The Syndicate

I have to leave and play a show fairly soon, so unfortunately I won't be around to analyze all of the last-minute discussions. After FZ's desperation last lynch period and Mata's (who I know must be bad) vote for her in the current period, I'm a little wary of voting that way. MM and TH wanting to be lynched for BTSC feels wrong on a deep level. Some of Bass's more recent posts, especially the "feel free to vote me, I haven't been keeping up bit," feel fishy, so I'll add my voice to that of DH. *votes Bass*

Matahari wrote:
This deserves a response, and I have to leave soon, so I'll answer this. By 'half-joke, I mean I knew ppl would say "su-u-u-r-r-r-e", or pick it apart. By half-question I meant in the event that Ukita was trying to stop the lynch for real, know matter which person he believed in, then fine, I expressed appreciation. I would not try saving anyone if I were him, unless there are secrets I am not aware of, that make his role a bit safer than it sounds. No matter what we can or can't say, I 100% believe there are some secrets in this game.

Which leads to my thinking that someone might have used a save on me yesterday to cement the idea that I was a bad role, or, as I was thinking earlier, before MP posted, someone may have been planning to save FZ. Mafia knows how to use secret things (apparently in this game, it would be from prizes) But when I got home yesterday I had a ton of stuff to catch up on in the thread, I skimmed a bit, and posted some, then went back to read everything better. There was more than 10 pages of posts. I didn't know anything about more things being revealed, but I picked up on that later, and I still believe this game has secret stuff going on. You don't have to agree with that, its just what I believe. My role is not unlynchable, and I think some really smart ppl pulled off a stunt yesterday.

I think that answers the second and third question, they are kind of tied together, because I'm basing everything on the fact that I don't know what is going on. I think I've missed a few posts from ppl, so I promise I will try and address them when I get home. Not sure what time that will be, it Depends on how long it is t

Mata, I'mma cut you with Occam's Razor. What's more likely? That you've been the "victim" of some crazy baddie scheme to save your butt, or that you are yourself bad and were unlynchable? More importantly, why would the baddies bother to save you unless you were bad? They want the civs dead.

Ricochet wrote:"Thanks Ukita for stopping this lynch, whichever one of us it was"

12 hours later

"I don't know why I wasn't lynched, this is a set-up"

Also, "lynch me again to prove I will die". Yet right now, it is a fact that none of the unlynchable roles can be lynched the subsequent Day.

bad bad bad

Absolutely. I love how this game gives the sense of being in the anime, in which you know someone is bad but can't do anything about it immediately...

MovingPictures07 wrote:
The Sockface Death Note Mafia Trivia Game Show
Question 8:
Who receives the Death Note if Misa, Higuchi, or Mikami are lynched and currently possess it?

Assuming that I can answer after missing the other question, I'm guessing Light?

MovingPictures07 wrote:
The Sockface Death Note Mafia Trivia Game Show
Question 7:
How many Kiras are currently alive?

I'll be more optimistic than FZ... 3?

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: linki: Are you satisfied llama?
You told me who you are voting for, you didn't tell me who I should vote for, so no.

Man, this whole last push of FZ is giving me weird vibes. I feel like I'm sensing some true desperation; could be a great acting job, but since we have another good target in Mata, I'm going to take that route today. *votes Mata*

Ricochet wrote:I'd also like to mention that DH's problems with Bass' reply to boo are pretty much the same I had, even if I tangled myself a bit in the wording / meaning of his post. I still can't tell much his genuine RL issues affected his performance here, but I already know from experience (Film) that even a low-poster Bass could potentially come with good (even right) reads. By comparison, the suspect list her gave here is really lackluster.

Going to third this analysis. While it might be accurate to say that your top suspects are unlynchable, it's really not helpful to the civ cause. Whether this comes from a deliberate desire to slow the investigation (ala baddie) or is induced by RL issues, I suppose, is a judgment call. I think Mata and FZ are probably better targets for focus at this moment.

FZ. wrote:I've been thinking that maybe some of the baddies tactics is to push players really until they feel frustrated and they start outing themselves by hinting. It says Light has to know who some of the detectives are in order to kill them. I'm not sure exactly how baddies can do that without taking the eye deal, so maybe they are trying to get people to out themselves and then kill them during the night.
Who would fit that description? I can think of a few very obvious ones

In addition to Epi's numerical analysis, which is pretty strong in my opinion, this quote really calls FZ into question. I interpret this as saying that vigorous investigation should be regarded as baddie behavior, and thus discouraged. But if people don't push with cases and gather defenses from suspects, what do we have to go on for lynches? The civ cause would be hindered, and the baddie cause would be strengthened.

