The Syndicate

I was going to say it could be forced, but then I remembered we never had a night phase.

I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

I'll be back to vote in an hour or two.

Why the hell did I get a vote from Made?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

llama, I think it was last game, when you were a civ, you said that when you're a civ, you goof around more (that was not the actual phrase). Would you say you're goofing around this game? Because you seem very serious in your baddie hunting. And while I usually find that to be a good thing, I just recalled that the last two games I was suspicious of you and you were a civ, and this game, I haven't once thought you were suspicious. So this is now starting to worry me.

Made wrote:gotta vote now, because last to vote FZ and another reason i swear is legit... i just forgot it <_<

it should be in my post history...

That is one of the worst reasons I've heard of, to vote for me.

FZ. wrote:Why the hell did I get a vote from Made?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

llama, I think it was last game, when you were a civ, you said that when you're a civ, you goof around more (that was not the actual phrase). Would you say you're goofing around this game? Because you seem very serious in your baddie hunting. And while I usually find that to be a good thing, I just recalled that the last two games I was suspicious of you and you were a civ, and this game, I haven't once thought you were suspicious. So this is now starting to worry me.

I think that was said by Llama in the ongoing Champions game. Phone-posting, so I can't pull the quote right now. Llama could be focused like this in order to appear proactively Civvie. Hard to say.

I'm voting for A Person, whose self-vote after the BWT lynch train was alreasy in the station appears to be trying to stay clear of any risk or discussed suspicion.

I think both TH and A Person are the most likely candidates for my vote today. TH for reasons I've already stated, AP because I like the "avoiding the bwt lynch train" line of thought. I have a few hours before I need to vote, so I can wait to see if AP has any responses to the votes/suspicions of her before I decide between the two.

Long Con wrote:
Dom-MP has obviously been a thing. I agree with MP that Dom is the one that made it into a "thing", and that MP was asking a simple question that Dom reacted to with a lot of... reaction. So, if this turned into a lynch with only MP and Dom on it, I'd vote Dom.

A few questions for you, LC:
#1) Does "starting it" make someone bad?
#2) Do you see, at all, the conclusion I think MP was trying to lead people to?
#3) Why did you not take MP's interaction with BR into account (something I thought was HIGHLY suspicious and out of character for MP)?

thellama73 wrote:A couple of people have now said that they think, between MP and Dom, Dom is the likely baddie if there is one. I disagree with that. Dom is being aggressive and unreasonable with MP, but that to me does not say baddie. I think Dom tends to be a more emotional player, and I think we are seeing this in his conflict with MP.

On the other hand, MP's sudden suspicion of Black Rock feels fishy to me, like he's in need of a distraction. I agree with SVS that BR's post was not weird or out of character.

Now we have two players (Long Con and BWT) misrepresenting Dom's vote. Of course, we know BWT is civvie, so he is surely just going off what LC said, but I am starting to get the sinking feeling that a subtle conspiracy is building against Dom. If I had to vote either Dom or MP, it would certainly be MP at this point.

Does anyone else feel like this Day 1 has lasted forever?

Thank you for pointing out their error.

What do you make of MP's reactionary and explosive response to BR?

Long Con wrote:Sorry for the misread, it was indeed Rico and not Dom that did it:

Made
1
Ricochet (17) 6%
Dom
1
MovingPictures07 (10) 6%

These polls transferred to pure text mess me up sometimes, sorry for the slander, Dom!

We can settle this out of court....

I've been WAY too tied up in the other game, I'm going to read Day 1.2 from scratch starting now and draw some conclusions.

Here is something interesting I've noticed about the MP/Dom thing. So MP was generally saying that he didn't suspect Dom and was just trying to clarify his position over and over. This culminated in THIS post (bolded part my doing):

MovingPictures07 wrote:I thought I had already voiced my thoughts about Dom, but I realize there have been a lot of posts, so I will gladly clarify:

I had no real pings throughout D1 except for Dom, which is why I voted for him (and no one commented on this), because I thought:
1) The fact that he was drawing so many implications out of my question for his thoughts seemed even more overreactive than is what I would expect to be characteristic from him
2) The fact that, even though he had asked me and llama questions, he generally hadn't posted a ton in D1, so a voice in the back of my head was wondering if it wasn't a way to seem like he was being helpful, but wasn't putting forth any suspects of his own. Because, as you can see if you read back through his D1 posts, he never said he outright suspected anyone, by the time I had made my vote.

