Return to “GAME OVER: BLUE vs. RED”
Sit Vincent Sit. I forgot that's what it meant.Golden wrote:nd my avatar is from Lost, but I am not a character from Lost.DFaraday wrote:But I'm also a character from LOST. Just to muddy the waters even more.Golden wrote:It's not hard, llama. One of them IS a character from the lost, and the other is NOT a character from lost.
And the Lo in LoRab stands for Lost...
And S~V~S is also from Lost...
Oh boy it gets confusing.
But I'm also a character from LOST. Just to muddy the waters even more.Golden wrote:It's not hard, llama. One of them IS a character from the lost, and the other is NOT a character from lost.
Ugh, I just realized Sawyer's the only person besides you who hasn't voted, so that really didn't help at all.DFaraday wrote:I think you're civ and want to help, but I'm reading LC as genuine. I'll go ahead and vote Sawyer.thellama73 wrote:I would like to lynch either Sawyer or Long Con today. Will anyone join me on those votes? As much as I dislike the idea, it appears as if I will have to build a coalition if I am going to survive and save the game for the civvies.
I think you're civ and want to help, but I'm reading LC as genuine. I'll go ahead and vote Sawyer.thellama73 wrote:I would like to lynch either Sawyer or Long Con today. Will anyone join me on those votes? As much as I dislike the idea, it appears as if I will have to build a coalition if I am going to survive and save the game for the civvies.
DrWilgy wrote:Kay, day 1 we have a light dissuasion for Scotty calling out JoH.DFaraday wrote:You've been saying I'm baddie all game. Why?DrWilgy wrote:Neat, 2v4. LC and DF are the remaining baddoes and votes are final.
Mislynch causes a 2v2... Is that game over or a 50/50?
Or I wondered why he would pick Jack in particular when most of us had under five posts at that point.
Day 2 he enters the thread after catching up woth no thoughts other than flimsy-waver commentary.DFaraday wrote:Wouldn't almost everyone qualify as low posters at this point?Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.
Jackofhearts, I see you.
Sounds about right.
Votes Jack out of self defence and not the fact that he's an outed baddie. Interesting that he would choose to vote for Jack on self defence in spite of his comment regarding keeping him alive. I'd think that "I'm vpting for jack because he's bad" or "I'm voting for jack to get rid of his manipulation" would've been what a civ would say, but he doesn't say either of these.DFaraday wrote:Finally caught up. Good result, all! RIP Elo.
I agree that there's no rush to lynch Jack, we just need to be careful about how close lynches are or he could tip the scales. Then again, I doubt he'd use that to save a teammate, but rather frame a civ.
To Sawyer: I have no suspicion of you. I randomized from everybody besides myself and it was you. That's all.
I already said I didn't think Jack was an urgent threat, but if I'm in danger of lynching I'll go for the guy most likely to get lynched besides me. Who wouldn't? Also, if I'd said either of the things you think I should have said, you'd come in and say I did a 180 from my earlier post where I said Jack wasn't a big deal at the moment.
Day 3, this one is a personal qualm but how does df know I'm civ when he was wrong about Mac, Fz, SVS?DFaraday wrote:Anyway, I'm voting Jack right now for self-preservation.
Um, where did I say I know you're civ? I said I found it suspect that you were taking multiple votes for seemingly unrelated reasons.
Day 5, DF literally feels bad on everyone he comments on except Llama IF his bad feeling of Sawyer is correct. Also note that he specifically went out of the way to call himself vanilla. A vanilla doesn't do that, he's either a power role or mafia but w/e not going into role outing.DFaraday wrote:I'm putting a vote on Jack for now. I'm not liking how Wilgy has three votes right now, for what seem to be three different reasons. Llama for the visual, but also a little because he didn't like Wilgy's SVS vote. Epi because he finds Wilgy's case against him forced and fabricated. LC because he doesn't like how jokey Wilgy is playing?
For the record, I don't agree with Wilgy's assessment of Epi, but I can see how a civ could come to that conclusion.