Matahari wrote:Selective reading or selective quoting? If you read all my posts, you wouldn't have needed to pull any of these. Sounds like you were cherry-picking to suit your own recipe

Mata, that's a lame defense. This game is about finding hints and patterns in large quantities of otherwise useless information. The way one contributes to the game, or at least the way I contribute to the game, is by pulling out those suspicious moments and indicating why I feel they are suspicious. Yes, it's selective. Because without selection, there'd be no judgment, and without judgment, we'd all be randomly voting every lynch.

boo wrote:Done reading Boomslang.

He was more active up until Day 3 (in comparison to zeek and Bass). He actually offered his own thoughts, was a part of the discussion, etc. Not all stuff I agree with (and stuff I was suspicious of him at the time for), but at least actual stuff. Since Day 3, he has mostly dropped off, making a few posts during each cycle.

Could just be because he got busy, but the thread was the busiest in the early game, and has (somewhat) toned down since, so it's a little odd to me that given how active he was able to be when things were moving fast, he has been barely able to keep up at all since things slowed down.

For in-game conclusions, it makes me wonder if he got BTSC during or around N3, which would mean he could be Misa or Rem, and he dropped off posting in thread, because most of his activity and attention went to things in BTSC instead.

So, Boom:
If it isn't you, who would you say your top contenders for Misa and Rem are?

Well, I'm not either of those roles, so we'll need to search for new contenders. I did get busier IRL around Day 3, but I also felt like the thread got less interesting. For example, I completely tuned out the puzzles; others were jumping on that, and they took up so much space. There was also a lot of pointless banter between TH and a number of people. (sorry TH, but you know it's true.) I've been keeping up to a good extent, just feel like I've had less to add.

You do make interesting points regarding the possibility that lower posters could be more involved in BTSC; in that case, Mata or Bass present themselves as possibilities for either Rem or Misa. Maybe more likely Misa, because I feel Rem would be more aggressive with the Shinigami immunity. Otherwise... possibly juliets, whose post number stayed up after Day 3 but whose post length seemed to shorten fairly significantly?

Continuing my reads, I also took a look at Bass, who is... hard to pin down. I'm getting generally ok vibes; there's not a lot of content, but most of the short contributing posts seem useful, and he has taken definite positions on a few players. However, there's this self-aware post from way back on Night 1, which perhaps is an attempt to legitimize a quiet, blendy game for the following days:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I understand lynching people who just aren't playing but where do you draw the line. I mean it almost sounds like even if you are a low poster you might have to worry about people wanting to lynch you for not being as active as them.

Doing some reading of people I haven't spent much time on today. A few things are popping out about Mata:

Matahari wrote:FZ- I read the posts about Llama, and you came right to the point. He hasn't been killed yet, which made me laugh. I don't really trust Llama and I could see a vote for him. I also trust ppl who are susp of MM, and I could vote there as well. Made and TH are ppl I have voted because I couldn't understand their behavior. I was wrong about them, but still, it was my reason, and I can do that again. But there is still time, I'd rather my vote counted for something, so I'll wait a bit longer.

The claim of "not understanding" seems evasive, as it avoids taking responsibility for stating why the target's actions have been suspicious.

Matahari wrote:I have flip-flopped a bit on FZ for various reasons, and was ready to go ahead and vote for her today, until Epi posted this. I disagree with most of his comments here. They smack of old-school baddie.

If you've independently judged someone as bad, I don't think that should change because someone you also think is bad makes an attack on that person. Especially in a game like this, where baddies don't have default BTSC.

There's also a very ambivalent attitude to gut feelings. For example, this was posted regarding last lynch:

Matahari wrote:And- I'm not ready to vote Llama or Epig yet, because I want to have something to more to present than 'feels'.

But this was posted as the rationale for joining the Snowman lynch:

Matahari wrote:I will vote Snowman, because I still think that Zombarellas case is coming from an inexperienced place. Maybe I'm basing my decision on what I have done in the past, but when I went hard against someone with just a gut feeling during my first year of playing, I was right.

