The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Ricochet wrote:This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

I believe that if Llama were to count my posts he would find that most of them are indeed OFF-topic, and, if I survive the lynch, will be increasingly so due to the thread already being tl;dr at this point.

You may embed only 7 quotes within each other.

I'm taking a leaf from llama's mafiabook.

Are you bad k?

Vompatti wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Ricochet wrote:This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

I believe that if Llama were to count my posts he would find that most of them are indeed OFF-topic, and, if I survive the lynch, will be increasingly so due to the thread already being tl;dr at this point.

You may embed only 7 quotes within each other.

I'm taking a leaf from llama's mafiabook.

Are you bad k?

I am if you want me to be

Ricochet wrote:FZ*. Sorry. Typo-ing like mad right now.

I'll think I'll watch Frank tonight. Hey, rememeber movies being the theme of this game?

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

TH (you beautiful human, you): did you read the previous pages before you voted? Or were you doing a quick catch-up/skim through kind of thing? I ask because, iirc, the fact that votes were unchangable was adressed both by MM's self-vote (which he realized afterwards he couldn't change) and llama's explicit question to the host (which MM answered for her). Did you miss these posts?

Yes, yes I definitely missed those posts. I don't think I would have ended up changing my vote, but when I cast it I definitely thought I had the option. It's been the norm for so many games now that I didn't even think twice about it.

I was going to be looking at FZ today but she's backed off of LC which gives me pause when suspecting her. I felt her vote for BWT was disingenuous as it seemed she was more suspicious of LC and Vomp but voted BWT anyway. Something about FZ feels off to me so far but I don't know enough about her baddie game to know if what I'm seeing is correct. I know she has explained her BWT vote but it still sticks out to me.

Other than that I still don't feel I have enough to go on. The MP/Dom exchange reads like the screenplay for Cloud Atlas: long, meandering and pointless. The Vomp suspicion doesn't resonate with me because he seems normal.

Does anyone want to talk about Rico's Day 1 vote? I believe he was the only player to randomize, and I was under the impression this was his first mafia game. Day 1 randomizing has become somewhat standard around here but it felt too savvy a move for a new player to make especially since he was the only one to do it.

That's all that really stood out to me though I'm digging all the discussion we've got going so far.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Ricochet wrote:This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

I believe that if Llama were to count my posts he would find that most of them are indeed OFF-topic, and, if I survive the lynch, will be increasingly so due to the thread already being tl;dr at this point.

You may embed only 7 quotes within each other.

I'm taking a leaf from llama's mafiabook.

Are you bad k?

I am if you want me to be

hot

Turnip Head wrote:
Does anyone want to talk about Rico's Day 1 vote? I believe he was the only player to randomize, and I was under the impression this was his first mafia game. Day 1 randomizing has become somewhat standard around here but it felt too savvy a move for a new player to make especially since he was the only one to do it.

That's all that really stood out to me though I'm digging all the discussion we've got going so far.

A Person wrote:

Ricochet wrote:FZ*. Sorry. Typo-ing like mad right now.

I'll think I'll watch Frank tonight. Hey, rememeber movies being the theme of this game?

F**K MOVIES

Frank was good stuff

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Ricochet wrote:This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

I believe that if Llama were to count my posts he would find that most of them are indeed OFF-topic, and, if I survive the lynch, will be increasingly so due to the thread already being tl;dr at this point.

You may embed only 7 quotes within each other.

I'm taking a leaf from llama's mafiabook.

Are you bad k?

I am if you want me to be

hot

I get the feeling you only come here for le sex.

Long Con wrote: Can you list the games for us? Maybe someone else can do a read of them and analyze Vompatti's behaviour to see if they agree.

Long Con wrote:Can you list the games for us? Maybe someone else can do a read of them and analyze Vompatti's behaviour to see if they agree.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Can you list the games for us? Maybe someone else can do a read of them and analyze Vompatti's behaviour to see if they agree.

That sounds like a lot of work. No thanks.

llama, if you don't think a list of vompatti's games played here will be useful, why post the list, or use those games as reference for his current playstyle?

