The Syndicate

Black Rock wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Am I wrong in thinking that Tar Pit would have been outed the minute he crossed paths with someone?

Maybe if you kept on moving?

I am so sorry we missed a chance at being on the same team again. Bastards killed you too early. Although you would have made my list as a possible super secret role and it would have taken me a long time to check you because of that.

Someone on the same square as me couldn't move.

That would mean that, as soon as my role secret was figured out, the person who couldn't move would know I was a New Rogue.

I knew I was doomed, so I hugged the edge of the map where nothing interesting was going on.

Sounds boring.

Yeah.

Black Rock wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Am I wrong in thinking that Tar Pit would have been outed the minute he crossed paths with someone?

Maybe if you kept on moving?

I am so sorry we missed a chance at being on the same team again. Bastards killed you too early. Although you would have made my list as a possible super secret role and it would have taken me a long time to check you because of that.

Someone on the same square as me couldn't move.

That would mean that, as soon as my role secret was figured out, the person who couldn't move would know I was a New Rogue.

I knew I was doomed, so I hugged the edge of the map where nothing interesting was going on.

Am I wrong in thinking that Tar Pit would have been outed the minute he crossed paths with someone?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Sorry to you as well DH.
In all of the games I have played recently I have played very poorly. Idk that I was ever that great but lately i do feel as if i have been worse than usual. It is funny how much rl affects my game play - so much so that it is ridiculous.

Epignosis was Tar Pit, so you chose wisely there.

A role that would have been outed anyway given its "power."

DFaraday wrote:People have surprisingly little to say in postgame for some reason.

Some of us die fucking early.

Ricochet wrote:Holy crap, Bass is at four wins this year, how does he do it??

He lets others do it for him.

I was a new rogue.

And, for the record, I would have gone after Eloh the way I did regardless of my alignment.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:I think the wigi board is broken...

*Ouija
I am a fool and google is broken

Oui = "Yes" in French.
Ja = "Yes" in German.

It's a yesyes board.

"Tales from Topographic Oceans" is Yes in English.

Black Rock wrote:Did anyone get a movement PM?

I had a movement BM.

FZ. wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:Epig, why did you vote for Bullz?

Because.

Thank you.
You're playing a very different game from DN. You're not as leading as you did. You don't seem to have much to say, and I don't remember you discussing Bullz much before. Did you?

Epignosis wrote:I have made a conscious effort to do something different (sometimes outrageously different) regardless of alignment to keep things fresh.

My Bullzeye suspicion was a product of my llama analysis. Surely you remember that, since I questioned you.

FZ. wrote:Epig, why did you vote for Bullz?

Because.

FZ. wrote:If I could curse Epig, he'd have to use 10 adverbs in every post :P

timmer wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I think timmer made a long shot call that just so happened to be right.

Oh totally this^, I'm not claiming to be anything but lucky on this one. I've had about 100 conspiracy theories, through the various games, that were on about the level of this one, but only about 8/100 were right. I'll take it as a pleasant surprise that I was right!

Yeah, I believe you. Still cool though I guess, right?

Long Con wrote:Weak.

Nope.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I think timmer made a long shot call that just so happened to be right.

Anything else?

How can it just so happen to be anything else?

I mean do you have anything else to add. Any other thoughts.

No.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I think timmer made a long shot call that just so happened to be right.

Anything else?

How can it just so happen to be anything else?

I think timmer made a long shot call that just so happened to be right.

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:If it were me, I'd go back and look at SVS and FZ since they both practically jumped down my throat after I voted Bass.

Nah, that would be pointless.

And I thought your vote was vague (and it WAS). Then when you explained it, I said, "Thank You DH" and never brought it up again.

Your enthusiasm in the matter was noted, and notably suspect, given the results of the lynch.

What enthusiasm? I thought your vote was vague. I said so. You are making it into something it is not.

All of those posts of yours I quoted wherein you jump down my throat regarding my Bass vote occur in a very short window of time, thats what I mean when I say you enthusiastically (uh oh LC, Those adwhatevers are back) defended Bass/attacked my vote.

"Enthusiastically" in this context is appropriate. It maintains a function critical to the understanding of the independent clause. Carry on.

I don't want to talk about standards.

Bullzeye wrote:

FZ. wrote: I'm not talking about when you do an obvious screw up. I'm talking about when you play the game and people just start going after you.

I think anyone would be mad. In fact, I know it. I'm quite annoyed that I might be lynched as a civ day 2 because of a case that makes no sense. If anything I'm more annoyed than I would be if I were bad.

