Self-preservation and all that, old sport.

I am now more inclined to think Boogs might be Keterman's partner in (lack of) crime.