The Syndicate

Resulted FROM. I need a vacation

Rest in peace Mr. Person

A Person wrote:my internet was dead all day

Still haven't seen Hard Eight, but I'll throw Magnolia a bone. I could vote for They Gun' B Blud just as easily but it's getting plenty of votes.

The last film I saw was The Train Agent, I enjoyed it a fair amount.

Station* not Train, as I've been corrected by our dear hostess

You guys should have listened to me and lynched Vompatti. RIP AP

Sorry for the vote, A Person. I still have to go back and read from my vote up to the lynch post. It's a lot of catching up.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Does anyone else also think that this post from LC is just trying to set us up for a wild goose chase? Especially since he passed on the whole vomps' behavior anyway and voted AP?

I didn't have much time today, so I went with my own suspicion instead of doing long research into someone else's. The Vompatti thing was not even close to possible for me today:

Long Con wrote:Thanks FZ. for posting those links to Vompatti's past games, I'm glad that they have been analyzed by some, but I haven't gotten to them yet myself. It's getting late here so I won't be delving into that tonight. Tomorrow is my mom's birthday, and while my brother already took her to see Seinfeld live, I still have gotten NOTHING for her. So tomorrow morning is likely to prioritize that, before I go into work for 11:00. I'll be there for a few hours, after which I come home, and soon after, leave for my mom's. Birthday dinner, good times, etc.

What this means is that I'll have to vote early, and I just know some people I am not likely to vote for at this point, so I guess I'll share that list at least. Not ready to vote for Llama, at least until I look into the Vompatti thing, which I intend to do once I have a little more time. So that's on hold. Won't vote Vompatti either, just because Llama says so. Like I said, I like to see proof that the accusation is accurate when we're talking about past games. Now the evidence is there, just need to look into it.

I still intend to look into the Vompatti info I requested. When I have time.

LC, I'm really intrigued to see what you think after you catch up.

RIP AP :/

Mongoose wrote:What was the very last film you saw?

Mine was Luis Buñuel's Tristana (based on the novel of the same name), starring the effervescent Catherine Deneuve (did anyone catch her in the recentish film Potiche? I freakin loved that).

You've probably seen his classic short film Un Chien Andalou, but have you seen L'Age d'Or? Whoamg.


Deneuve shines brightly in Tristana.

I literally JUST finished Bridesmaids?

I've never seen any of these, so I voted randomly!!

Caught up. Vompatti certainly looks a lot more suspicious, especially with the comparison to Are You Being Served? Mafia, where he was a baddie.

Posts from that game:

Vompatti wrote:Funny, I don't feel like randomizing. I guess I'll just wait and vote for whomever my teammates vote for.

Vompatti wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Vomp & eloh, I see you lurking~ where are you looking to vote, Eloh? And Vomp, did your BTS partners come to a decision yet?

I'm voting for either Dom or MP for their weird reaction to FZ, but my BTS partners are voting for someone else to distance themselves from me.

And from this game:

Vompatti wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Vomps, why are you voting Dom?

lol i dunno, i'm just zany and unpredictable i guess xD

That's true. But it doesn't help me decide. Still no point in voting Dom. If you want to bring the rest of your team to vote for him, he'll have more votes and then I'll consider

k i'll let them know

That comparison from FZ. interested me, so I looked it up myself. Conveniently, that's also a place to start the broader Vompatti research. Maybe I'll make a spreadsheet of Vompatti study!

Last film I saw was Transcendence. I enjoyed it.

Good idea, Dom. I'll randomize too.

I'll consider a vote for Vomps tomorrow, I suppose. Depends on what happens between now and then.

Mongoose wrote:What was the very last film you saw?

Mine was Luis Buñuel's Tristana (based on the novel of the same name), starring the effervescent Catherine Deneuve (did anyone catch her in the recentish film Potiche? I freakin loved that).

You've probably seen his classic short film Un Chien Andalou, but have you seen L'Age d'Or? Whoamg.


Deneuve shines brightly in Tristana.

Oddly enough, the last film I saw was Bunuel's Belle du Jour, also starring Deneuve! Un Chien Andalou is funky, but L'Age d'or is one of my 20 fave films of all time! Second to last movie I saw was The Theory of Everything, in which a masterful physical performance gets trampled upon by possibly the most inept direction and screenplay of the year.