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote: Can you list the games for us? Maybe someone else can do a read of them and analyze Vompatti's behaviour to see if they agree.

I'll list the games I played with him, but somehow I doubt it will be helpful.
Jobs
Masters of the Universe
Bioshock
Homestar Runner
The Hobbit
Fight Club

Side Missions
McGyver
Twin Peaks
The Shining - I hosted
Super Mario Bros.
Sherlock
Super Meat Boy
Shawshank Redemption
Film Noir - I co-hosted
Stanley Parable
Occultism - I hosted
Felt
Clue the Movie - I hosted
Oblique Strategies - I hosted

Special Games
Minimalism - I hosted
2013 Game of Champs

MovingPictures07 wrote:I am sort of frustrated right now to be honest because people are acting like this thing between and Dom is happening in a vacuum and I feel I've had to explain things over and over. Does no one else think Dom read things into my post that weren't there? And if so do they think that makes him suspect? I assume no one does or else they would have said it by now but it's odd to me that no one really paid attention to my vote yesterday.

FZ. wrote:llama, did you see the links I posted? It's only Vomppati's posts, which we all know are not a lot, so it's worth looking at. Do you still think he's playing differently?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:
If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

So this is the question I asked, MP. What conclusions was I making?
What was I reaching for?

Please, do tell me.

I think we're on two completely different planes of communication right now, Dom, so we're missing each other's points.

Let me walk you through my train of thought and hopefully that will adequately answer your question:

This is the original post I'm referring to:

Dom wrote:

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.

Now I've been saying that all I was asking you here was for your thoughts re: suspects. You had, before this post, asked Llama a couple of questions and then said to his response "OK. I just wanted an answer. Thank you!", but other than that and your questioning me about my "serious assumptions" post, I didn't really see anywhere where you said "I suspect so and so and here's why" or anything like that. Which is fine, but it's what prompted my question, because I value your input and was wondering what you were currently thinking.

You responded, however, asking all these questions and reading all this stuff into it.
- I never said or meant to insinuate that it was strange for you
- It wasn't obvious to ME what you were thinking, so that's why I asked the question
- I never said or meant to insinuate that questioning people is bad
- I never said or meant to insinuate that I am concerned with your questions
- I never said or meant to insinuate that it's unusual for you to play

So what gave you the impression that I said or meant any of those things? I was only asking for your suspects/thoughts. That's IT.

So when you responded like that, that's why I said it seemed like to me you were "reaching", like you were reaching for some kind of insinuation out of a simple request for your thoughts. That's all. That perception of your behavior, combined with the train of thought below:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I have to leave really soon, and won't be back.

I'd really rather not get any more votes because people miscomprehend what I am clarifying (and maybe that's my fault for not being clear enough with my explanations; if so, I apologize), but I don't see Llama as bad. I really don't want him to die today either because he tends to attract a lot of attention early on regardless of alignment, and I see no reason to believe he's any more bad than anyone else right now (same with S~V~S and Rico).

The point on LC was made, but I thought his response was genuine, and I don't see that being worthy either.

I thought Dom's response to me was incredibly overreacting (not totally out of character, so that alone doesn't mean much), but it struck me as odd because I never implied any of those things, and it seemed to me he wanted to make a big deal out of me asking him who his suspects were, when he NEVER actually said them outright. And I know he asks a lot of questions, but the fact that he never came out and said how he felt about anyone, including Llama, just seemed strange to me, and an easy way to seem like he was contributing but without putting any thoughts out of his own in addition to his questions. And I think he's taking advantage of a vocal Llama to place an easy vote, so I'll be voting Dom. It's relatively weak, but it's really the only thing I'm feeling right now.

votes Dom

Are why I voted for you on D1, since I wasn't really pinged by anything else, and I was only minorly pinged by what I mention there.

Now that we have a day's worth of voting records to go off of, I'm not even really sure what I think about you right now, and I don't think I'll pursue you for a vote today, which is what I said here:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:
If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

Now I thought I addressed your "what am I reaching for?" question in this post as well, but apparently it wasn't adequate. So hopefully this post answers your question? If it doesn't, please let me know.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:llama, did you see the links I posted? It's only Vomppati's posts, which we all know are not a lot, so it's worth looking at. Do you still think he's playing differently?