Bullzeye wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: People should definitely vote for me if they wish to lose yet another ally/friend/civ. I make no claims of having any grand power, but I (EBWOP) am definitely a good asset to my civ friends and don't feel the case on me is even half as strong as my opponents would have everyone else believe. Epi is certainly a strong candidate though.

Lost some of that sentence somehow.

FZ. wrote:Editing

FZ. wrote: I haven't tested it statistically, but I'm willing to put money on the fact that baddies always think the reasons they get voted for are stupid and that their not really doing what people are accusing them of. That's why they're usually pissed off when caught, because they are convinced it was a load of crap, and think that if the civvies had caught them for real reasons, they would accept it. That didn't make me feel good

they're

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
There shouldn't be a difference between the people who voted for me and the people who voted for llama? Really? I have an additional piece of data that holds true for llama voters but not for people who voted for me.

This is an assumption. A reasonable assumption, but an assumption no less. We don't know that either detective voted you, it's possible they agreed with LC's position that the lynch was likely to be stopped regardless or maybe they thought Llama was safe.

Okay Bullz.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH was annoyed. He also expressed dissatisfaction with llama not refuting speculation. In a later post, DH said he would pull some quotes after his reread, but he did not do this. He spent the rest of the time making fun of me.

Well, that's certainly a well put lie.

I pulled a quote, as I promised I would. I didn't pull every single quote, but I didn't need to.

If you said you would pull quotes (plural), and you claimed you pulled a quote (singular), then what I said was not a lie.

All this post shows is that you know 2 is bigger than one. You said he didn't pull quotes, and the tone of your post implies you mean he didn't pull a single one. He pulled a quote. Technically he didn't pull quotes but he still made the effort when you claim he didn't. You misrepresented his post and actions.

I don't agree with you. DH didn't do what he said he was going to do to the letter. I am not misrepresenting him.

I am also not suspecting him.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Thanks for doing my work for me there. So where in that is "OH MY GOD HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT MONKEEEEEEYYYYYYYYS!" as someone's reason for voting?

I never said that anyone voted llama for that reason. I said that my reasoning was better than that one (i.e., better than people examining Day 0 jokes).

So you were saying your reasoning was better than a reason nobody had used? Was there a point to saying that?

Yes. Yes.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:But his accusation wasn't contrived and it wasn't witchcraft. Do you mean to tell me that, if thellama73 had not pointed his flashy finger at you, you would have still voted llama?

If he hadn't acted like the armchair psychologist trying to "analyze" me like I was lying on his couch, then perhaps I'd have voted for you instead. He said I claimed I always play my 'baddie game' because I 'want to be caught' and tried to bring in concepts of guilt as if anyone actually feels guilt over being a baddie. That's ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Mafia is armchair psychology, dude.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:This is a fair point. It'd be a better point if all the baddies had btsc and we were looking at a clear save attempt, but it's still a good point.

So question for you: In this setup on Day 1, why would you vote for someone if someone is, as you say, "invested in keeping him alive?"

At the time I wasn't considering the nature of the baddies in this specific game and it just seemed ridiculous to me that BF would be defending Llama so hard. He's not even a detective, because I'm still alive, so it's still weird that he did get so defensive but I buy his explanation.

Okay, now who's making assumptions?

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: What do you have against adverbs? I don't deliberately use them. I don't type posts and consciously think "right, time for a pronoun now". I say words as they come into my head and put them into a logical structure so that a person with a reasonable grasp of English might make some sense of the message I wish to convey.

I know you don't deliberately use them. That's kind of the point.

But what is this point? It doesn't seem very good. Are unintentional adverbs the tic of an evil mind? In that case I must be genuinely evil irl because I post the way I think.

Armchair Linguistics.

I'm voting Bullzeye.

FZ. wrote:What do people think about Sophie?

I've played with her twice and hosted her once (off the top of my head). What she's doing here doesn't match Roger Rabbit (civilian) at all, but I don't feel like I could put much stock in that. Sophie is either drinking or voting (hopefully not at the same time), so I don't really have an opinion formed.

blindfaeth wrote:I like the recent posts from epi and feel a lot better about him. Epi, I know you're still digesting your findings, but gut feel-which of the llama voters are you not trusting?