I can understand why you would suspect me if MP turns up bad. It's one of the risks one takes when one puts one's opinion out there. I guess it would have been a lot easier and blendy to say it looks like Civ on Civ. Nice and blendy, then you don't get people eyeballing you as much, right, blendies?

I thought MP seemed reasonable at the outset, and Dom seemed less so. I thought Dom's original post was very reactionary. Dom says he explained that, but I'm more interested in studying original interactions than later explanations. You can explain away most things with ease.

I only bring it up because one or two people have suspicion floating around me for my opinion on the MP-Dom. I do not bring it up as an accusation against Dom of baddieness, it was just a 'hot topic' in the thread, so I weighed in. Gonna take a bit more to make me vote Dom than an argument with the sometimes bull-headed MP.

Mongoose wrote:What was the very last film you saw?

Mine was Luis Buñuel's Tristana (based on the novel of the same name), starring the effervescent Catherine Deneuve (did anyone catch her in the recentish film Potiche? I freakin loved that).

You've probably seen his classic short film Un Chien Andalou, but have you seen L'Age d'Or? Whoamg.


Deneuve shines brightly in Tristana.

The last film I saw was Paddington.




Imma just go and die of embarrassment now, k?

My mom wants to take my 5-year-old to see Paddington, and they're cool.

Canucklehead wrote:The last film I saw was Paddington.




Imma just go and die of embarrassment now, k?

I'm hoping to see that next week, I've actually heard good things about it!

Long Con wrote:I can understand why you would suspect me if MP turns up bad. It's one of the risks one takes when one puts one's opinion out there. I guess it would have been a lot easier and blendy to say it looks like Civ on Civ. Nice and blendy, then you don't get people eyeballing you as much, right, blendies?

I thought MP seemed reasonable at the outset, and Dom seemed less so. I thought Dom's original post was very reactionary. Dom says he explained that, but I'm more interested in studying original interactions than later explanations. You can explain away most things with ease.

I only bring it up because one or two people have suspicion floating around me for my opinion on the MP-Dom. I do not bring it up as an accusation against Dom of baddieness, it was just a 'hot topic' in the thread, so I weighed in. Gonna take a bit more to make me vote Dom than an argument with the sometimes bull-headed MP.

Then what do you make of MP/BR's interaction?

The last movie I saw was Punch Drunk Love, in my effort to see more of the films on the poll. I liked it, but Magnolia is still my favorite.

Is it possible we were witnessing a Vompatti save last night? I thought the reasons for voting AP were pretty weak. My task for today is to look at the people who voted there, as well as the timing of their votes, and see what I see.

Apologies again for being offline for basically an entire day now. My 10-hour journey was followed by a long sleep. But I think the poll ending time is much more convenient now for everybody else and, provided it won't be delayed even further in the next days, I will be able to stay up late myself not miss it or have to vote early.

RIP AP. I'm sorry you didn't even get the chance to play properly or use some freaky math to connect with Lean (err whatever that power even meant...). Also, quite a loss in terms of movie talking.

---

So what do we do now? Wait and pray?

Just two thoughts, for now:

1. I was really surprised again how the lynch happened, it strikes me a lot like BWT's lynch went (even if he was later saved): several members adhering to the idea of lynching somebody rather than exploring or debating it.

I wasn't here to bring it up, for the reasons stated, but the premise, at least, didn't make much sense to me at all: the players who voted in the last minute and didn't vote for BWT are suspicious; voting for BWT proved wrong, because he turned out to be a civ; but the players who didn't take accountability for voting BWT are still suspicious. What the what. Afterwards, a few more arguments sounded more reasonable. I suppose AP's self-vote also weighed heavily, but I still think such principles of voting haven't worked out very well so far.

2. I know I just voted Llama for his case on Vomps, but I'm starting to consider looking more carefully at Vomps, given that he's not helpful in his defence so far, quite the opposite. I'd like to know what other people think: in previous games, has a Vompatti pretending to be bad turned out more to actually be bad or just a cheeky civ (or was it inconclusive)? I don't mean to say I can tell right now if he's just pretending or not. But I'd be really uncomfortable if he'd survived a few more days, playing this kind of game, and turn out to be bad.

---

Catching up (but more OT):

Poll option not changed. Still haven't seen Magnolia, but still voting for TWBB.