Ricochet wrote:
FZ. wrote: Second, am I wrong, or is Near the only detective who can't be lynched (other than L, but then someone dies instead of him)? Doesn't this makes the likelihood of MM being bad pretty high?
I'm not sure I get how the mechanics work here, but how are we supposed to get unlynchable people to die?
Near and Mello are both unlynchable (but also powerless) until L dies. Where does it say that L cannot be lynched, though?

MM's likelihood of being a bad unlynchable are about the same as TH's, at this point, I think.

All unlynchable "humans" can become lynchable at some point. All unlynchable Shinigamis are not be lynchable at all, at least judging from the revealed secrets (only Rem could sacrifice herself for Misa's sake).

As long as Watari is still alive, L can't be lynched. From the role page:

Serving as a father-like figure to L, Watari is very protective of him. If L is ever about to be lynched, Watari dies in his place.

Bea, when you vote for yourself, you're either giving up on the game, in which case you should be lynched, or you're trying a massive WIFOM with secret win conditions, which is not a civ move. This is a no-brainer for me. *votes bea*

Russtifinko wrote:No RIPs?

me.

Good luck detectives! Win one for the Gipper.

RIP Russ. I'm glad I applauded your brilliant performance before you finally kicked the bucket.

Alright, I won't be around in an hour, so going to go ahead and *vote Made.* I think the case is strong enough, and the bit about Russ really bothers me.

zeek wrote:
Made wrote:I'm alright thanks for asking! Anyways, it's not between me and you just yet. If we both decided to put our votes on Russ, we could probably get him lynched without much effort, i mean what 3-2 right now? it's early enough to make a 3rd option.
You never answered FZ's question. Are you good?

Yeah. Discussing this distraction option so casually, without making or repeating a case on Russ, strikes me as really fishy.

Changing the topic a bit, but rereading Made, I'm starting to feel that the case is very worthwhile. Much like with Snowman, there's been long periods of silence broken by jokey image posts. He distrusted L's post on Elo for no good reasons, and Elo flipped bad. Felt like the TH lynch was premature, and the lynch result suggests Shinigami or other badness. Then there was that weird post that considered killing the detectives...

Made wrote:
ok, This is going to ruffle a lot of feathers.....

What if we try to kill all the Kiras, then kill all the detectives? This way, the Detectives win, then most of the Kira supporters win.

So I may throw my vote that way in a bit.

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm voting for FZ, because I want DH to have a win-win scenario.
Nice that you can justify your actions which such a morally flawed strategy

Ok, either you or llama need to start using sarcastic orange...

DharmaHelper wrote:
juliets wrote:why is it a win for you DH?
Assuming FZ gets lynched, if she's bad thats awesome. If she's good, Epi and Llama will have an incredible amount of egg on their faces.

Which is a mighty selfish way to think about it... If she's good, the civ cause will have taken a hit regardless of the light it casts on Epi and Llama.

bea wrote:What there are br - there are 2 sets of potential civ bts. I could be near and pulled him into chat and found his role out. It could be any of those scenarios that make llama l - I could be l and
investigated myself to see how people would react.

Or it could be the.truth. - I just strongly think llama is a civ. I've had good feels about him and he's done nothing to
makeline me think he is bad.

Hmm... If you were L, don't you think investigating yourself would be a waste of time? Or even a danger, especially as the previous L message was used to lead a successful lynch on a Kira supporter. I find that hypothetical a little too glib.

There's also been a couple places where you've expressed almost a resigned attitude toward being lynched. If you're not willing to defend your own civness while alive, why should anyone else?

juliets wrote:Booms, is this the comment from Zomba where you feel she's trying to claim civvie cred or was it some other comment?

Zomberella12 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ugh, Takada is dead and Misa is still roaming.

RIP Eloh.
RIP?! She was bad and lynching her eliminates the possibility of additional baddie BTSC. It could have turned out better, but is was still good.

Both that one and the following:

Zomberella12 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Not even someone that would possibly be an inactive Kira. L's message gave me the impression she may become Kira down the road. Not the worst lynch result though.

Linki: mm, what? You are unhappy a Kira sympathizer is dead?
No, but regarding Light's girlfriends, I much prefer Takada over Misa.
Not really a smooth save.

I'm pretty pleased with that lynch result; definitely encourages trust in L and in the freedom MP is giving him to reveal the results of his investigation. It's not a Kira per se, but reducing the options for Team Kira is certainly desirable.

