The Syndicate

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:11 pm**

I have responded to everyone that sent me a night action. If you sent me a night action and I have not responded, please poke me ASAP.

While you wait for the official night post, here is a word from Eisenstein:

So ladies and gents what are crazy day phase. First people voted BWT to be lynched and he ends up being a really helpful role that could help the civs out a lot if used right. Thank the flim gods for Stanley Kubrick. So now it's day 1.2 and a lot of ideas and theories were being thrown around. MP and Dom are at each other's throats which seems to be the norm now and days. The one person who stuck out the most to the majority was A Person who's self vote seemed to be opportunistic. Poor Darren Aronofsky never had a chance to show off his math skills. Lets try to get it right Day 2 everyone.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:30 pm**

Mongoose, that is the best reason I've ever heard for a delayed night post.

Black Rock wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:BR, I appreciate your clarification, but clearly you thought I was worth looking at before my vote deliberations yesterday. So... can you explain that? You keep citing the back and forth between me and Dom, but you still haven't explained why you think I'm bad, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it doesn't make me feel any better about you, since everyone knows I'm being suspected heavily by at least two other players (Dom and TH) before you even mentioned me AND everyone knows I'm always easy to get lynched.

If you think I took the easy way out, so be it, but I have a history of voting more like this when I'm a civilian, whereas if I'm bad I'll gladly vote a top lynch contender, especially if I can vote for a teammate.

I thought I said you were worth keeping an eye on and I wasn't going to dismiss you and Dom as civ on civ, or something to that effect. I now since then found you more suspicious because of your throw away vote. I would have to read my post again to absolutely know what I said but I think you are taking what I said and putting some sort of heavier meaning to it. A lot of that was because a few people were dismissing your back and forth with Dom and I thought that was premature.

Okay. Fair enough, I'll give you the BOTD for now. I guess I did read into the meaning more than what you intended, especially given I see that you were really expressing an opinion to emphasize you disagreed with the civ v. civ sentiment.

What do you think of S~V~S?

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:31 pm**

Night 1: Day, Night, Day, Night

Has anyone seen the movie Day Night Day Night? I watched it when it first came out, and it's been with me ever since.

"It's haunting in a truly cerebral way," mentioned Long Con.

"It looks funny now when 'ture' or its derivatives are spelled correctly," said Sockface.

"That film isn't rated very highly on IMDb," said Black Rock.

"But it's a tour de force performance from the lead actress!" insisted Sabie.

"Maybe I will get it on Netflix, I've heard it was based on an opera from the 1700s," trolled Llama.

Sabie was standing under a chandelier, which you aren't supposed to do if you are a character in a film.

Someone cut the wires to the chandelier and it plummeted toward her! At the very last second, she was pushed out of the way by an unseen hand.

No one has died. You have 48 hours to find her attacker.

It is now Day 2.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:33 pm**

Wow, no death, awesome!

What a weird NK choice though... Sabie??

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:33 pm**

Woooo! No death!

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:45 pm**

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:54 pm**

Nice night!

A little disappointed that eisenstein's recap wasn't in the form of a montage, but what can ya do?

I'll do a full catchup in this game tomorrow morning, I've been too invested in the Champs game so far.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:58 pm**

timmer wrote:'ve been too invested in the Champs game so far.

Why do you keep saying this

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:58 pm**

So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?

If the Even night killers had killed last night, I would have been all over a Sabie vote, but this is just weird.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:59 pm**

Long Con wrote:So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?

If the Even night killers had killed last night, I would have been all over a Sabie vote, but this is just weird.

I don't get it either.

There's also no redirect in the roles; at least, I didn't see one.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:18 pm**

Here's my train of thought ( and i have yet to read night 2 so stand by) The person who would had approved a sabie killed would be someone who knew her the least. So I'd cross off Llama and most people who made it to end game in felt?

Also, LC, what?

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:21 pm**

Reread roles, I think it's more likely that Sabie saved herself for that very reason. I'll prolly catch up tomorrow morning

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:25 pm**

Long Con wrote:So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?

Surely there must be another explanation, because that sounds like crazy talk.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:28 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
Long Con wrote:So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?
Surely there must be another explanation, because that sounds like crazy talk.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:49 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
Long Con wrote:So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?
Surely there must be another explanation, because that sounds like crazy talk.

I agree.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:53 pm**

There are plenty of role blocks. Mongoose may just have written the post that way without meaning to give a hint.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:41 am**

Made wrote:Reread roles, I think it's more likely that Sabie saved herself for that very reason. I'll prolly catch up tomorrow morning

I doubt it. That means her own team tried to kill her as well.

I'm in agreement with llama. I bet it's one of the roleblockers doings.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:15 am**

Woot, no death!