Bullzeye. He always plays his "baddie game." He always gets defensive. Everything anybody says about him is met with ridicule and scorn. He is unique among the llama voters in that llama called him out first. Bullzeye's vote was reactionary, and I don't think he would have voted llama if llama had picked on someone else. He also claims he voted for him because you wanted to keep him around...how does that even make sense? Bullzeye can read. He knows the Mafia don't start with BTSC. So where was he going with that?

Addendum: I guess I'll find out.

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH was annoyed. He also expressed dissatisfaction with llama not refuting speculation. In a later post, DH said he would pull some quotes after his reread, but he did not do this. He spent the rest of the time making fun of me.

Well, that's certainly a well put lie.

I pulled a quote, as I promised I would. I didn't pull every single quote, but I didn't need to.

DH, who was this a quote from? On phone and I can't find it. Thanks

Linki, Magenta can gain BTS with them, so they would seem to have BTS

It was from me.

FZ. wrote:First, let me start by asking why are you focusing on the llama voters? Aren't you a civ? Granted, we don't know it, but you do. So there shouldn't be a difference between your voters or him for that matter. This makes me think you're trying to focus on the llama voters because it's easy to make them look bad. You of all people should think the votes for llama mean nothing if you're a civ too. Were people trying to save you and therefore voted for him?

There shouldn't be a difference between the people who voted for me and the people who voted for llama? Really? I have an additional piece of data that holds true for llama voters but not for people who voted for me.

FZ. wrote:As for me, I agreed with DH's analysis regarding llama's lack of replies to logical fallacies and jumping to conclusions. As for the lie, what can I say? It seemed like a blatant lie. It seemed fake and not genuine. I was wrong. Everything I've said was what I felt, not science. Just like the "big chance". It was my subjective point of view. I thought you teach your students not to say that what they're saying is their opinion when it's obvious

llama is a much better liar than that.

Should I have left you out of my analysis?

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH was annoyed. He also expressed dissatisfaction with llama not refuting speculation. In a later post, DH said he would pull some quotes after his reread, but he did not do this. He spent the rest of the time making fun of me.

Well, that's certainly a well put lie.

I pulled a quote, as I promised I would. I didn't pull every single quote, but I didn't need to.

If you said you would pull quotes (plural), and you claimed you pulled a quote (singular), then what I said was not a lie.

Bullzeye wrote:Thanks for doing my work for me there. So where in that is "OH MY GOD HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT MONKEEEEEEYYYYYYYYS!" as someone's reason for voting?

I never said that anyone voted llama for that reason. I said that my reasoning was better than that one (i.e., better than people examining Day 0 jokes).

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Bullzeye:

thellama73 put Bullzeye on the defense. llama explained what he was looking for in potential Mafia, and he also cited his recent experience hosting evil Bullz in HSK. Bullzeye's responses were defensive, almost to the point of "How dare you suspect me?" He admitted this much. Bullzeye voted for llama because llama suspected him.

Thats a huge simplification. I voted Llama because of the contrived nature of his Freudian witchcraft pseudopsychology accusation and the fact that BF was so invested in keeping him alive.

But his accusation wasn't contrived and it wasn't witchcraft. Do you mean to tell me that, if thellama73 had not pointed his flashy finger at you, you would have still voted llama?

Bullzeye wrote:This is a fair point. It'd be a better point if all the baddies had btsc and we were looking at a clear save attempt, but it's still a good point.

So question for you: In this setup on Day 1, why would you vote for someone if someone is, as you say, "invested in keeping him alive?"

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Also, for those like keeping up with such things, I am almost sure that Bullzeye has used more adverbs than anybody else. His latest penultimate post alone was a doozy.

What do you have against adverbs? I don't deliberately use them. I don't type posts and consciously think "right, time for a pronoun now". I say words as they come into my head and put them into a logical structure so that a person with a reasonable grasp of English might make some sense of the message I wish to convey.

I know you don't deliberately use them. That's kind of the point.

Addendum: Long Con with the

People who voted thellama73:

DH:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Did you want to?

I don't think he's a civvie. I don't like his whole Day 0 schtick, it got annoying very quickly. Also, I noticed he didn't berate anyone for any logical fallacies throughout the entire duration of Day 0. People were jumping to conclusions all over the place and Llama did not voice any opposition to it.

DH was annoyed. He also expressed dissatisfaction with llama not refuting speculation. In a later post, DH said he would pull some quotes after his reread, but he did not do this. He spent the rest of the time making fun of me.