I can't believe how much I liked the songs in Frank, especially the last one.

Frank also the last movie I saw. Didn't watching anything yesterday. The only Bunuel I saw were Exterminating Angel and Belle du jour, which I both moderately liked. I saw the former with my gril, she was bored all the way through, but instantly took offence at the last scene, like it was a "catholic reflex" or something.

---

linki: Interesting, but I can't fully see it as a save tactic atm. For one thing, BWT voted AP. But I also find the case against AP weak and will look back at the lynch myself, of course. As I've said, right now I see it as a worrying trend that doesn't pay off.

Okay, I just reread the cases on AP. Roxy and SVS both broke ties in favor of AP, and SVS and Canucklehead both offered MM's actions as a (partial) defense of their vote.

S~V~S wrote: MP always seems bad to me, and Dom seldom does, so my opinion there is pointless, and I need to see that play out more. I don't think LC or BR are suspicious at this point. I can see both sides of the Vomp situation, and I dislike putting all the eggs in one basket, and it seems that the only reason he is suspish is that he is being active? Again, I need to see more. I was thinking that AP is acting too much like normal for him to glean much from his self vote, BUT~

MM seems to be ignoring the reason one might vote for AP other than the fact of a self vote, the strategic reasons for voting for anyone other than BWT at the end of the lynch. He keeps saying that it is because of the fact that he made a self vote, when that is not the reason for the suspish as I understand it. MM is acting like he is on a crusade to defend self voters. Plus, having read back in his posts it seems like he is trying to find reasons to suspect people.

So I am going to also vote AP. MM is defending him too hard.

SVS actually said this sort of thing three times. My question to SVS and Canuck is this:
If MM's behavior was what was pinging you (defending someone too hard) doesn't that reflect worse on MM than on AP? Why not vote for MM, then? I don't understand the logic of "X is behaving like a baddie, so I'm voting Y."

For me (and I think I said this somewhere?), on a day when there are a few strong (in terms of cases and/or number of votes already placed) candidiates for lynching, I really don't like voting for someone with no votes, or someone who is very unlikely to be lynched. It's too much like shirking responsibility, and I avoid that when a civ.
So for this vote, I was torn between TH (who no one else would vote for, but who was and is my strongest suspicion), MP, and AP. I thought the reasoning about the avoiding the bwt vote once it was scured made sense (I understand lots of you don't think so, but ), and SVS' points about MM also rang true at the time. If AP had flipped bad, I would deffo have voted MM today. I didn't vote MM yesterday because there was no chance of him being lynched, so I went with AP. I was one of the last to vote, and at the time I was voting there were a flurry of inconsequential votes, so between MP and AP I went with the one that would be more decisive rather than keep things closer to a tie and leave the deciding votes to TH (who I don't trust) and BR, who I wasn't sure would make it in time since she hadn't been around.

Does that make sense (even if you wouldn't personally have acted similarly)?

thellama73 wrote:Okay, I just reread the cases on AP. Roxy and SVS both broke ties in favor of AP, and SVS and Canucklehead both offered MM's actions as a (partial) defense of their vote.

S~V~S wrote: MP always seems bad to me, and Dom seldom does, so my opinion there is pointless, and I need to see that play out more. I don't think LC or BR are suspicious at this point. I can see both sides of the Vomp situation, and I dislike putting all the eggs in one basket, and it seems that the only reason he is suspish is that he is being active? Again, I need to see more. I was thinking that AP is acting too much like normal for him to glean much from his self vote, BUT~

MM seems to be ignoring the reason one might vote for AP other than the fact of a self vote, the strategic reasons for voting for anyone other than BWT at the end of the lynch. He keeps saying that it is because of the fact that he made a self vote, when that is not the reason for the suspish as I understand it. MM is acting like he is on a crusade to defend self voters. Plus, having read back in his posts it seems like he is trying to find reasons to suspect people.

So I am going to also vote AP. MM is defending him too hard.

SVS actually said this sort of thing three times. My question to SVS and Canuck is this:
If MM's behavior was what was pinging you (defending someone too hard) doesn't that reflect worse on MM than on AP? Why not vote for MM, then? I don't understand the logic of "X is behaving like a baddie, so I'm voting Y."

How do you feel about vompatti now?