Now, I realize after:
1) Reflection over the fact that we may just be having a HUGE misunderstanding this entire time
2) Seeing as though we have one day's worth of vote history to base decisions off of, I feel there may be other avenues much more worth pursuing than sticking to some really weak ping I had on D1

That I don't really actively suspect Dom at this moment. I have no read on him either way, I think.

If you read this AND my response above and still don't understand something, then I can try again, but I feel like so many people just aren't understanding my explanations for my thoughts this game. Am I just being really unclear or what? And I'm not being emotional at all when I say or ask any of this; it's an honest question.

Here is a bullet summary of the posts that occurred between this post of MP's, and his NEXT post. I want you to note 1) how MANY posts were posted after MP posted the above post, and how many of them have to do MP/Dom. I'm listing in order to give you a visual of just how many there were.

. Rico, talking to llama about the day 1 vote
. llama, talking to FZ about Vomps
. MM, answering MP about self-voting, nothing to do with Dom
. Rico, llama and day 1 again
. canuckle, asking TH about not changing votes
. canuckle, same thing
. made, talking about LC
. FZ - directly replies to MP's post about Dom
. llama, replies to Rico about day 1
. llama, same thing
. FZ, replies to llama about day 1
. MM, same topic
. rico, same topic
. llama, same ongoing topic
. AP, same topic
. rico, same topic
. rico again, same
. fz, same
. llama, same
. fz, samwe
. mm, same
. fz, same
. rico same/vompatti playstyle
. llama same
. bass - day1 again
. bass vomps playstyle
. mm vomps
. rico vomps
. vomps vomps
. LC vomps
. mm vomps
. TH replying to canuckl
. vomps about vomps
. AP twice joke to vomps
. canuckle replies to TH
. MM joke post
. rico addresses TH
. rico movie talk
. vomps more jokey
. TH replies to canuckle
.llama about vomps
.mm about vomps
. llama about vomps

That was fucking exhausting to do LOL, but it's to prove this point. After ALL OF THAT. After TONS of discussion about EVERYTHING IN THE GAME BUT Dom/MP, now MP posts this:

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.

That said, I feel like I am being sucked into a pointless drawn out discussion that I didn't even want to start. My question was simple but apparently it had connotations I didn't intend. That's it. So I don't intend on rehashing this more than I need to.

FZ., I already said where I intend on looking but I haven't had time yet because every time I have been online recently it has just been between classes or homework or errands or hanging with Daisy. I said this but I think at least one baddie hopped on the BWT vote and at least one threw off but I haven't had the time to investigate yet. I will do so when I get more time and let folks know what I'm thinking. Also I believe I have discussed a lot, I had thoughts on Llama, Rico, SVS but I acknowledge that I am not gunning against anyone hard yet if that's what you mean

Anyway I hope none of this comes across as snarky or mad because it isn't. I will admit it feels like I have been discussing so many things and it hasn't led to any concrete suspicion, which is all the more reason I want to look at the voting record and posts again.

Like, WTF? Yes, there was one single post about it in there. But MP is posting about this as if there is a conspiracy. Dom hadn't even replied at this point. MP is blowing up for NO REASON which makes me feel very strongly that he is bad. He's trying to create drama out of thin air. How is he getting sucked into a pointless discussion? Everyone is talking about other things?

I've got to keep reading, but this is a major ping for me.

Note that, immediately following that last quoted post, people started talking about MP/Dom again. MP essentially CAUSED this discussion to continue, when in fact the thread was doing just fine talking abut other suspicions.