This could be a RB, but why Sabbie in the first place? I don't remember anything she's said.

In terms of how stories go, does it matter if it's a save or a block? Would the story be different?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:34 am**

FZ., generally, not always, but generally, a block is written either without the target, or the killer is foiled before he can attempt to kill. Like the scissors used to cut the chandelier wires would have been knocked from his hand, or the would have broken trying to cut the wires. A save involves the victim, and the kill is portrayed as having went through BUT something saves the specific victim, like Sabie was pushed out of the way. Which is what happened here. BUT... some hosts portray all fail kills the same.

@Mongoose~ lovely hostess, are all fail kills portrayed the same way, or are distinctions made?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Made wrote:Reread roles, I think it's more likely that Sabie saved herself for that very reason. I'll prolly catch up tomorrow morning
I doubt it. That means her own team tried to kill her as well.

I'm in agreement with llama. I bet it's one of the roleblockers doings.

Why do you dismiss the possibility of her own team trying to kill her out of hand? It has been done before. I don't know that I would do it this early... but that doesn't mean others might not.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Mongoose, that is the best reason I've ever heard for a delayed night post.

Black Rock wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:BR, I appreciate your clarification, but clearly you thought I was worth looking at before my vote deliberations yesterday. So... can you explain that? You keep citing the back and forth between me and Dom, but you still haven't explained why you think I'm bad, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it doesn't make me feel any better about you, since everyone knows I'm being suspected heavily by at least two other players (Dom and TH) before you even mentioned me AND everyone knows I'm always easy to get lynched.

If you think I took the easy way out, so be it, but I have a history of voting more like this when I'm a civilian, whereas if I'm bad I'll gladly vote a top lynch contender, especially if I can vote for a teammate.

I thought I said you were worth keeping an eye on and I wasn't going to dismiss you and Dom as civ on civ, or something to that effect. I now since then found you more suspicious because of your throw away vote. I would have to read my post again to absolutely know what I said but I think you are taking what I said and putting some sort of heavier meaning to it. A lot of that was because a few people were dismissing your back and forth with Dom and I thought that was premature.
Okay. Fair enough, I'll give you the BOTD for now. I guess I did read into the meaning more than what you intended, especially given I see that you were really expressing an opinion to emphasize you disagreed with the civ v. civ sentiment.

What do you think of S~V~S?

I think I am a civ.

Iirc, she said I pinged her. I want to hear about that, too. Thanks for reminding me

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:47 am**

Woo, no death! But what an intriguing outcome, indeed.

I think it's safe to say that Sabie, at this point, is the only inactive player (i.e. didn't participate in-game, didn't vote in-game). I went over her posts: she posted a bit on Day 0 (and voted for a director) and excused herself for not managing to play on Day 1.

I can imagine the bad team targeting her for being the most inactive.
I can also imagine, given how many role-block powers are, that one or two civs must have considered the idea of inactive/low-posters being targeted, at least, and it paid off, obviously.
I can imagine even less Sabie actually coming her during the Night to save herself, yet not post anything in the game while at it (not even another excuse), but there's no way of knowing this at all.
I can imagine the least Sabie being a baddie and being both targeted and protected. It would a very, very slick baddie move. I'm more certain she is actually highly inactive, just like AP proved to be, and I wouldn't follow this line of suspicion again, at least not right now. Besides, the Coens have only one protection available and, while I can't figure out how they can use it best, it'd seem a waste at this point.

---

Who are you going after this Day, folks? I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

I'll be fairly busy today because of a class I have to prepare for and personal issues, so I'll probably spend this day just trying to do what I said above.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:57 am**

It doesn't say they have only one protection.

Coen Bros. Jewish brothers who often use the same actors in their films. Can call upon the Golem to protect a player.

Generally this means every night if not specified. If it was only one, it would say "Once in the game" or words to that effect.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:58 am**

Edit~

@Mongoose~ is this a one time Golem, or a nightly Golem?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:03 am**

Ricochet wrote:
Who are you going after this Day, folks? I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

I'll be fairly busy today because of a class I have to prepare for and personal issues, so I'll probably spend this day just trying to do what I said above.

There is?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:07 am**

S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Who are you going after this Day, folks? I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

I'll be fairly busy today because of a class I have to prepare for and personal issues, so I'll probably spend this day just trying to do what I said above.
There is?

So I read.

My bad on the Coens.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:07 am**

Ricochet wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Who are you going after this Day, folks? I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

I'll be fairly busy today because of a class I have to prepare for and personal issues, so I'll probably spend this day just trying to do what I said above.
There is?
So I read.

My bad on the Coens.