Canucklehead wrote:For me (and I think I said this somewhere?), on a day when there are a few strong (in terms of cases and/or number of votes already placed) candidiates for lynching, I really don't like voting for someone with no votes, or someone who is very unlikely to be lynched. It's too much like shirking responsibility, and I avoid that when a civ.
So for this vote, I was torn between TH (who no one else would vote for, but who was and is my strongest suspicion), MP, and AP. I thought the reasoning about the avoiding the bwt vote once it was scured made sense (I understand lots of you don't think so, but ), and SVS' points about MM also rang true at the time. If AP had flipped bad, I would deffo have voted MM today. I didn't vote MM yesterday because there was no chance of him being lynched, so I went with AP. I was one of the last to vote, and at the time I was voting there were a flurry of inconsequential votes, so between MP and AP I went with the one that would be more decisive rather than keep things closer to a tie and leave the deciding votes to TH (who I don't trust) and BR, who I wasn't sure would make it in time since she hadn't been around.

Does that make sense (even if you wouldn't personally have acted similarly)?

Yes (even if). I sort of understand better now the "attraction" for such a vote, but I still find it questionable for baddie hunting later on. If I don't believe the "strong candidate" to be suspicious and vote something else, I can wake up the next day as a suspect of "shirking responsibility". Why? All in all, I wouldn't have voted for AP, really, because I was more convinced he just didn't manage to get in the game in either days - which proved to be true.

Canucklehead wrote:For me (and I think I said this somewhere?), on a day when there are a few strong (in terms of cases and/or number of votes already placed) candidiates for lynching, I really don't like voting for someone with no votes, or someone who is very unlikely to be lynched. It's too much like shirking responsibility, and I avoid that when a civ.
So for this vote, I was torn between TH (who no one else would vote for, but who was and is my strongest suspicion), MP, and AP. I thought the reasoning about the avoiding the bwt vote once it was scured made sense (I understand lots of you don't think so, but ), and SVS' points about MM also rang true at the time. If AP had flipped bad, I would deffo have voted MM today. I didn't vote MM yesterday because there was no chance of him being lynched, so I went with AP. I was one of the last to vote, and at the time I was voting there were a flurry of inconsequential votes, so between MP and AP I went with the one that would be more decisive rather than keep things closer to a tie and leave the deciding votes to TH (who I don't trust) and BR, who I wasn't sure would make it in time since she hadn't been around.

Does that make sense (even if you wouldn't personally have acted similarly)?

In some cases, I would agree with you. However, the vote totals on the leading lynch candidates have been rather low so far, so BWT was really the only unlynchable player today.

Lovely, wonderful hostess: When you get a chance, I believe it is now nighttime. Just sayin'. :P

I'll take a look at the case against Vompatti when I get a chance. But this will probably be my only post until very late Thursday or Friday.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: How do you feel about vompatti now?

Why do you think my opinion of him would have changed?

Thanks, Canuck. I appreciate the response.

If you feel like voting off more civs I'm still a valid candidate.

Also, I haven't seen any of the movies in the list, so no vote.

I honestly think that the only movies I watched last year were The Hobbit (all three parts) and Dead Poet's Society.

Linki: @llama, just curious.

Well, the two people I voted for (let's just pretend I voted BWT, because I would have) have been Civs, so I'm doing crappy so far. I'm willing to look at other peoples' suspicions for my next vote, instead of finding my own, for now. If the vote was up now, I would vote for Vompatti. I still need to look more into the 'past games behaviour' that FZ. provided, but the latest Vompatti stuff (which I spoke about last night) is suspicious enough.

A comparison of Vomps' past behaviour will be important to me to decide if Llama is on the level or not as well with his early claims.

Llama, I do think closer examining the AP voters is a good idea. However, even though you feel pretty strongly about Vompatti, what if he flips civilian? Where do you think that would lead your conclusions?

Personally, I still don't think I'll be voting Vomps tomorrow. I'm not really sure that he's bad.

Snipping and highlighting the relevant part in my own post, in order for feedback on this.

Ricochet wrote: 2. I know I just voted Llama for his case on Vomps, but I'm starting to consider looking more carefully at Vomps, given that he's not helpful in his defence so far, quite the opposite. I'd like to know what other people think: in previous games, has a Vompatti pretending to be bad turned out more to actually be bad or just a cheeky civ (or was it inconclusive)? I don't mean to say I can tell right now if he's just pretending or not. But I'd be really uncomfortable if he'd survived a few more days, playing this kind of game, and turn out to be bad.