++++

FZ.:

FZ.'s first very first post commented on llama drawing attention and not being helpful. She later wonders why llama keeps talking about the monkey and how lame The Flash is, and questions why he didn't ask these questions in the sign up thread. Here is her large anti-llama post:

FZ. wrote:So, llama

I agree with DH's analysis on llama. In addition, I saw it brought up, and I actually found myself agreeing with it: I think there's a big chance llama is trying very hard to play civvie llama. A little too hard. Here's what llama is "supposed" to do as a civvie:

1. Joke a lot and be very out there, to the point where it feels like he doesn't care that he seems too jokey.
Check! Look at all the day 0 monkey jokes, as well as the "Flash is lame" remarks. (By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be the monkey himself )

2. He talks about low posters.
Check. But it feels like he's doing it just for the sake of the "check". One mention of a low poster

3. He finds a person to go after and starts a narrow minded crusade.
Check. Bullzeye is the new victim. While I have no idea if he's bad or not, the suspicion seems contrived, and his replies to Bullz defences seem different than his usual convinced ones.


But what really made me suspicious was this post:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Did you see the part in btsc where I said I always play my baddie game because it's the only game I know? Did you see the part in this game where I've been helpful and nice and given everyone the benefit of the doubt? All I've said this entire game amounts to "sometimes a joke is just a joke". What do you mean looking for people who know they are bad? Everyone knows their role. Everyone knows if they're good or bad as far as I can tell.

I was trying to go to sleep, but this post kept gnawing away at my brain until I finally realized why. Why does Bullz word his response in this way? Why does he say "I always play my baddie game"? Why not "I always play my civvie game" or "My baddie game and my civvie game look just alike"?

If he always plays his baddie game, that means he is playing it now. Why would anyone admit to playing their baddie game? Keeping my psychologist hat on for a moment, I think Bullz is being betrayed by his subconscious. Maybe even, on some deep level, he wants to get caught.

I'm going to go ahead and place my vote on him for now.

He's claiming that he couldn't fall asleep because he was thinking about one post from Bullz that wouldn't leave him alone. llama, a regular Sherlock Homes losing sleep over a case. Something is bothering him about one sentence and he can't let go, until he solves the great mystery.
Seriously?? This is something I've done as a baddie. I'd look for something that I can use to frame someone, and when I find a "slip", I'm so pleased with myself and make it look like I was really bothered by it. If llama was losing sleep over something, especially at this stage in the game, it's how to look like he's doing detective work, not over who is bad.

If nothing changes, that's probably where my vote is going

Two things of note:

First, she says she agrees with DH's "analysis" on thellama73. DH hardly analyzed anything. DH was annoyed and didn't like that thellama73 wasn't playing the way he expected him to play.

Second, FZ. said "I think there's a big chance llama is trying very hard to play civvie llama." What a strange bit of phrasing. Why would there be a "big chance" that llama is trying very hard to look like "civvie llama?" Saying that there is a "big chance" of something happening indicates probability...but what indicates that "big chance?" For FZ., it was llama's behavior in other games (which FZ. admits she has lynched him twice and he was civilian both times).

FZ. wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:I'm not liking the most recent couple of posts from fz that I've seen.

Fz analyzed Epi and llama and says will probably vote llama. I'm not buying it. The thoughts for Epi were more concrete and all fz had to say about llama is that he's acting exactly like civvie llama.

No, that's not all I had to say about llama, and it's not what I said at all. First of all, I said he felt like he was trying to act like a civvie, and if I go by llama's logic of how to catch baddies who have no BTSC but know they are baddies, he fits that description to me, more than anyone else.

The post I quoted from him is something that I've done as a baddie, and seems like a blatant lie.

I don't believe he was losing sleep at this stage in the game, over a post Bullz made, which he'd have to memorize to be able to have a sudden "eureka" moment. Please . I have lost sleep over mafia games, but it was never this early, but rather at a much later stage in the game, where I had much more information and was trying to put things together.

BF, if you'd rather find my suspicion of him not genuine, rather than this obvious lie, then I'd say either you're logic is very bad, or you're bad.

Further more, last two games I went after llama, and he was a civ, he retorted in a cocky "no one is impressed with your accusations" kind of reply. While now, he hasn't said a thing of that sort. He's being very "cool" about it. I don't buy it.

FZ. called llama's losing sleep comment an "obvious lie." What's obvious now is that llama would have had no reason to lie about this. So what made it an obvious lie on Day 1? FZ.'s incredulousness- that's all.