Regarding my earlier post on "autopilot" lynches, I admit that was a flippant and too-strong choice of wording. I do feel somewhat strongly about trying another lynch on TH, but on rereading the roles, I guess we have to wait until we're sure another Death Note has entered the game. I think he's hinting at being Shinigami but may actually be Higuchi (who is invincible until he gets his note).

Notable to me is Zomba's strong reaction to MM after this latest result. Just like with the Snowman lynch, she's really trying to claim civvie cred.

I'm having an almost impossible time keeping up with the flow of this game right now between the huge volume of posts and my own commitments. I guess I'm kind of surprised by how much talking is still going on, because the next couple of lynches should run on autopilot. First, get Elo and see if L is telling the truth. Second, get TH again and either out him or actually kill his now unprotected bum. So I don't feel that bad about being behind here. *votes Elo*

Been unreasonably busy the past couple days, not much time to catch up. Voting TH on gut and a persistent feeling that he's been flooding the thread while not actually contributing much.

This thread continues to balloon, and I'm surprised by the kill of SVS (RIPIYWG). But I'm not going to have time to catch up now or vote later due to school commitments, so I'll stick with my previous thoughts and *vote Snowman*.

Elohcin wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I don't see how the Snowman case can move forward any further until we hear from the Man himself.
And I think this is exactly why it IS moving forward.

But seriously, a lack of defense is itself informative, and in this case, I don't think in a good way.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:May I ask why it's pingy?

Because you didn't offer it initially, only when it became clear that others would support your cause. Making a long, involved case against Epi makes your previously spurious early vote more respectable; you seem to have concluded that it the effort is worthwhile now and are committing your fire.

Ricochet wrote:MetalMarsh votes Epignosis first thing D3. Only reasoning he gives is that it's because he doesn't think Epig is intentionally inconsistent.
Almost one day later, makes a big case on Epig bringing out a pattern of intentional inconsistencies.
Receives standing ovation.

Really?

Yeah... the fact that his case came out now, when momentum is starting to build in Epig's direction, is pretty damn pingy.

Other than that, there have been multiple pages of pure pissing contest between DH/TH and Epig, nothing that's really adding to the discussion in any meaningful way. And they want to throw around the "dead weight" accusation... Meanwhile, the case against Snowman is slowly improving based on my read of Zombra (as well as his continued silence), and I will likely cast a vote that way unless something unusual develops by next afternoon.

juliets wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Why are you spending so much time looking for Yotsubas, Boomslang?
I'm not so much interested in Yotsuba for their own sake as I am in their usefulness to determining Epig's reasoning. I'm trying to figure out if his calling out of Long Con and Juliets was legitimate or diversionary, because both of those players have gone after him pretty hard.
Booms, I don't think I have gone after Epi at all. Are you maybe thinking of someone else?

This is what I was interpreting as "going after," which was maybe too strong a choice of words, but there was definitely something I saw as criticism:

juliets wrote:Channeling my inner Epi he sometimes says things - like he thinks Russ is bad and will vote for him - just to see what reaction he gets, never intending to do what he says.

followed by

juliets wrote:On Epi, he absolutely does throw things out to see what kind of reaction he gets. Whether thats what he was doing with the Russ stuff i don't know. It makes no sense to me why he didn't vote Russ unless it was something like that.

But maybe I was primed to see that based on Epi's words... this is messing with my head.

Turnip Head wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Why are you spending so much time looking for Yotsubas, Boomslang?
I'm not so much interested in Yotsuba for their own sake as I am in their usefulness to determining Epig's reasoning. I'm trying to figure out if his calling out of Long Con and Juliets was legitimate or diversionary, because both of those players have gone after him pretty hard.
Diversionary how?

Diversionary in the sense of putting other people under examination. The question now isn't just "What is Epig?" but also "What are Juliets and LC?"

Turnip Head wrote:Why are you spending so much time looking for Yotsubas, Boomslang?

I'm not so much interested in Yotsuba for their own sake as I am in their usefulness to determining Epig's reasoning. I'm trying to figure out if his calling out of Long Con and Juliets was legitimate or diversionary, because both of those players have gone after him pretty hard.

Doing my readthroughs of Juliets and Long Con. A few things of note:

1. The two don't agree on the normal lynch issue, but they both mention the possible fun of the L/Light mechanic.

2. Juliets is "intrigued' by Epig's Russ suspicion in her fourth post, while Long Con's literally third post contains the following sentence:

Long Con wrote:Maybe Epig is on the yellow team and is afraid his team is getting ripped off.