Ricochet wrote:Snipping and highlighting the relevant part in my own post, in order for feedback on this.

Ricochet wrote: 2. I know I just voted Llama for his case on Vomps, but I'm starting to consider looking more carefully at Vomps, given that he's not helpful in his defence so far, quite the opposite. I'd like to know what other people think: in previous games, has a Vompatti pretending to be bad turned out more to actually be bad or just a cheeky civ (or was it inconclusive)? I don't mean to say I can tell right now if he's just pretending or not. But I'd be really uncomfortable if he'd survived a few more days, playing this kind of game, and turn out to be bad.

I don't know... in my opinion, probably inconclusive. I think he's done this kind of stuff regardless of alignment. It's difficult to recall whether he's done it more as bad. I would say that I think he has, but I'm really not sure.

His recent post where he said if you want to continue lynching civvies strikes me as interesting because I don't remember him saying that as often.

Long Con wrote:Well, the two people I voted for (let's just pretend I voted BWT, because I would have) have been Civs, so I'm doing crappy so far. I'm willing to look at other peoples' suspicions for my next vote, instead of finding my own, for now. If the vote was up now, I would vote for Vompatti. I still need to look more into the 'past games behaviour' that FZ. provided, but the latest Vompatti stuff (which I spoke about last night) is suspicious enough.

A comparison of Vomps' past behaviour will be important to me to decide if Llama is on the level or not as well with his early claims.

That makes you and SVS.

Your posts still come off as very narrativeish. They have a "Look what I've done, look what I'm doing..." kind of quality. Uber-passive and almost detatched from yourself.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, I do think closer examining the AP voters is a good idea. However, even though you feel pretty strongly about Vompatti, what if he flips civilian? Where do you think that would lead your conclusions?

My suspicion of Vomps is not tied to suspicion of other players, so his alignment, whenever it is revealed, will not influence my other suspicions at all. I suppose if he flips bad, it will make AP voters look worse, but if he flips civ, I don't see how it changes anything.

I wills ay thta right now, SVS has rocketed onto my radar, for breaking the tied vote in favor of AP, and for using MM's behavior to justify her vote for someone who is not MM.

Ricochet wrote:Snipping and highlighting the relevant part in my own post, in order for feedback on this.

Ricochet wrote: 2. I know I just voted Llama for his case on Vomps, but I'm starting to consider looking more carefully at Vomps, given that he's not helpful in his defence so far, quite the opposite. I'd like to know what other people think: in previous games, has a Vompatti pretending to be bad turned out more to actually be bad or just a cheeky civ (or was it inconclusive)? I don't mean to say I can tell right now if he's just pretending or not. But I'd be really uncomfortable if he'd survived a few more days, playing this kind of game, and turn out to be bad.

Are You Being Served, from which FZ and LC have pulled quotes, is the most recent and blatant example.

I'll check them and the thread, then, thanks.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Well, the two people I voted for (let's just pretend I voted BWT, because I would have) have been Civs, so I'm doing crappy so far. I'm willing to look at other peoples' suspicions for my next vote, instead of finding my own, for now. If the vote was up now, I would vote for Vompatti. I still need to look more into the 'past games behaviour' that FZ. provided, but the latest Vompatti stuff (which I spoke about last night) is suspicious enough.

A comparison of Vomps' past behaviour will be important to me to decide if Llama is on the level or not as well with his early claims.

That makes you and SVS.

Your posts still come off as very narrativeish. They have a "Look what I've done, look what I'm doing..." kind of quality. Uber-passive and almost detached from yourself.

Not sure how to take that. Detached narrative posting. I can understand the passive part, because after two wrong suspicions I'm not feeling particularly aggressive.

LC-- did you see this post?