++++

Bullzeye:

thellama73 put Bullzeye on the defense. llama explained what he was looking for in potential Mafia, and he also cited his recent experience hosting evil Bullz in HSK. Bullzeye's responses were defensive, almost to the point of "How dare you suspect me?" He admitted this much. Bullzeye voted for llama because llama suspected him.

Bullzeye wrote:Somehow didn't realise the poll was due to end so early. I am not sure who to vote for... Maybe Llama because not only are his reasons for coming after me so ridiculously contrived, but BF also seems to have a vested interest in keeping him alive and pushing people away from suspecting him. I'd be interested to know why. In fact, why not. I'll be voting Llama.

In a typical setup, I wouldn't give much thought to this post. But this isn't a typical setup, and now that llama has flipped, this post is a red flag.

Also, for those like keeping up with such things, I am almost sure that Bullzeye has used more adverbs than anybody else. His latest penultimate post alone was a doozy.

++++

Turnip Head:

He's my sidekick!

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Llama. I suspect him more than I suspect Epi. It feels like Llama is putting on a little bit of an act this game.

TH participated in a number of discussions Day 1, and regarding thellama73, didn't really comment much except about X-Men. This post indicates that he saw it was just the two of us bringing in the votes and felt compelled that he had to choose between us. Since votes could be changed, it's not easy to determine how many votes I had when TH voted, and therefore, it's hard for me to take anything meaningful from his vote.

++++

Soneji:

He voted thellama73 because thellama73 seemed more self-interested than helping "the group."

Soneji wrote:-Llama talks in a manner that speaks of self-interest and nonchalance, traits that are more associated with mafia who have more knowledge and vested interest in their individual performance over that of a townie who should care more about the group.

I get that Soneji isn't from around here, but this is a strange thing to say given this setup. How do the Mafia here have more knowledge?

++++

Black Rock:

BR expressed a certain reluctance to vote for thellama73, but ultimately did:

Black Rock wrote:I didn't realize the poll ended so early in the day. I have spent the last 15 mins going over the last few pages. I am still so undecided on where I want to place my vote. I don't really suspect Epignosis at this point, I just think he's a bit of a conclusion jumper. I might have to vote for Llama because I don't believe his day 0 antics were as innocent as he would like them to appear. I feel like he was trying to get something across to someone. I did like Aces post on SVS, its such a small thing but I understand what he's talking about.

Now that I have wasted another 5 mins staring at this post I think I will just vote Llama. I have this nagging feeling he can't be trusted this game. He's up to something.

Of thellama73 voters, Black Rock feels the most genuine to me. However, for the first time, I just had a lengthy Mafia experience with her in HSK, and I got to admire her manipulative skill from a front row seat.

++++

Long Con:

Unlike the other llama voters, LC was aware and kept making it clear that he was sure Magenta would stopthe lynch. Now that awareness could be construed as an attempt to be preemptively apologetic about his vote. He had already voted blindfaeth prior, so that fact leads me to suspect that was not the case, however.

++++

That's why people said they voted llama. I am still going over in my head which reasons I believe and which ones don't pass the smell test.

Oh? Okay.

I'll post more tomorrow.

thellama73
8
DharmaHelper (3), FZ. (15), DFaraday (19), Bullzeye (22), Turnip Head (23), Soneji (24), Black Rock (25), Long Con (26) 31%

These voters are not detectives. The detectives elected to jail DF. So:

DH
FZ
Bullz
TH
Soneji
BR
LC

That's seven names.

Epignosis
7
Metalmarsh89 (1), blindfaeth (5), S~V~S (6), birdwithteeth11 (12), fingersplints (16), Roxy (18), Bass_the_Clever (20) 27%

Two of these people are highly likely to be detectives.

fingersplints died, so she could have be one of them.

++++

I'll post this now. I have more to go through.

Sorry timmer. You were being funny. I apologize.

timmer wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I am about to make some rather obvious points in a moment, but these are points that people will say I'm using to paint targets on people's backs.

If anyone objects to this, I won't do it. You have eight minutes.

I await the revelations, and yet much more than eight minutes has passed. I am disappoint.

Dude, cut me some slack today, okay?

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Wait what

Are you objecting?

Turnip Head wrote:...Proceed...

Okay, but I'm doing two things at once.

Turnip Head wrote:Wait what

Are you objecting?

I am about to make some rather obvious points in a moment, but these are points that people will say I'm using to paint targets on people's backs.

If anyone objects to this, I won't do it. You have eight minutes.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:All things being equal, I would vote timmer (or Eloh, as the poll shows) again. But it's Day 2. I have more to work with.