3. LC later joins in on the examination of Epig for Russ:

Long Con wrote: Isn't Epig anti-speculation? And now he has voted for Russ with a very speculative reason? Maybe Russ has posted sicne then and it's all moot, I don't know yet. Epig, I assume your speculation crumbles if he posts, and you will not believe in your vote any longer?

4. Both of them feel ambivalent about Snowman, or at least felt that way when LC died.

I'm not sure how this makes them Yotsuba, other than LC's possible misdirection by referencing the yellow team in association with Epi. But it does suggest a similar way of thinking/playstyle for the two.

linki: The powers of the thellama are strong indeed :P
linki 2 (Electric Boogaloo): Watch that apostrophe placement, juliets :P
linki 3: IT'S 11 ON A SUNDAY! DON'T YOU KIDS HAVE SCHOOL?!

Epignosis wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Epignosis wrote:That won't happen Boomslang. I have three other people pegged as Yotsuba. I will not talk about them.
I completely understand you not wanting to reveal all your cards, especially when indicating people who might eventually get a kill. The claim that you've got three other Yotsuba suspects is at least interesting new intel. I don't expect you to name names, but can you say if you suspect them for the same reasons as you suspected LC? Would give us something to look for in possible rereads.
I firmly believe juliets is Yotsuba.

She'll deny it, and I refuse to give my reasoning, but I think I'm right.

That's good enough for people to do a compare/contrast of her and LC. Thanks, and I guess I have some reading to do.

Also, decided to suck it up and actually watch this show. Hang on to your butts...

Epignosis wrote:That won't happen Boomslang. I have three other people pegged as Yotsuba. I will not talk about them.

I completely understand you not wanting to reveal all your cards, especially when indicating people who might eventually get a kill. The claim that you've got three other Yotsuba suspects is at least interesting new intel. I don't expect you to name names, but can you say if you suspect them for the same reasons as you suspected LC? Would give us something to look for in possible rereads.

Turnip Head wrote:I think Epi might be Kira posing as Yotsuba so that we don't view him as a threat. I also think he might have killed LC.

More importantly, if Epi is Kira, why would he have killed LC, whom he suspected as Yotsuba? From what I understand, Epi views the Yotsuba as a fairly independent team, and if he were Kira, he'd want to focus his fire on detectives. It'd be nice if he could explain his reasoning behind the judgment of LC as Yotsuba, though.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Three lynches ending at the same hour.

I am going to vote for S~V~S. Her vote for me was unexplained, as were the three that preceded hers, and I intend to NO-U the hell out of that. Also, she said she wouldn't vote for boo unless there was a "smoking gun." She gives me no such allowance. She has also ignored two of my posts so far.
WHAT?

Movingpictures07 wrote:Snowman
7
thellama73 (3), Elohcin (9), DharmaHelper (10), AceofSpaces (12), zeek (13), Ricochet (14), Epignosis (29) 24%

I do want to provide a signal boost to this vote. To be fair, Epig provides notification of this change in the thread:

Epignosis wrote:I voted Snowman. S~V~S is now my top suspect.

But he also says this, which is interesting:

Epignosis wrote:I might try to save someone just to make people mad.

That seems to be a fairly flippant justification for a vote change/save attempt. And other than that post, he offers no explanation for why SVS moved from the recipient of his vote to only his "top suspect."

Epignosis wrote:You know, I'm used to seeing my balls discussed in a game, but not in this context!

Bah dum TISH.

DharmaHelper wrote:Aw dang Epi we lynched a boyscout

Wait, a boy scout? I was under the impression that we wanted to get rid of all the Yotsuba? Because they will likely eventually gain a Death Note? Also, totally was not expecting LC to bite the dust, hadn't really gotten much of a read.

Linki with Bass: Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

Wow, wasn't expecting the BWT train to gather that much steam. Obviously I'm ok with it, as I cast the first stone, but I'm surprised that the vote caught up to and then surpassed the vote for Snowman. I hope I didn't inadvertently contribute to a save job for that guy...

