Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:08 am
Ok Epignosis, which would you like people to believe: that you are careless and forgetful, or that you are trying to deceive everyone?
Long Con wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:36 amTheLlama73 - Pretty low-laying, just a bit of Rico action. Not very impressive. Now he's the one with three votes.
Long Con wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:23 amLong Con wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:36 amSprityo - Content-light. He kinda wants to lynch Rico and I think maybe he
suspects Llama?
That was the most individually threatening thing I could find in sprit's ISO. So Llama gets a slight uptick of suspicion due to sprityo's death.
Long Con wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 pmLlama is being sketchy/lazy, which is a bit annoying, and not really helpful. I feel like he has been 90% Rico-focused. Also, he was one of [sprityo's] only suspicions.
I corrected this post from "Sloonei" to "sprityo" because I mixed up my S-names on the original post
Long Con wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:40 pmOk, good reread. You spent almost all of Day 1 focusing on my LMS mistake. Otherwise, mostly you've been looking at G-Man. What do you think of Llama?
Epignosis is bad, and Llama is his teammate. Llama is hardly present in this game, and has given Epignosis permission to bus him for cred because they can see that Epi is going to be lynched soon.
Oh, and guess who
actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.
My conclusion is that Epignosis gave thellama73 a pass for the very thing he accused me of doing. If thellama73 is bad, then the kid gloves from Epignosis is significant.
What did I accuse you of doing that I gave thellama73 a pass for, and how is me voting for him now that we've had lynch reveals treating him with kid gloves?
Your assertion that thellama73 and I are teammates is a swift conclusion to draw. You have given no independent reasoning whatsoever to established that, on his own, thellama73 is bad. Given the degree of comfort that a number of people have recently suggested with lynching llama (DH, nutella, me), the outlook for thellama73 surviving today is grim. This tells me that you
know thellama73 is bad, and you need a way to frame his lynch in a way that incriminates me. How did I determine this?
A few things:
First, you included an extravagant detail in your accusation against me: That thellama73
gave me permission to throw him under the bus. I wouldn't need permission to throw thellama73 (who knows he can't really participate) under the bus, and more importantly, this shows you lack an understanding of the dynamic he and I have when we're bad together (or how we think in general). thellama73 wouldn't need to give me permission, and I wouldn't feel the need to ask him of it (someone else like S~V~S or nutella would be a different story).
Second, the impression you are trying to maintain- that you know how I operate when I'm bad- has betrayed you. I have been evil over twenty times across three sites. In that stretch, I have intentionally thrown a teammate under the bus one time (Dragon D. Luffy), and it wasn't even because he was inactive; rather, it was because I had never done it before and wanted to see how it would play out. It played out well, but I have never done it since. There were only two other times I had to go against my teammate in the thread, and they weren't orchestrated. In one case, Scotty slipped badly, and there was no salvaging him. The other was ika- I'll leave it at that.
On the contrary, you can go as recent as Vocaroo Mafia and see (or hear, rather) that when I had an absentee teammate, I outright
defended a2thezebra. I am continually amused by this reputation I somehow sustain that I work to lynch my teammates for credibility when I have only ever done it one time and never again since. Furthermore, I am all too aware of the credibility paradox: If people keep accusing me of throwing a teammate under the bus for credibility, I know that I cannot obtain credibility by leading a lynch on a teammate, and for that reason the play has a negative expected value.
So in over twenty starts as mafia, I have never thrown a teammate under the bus because he or she couldn't play. If anything, I request a replacement, because I know that Mafia is a game of numbers. The more teammates you have, the closer endgame is, and the fewer lynches you have to work your way out of. In Vocaroo Mafia, I lost my sole teammate Day 1, and ultimately became a last man standing role, which stacked the odds against me right out of the gate. I ended up winning, but it was a long, lonely, and difficult journey. I don't lynch my teammates if I can help it.
Need more proof of that? Turf Wars. In that game, I tried desperately to preserve a team that made a career out of trying to lynch one another. One of my teammates couldn't play. Instead of joining my team in cutting the dead weight for credibility, I found a replacement: Elohcin, who didn't even want to play, but subbed in as a favor to me. We just needed the numbers long enough. It was a risky play, because it was obvious that Eloh wasn't an enthusiastic participant, and that she was only showing up voting where her team was telling her. That pointed a pretty accusatory finger at me, but I didn't mind being lynched when the time came, because we had just about done enough to get the win, and I was running out of plays anyway.
No, thellama73 didn't give me permission to throw him under the bus, nor am I throwing him under the bus. Were I on his team, I would be trying to obtain a replacement. But you didn't consider any of this about me.
Nor did you entertain the scenario in which I am bad and I am setting thellama73 up as a patsy. You immediately went for the "Epignosis is throwing thellama73 under the bus for credibility," which only works
if you know how thellama73 is going to flip. If thellama73 comes back civilian, then your crusade against me loses some steam, since your assessment of the situation will have been proven incorrect. I think you've shown there's no chance of that happening though.
But I'm not through with you.
Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:08 am
Oh, and guess who
actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.
I'm not going to comment on the
italicized adverb here (oy). I'll leave that alone.
No, this little jab proves to me that you are not being fair in your suspicion of me.
Long Con wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:29 am
Epignosis. You have pretty much only focused on Dyslexicon as a suspicion. How does Dizzy's imminent replacement affect your opinion, and who else do you think is bad?
Your criticism of me here is that I "pretty much only focused on Dyslexicon as a suspicion."
I've already commented that I thought it was ironic of you to complain about my narrowed focus, but then ask me a question about Dyslexicon.
Long Con wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:12 am
No, I'm asking you questions because all you're doing is accusing Dizzy and defending Rico, and laying low.
Once again, your problem with me is that all I was doing was accusing Dyslexicon and defending Ricochet (which I don't maintain I was doing, but okay).
Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:08 am
Oh, and guess who
actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.
Which would you prefer? That I only talk about people I have mentioned before today, or that I take into consideration the fact that we now have alignment flips to go off of, and that I can look back at the posts of the deceased and draw more informed conclusions? You gave me shit for only accusing Dyslexicon and not talking about other people, and now you're giving me shit for talking about someone new
after alignments have been revealed.
You are not genuine, and you know thellama73 is bad. There is only one reason that makes sense, and it isn't because you are a cop, or your crusade against me would have ended by now.
Thanks for playing.