TH, to answer your questions:

- Why would a bandwagony vote equate to a baddie? Well, your vote seemed to most take advantage of the BWT suspicion, so I was taking that into account. I won't vote for you though, since I don't personally believe you were being nefarious.
- Why was Blooper's vote as opportunistic? Clearly she's taking advantage of Llama's tunnel vision on Vomps; if Vomps flips civ, she can shrug all responsibility.
- BR jumped really quickly onto my radar because IMO it's suspicious to come into the thread and accuse three players of being bad and basically give no reason for it. Apparently it's possible I misunderstood her, but I still find it suspicious. I still want to vote her today.

Linki w/ timmer: No, it's an emotional response, because I felt like things were being blown out of control and all I did was ask him a simple question, but whatever. I'm not saying anything else about this. I'm still frustrated about it.

Black Rock wrote:Alright MP and Dom, you misunderstood my out of control remark. I often don't use smilies and I should have. That part was a bit of a joke, my sense of humour is often misunderstood. I meant the gigantic size of your posts sometimes, and was making fun. In my mind, the response to that was also funny. I do think the two of you are worth looking at, I'm not going to just dismiss as civvie vs civvie arguments till I trust you. Which I don't at this point. If that"s a bit odd so be it. You two have not said or did anything to gain civvie trust in my opinion and I will be reading and watching you two.

Oh, okay. This makes me feel better. Sorry, I clearly misunderstood. That's more than fair.

Nonetheless, I'm still pinged by your sudden suspicion of three people without really giving any reason. Here you seem to indicate that we're both worth looking at, but you still don't explain why. So why?

That's a great post, Timmer, and does a good job of visualizing/quantifying some of the uneasiness I've been feeling about MP and his effusiveness/reationariness. After being questioned/scrutinized Day 1.1 for being overly concilliatory/over-explainy, he does seem to have swung his pendulum the other way today in re: Dom. I'm not sure if it's enough to sway my vote from TH/AP today, but definitely an illuminating post by you. Thanks.

I don't understand how any of my behavior this game is out of character for me whatsoever.

Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand how any of my behavior this game is out of character for me whatsoever.

Maybe it's not out of character for you, MP...I have played so few games recently (and played them so inattentively, for the most part) that it's very hard for me to say what is or is not "in character" for people other than those that I have memories of from way back in the day. Emotional reactions and bending over backwards to clarify and self-correct might be exactly what you always do, but the difference in tone from your interactions with people (SVS, llama, come to mind) on Day 1.1, to your interactions with Dom today seems notable. Again, I do not know if I will repeat my vote for you or not, but I am definitely keeping my options open.
I guess I'm just not sure why someone who posts as much as you do, and involves himself in as many of the ongoing discussions as you do, is surprised/frustrated/exasperated when his name comes up frequently. You are not a blendy player (which is great! ), but the unfortunate nature of mafia is that the people who talk a lot get talked about a lot.

Canucklehead wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand how any of my behavior this game is out of character for me whatsoever.

Maybe it's not out of character for you, MP...I have played so few games recently (and played them so inattentively, for the most part) that it's very hard for me to say what is or is not "in character" for people other than those that I have memories of from way back in the day. Emotional reactions and bending over backwards to clarify and self-correct might be exactly what you always do, but the difference in tone from your interactions with people (SVS, llama, come to mind) on Day 1.1, to your interactions with Dom today seems notable. Again, I do not know if I will repeat my vote for you or not, but I am definitely keeping my options open.
I guess I'm just not sure why someone who posts as much as you do, and involves himself in as many of the ongoing discussions as you do, is surprised/frustrated/exasperated when his name comes up frequently. You are not a blendy player (which is great! ), but the unfortunate nature of mafia is that the people who talk a lot get talked about a lot.

Fair enough!

Well, really, I'm not so much frustrated by that this game as I am being sucked into a conversation where I tried explaining myself so much to clarify but it turns out the other person just doesn't want to listen because he thinks I'm bad. That's fine, it happens, I shouldn't really get frustrated over it. I'm not really THAT frustrated anyway. Only a very little bit at this point.