FZ. wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:No FZ. You aren't the only one. I mentioned BWT earlier and I am seriously considering him for a vote. Though boo's case on llama merits some consideration I think, I just get scared voting llama because I usually am wrong when I do find him suspicious. It makes me nervous. As far as BWT though, his level of engagement is making me feel suspicious and the thing is I remember in GoC I was not at all surprised by his engagement there, I was in fact surprised by the fact he got lynched for it, but for some reason in this game it feels insincere to me, but I can't put my finger on why.
I think the case on BWT is better than the one on llama, not because Boo isn't right about the fact llama is not doing what he says he does as a civvie, but because the fact he isn't playing how he thinks he is, doesn't make him bad.

BWT, on the other hand, has just made a claasic baddie move, by voting for the most obvious choice, one that has no consequences because he never encouraged anyone to follow, nor is he here to debate it. He gave Russ a bate he knew Russ had to take, and Russ "took" it because he had no choice, making it easy for BWT to vote him.

linki: I have to post

This is a really good summation of the case against BWT and helps me clarify my own thoughts on the issue. I'm guessing that both BWT and Snowman are bad, but of the two, I think BWT has the potential to be more dangerous. Snowman's probably going to get lynched anyway, so I'll throw a vote on BWT to indicate my feelings and provide some support if others want to join me.

FZ. wrote:By the way, am I the only one pinged by BWT, his vote for Russ, and his whole behaviour surrounding TH and Russ? Just seems like the easiest suspicion ever. If it's role related, Russ is the last person to talk about it because it's infodumping, and BWT knows it.

I mentioned something related to this earlier. BWT first pressed Russ to provide a defense, but then didn't seem altogether that concerned if he got one or not. BWT did end up voting for him, which is at least consistent, but it does seem like he picked an easy target and one for which he wasn't very concerned about the quality of evidence.

Linki w/bea: That makes another of us

S~V~S wrote:Boom, did you see my very reasonable answer? Would not want you to miss it and think I did not answer it.

What would be amazingly bad? Saying something like, "My kill failed last night" or something of that sort. Really, it was just a remark basically saying it would take a lot of convincing for me to vote for boo. And it would. It would have to be one hell of a smoking gun, becasue I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he is bad. I won't say he's GOOD, but I certainly don't suspect him any more than anyone else at this stage.

Duly noted. I can't say I'm fully satisfied with that answer, because the example you're giving is basically an example of (forbidden) role outing. I do understand that you have a high standard of proof, and I just hope that carries forward to everyone else in the game.

linki w/TH: Yes, but changing multiple opinions without the presence of significant changes to the available evidence? I've pointed out a pattern of behavior here, not an isolated instance.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm starting to think Llama might not be bad after all ...

He says, conveniently, long after his vote has been cast. TH, I've been noting a number of cases where you pick up and then quickly drop suspicions (or vice versa), and I can't help but wonder if this is baddie butt-covering in the case that lynches go in undesirable ways.

Turnip Head wrote:FZ, if you keep reading I dropped I dropped the Boo thing as quickly as I picked it up

Turnip Head wrote:The cases on FZ and Snowman seem pretty weak to me. I hope neither of them get lynched. But where's FZ? She has been pretty quiet...

followed almost immediately by

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah, the Snowman <---- Boo <---- SVS train of trust is a bit disconcerting, I suppose. SVS, can you clarify your opinion of Boo and/or answer Epi's question about him?

There's a place where you question a Boo post, then retract your suspicion:

Turnip Head wrote:This is the snipped portion of the boo post I'm talking about. Yes, boo also mentions that Trice didn't need defending because he was defending himself. I still feel like something doesn't add up, but idk.

followed by

Turnip Head wrote:I have to agree BR, on reread I found it a lot less questionable than I originally thought

No shame in changing your opinions in light of new evidence, but many of these turnabouts happen pretty quickly, before the discussion has had a chance to progress altogether that much.

Holy friggin' crap, that catchup took forever. As far as I can tell, there were two main threads of discussion going on last night, both of which revolved around Snowman. The first focused on the man himself and his personal defense (or in this case, mostly lack thereof). When he finally arrived in the thread, he made one post of basically "I'm overwhelmed, don't pick on me for failing to understand the case against me." After a while, he followed that up with a more substantive post; he makes an interesting argument that the case against him was constructed to deflect attention from Epi, but doesn't offer any quotes to back that up. On the whole, this lack of substance and factual support makes me feel increasingly less good.