I will look at them now and get back to you.

Turnip Head wrote:You say you don't want to rehash the Dom thing anymore MP, and even said you don't suspect him, and yet you seem to expect that someone else should find his behavior suspicious. Why is that?

FZ. wrote:
I get number 2 in the first list. Can you recall why Dom voted llama? Dom, can you answer it?
But basically you're saying that all this talk was a waste of time? :P
Which avenues do you feel are worth pursuing? I have to be honest. The thing that worries me about you is the fact that usually, you are more involved in the other discussions and is the first one to see my point of view. I haven't seen that so far this game, which makes me wonder. Basically, you've only focused on Dom and defended the rest.

thellama73 wrote:I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ. I have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

thellama73 wrote:MP, I think you and Dom are civs arguing past each other. I don't really have any comment on your discussion because it is boring and, I think, unproductive. If you are tried of talking about it, stop bringing it up. If you think Dom is suspicious because he is misunderstanding you/you are misunderstanding him, say so, but you seem to have backed down from that. So I'm not sure what you want others to say. I don't like Dom's vote for me yesterday, obviously, but I am not really suspecting him at this point.

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

FZ. wrote:I guess I'm officially backing off from LC. SVS, I don't think it had anything to do with the play style on Ksite. It was more of a feel of how baddies hide their frustration while trying to look helpful, especially since one baddie team seems to not have much power. But since I seem to be the only one thinking this, and since it's taking away the attention from other players, we'll just move on. Maybe I'm off.

Vomp has gone back to posting jokes. Since the "why do you think I mind getting lynched" post, I think he only posted once or twice, OT and with a joking tone. I wonder if he's trying to go back to his usual MO because people called him out on it, or is it just him being him.

In all honesty, I don't get the Dom-MP back and forth. What's that all about?

And to answer whoever asked me, I wanted to go to sleep yesterday, and I wanted to know if we successfully lynched a baddie or not, before I turned in.

linki: MP and Dom, do you each suspect the other, or is this back and forth just for fun? If you are suspicious of one another, can you please sum up your reasons in a short post?

thellama73 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:llama, did you see the links I posted? It's only Vomppati's posts, which we all know are not a lot, so it's worth looking at. Do you still think he's playing differently?

I will look at them now and get back to you.

That is a limited sample, FZ, but it confirms my feelings. Shawshank and WWE were both almost entirely off topic from him, and he was civvie in both. Are You Being Served was much more engaged and on topic. I think his play this game is more similar to Are You Being Served than to the other two.

Dom wrote: Do you think Vomps' increased activity might have something to do with the theme?

S~V~S wrote: And since I am not sure if I even need to address this, but when I voted, BWT showed as being here. Perhaps he left his computer on, but I was not even thinking of the whole unable to defend issue. For me, that is announcing to the thread Friday night, "Gonna be out of town till Sunday night" like MM said. But someone making what I thought was a sketchy vote and then saying "I will be gone the rest of the afternoon" are two different things. Plus I did not think in terms of being able to defend when I voted, I was the first to vote for him. I was surprised to come back from my D & D game to find him, A) Lynched and B) Civ.

But if saying a few hours before the end of a 48 hour day period that you're going out meant "unable to defend", then all the baddies would be on the way to their Grandmas house

But in any case I was happy that Kubrick was around to reshoot.

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

Yeah this meanie Llama

FZ. wrote:I'm off to bed. Would really like to know who people are thinking of voting for and not just have them wait until the last minute when they'll say they don't have time and just vote.
Night

thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

thellama73 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:llama, did you see the links I posted? It's only Vomppati's posts, which we all know are not a lot, so it's worth looking at. Do you still think he's playing differently?

I will look at them now and get back to you.

That is a limited sample, FZ, but it confirms my feelings. Shawshank and WWE were both almost entirely off topic from him, and he was civvie in both. Are You Being Served was much more engaged and on topic. I think his play this game is more similar to Are You Being Served than to the other two.