What are you working with Epi?

Nah. It would just distract people from talking about me.

I'm watching TV. I'll be with you later.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:All things being equal, I would vote timmer (or Eloh, as the poll shows) again. But it's Day 2. I have more to work with.

What are you working with Epi?

Nah. It would just distract people from talking about me.

Turnip Head wrote:

FZ. wrote:I know you do I'm just afraid that you'll disappear and then I won't get to enjoy your pearls of wisdom
Actually, Timmer really bothers me. Admittedly, there are 2 reasons for this:
1. I have a feeling Epig somehow found out Eloh is really bad, and maybe now is backing off because he feels bad for Timmer...but I could be wrong
2. Since he started playing, I feel like he's been saying all the "right" things. I can't really back it up with a case, but it's a feeling. Also, the fact that Eloh really did answer in a weird way when she was still playing, and I also feel like Timmer knows it and was trying to get himself out of it in a very smart way.

I doubt Epi would back off Timmer just because he feels bad :P

I want to be clear on this. I did not find out Eloh was bad, and I don't feel bad for timmer. Knowing her reason for signing up, I gauged her reaction to determine if she had BTSC. I determined that she did not (she all but confirmed this), and did the math. Good reason to vote for her Day 1, my ulterior motive notwithstanding.

All things being equal, I would vote timmer (or Eloh, as the poll shows) again. But it's Day 2. I have more to work with.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Ah. You mean to say that I'm trying to distract, only without using that word.

I suppose distract would be a fair word to use. Do you think I avoided it for some specific reason?

I'm tired of people labeling every thing I say as a distraction.

If you or anyone else wants to talk about me, fucking talk. But stop saying I'm distracting you from doing it.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote: It's a matter of phrasing. I don't qualify my opinions or thoughts with "I think" or "In my opinion" or "I personally believe."

I personally believe you probably should. I think it would help you a lot. In my opinion, it's a key aspect of people misunderstanding your intents and you look worse for it. It's also a pretty lazy way of doubling back on something. "Oh I totally didn't mean to present that as fact I just didn't explicitly state it was only a guess".

Never!

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I voted based on probability predicated on an assumption I had a good reason to make. For Day 1, I think my reasoning was a hell of lot better than OMG HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THE MONKEY.

I want to go reread the people who voted for Llama because I feel like this is a gross over-exaggeration designed to push heat away from you. There were good reasons to vote for Llama. They may not have been correct, but they did exist. Anyone who did vote him for talking about a monkey is certainly worth investigating.

Ah. You mean to say that I'm trying to distract, only without using that word.

timmer wrote:in fact, that's what drew people to Epig, i suppose, his adamance? (is that a word?) Like, he had an idea of a probability of baddieness, and pursued it as if it were 100% instead of whatever number he had come up with. He worked with deliberate blinders, and that isn't very helpful.

It's a matter of phrasing. I don't qualify my opinions or thoughts with "I think" or "In my opinion" or "I personally believe." Those qualifiers are unnecessary when the context makes it clear that the speaker is expressing an opinion rather than fact. I try to avoid using them in real life, and I mark them out in my students' persuasive essays too. I get that it sometimes gives people the impression that I'm presenting my view or perspective as fact, but that's their fault and not mine- I refuse to change.

I voted based on probability predicated on an assumption I had a good reason to make. For Day 1, I think my reasoning was a hell of lot better than OMG HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THE MONKEY.

Black Rock wrote:What does Jailed mean? Is it essentially death?

Yes.

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me, he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him. Telling the baddies to kill another detective. I'm very happy to report however that I am not a detective and his plot is a failure. I was defending llama because I could have sworn he was captain cold. The role mentions being obsessed with "the score", and llama first couple posts were about the participation score. Also, one of the points in the host post for old rogues is they want to kill gorilla grodd. Llama obsessively mentioned the monkey. I could have sworn he was signalling to Golden glider, thus drawing so much attention to himself. I would have bet money on it frankly. In any case, because I thought he was the civ searchee, I figured if epig was in fact signalling, he had to be the bad version. Now, it's clear this isn't the case. I still don't trust epig, but I'm less sure of myself.

Thats all to say, the reasons I pushed so hard to defend llama aren't because I had btsc with him, it's because I thought I'd figured out his role.