Can you point this out to me?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:11 am**

Mostly the discussion post-AP kill, pages 22-23.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:14 am**

Can you give me specifics, please? I have my posts set to 60 per page. I only have 17 pages of posts.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:27 am**

I have to go in 15 mins. Can't you track what was posted right after AP's lynch as announced? I could do it, if you still want, but only later.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:28 am**

LOL, you come and drop that into the thread, and won't back it up? I read after the lynch, and did not see that any "big case" was coming up. I would lke to know why YOU think a big case is coming up.

Cause I don't see it

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:30 am**

I am leaving in about 15 minutes myself. I have time.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:38 am**

S~V~S wrote:LOL, you come and drop that into the thread, and won't back it up? I read after the lynch, and did not see that any "big case" was coming up. I would lke to know why YOU think a big case is coming up.

Cause I don't see it

Sorry if you read it that way. I only meant I'll look into what others have brought up during the Night, and significantly so. By ”big case” I meant something enough members reacted to. The only thing I imagine "coming up" is more input on it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:42 am**

There has been a lot of talk about a lot of people, interesting that the only big case coming that you see is on me.

Which other members are you referring to? I am beginning to think that maybe you heard about this big case in your chatroom.

Now I am looking forward to seeing who presents the big case

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:50 am**

I can tell that you are now fully in game mode, but you keep twisting my original post over and over.

Did I say you are ”the only big case coming"? No. I said I'll look into Vomps (who now worries me with his style of baddie-pretence defence) and you (who have been questioned by others for your AP vote). I believe these two were the more significant talks during N1 and, therefore, I need to look more into it myself.

"Which other members are you referring to? I am beginning to think that maybe you heard about this big case in your chatroom."
No, I said I read it in the thread. Are you making yourself intentionally oblivious to what was posted during N1? Why didn't you address yet what was questioned about you, by the way?

Again, I am not the one suspecting you or making a case (big or not) about you, at the moment.

For now, though, I really must be going.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:27 am**

I did not twist anything. You said YOU were looking at Comps; you said a big case was coming about me. You did not say you suspected me yourself. Indeed, you said you had to read up on me because of that big case coming.

And I am fairly sure I addressed anything I had to unless it was buried in a giant post. Can you be more specific?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:28 am**

*Vomps not Comps goddamned autocorrect

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:07 am**

YOu didn't address the question I asked you multiple ties, SVS. I'm pulling the quotes now, if you'll hang on.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:08 am**

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."

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:10 am**

Your name was brought up a lot of times, not just by me, but by MP and MM and Rico and others. You really didn't see any of that?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:22 am**

Thanks for the quotes, I missed them.

I voted AP cause I thought MM was defending him, and AP already had votes. I thought MM was defending him too hard, tbh.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:23 am**

And I saw my name, I missed any direct questions. I thought the reason for my vote was clear. And name a game where MP does not bring up my name:)

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:35 am**

S~V~S wrote:Thanks for the quotes, I missed them.

I voted AP cause I thought MM was defending him, and AP already had votes. I thought MM was defending him too hard, tbh.

But it was still early. Why not go after MM instead of AP? YOu could have gotten three votes on MM easily if you had tried. Sometimes baddies defend civs hard because they know they are not on their team, and safe to defend. It just seems like weird logic to me.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:41 am**

I thought they were teammates. This is not apparent?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:45 am**

S~V~S wrote:I thought they were teammates. This is not apparent?

I think you might be a teammate of Vomps. I don't like the timing of your vote or the reasoning behind it. But rather than lynch you, I would prefer to lynch Vomps first. If he flips civ, you will look a lot better. If he flips bad, you will look a lot worse. I think it makes no sense to lynch you first for the same reason I thought it made no sense to lynch AP before MM.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:08 am**

SVS, what led you to conclude that MM and AP could be teammates? Was it just that MM was defending AP's Day 1 self-vote?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am**

Did Llama offered you the quotes you wanted, SVS? That was the main issue I was referencing, myself, anyway. I still find it intriguing that you would have read all that and not want to address it, missing or not any direct questions.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:40 am**

S~V~S wrote:Edit~

@Mongoose~ is this a one time Golem, or a nightly Golem?

This is a nightly golem.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:46 am**

i wouldn't mind a nightly golem

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:54 am**

S~V~S wrote:@Mongoose~ lovely hostess, are all fail kills portrayed the same way, or are distinctions made?

Hiya Mongoose. I'd love an answer to this when you get a chance.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:55 am**

Vompatti wrote:i wouldn't mind a nightly golem

They're bad for your teeth tho

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:58 am**

S~V~S wrote:I thought they were teammates. This is not apparent?

But why condemn AP for MM's actions when we have no proof that MM is bad?

The Syndicate

[ENDGAME]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Night 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 2]: Film Directors.