I'm a non-conformist and you're going to have to reevaluate your handbook to civvie and baddie behavior when this is all said and done.
Nvm, Epi is also civ, but this is at the time when several other suspect him so cred hunting?DFaraday wrote:Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.
2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Rereading his posts, I'm finding him to be pretty inconsistent. First he cites some mild suspicion, decides to vote her over Jack, then the next day says that he's glad everyone is "seeing sense" and voting Jack, despite making a case on Epi and continually pushing it throughout that phase. I'm leaning bad towards MM, but not as much as I am Notsawyer.
3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
The lack of a kill could indicate that the remaining baddies are uninvolved, which would implicate Floyd more than anyone (and me next, I'm aware). I'm slightly leaning bad on Floyd.
4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
Vanilla Civvie all the way.
5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I don't really recall Quin's activity this game. I'll need to look into him.
6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
If I'm right about Notsawyer being bad, it's unlikely Llama also is given the timing of his vote for Notsawyer on Day 1, when the lynch could still have gone that way. His Jack suspicion was also consistent and felt genuine. Leaning civ.
7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
LC hasn't felt entirely involved in this game, like he's trying to keep out of the limelight. I don't have suspicions of him per se, but I don't really feel civ about him.
You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.
Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.
And this is why we should vote DF, according to him everyone is bad except the people that shouldn't be able to be read (i.e. me because I'm dicking around almost 80% of this game). He's buddies with JoH. Also note that LC saved DF yestersay sooo...DFaraday wrote:I would be fine with either Notsawyer or MM, but it seems like it's going to be between Epi and MM, and I see the case on MM, whereas I'm reading Epi as civ.
Last post, then I'm really off for the night.notsawyer540 wrote:Linki: Faraday, you're playing a shoddy game? In what ways?
A quick glance over his voting records shows that he didn't vote for Jack at any point. But what I thought was interesting was that on Day 3 he didn't vote for me even though Wilgy voted at a time when another vote on me and a little more pressure could have swung the lynch away from Jack once again. Maybe he didn't want to look like he was saving a teammate.thellama73 wrote:I'd like to discuss Wilgy as an option for today. He's been quietly smug the last few rounds, with his comments like "oh a tie, neat." and so forth. No one has really been looking at him, and I wonder if he hasn't started to get quite confident in his chances. I'll be doing a thorough reread of him before voting.
You've been saying I'm baddie all game. Why?DrWilgy wrote:Neat, 2v4. LC and DF are the remaining baddoes and votes are final.
Mislynch causes a 2v2... Is that game over or a 50/50?
I agree. Switching back to MM.thellama73 wrote:That all depends, but I certainly don't want a tie. No lynch only benefits the mafia at this point.Long Con wrote:What would you do with your power?thellama73 wrote:True, but if Metalmarsh votes DFaraday and DFaraday votes Metalmarsh, that still leaves me with a spare vote. Oh the power.Long Con wrote:Marmot cannot vote DFaraday, because that would force DFaraday to switch to Marmot, resulting in Marmot's lynch. Marmot is forced to vote notsawyer.
Even with changeable votes, that's how it often happens around here. Someone starts taking votes, and the momentum just keep rolling. I was trying to quell it before it became a runaway.notsawyer540 wrote:A 3-way tie a day before the vote ends.DFaraday wrote:Are you kidding me right now? I was tied for the lead when I voted you yesterday, and I'm still tied for the lead.
Anyway, out of the current leaders in the poll I think Marmot's the most likely to be bad.
Vote MM
notsawyer540 wrote:So I name Dfaraday as my 3rd top suspect and he immediately votes for me--still without any sort of explanation other than saying that it's out of self-preservation despite the fact that he's not really on the chopping block in the same respect as I was yesterday.
I really don't want to vote out of self-preservation a second day in a row, but DF just put me ahead in votes and his "reasoning" seems scummy, so it may happen again. I KNOW I'm civ, but I don't know the same about any of you, so I'm gonna put myself first every time.