I recognize this, but it's the age old logical fallacy of players being more likely to suspect players who are posting more. I recognize it, don't get me wrong. And even I sometimes fall into it when I suspect Llama for his crazy theories that I don't agree with, that doesn't mean he's necessarily bad. But I just don't see how I've been suspicious this game, so if someone can give me something I can respond to, great, but otherwise I suppose if you or anyone else finds me bad, then by all means vote for me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

Why is blowing minor pings into Federal Cases ( ) a better strategy if you call it "Baddie Hunting"? Not everyone plays that way, I don't play that way. I watch and I try to draw people out if I suspect them, and see if they make a mistake. Sometimes i don't even do them the courtest of mentioning them, as BR did.

Becasue of this I absolutely hate lack of "Baddie Hunting" as an indicator of badness, and I also dislike it when people think that people who do things differently than they do must be bad.

If BR was bad, she would be more likely to mention no one, dither a bit, and vote a tangent, rather than name names this early IMO. Perhaps she is trying to see how we, the people she named, react to her. But I don't see her specifically naming names without going into detail as being specifically bad for her.

I am on a snow removal break, about to go back out :P While we did not get 3 feet 20 inches is plenty enough

Okay, I'm up to Made's bizarre vote. WTF, dude? Those who know Made's play fairly well, does he do scatterbrain stuff like that often? Saying things like "there's another reason, Iswear but I forget?" Dude...

MP is definitely squirming under the lights today. the more of his posts, like where he kind of goes after BR, I read the more I'm sure I'm voting him today.

I'm just not touching either side of the vomps situation. I got into enough messes trying to vote or defend Wazzipi years ago for the same kind of things. Yes, i agree this seems like more on-topic Vomps than I ever remember, but he's aware that we're aware. He controls the narrative. It's too complicated for me to properly judge. I don't see baddie llama, though, either, I believe llama's thoughts to be genuine.

And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I interpreted BR's statements of suspicion as following from ongoing discussions and observations (about you, about TH) happening in the thread. I interpreted it as shorthand for "I agree with/will think more about the things that have already been pointed out about x nd y players", rather than a out-of-nowhere, contextless accusation. I don't expect every person who's doing a catchup to restate point by point cases that have already been posited and discussed, so I guess it wasn't suspicious for me that BR would just comment briefly on names being thrown around in the thread.

linki: Yeah, I get what you're saying, and I see how it sucks to be in your position regardless of your alignment. Under-the-radar play is still and may always be a viable baddie survival strategy, unfortunately (and I say this as someone who has both consciously used the strategy when bad, and unconsciously fallen into the trap when good)

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I think anyone voting AP is a cop-out.

I understand scrutinizing a player for coming in that last few minutes without being caught up and voting someone that has a wagon on them, but I believe that self-voting in that circumstance shows more responsibility, and doesn't show any malice, at least from AP.

I just realized I keep defending all my shred buddies. I need to stop doing that.

I'll be heading to work pretty quick, so I'm going to go ahead and vote MP.

timmer wrote:Okay, I'm up to Made's bizarre vote. WTF, dude? Those who know Made's play fairly well, does he do scatterbrain stuff like that often? Saying things like "there's another reason, Iswear but I forget?" Dude...

MP is definitely squirming under the lights today. the more of his posts, like where he kind of goes after BR, I read the more I'm sure I'm voting him today.

I'm just not touching either side of the vomps situation. I got into enough messes trying to vote or defend Wazzipi years ago for the same kind of things. Yes, i agree this seems like more on-topic Vomps than I ever remember, but he's aware that we're aware. He controls the narrative. It's too complicated for me to properly judge. I don't see baddie llama, though, either, I believe llama's thoughts to be genuine.

And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Wazzz!!!! I miss that kooky cat! When's the last time he's been around? [/]

Also, to clarify, the linki in my last post was in response to MP's response to me, :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand how any of my behavior this game is out of character for me whatsoever.