Wow. And people think my Day 1 theories are strange.

timmer wrote:Both Epig and llama are notorious for a) shaking up their game b) being active posters and c) stirring the shit. But none of those things are an indication of alignment. So the case against llama, that mentioning the monkey so often must = bad, is about as bad as when Vompatti decided to try posting more "normal" as a civ and got lynched for it. And Epig's idea, he'll be sorry to find out, is clever but completely wrong. He's forgetting that probability is called probability because it indicates what is probable, not what actually IS. But is he bad for saying it? I can't say. On one hand, he didn't really try to pursue any other leads or ideas, but on the other, every time someone else brought it up, he was obliged to respond. A Catch-22.

I'm not "forgetting" anything. I know what probability is, timmer. People seem to expect me to have an airtight case where everything is certain. That isn't how Mafia works. If things were certain, Mafia would cease to be an enjoyable experience. Part of that enjoyment involves the use of probability in working things out. People can laugh at me post-Death Note all they like, but I'm not going to change because of any derision. I looked to see if Eloh had BTSC, and her response to me (her second post) indicated that she had no handle on what side was what, meaning she hadn't had anyone to talk to about this. She said she likes having BTSC, and so her disinterest is an indication that she is not a role that can obtain it (Golden Glider, Magenta, Blacksmith, and presumably Rainbow Raider given that capital S in the third spot). You didn't vote to save llama, so that rules out you being a detective. That means there is a 56% chance you are a New Rogue or an Arch Villain. That's a significantly higher percentage than I can work out for anybody else.

That's not "meta gaming," and it isn't pulling a name out of a hat. It's numbers.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I always fret the details, like, why did I take the votes I did? Why did llama? People are more eager to defend low-posters than the ones who make shit interesting. I don't get it. It's the Syndicate Syndrome.

Now I can guess why two people may have voted for me, but some of those votes on me are horseshit attempts to get me out of the way. Right S~V~S? You were looking for any reason to vote for me, and I can sniff it out when you are.

And timmer? Welcome. Glad you could take the burden off my wife. There's a good pal. I'm sorry you probably did not get an Old Rogue role, and, since you didn't vote to save llama, you didn't get a detective role.

And your vote?

My vote wasn't a horseshit attempt to get me out of the way. Thanks for asking.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I always fret the details, like, why did I take the votes I did? Why did llama? People are more eager to defend low-posters than the ones who make shit interesting. I don't get it. It's the Syndicate Syndrome.

Now I can guess why two people may have voted for me, but some of those votes on me are horseshit attempts to get me out of the way. Right S~V~S? You were looking for any reason to vote for me, and I can sniff it out when you are.

And timmer? Welcome. Glad you could take the burden off my wife. There's a good pal. I'm sorry you probably did not get an Old Rogue role, and, since you didn't vote to save llama, you didn't get a detective role.

Absolutely not. I think you were trying to signal the first day with your sidekick remark. I did not say anything about it, though, becasue there could be civ reasons for that behavior as well.

Does reading into people's Day 0 jokes have a high success rate of finding Mafia around here? I don't think it does. thellama73 made jokes about monkeys and The Flash. Many people believed he was the monkey and lynched him. He was The Flash. I think that's both telling and instructive.

AceofSpaces accused you of something (something I agree with, by the way), and your initial response to him was this:

S~V~S wrote:No it means I have played extensively with Epignosis. He has done similar things to test people in the past.

That post implies a measure of expertise on your part about me. But then you claim that I was trying to signal Mafia teammates by asking people to apply to become my sidekick? Do come on. I would have said that if I were good, bad, independent, neutral, or God. If you have played so extensively with me (and thus have that experience), why don't you recognize that? I was hoping people would fill out applications in the thread and list their qualifications and why they would make a good sidekick to me. Nobody did it, I'm sorry to say, so Turnip Head got the job just for being the only one to apply. How do you not yet know that most of what I do in any game is to amuse myself?

S~V~S wrote:Until the bullshit with Eloh. That was something you threw into the thread to try to distract from discussion of yourself.

I start accepting applications for my sidekick, and it's distracting behavior. I say I want to lynch Eloh and give my reasoning, and it's a distraction from me accepting applications for my sidekick. I then reveal my initial purpose for trying to lynch her (who corroborated what I said), and it's a distraction of discussion from me. So far, everything I have done is a distraction in some form or another.