He said that I just said I'm fine with lynching either him or MM without elaboration. I thought my post implied that I suspected them for the reasons I'd stated in my previous post, but he didn't seem to acknowledge that at all.MacDougall wrote:There is way too much omgus going on in this game. This game really does remind me of a parliament. A whole bunch of men accusing each other of being the villain. Funny shit.
Faraday, do you really think he mischaracterised you in that post? Explain how please. I would describe it more as him describing you with cliff notes.
Maybe because I gave my reasons previously, and didn't feel like rehashing the same points?notsawyer540 wrote: DFaraday - He hasn't said much of substance other than that he's fine with Marmot or me getting lynched. No elaboration.
I'm going to move my vote to Notsawyer for now for self-preservation, though the fact that he mischaracterized me like that only furthers my suspicion that he fits the facts to meet his accusation (which apparently has shifted to me), and makes me more inclined to suspect him anyway.DFaraday wrote:Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.
2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Rereading his posts, I'm finding him to be pretty inconsistent. First he cites some mild suspicion, decides to vote her over Jack, then the next day says that he's glad everyone is "seeing sense" and voting Jack, despite making a case on Epi and continually pushing it throughout that phase. I'm leaning bad towards MM, but not as much as I am Notsawyer.
3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
The lack of a kill could indicate that the remaining baddies are uninvolved, which would implicate Floyd more than anyone (and me next, I'm aware). I'm slightly leaning bad on Floyd.
4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
Vanilla Civvie all the way.
5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I don't really recall Quin's activity this game. I'll need to look into him.
6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
If I'm right about Notsawyer being bad, it's unlikely Llama also is given the timing of his vote for Notsawyer on Day 1, when the lynch could still have gone that way. His Jack suspicion was also consistent and felt genuine. Leaning civ.
7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
LC hasn't felt entirely involved in this game, like he's trying to keep out of the limelight. I don't have suspicions of him per se, but I don't really feel civ about him.
You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.
Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.
Why does that make him bad though?Epignosis wrote: I have wanted to string llama up for the way he's been characterizing people and acting like Day 0 stuff is more important than Day 3 stuff.
Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.
2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Rereading his posts, I'm finding him to be pretty inconsistent. First he cites some mild suspicion, decides to vote her over Jack, then the next day says that he's glad everyone is "seeing sense" and voting Jack, despite making a case on Epi and continually pushing it throughout that phase. I'm leaning bad towards MM, but not as much as I am Notsawyer.
3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
The lack of a kill could indicate that the remaining baddies are uninvolved, which would implicate Floyd more than anyone (and me next, I'm aware). I'm slightly leaning bad on Floyd.
4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
Vanilla Civvie all the way.
5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I don't really recall Quin's activity this game. I'll need to look into him.
6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
If I'm right about Notsawyer being bad, it's unlikely Llama also is given the timing of his vote for Notsawyer on Day 1, when the lynch could still have gone that way. His Jack suspicion was also consistent and felt genuine. Leaning civ.
7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
LC hasn't felt entirely involved in this game, like he's trying to keep out of the limelight. I don't have suspicions of him per se, but I don't really feel civ about him.
You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.
Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.
I'm working on responding to your lengthy request right now.Epignosis wrote:DF is back in the naughty pile. Speak. Help civilians win.
It doesn't say anything about non-players though, which is what MP is unless I'm missing something.Epignosis wrote:The host implied they could.DFaraday wrote:Why are dead players and MP voting in this poll?
Jack wouldn't have poisoned discussion if everyone just ignored him. I find Epi's argument that we could identify teammates of Jack understandable, and am not sure why that makes him bad. Clearly enough people agreed with him to not lynch Jack right away, so this feels like you're trying to shift the blame onto Epi.notsawyer540 wrote:Do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be at least one person on an entire baddie team who would know that you and Eloh are married?Epignosis wrote:"Good catch." "Another good catch."
Please. If you are a civilian, you would be defending the shit out of me, except, well, you don't know that Eloh is my wife and I wouldn't kill her Night 1. Jack didn't know that. People keep acting like I'm the kind of person that would kill her to fuck with everyone. Am I? People also think I have this huge reputation where I would throw my teammates under the bus at every turn, but I have only done that one intentionally, and only twice because of circumstance. If you think you've caught me because I forgot something or because I don't say what you want to hear, guess what?