Maybe it's not out of character for you, MP...I have played so few games recently (and played them so inattentively, for the most part) that it's very hard for me to say what is or is not "in character" for people other than those that I have memories of from way back in the day. Emotional reactions and bending over backwards to clarify and self-correct might be exactly what you always do, but the difference in tone from your interactions with people (SVS, llama, come to mind) on Day 1.1, to your interactions with Dom today seems notable. Again, I do not know if I will repeat my vote for you or not, but I am definitely keeping my options open.
I guess I'm just not sure why someone who posts as much as you do, and involves himself in as many of the ongoing discussions as you do, is surprised/frustrated/exasperated when his name comes up frequently. You are not a blendy player (which is great! ), but the unfortunate nature of mafia is that the people who talk a lot get talked about a lot.

Fair enough!

Well, really, I'm not so much frustrated by that this game as I am being sucked into a conversation where I tried explaining myself so much to clarify but it turns out the other person just doesn't want to listen because he thinks I'm bad. That's fine, it happens, I shouldn't really get frustrated over it. I'm not really THAT frustrated anyway. Only a very little bit at this point.

I recognize this, but it's the age old logical fallacy of players being more likely to suspect players who are posting more. I recognize it, don't get me wrong. And even I sometimes fall into it when I suspect Llama for his crazy theories that I don't agree with, that doesn't mean he's necessarily bad. But I just don't see how I've been suspicious this game, so if someone can give me something I can respond to, great, but otherwise I suppose if you or anyone else finds me bad, then by all means vote for me.

There is certainly more content (fluffy or not) to look through from active players than inactive players.

Also, hello Spacedaisy. Anything to add?

FZ. wrote:Why the hell did I get a vote from Made?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

llama, I think it was last game, when you were a civ, you said that when you're a civ, you goof around more (that was not the actual phrase). Would you say you're goofing around this game? Because you seem very serious in your baddie hunting. And while I usually find that to be a good thing, I just recalled that the last two games I was suspicious of you and you were a civ, and this game, I haven't once thought you were suspicious. So this is now starting to worry me.

Hoisted by my own petard! I did say that, and I think it is generally a fair assessment of my playing. I am rarely jokey as a baddie, because I feel a responsibility to my team rather than to myself. I have been more serious this game, and maybe that's because I have died early a lot lately and I am trying not to let that happen this time. I can't really argue with your logic, because it is my logic too, but I would say that the key word is "tend." While I am rarely jokey as a baddie, I think I am relatively frequently serious as a civ, if that makes sense.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I think anyone voting AP is a cop-out.

I understand scrutinizing a player for coming in that last few minutes without being caught up and voting someone that has a wagon on them, but I believe that self-voting in that circumstance shows more responsibility, and doesn't show any malice, at least from AP.

I just realized I keep defending all my shred buddies. I need to stop doing that.

yeah, you do, if that is what you are doing. The point in voting him is that he made a throwaway vote at the end of a lynch where a civ was bandwagoned. Very common baddie behavior; let the civvies lynch each other. BUT in this case it is also very common AP behavior, so not sure what to think of that.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand how any of my behavior this game is out of character for me whatsoever.

Your behavior since our conversation has been less analytical and more emotional. You have been reacting to things without seeming to think. I think you're freaking out because someone's onto you. I think you tried to get me lynched and failed.

MP, you have NEVER addressed my explanation for why I asked so many questions in reaction to your question. I said that I think you were trying to say that I hadn't added anything to the game-- so look at Dom-- suspect him! You have yet to address this. You have only complained about how much people are talking about it, yet, as Timmer illustrated YOU are the one that brought it up without ANY provocation. I think you wanted people to vote for me. I think you kept it alive, acted like a victim to get support and people to lynch me.

MovingPictures07 wrote: The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

Why are these things mutually exclusive to you?

S~V~S wrote: I am on a snow removal break, about to go back out :P While we did not get 3 feet 20 inches is plenty enough

Still snowing a bit here, I think. It's hard to tell because of the wind and all the drifting.

timmer wrote: And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Let's say that MP is civvie.
Why would that reflect poorly on me?
I mean, I genuinely think he is bad. Why would that make me bad?


I can't even remember the last time I saw Wazz around!! He was a riot.