The second focused on boo and the concern that the case against Snowman was becoming an out of control bandwagon on a new player. Boo seemed very concerned with giving Snowman the benefit of the doubt, saying (to my understanding) that voters should wait until the latest possible time to give him time for responding. There's a bit of reductio ad absurdum that pings me:

boo wrote: Ok llama, we'll play things your way. You're here right now. I'm going to vote for you. You have 1 second after this post goes through to give me a reason I should not vote for you. Because apparently we can set a clock on people no matter how absurd.

Finally, there's one other thing that stood out that I don't think has been readdressed:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S...in case you missed it:

S~V~S wrote:
Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?
I am not voting for boo unless he says something really amazingly bad. While we have some philosophical differences re low posting and whether it's better to get rid of low posters from the perspective of PLAYERS v. ROLES, I am seeing his points more so than I am seeing yours or Llamas regarding Snowman.
What would boo have to do that's amazingly bad to get you to vote for him?

SVS still hasn't given a good answer to that reasonable sounding but very vague claim, which pings me.

Turnip Head wrote:You hit the nail right on the head, boo. If I'm Ryuk, then there's no reason to waste a lynch on me.

But we don't know for sure, and the role secrets say that two attempted kills will out Ryuk. That wouldn't be wasted effort, imo; we'd have eliminated the possibility of that role for other people, and we'd know that your words going forward shouldn't be trusted. In short, I don't like that defense...

Epignosis wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Linki with Epig: I don't think's boo's reaction is a gambler's fallacy; that logic only really applies when the second event has exactly the same odds as the first. Which is not the case in these circumstances, in which the available information differs.
I haven't read your post yet, but wanted to comment on this first. My point (in context) is that if boo is comfortable lynching a non-participator or someone unhelpful (as many are not), why would he be disapproving of a Snowman "bandwagon" (a lynch is not necessarily a bandwagon, by the way) on the basis of that having not worked out with Trice, who was actively engaged (by boo's own judgement).

That's the dissonance I mean.

Fair enough. I guess I mostly just disagreed with the term "gambler's fallacy," which suggests a more chancy and less reasoned approach to the issue. Unless that's what you wanted to indicate.

Going back and rereading Snowman carefully myself... he hasn't offered much defense in the last night/day phases. A number of "jokey" (to use boo's term) posts, a bit of biting sarcasm, a lot of images, which create the impression of large contributions without much content. All this after he said "I'll offer my insight and contribute what I can" on Day 1. So I'm feeling less good about him.

boo wrote:Doing more reading of people.

Boomslang wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:35 minutes left and 15 missing votes
Welcome to my hell.
I feel like the game is in a Mexican standoff right now... So guess I'll be among the first to shoot. I think there's a lot of information that came out of the Trice/Ace exchange, most of which showed Trice to be self-contradictory and a bit flustered. I'm not reading a genuine defense in those posts, so I'm going to add my vote.

linki w/Rico: I feel the same way about Russ, but I feel a little less forgiving toward TH. Hopefully Russ posts tomorrow and can give some good intel. Also skeptical of FZ; Snowman's few posts suggest a lack of involvement with the game, which hasn't yet made itself clear to me as ignorance or malice.
Boomslang doesn't have many posts and lots of them are jokey, and this one pretty much sums up what I have to say anyways. But take a minute and read over him.

Before voting for Trice, Boomslang had had some minor suspicion of him that he voiced, but in a post after that it had sounded like he thought Trice and Ace were both just to much into it and that at this point he didn't seem all that suspicious of either of them. That is this post:

Boomslang wrote:
Made wrote:Caught up, but I don't feel there's a niche anywhere in conversation for me to fill as of yet.
I agree with SVS, while I did read the entirety of DH v Epi and Ace v Trice, I think it would help me during a reread if i knew where the arguments were going while reading. Personally, I feel like DH and Trice are arguing past each other on the "Good" remark, so if a third party could reframe that, both for my own understanding, and the mutual understanding of Dh and Trice, that'd be awesome.

Not a ping, but honestly, I expected Llama to take a bigger role in conversation thus far.

Epi, You said that ace is normally a quiet player, having never played with him, can you elaborate further?

also, play style reads on DP, Meta, Zomba, Boo, Trice, and Snowman would be nice if someone would like to offer them.
As far as I understand, the "good" remark is in reference to what Trice said about the L/Light lynch option, in reference to Ace's analysis of the options. DH read Ace's analysis as saying it would be more logical for the baddies to pick the normal lynch, while Trice read Ace's analysis to say the lynch option would be the one civilians would pick. Trice then argued that the two interpretations were identical. I think DH is splitting some unnecessary hairs here, but I don't think Ace's language marks him as bad.
Then he does a bit of discussing a variety of things (mostly Snowman and FZ), a bit of joking, and then we get to the voting post.