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:For me (and I think I said this somewhere?), on a day when there are a few strong (in terms of cases and/or number of votes already placed) candidiates for lynching, I really don't like voting for someone with no votes, or someone who is very unlikely to be lynched. It's too much like shirking responsibility, and I avoid that when a civ.
So for this vote, I was torn between TH (who no one else would vote for, but who was and is my strongest suspicion), MP, and AP. I thought the reasoning about the avoiding the bwt vote once it was scured made sense (I understand lots of you don't think so, but ), and SVS' points about MM also rang true at the time. If AP had flipped bad, I would deffo have voted MM today. I didn't vote MM yesterday because there was no chance of him being lynched, so I went with AP. I was one of the last to vote, and at the time I was voting there were a flurry of inconsequential votes, so between MP and AP I went with the one that would be more decisive rather than keep things closer to a tie and leave the deciding votes to TH (who I don't trust) and BR, who I wasn't sure would make it in time since she hadn't been around.

Does that make sense (even if you wouldn't personally have acted similarly)?

Yes (even if). I sort of understand better now the "attraction" for such a vote, but I still find it questionable for baddie hunting later on. If I don't believe the "strong candidate" to be suspicious and vote something else, I can wake up the next day as a suspect of "shirking responsibility". Why? All in all, I wouldn't have voted for AP, really, because I was more convinced he just didn't manage to get in the game in either days - which proved to be true.

You certainly may pick up suspicion for avoiding a vote for a teammate.

Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

In my view, Canuck's excuse that there was "no chance" of MM being lynched, hence the vote for AP, will not fly in SVS' case. AP only had two votes when she piled on. She could easily have tried to get MM lynched instead. I am anxious to see what her reasoning is regarding this.

EBWOP: AP had THREE votes when SVS voted for him. My point still stands.

S~V~S is statistically the only person who voted for both lynches. I may look further into this, considering I've said I believe there has been more coordinating than reasoning in the lynches, so far.

I saw that Dom. I have only read through that part once, and it was pretty skimmy. To the best of my recollection, BR said you and MP were crazy, and wasn't just going to assume it's Civ on Civ. Then I remember a few posts of backlash against BR, including MP and I think Turnip Head (who BR was suspicious of).

I haven't really done any more analysis on that part, like rereading them in a baddie light for instance, to see if I think it's something a baddie would say/do". My first read was more of a "well, BR certainly jumped right in there, how is this going to go?" kind of read.

So I don't have a changed opinion on MP because of it, but it's probably worth a reread, clearly you are referencing it for a reason.

Long Con wrote:I saw that Dom. I have only read through that part once, and it was pretty skimmy. To the best of my recollection, BR said you and MP were crazy, and wasn't just going to assume it's Civ on Civ. Then I remember a few posts of backlash against BR, including MP and I think Turnip Head (who BR was suspicious of).

I haven't really done any more analysis on that part, like rereading them in a baddie light for instance, to see if I think it's something a baddie would say/do". My first read was more of a "well, BR certainly jumped right in there, how is this going to go?" kind of read.

So I don't have a changed opinion on MP because of it, but it's probably worth a reread, clearly you are referencing it for a reason.

It's what made me go from "eyeing" MP to "suspecting" MP so yeah.

Bye AP sorry for the part I played in your lynch.

The last film I saw was Pulp Fiction with my son yesterday - its as good if not better than it ever was.

Picked the first film on the list as I have not seen any of them.

Gonna catch up to see if I have anything to say before night ends.

Linky w/LC - I thought MP's vote yesterday was very odd and out of place even though he was suspicious of BR in a "no u" sort of way but I had thought he said he would not vote forher over ir - icr so I need to read back on MP as well.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

In my view, Canuck's excuse that there was "no chance" of MM being lynched, hence the vote for AP, will not fly in SVS' case. AP only had two votes when she piled on. She could easily have tried to get MM lynched instead. I am anxious to see what her reasoning is regarding this.

Lemme correct your facts - when AP, MP and Vomps all had 2 votes each *I* broke the tie to give AP 3 votes - I even made a post about it after I had voted.

Roxy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

In my view, Canuck's excuse that there was "no chance" of MM being lynched, hence the vote for AP, will not fly in SVS' case. AP only had two votes when she piled on. She could easily have tried to get MM lynched instead. I am anxious to see what her reasoning is regarding this.

Lemme correct your facts - when AP, MP and Vomps all had 2 votes each *I* broke the tie to give AP 3 votes - I even made a post about it after I had voted.

Yeah, I saw that just after I posted and corrected it in the next post. My memory failed me.

Long Con wrote:Then I remember a few posts of backlash against BR, including MP and I think Turnip Head

You are remembering wrong.

Also llama Canuck was not trying to lynch MM instead she was wanting to go for MP.