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:A couple of people have now said that they think, between MP and Dom, Dom is the likely baddie if there is one. I disagree with that. Dom is being aggressive and unreasonable with MP, but that to me does not say baddie. I think Dom tends to be a more emotional player, and I think we are seeing this in his conflict with MP.

On the other hand, MP's sudden suspicion of Black Rock feels fishy to me, like he's in need of a distraction. I agree with SVS that BR's post was not weird or out of character.

Now we have two players (Long Con and BWT) misrepresenting Dom's vote. Of course, we know BWT is civvie, so he is surely just going off what LC said, but I am starting to get the sinking feeling that a subtle conspiracy is building against Dom. If I had to vote either Dom or MP, it would certainly be MP at this point.

Does anyone else feel like this Day 1 has lasted forever?

Thank you for pointing out their error.

What do you make of MP's reactionary and explosive response to BR?

It certainly caught my eye. I thought it was weird and possibly was his way of trying to get discussion off of himself. I would say I am more suspicious of him than I was, but only marginally.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, hello Spacedaisy. Anything to add?

Sadly no. I have not had time to adequately catch up. I'm going to self vote because I literally have no time before I have to go back into work.

Dom, WTF. I did address that. Look through my posts. I explained everything ad nauseum. I'm not talking about it anymore. Just vote me and get it over with. You're either bad or possessed by tunnel vision.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

Why is blowing minor pings into Federal Cases ( ) a better strategy if you call it "Baddie Hunting"? Not everyone plays that way, I don't play that way. I watch and I try to draw people out if I suspect them, and see if they make a mistake. Sometimes i don't even do them the courtest of mentioning them, as BR did.

Becasue of this I absolutely hate lack of "Baddie Hunting" as an indicator of badness, and I also dislike it when people think that people who do things differently than they do must be bad.

If BR was bad, she would be more likely to mention no one, dither a bit, and vote a tangent, rather than name names this early IMO. Perhaps she is trying to see how we, the people she named, react to her. But I don't see her specifically naming names without going into detail as being specifically bad for her.

I am on a snow removal break, about to go back out :P While we did not get 3 feet 20 inches is plenty enough

Fair enough, I'll consider your thoughts on BR, especially since my vote seems it'll be wasted if I vote for her today anyway.

Also, I echo your thoughts on AP that his behavior seems textbook baddie that it is also totally textbook AP regardless of alignment.

timmer wrote:Okay, I'm up to Made's bizarre vote. WTF, dude? Those who know Made's play fairly well, does he do scatterbrain stuff like that often? Saying things like "there's another reason, Iswear but I forget?" Dude...

MP is definitely squirming under the lights today. the more of his posts, like where he kind of goes after BR, I read the more I'm sure I'm voting him today.

I'm just not touching either side of the vomps situation. I got into enough messes trying to vote or defend Wazzipi years ago for the same kind of things. Yes, i agree this seems like more on-topic Vomps than I ever remember, but he's aware that we're aware. He controls the narrative. It's too complicated for me to properly judge. I don't see baddie llama, though, either, I believe llama's thoughts to be genuine.

And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Why are you so sure about me?

You're wrong.

Canucklehead wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I interpreted BR's statements of suspicion as following from ongoing discussions and observations (about you, about TH) happening in the thread. I interpreted it as shorthand for "I agree with/will think more about the things that have already been pointed out about x nd y players", rather than a out-of-nowhere, contextless accusation. I don't expect every person who's doing a catchup to restate point by point cases that have already been posited and discussed, so I guess it wasn't suspicious for me that BR would just comment briefly on names being thrown around in the thread.

linki: Yeah, I get what you're saying, and I see how it sucks to be in your position regardless of your alignment. Under-the-radar play is still and may always be a viable baddie survival strategy, unfortunately (and I say this as someone who has both consciously used the strategy when bad, and unconsciously fallen into the trap when good)

Again, fair enough, I'll consider it. I just personally think it's suspicious. IMO if you find someone suspicious, you should be able to say why.

Hey everyone got off of work early thought I would try and catch up a bit.