Turnip Head wrote:What have I been noncommittal about Canuck? And do you feel that noncommittalness is baddie behavior?

S~V~S wrote:@FZ, this is how I play. I am not a strong baddie hunter, I am more of an undercover detective, if you will. I look for someone who catches my eye, and I watch them. At this stage I am finding that following the back and forths is edifying.

llama, why exactly did you let go of Ricochet? I firmly expected you to go after him, you you backed off. There was no night between Day 1 & Day 1.1 so there were no night results for you to account for. This is not to say I think you are wrong re Vomp; I am not sure what I think. I agree that he he more on topic when bad. In one game at RM, that I cohosted that he played, 6 Feet Under, he was a baddie and he was VERY engaged.

BUT he loves Mongoose, and he loves film. I did the post skim and removing the OT, he does not seem all that on topic, especially if you remove defensive posts. So I think some of it is in reaction to suspicion?

I have not decided yet. As usual, I am arguing with myself here.

Linki @ FZ~ tbh, I am not sure yet. I have been watching a few people, and will dig into posts later or in the AM, as Snowpocalypse allows.

FZ. wrote:So Dom, you still think MP is suspicious? Is he the person you'll vote for, or do you still plan to vote llama. In regards to llama, do you think he's trying to make vomp look bad on purpose, or that he's just wrong? It would be nice if you took a look at the links I supplied.

SVS, who is your top suspect at the moment?

Dom wrote:Just a warning:

I go to school in Rhode Island. I am on an Island. We are going to experience extremely high winds (Hurricane Force) all night and get 2-3+ feet of snow. If I am absent, you know why.

That's right, I forgot you were in RI, I am on the North Shore of Long Island, right across the Sound, so yeah. Good Luck Stay warm & electrified~!

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@FZ, this is how I play. I am not a strong baddie hunter, I am more of an undercover detective, if you will. I look for someone who catches my eye, and I watch them. At this stage I am finding that following the back and forths is edifying.

llama, why exactly did you let go of Ricochet? I firmly expected you to go after him, you you backed off. There was no night between Day 1 & Day 1.1 so there were no night results for you to account for. This is not to say I think you are wrong re Vomp; I am not sure what I think. I agree that he he more on topic when bad. In one game at RM, that I cohosted that he played, 6 Feet Under, he was a baddie and he was VERY engaged.

BUT he loves Mongoose, and he loves film. I did the post skim and removing the OT, he does not seem all that on topic, especially if you remove defensive posts. So I think some of it is in reaction to suspicion?

I have not decided yet. As usual, I am arguing with myself here.

Linki @ FZ~ tbh, I am not sure yet. I have been watching a few people, and will dig into posts later or in the AM, as Snowpocalypse allows.

I havn't let go of Ricochet. I am still watching him, and very wary. I guess I am waiting for more evidence to roll in, since so many people seem to disagree with my suspicion. I think his "I am not going to answer your question" followed by a delayed "okay, I am not bad" is consistent with a baddie who was late to see his teammates frantically waving their arms and saying "stop!" The key word is "consistent." It is certainly not proof. Not yet.

Right now I am more confident about Vomps, so I am voting there today (unless something big happens). I can then pursue Ricochet in the future if I still feel I need to.

thellama73 wrote:
I havn't let go of Ricochet. I am still watching him, and very wary. I guess I am waiting for more evidence to roll in, since so many people seem to disagree with my suspicion. I think his "I am not going to answer your question" followed by a delayed "okay, I am not bad" is consistent with a baddie who was late to see his teammates frantically waving their arms and saying "stop!" The key word is "consistent." It is certainly not proof. Not yet.

Right now I am more confident about Vomps, so I am voting there today (unless something big happens). I can then pursue Ricochet in the future if I still feel I need to.

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.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:Just a warning:

I go to school in Rhode Island. I am on an Island. We are going to experience extremely high winds (Hurricane Force) all night and get 2-3+ feet of snow. If I am absent, you know why.

That's right, I forgot you were in RI, I am on the North Shore of Long Island, right across the Sound, so yeah. Good Luck Stay warm & electrified~!