"You a damn fool." -Boo
I don't think we've caught you because you "forgot" things a couple times. I know we've caught you because of the way you've been controlling the narrative the entire time. You got Scotty. Bravo. But then when we were handed a baddie on a silver platter, you and Wilgy convinced everyone not to lynch him against all reason. You let a baddie live so that he can further influence and poison the voting and the discussion. Then you got SVS lynched, who was civ. Now you think I'm bad because I've had the audacity to name you as one of my top suspects--despite the fact that all of your efforts have been centered around lynching two people who weren't mafia and not lynching the guy who was.
No, he just recognized my usual poor gameplay.DrWilgy wrote:Epignosis wrote:Chickenshit stuff. He gave a full assessment when under pressure to do so, but a lot of what he said didn't make any sense. He came in cool with lynching S~V~S as long as he wasn't getting the rope.Marmot wrote:Why do you think he's civilian that is?
I see textbook DF is all.So you 180'd on DF?Epignosis wrote:This was Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:13 pm EST. I note that there were only seven pages, which means DF was only four pages behind. Surely he could have skimmed and made a more informed decision in that time, could he not?DFaraday wrote:I won't be able to catch up on the thread until tonight, so I randomized Sawyer. I hate randomizing, but I haven't read since page 3 and literally have no suspicions yet.
This next post is Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:15 am EST, over 36 hours later. In it, DF did nothing but talk about Jack- no mention of suspects, whom he would have voted had he been caught up, no ideas on who is a civilian- nada.DFaraday wrote:Finally caught up. Good result, all! RIP Elo.
I agree that there's no rush to lynch Jack, we just need to be careful about how close lynches are or he could tip the scales. Then again, I doubt he'd use that to save a teammate, but rather frame a civ.
To Sawyer: I have no suspicion of you. I randomized from everybody besides myself and it was you. That's all.
I'm voting DFaraday.
To a lot of people, sure.DrWilgy wrote:Would you say that your default is mafia until proven civvy?DFaraday wrote:Wilgy, I didn't include further comments in my post because I was half asleep and just wanted to get the most cursory comment out there. If you don't believe that, sorry.
What I was trying to say is that it read like FZ didn't want to commit too strongly, so that if Scotty came back civ, she wouldn't look like she was pushing for his lynch too hard. Of course she would know he wasn't Mafia, but he could also (and was) a dangerous Indy, and helping to lynch an Indy would not look as bad as lynching a civ.Epignosis wrote:That doesn't make any sense to me. If FZ. is bad and MacDougall isn't on her team, then what bases is she covering? She would know that lynching either would not eliminate someone from her team. She would have no reservations about lynching someone who isn't on her team. At best, your accusation can only be interpreted to mean that FZ. faked her restraint.DFaraday wrote:FZ. wrote:I'm reading through. I have to say I'm leaning on agreeing with Epi on Scotty. Some of his posts feel to me like how I would play when mafia, by trying to look helpful in his attempt to analyse the host's post, and by looking like he's doing some serious hunting, while it doesn't feel genuine to me.
I have two reservations:
1. the part where he randomly chooses a low poster. That's poor hunting, and I think Scotty is smarter than that. 2. I also understand where he's coming from, with his suspicion of the marmot. He tends to lay low and be more fluffy when he's bad.
SoFZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...All of the above read like someone who's trying to cover their bases regardless of the lynch outcome. She expresses suspicion, then gives herself outs.FZ. wrote:I'd say Scotty.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:If only one of them is bad, which is it?FZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...
Gtth, if you will.
Epi, couldn't flipping a coin just be a figure of speech?
Otherwise, your accusation only makes sense if she and MacDougall are bad together with the now exposed JackofHearts, but you didn't mention MacDougall in your pool of suspects.