Bebass - I know you were dead quickly in the Champions game but after your death things got quite heated for me at about the same time this game started. I said in the beginning not to expect a lot from me bc the Champions game had wiped out all my mafia brain cells. If you think I am suspicious for not posting thats fine I have nothing to hide.

Other thoughts -

llama - after you cleared up my initial question I was good with your response. I appreciate your honesty in saying that you didn't even notice Teeth had posted that at the top of his vote post. Does it clear you - not quite yet its but Day1.2 so I need a bit more time before handing my trust out.

MP/Dom - I think they both misunderstood each others intentions - at first - but then MP who says he felt distracted by it all asked everyone what they thought of Dom, himself and the points they were trying to make and it just felt like a baddie thing to do - to continue to push suspicion on Dom in a sneaky sort of way. If only one is civvie my guess is that it would be Dom. MP seems to want to continue on with this back and forth with Dom and imo it has been beat to death already.

Lizzy - I am still suspicious of but it seems nothing can come of it as she is not posting/playing right now.

Vomps - I think llama knows you better than I but I can't in good conscience vote for you just bc someone said so. Though it does not clear you all the way you now has my eye bc of some of the points llama has said. Does that make sense? I will be watching you mister!

SVS - I asked you what you thought of your vote followers previously here what are your current thoughts on them?

Timmer - you seem to be genuinely trying to stay current and give thoughts I feel neutral about you but as always I am watching you.

TH - your vote for Teeth did feel the most opportunistic looking back at your posts they do not give me the same vibe as your posts from the Champions game where I would have followed you to hell. I can't put my finger on any one thing its just a general vibe so nothing concrete to base a vote on but you have twitched my nose.

FZ - I feel like you are being genuine in your posts as well though others feel your vote was odd I do not. I know how you are on KSite and your vote for Teeth felt like something you would do. I have seen you do this sort of thing many times as a civvie.

When is the vote due bc I feel like I have forgot half of what I just read

holy fuck major linkitis will read after posting

Dom wrote:

timmer wrote: And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Let's say that MP is civvie.
Why would that reflect poorly on me?
I mean, I genuinely think he is bad. Why would that make me bad?

I'm confused here Dom, let me reread these interactions circa you, LC, and timmer real quick.

Linki: @SD Oh dear, I can't wait to see how the others react. But fair enough.

Clearly no one at this site can read me. Just vote me off. This has been such a frustrating start to a game.

Oh for the love, Alex just pointed out to me that the vote isn't until tomorrow night. Sorry guys. I was really confused.

Ugh, just ignore me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I think anyone voting AP is a cop-out.

I understand scrutinizing a player for coming in that last few minutes without being caught up and voting someone that has a wagon on them, but I believe that self-voting in that circumstance shows more responsibility, and doesn't show any malice, at least from AP.

I just realized I keep defending all my shred buddies. I need to stop doing that.

;
MM, I'd be less suspicious of AP if he'd offered some actual thoughts about game events, instead of just trying to let his self-vote slide. Since posting this:

A Person wrote:I remembered to vote with literally 5 minutes left, realized my vote can't change the results unless there is a crazy amount of votes for one person, and self voted.

......which seems to be an implicit "I haven't read the thread therefore I don't feel confident contributing to someone's death" excuse for a self-vote, AP hasn't offered any thoughts on anything, but has contributed OT/theme-related banter. Normally when people do evasive/not-informed-enough votes, they offer some sort of speculation as to what they're thinking/who they're suspecting once they've caught up. AP hasn't done that, and that is part of why (to me at least) the suspicions of him have merit.

LOADS of linki....posting anyway. :P

Oh yeah -

Made - this feels like his first baddie game we were teammates and he was posting different and oddly. I feel the same about him now. I am not following the suspicion he is giving. Maybe I have just misunderstood him but right now I do not get good vibes from him

LC - I have no clue so yeah.

BR - I feel you are just normal BR so far I find myself agreeing with you more than not.

I thinks thats all I have for thoughts from catch up

Canuck, I agree about AP, but I've seen him do this a lot of the times he has played, so who knows?