Now, problem number one. I have no idea why he thought it was a mexican standoff. Trice already had 5 votes, the next highest voter finished the lynch with 3, and Boomslang knew he was about to widen the gap and bring Trice to 6 votes. So... how can he claim to the first to shoot? It... makes no sense. He gives a little bit to explain his vote, and does so.

The voting post (ignoring his linki bit that is directed at Rico that is just going back to his discussion about other people) is just him bandwagoning onto Trice, while phrasing it in a way that tries to make it sound like he's some sort of decision maker who is leading the charge, not someone piling on another vote for someone who already has the lead, is taking a clear lead because of his vote, with the lynch only having (less than) 35 minutes left.

Since then, we got one post from him during N1, and nothing today.

Sorry, been out doing interviews for school stuff all day today; just caught up, and I should be a bit more active in the next few hours. I admit I was being a bit flowery with my language in the "first to shoot" bit, especially because I think a couple people voted while I was typing up my post. But to be fair, there were still a good deal of votes left to be cast at that point; the time of 35 minutes is less relevant than the number of players outstanding.

boo wrote:
My big problem with the Snowman stuff is that it already looks like there's a bandwagon forming against him, and seeing as how that went so poorly with Trice (who I didn't step in for because he was actually defending himself and I don't like to try and help people in the early game since if they're lynched and bad that somehow makes me bad for doubting a pretty shaky case), I think people who don't agree and aren't looking to bandwagon him need to actual make an effort to stop that from happening and engage. I think people who are considering voting him, and are civvies (so not looking to bandwagon) also need to be challenged before it becomes the easy and safe choice.

This is a really good point. Again, I've expressed some suspicion over his "nothing to discuss" and "discussion coalescing" posts, but I'd like to get a little more intel before drawing a conclusion.

In terms of the other major events of the day: I feel like Epig legitimately figured out the eye thing based on lore knowledge, so I'm not suspicious of him for that. Russ coming back is welcome, and I don't supposed I'm surprised that he can't (or doesn't choose to) talk about the first day's silence. Russ also makes a very good point here:

Russtifinko wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm going to start approaching this game in a different way. And a different playstyle.

TH and Russ: I want a defense from both of you. Whoever gives a worse defense of why they shouldn't be lynched will get my vote.

......

Also, Russ, I don't need a defense from you (yet). But I do want to know why you haven't posted anything in this game until Day 2.

Linki 2: I'm looking at the two of you because:

1) TH - Voting someone with no explanation whatsoever. Sure, he might be forced. But I feel like something more nefarious is going on.

2) [Russ] did a drive-by-vote on Day 0, didn't post then at all, and didn't post at all during Day 1 or Night 1. So I think you have something to hide too.

I think those are two very good reasons to look at voting one of the two of you today.
(Quote edited for size, but using BWT's words where possible to keep the gist.)

So you want my defense but don't need it yet?

Which BWT first brushes off as probing, then continues to ask the question:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
I'll be honest. I mostly posted my original post for today in that way because I wanted to see what kinds of reactions I would get out of TH and yourself. I think TH's reaction was very telling in particular.

As for you, I am still curious as to why you did not post at all in the game until now. Care to explain why?

Linki with Epig: I don't think's boo's reaction is a gambler's fallacy; that logic only really applies when the second event has exactly the same odds as the first. Which is not the case in these circumstances, in which the available information differs.

Just caught up with everything from the lynch onward. RIP Trice; my apologies for misreading the signals you were sending out.

DharmaHelper wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:35 minutes left and 15 missing votes
Welcome to my hell.

I feel like the game is in a Mexican standoff right now... So guess I'll be among the first to shoot. I think there's a lot of information that came out of the Trice/Ace exchange, most of which showed Trice to be self-contradictory and a bit flustered. I'm not reading a genuine defense in those posts, so I'm going to add my vote.

linki w/Rico: I feel the same way about Russ, but I feel a little less forgiving toward TH. Hopefully Russ posts tomorrow and can give some good intel. Also skeptical of FZ; Snowman's few posts suggest a lack of involvement with the game, which hasn't yet made itself clear to me as ignorance or malice.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Maybe I should miss the vote and see what happens.

Search found 60 matches