Saying someone is trying to distract is implicitly insulting to everybody else. It implies that people can be easily hoodwinked into not reading the thread and drawing their own conclusions. Do you (and others who have dismissed my posts as distractions) really think that the players here are so incapable of independent thought that me trying to get Elohcin lynched and being honest about why is enough to successfully get people to stop talking about me? If that was my masterstroke, how did it work out for me? Do you not think that, with everything else that was going on, all I needed to do to avoid scrutiny was...not really post much of anything?

No...I find that people who label someone else a "distraction" do so with evil intentions, not good ones. Why? Because the accusation of being a "distraction" is not something anyone can mount a defense against. I could, if I were so inclined, pull two posts from just about anyone and claim that the latter post was meant to distract from something in the first. Furthermore, saying someone's post is a distraction is a way of dismissing the content of the post itself without having to actually engage it.

S~V~S wrote:I don't "try to get you out of the way" if I don't think you are bad. I thought you were a civ for a large part of HSK, and did nothing against you. I don't think you are civ in this game becasue that whole "well I planned to kill her, but I have no kill, so I would lynch her" is more full of holes than moldy cheese. You knew she only signed up to play for you~ and when Timmer tried to join, you, a frequent host, should have been thrilled since then you did not have to try to lynch one of the roles for NO REASON other than that your wife tried to help you out. I call shenanigans, and I am going to keep calling them.

No holes.

Would you believe that my reaction to timmer saying he wanted to join was, "Why the hell is a game in sign ups for weeks and we struggle to fill it up, and then when it does fill, someone says, 'Oh, I'm too late?' Where were you?" The same thing happened in the Game of Champions and in another game recently. It's frustrating. It never once occurred to me that timmer could have just replaced Eloh at the outset and that would have been that. My thinking was more selfish than rational.

And even if I had thought of timmer replacing her, I don't ask hosts to replace other people unless I am on a team with a non-participant. That would be rude and presumptuous. Perhaps Eloh's interest would be piqued once the game began.

S~V~S wrote:I may get accused of tunnelvision for it, but you all have met me before, right? If I have a bone, I'm gonna chew it. Sometimes I'm wrong, like I was about BF in HSK. Sometimes we're all wrong. But I see nothing civvie in anything you did or said once you started trying to lynch Elo for non game related reasons.

I don't do "civvie." I do what I want. You have met me before, right?

And just to be clear: I would not have gone for Elohcin if I could not find anything to go on. I think I did. See my response to timmer.

S~V~S wrote:Don't you go playing the personal card, or trying to dismiss what I am saying by calling it personal. This is not personal. I think you're bad.

Where did I say anything about this being personal? I said I think you're looking for any reason to vote for me. That's because I think you actually believe that I'm good and need me out of the way to win.

I don't believe a good S~V~S would:

1) Call someone's post a distraction
2) Use her extensive playing experience with me to bolster her credibility about me, yet simultaneously hold that I was trying to signal to evil teammates on Day 0
3) Try to stay a step ahead of the conversation (as Aces marked)

Hence, I think you are looking for any reason to vote for me because you need me out of the game to win.

I won't be home all afternoon. Two parties. Great grandma turns 100. Friend finds out the gender of her child.

I always fret the details, like, why did I take the votes I did? Why did llama? People are more eager to defend low-posters than the ones who make shit interesting. I don't get it. It's the Syndicate Syndrome.

Now I can guess why two people may have voted for me, but some of those votes on me are horseshit attempts to get me out of the way. Right S~V~S? You were looking for any reason to vote for me, and I can sniff it out when you are.

And timmer? Welcome. Glad you could take the burden off my wife. There's a good pal. I'm sorry you probably did not get an Old Rogue role, and, since you didn't vote to save llama, you didn't get a detective role.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I saw Epignosis with the devil.

You went to my wedding?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sophie wrote:

thellama73 wrote:This kind of last minute shenanigans is why I hate changeable votes.

who changed votes the last minutes? i just got here

Epignosis didn't bother to keep track of those votes.

Roxy wrote:Bye llama I do not understand why you would want to draw so much attention to yourself with your monkey antics with such an important role. :/

You all should really try lynching Epignosis tomorrow.

Nah.

Epignosis wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Professor Zoom (???????) – He wants to kill the Flash family more than anything else in the world. He’ll search every even night for a Flash. ~~ ~~ ~~~~s ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~, ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~.

If he finds anyone Flash at night, that Flash will die.

The syntax looks awkward to me, but I think that's the gist.

This can't be correct. Flash has an s in it.

If he finds either Wally or Barry, that homie will die.

Addendum- yep.

If he finds either Wally or Barry, that Flash will die.