Canucklehead wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I think anyone voting AP is a cop-out.

I understand scrutinizing a player for coming in that last few minutes without being caught up and voting someone that has a wagon on them, but I believe that self-voting in that circumstance shows more responsibility, and doesn't show any malice, at least from AP.

I just realized I keep defending all my shred buddies. I need to stop doing that.

;
MM, I'd be less suspicious of AP if he'd offered some actual thoughts about game events, instead of just trying to let his self-vote slide. Since posting this:

A Person wrote:I remembered to vote with literally 5 minutes left, realized my vote can't change the results unless there is a crazy amount of votes for one person, and self voted.

I don't think it's something that needs immediate addressing. For instance I am certainly glad I wasn't lynched for my self-vote on Day 1.0, because I knew I'd be back. Same with AP and SD. I don't believe they should be lynched today for self-voting without offering anything (because that was their reason for self-voting). However, if this trend persists, I can certainly understand pushing against them, and would be fully behind it. I just don't believe that self-voting is an inherently baddie behavior. My opinion could be skewed since I do self-vote occasionally though.

There's also the off-chance (though it certainly hasn't occured yet) that is forced to self-vote. Crucifying them for that would be awful.

MM: I'm not totally against self-voting either, but I think the case against AP rests on the timing of the self-vote in relation to the already-secured bwt lynch, in addition to the lack of thought-contribution DESPITE being around after the results to join in on banter. So, if I vote AP it will not be for self-voting alone, it will be for self-voting in a particular context and not addressing it or anything game-related afterwards.

On another topic, When's the last time we heard from sabie? Or Lizzy?

Canuck - inre: your thought on AP - I never thought of it like that and usually just forget he is even playing. Great points you are making

I would not consider voting for AP until as Canuck pointed out he has literally avoided giving any thoughts at all after his self vote.

sabie12 wrote:Sorry I haven't been around guys! I was taking my social work license exam and I had to do a lot of last minute studying, but it all paid off!! I passed!

Here's sabie's last post...perhaps she's caught up in a celebratory fog of drunkenness and hang-overs? I hope she comes out to play soon.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

timmer wrote: And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Let's say that MP is civvie.
Why would that reflect poorly on me?
I mean, I genuinely think he is bad. Why would that make me bad?

I'm confused here Dom, let me reread these interactions circa you, LC, and timmer real quick.

Linki: @SD Oh dear, I can't wait to see how the others react. But fair enough.

what?

Don't feel bad, MP. No one can read me either.

thellama73 wrote:Don't feel bad, MP. No one can read me either.

That does make me feel better.

How do you feel about AP?

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

Lizzy hasn't posted since Saturday night.

I think there are too many good cases being made today to justify a low-poster/non-participant vote, but I really do hope we don't let these ladies skate by all game.

Roxy wrote:TH - your vote for Teeth did feel the most opportunistic looking back at your posts they do not give me the same vibe as your posts from the Champions game where I would have followed you to hell. I can't put my finger on any one thing its just a general vibe so nothing concrete to base a vote on but you have twitched my nose.

I apologize for the way my vote yesterday looks but it is what it is. I suspected BWT and so I voted for him, as did others, and because of when I cast it, it's sure to look "opportunistic". Fact is you can build a narrative around any vote placed at any time. And the narrative that I wanted to opportunistically place a bandwagonny vote onto a civ on Day 1 is simply just wrong. If I were a baddie, wouldn't I have to be saving someone in that situation? What else would I be gaining from the "opportunity"?

Also Roxy, I feel that this game has had a completely different vibe from the Champions game so far, and so maybe that's why my posts have a different vibe as well. Lots of crazy stuff went down in that game, especially the Made forced-vote fiasco early on, while this game has been relatively straightforward. Just keep your eye on me, as you always should, but hopefully your nose will stop twitching eventually

Canucklehead wrote:

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

Lizzy hasn't posted since Saturday night.

I think there are too many good cases being made today to justify a low-poster/non-participant vote, but I really do hope we don't let these ladies skate by all game.