Epignosis wrote:What about S~V~S's comments were odd and why do they make you suspect her?DFaraday wrote: Baddie
SVS (Her odd comments about Elo's death)
FZ (All her questions are reminiscent of a baddie trying to appear out of the loop and thus harmless. Also she sounded very waffly in all her posts about Scotty)
Floyd (Just by default)
You already said it. She gave a lengthy reflection on Elo's death, thinking it odd that Elo of all people would be killed, then considering the reasons why. To me it felt like something a baddie who killed Elo had thought of already.
Can you identify the posts in which FZ. was "waffly" in regard to Scotty and explain why that makes you suspect her?
FZ. wrote:I'm reading through. I have to say I'm leaning on agreeing with Epi on Scotty. Some of his posts feel to me like how I would play when mafia, by trying to look helpful in his attempt to analyse the host's post, and by looking like he's doing some serious hunting, while it doesn't feel genuine to me.
I have two reservations:
1. the part where he randomly chooses a low poster. That's poor hunting, and I think Scotty is smarter than that. 2. I also understand where he's coming from, with his suspicion of the marmot. He tends to lay low and be more fluffy when he's bad.
SoFZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...All of the above read like someone who's trying to cover their bases regardless of the lynch outcome. She expresses suspicion, then gives herself outs.FZ. wrote:I'd say Scotty.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:If only one of them is bad, which is it?FZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...
Gtth, if you will.
Epi, couldn't flipping a coin just be a figure of speech?
How is Floyd by default suspicious?
His general absence makes me inclined to read him as bad usually, or at least not read him as civ. I would definitely vote SVS or FZ over him though.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Jack specifically mentioned me because he was engaging multiple points from Scotty's post, in which Scotty mentions me separately from low posters in general. You're right that he didn't actually care about the answer, it seems like he just tried to address many points to seem like an active civ.Epignosis wrote:I cut out the naked mammal even though Eloh is dead.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's a townie Marmot look like?Scotty wrote:This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat
We know this is a fabricated question, because either Jack knows MM is a civilian or he doesn't care for the answer because MM isn't.
Given that Scotty had already implied his reason for not liking MM's posts (they're devoid of game-related purpose), this by itself looks suspicious to me. However, subsequent MM interactions make me less inclined to believe they are working together.
I do believe, on the other hand, that Jack's exchange with Scotty about other people opened the door for this pointless question:
Scotty never got back to answer about DF. For the same reason outlined above, Jack obviously wasn't interested in learning anything about DF (notice that he never got an answer and never asked anybody else about DF). Given what was already said about DF's tendency toward being a low poster (what Scotty said and Jack's mention of DF getting replaced), and given that Jack only asked this specific question about MM and DF, I believe one of them is on his team.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Tell me more about DF's meta. He made it like 3 posts before getting replaced in the only game we've played together.
Between the two of them, I'd say it's DF.
Scotty wrote: I actually flipped a coin among a few of you that had low posts and you came up, but since you're around and talking:
Do I "still" think low posters are bad? I don't know where the "still" came from. Still from last game? Just generally?
The low posting is not what makes you bad, but what you make of your posts. I would say some baddies are bound to be pretty slinky on day 1, so I don't give passes to low posters. No.
DF is an example of someone that gets heated when I talk about low posters, so his response to my vote for you is pretty much on par for him.
"Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?
I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.
And that's all I have to say about that."
So do you suspect Quin or not? That's all you have to say, but you really didn't say much of anything.
And you're using a lot of smilies my man. Seems pretty happy go lucky.
Ima keep my vote on you for now
Re: your other points: 2:13 p.m. means I literally walked out the door for work a minute after posting that. I didn't even have time to skim that page. And my next post was at 2:15 a.m., where I was barely awake and not up to making a lengthy post. Had I done so, I'd have said that I would have voted Scotty (which I know sounds like a cheap answer, but his posts were fairly damning), and as far as who is civ or bad:Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Yo Scotty.
"Still" refers to the post I quoted where you said low posters are definitely bad.
Tell me more about DF's meta. He made it like 3 posts before getting replaced in the only game we've played together.
I don't suspect Quin and I don't not-suspect Quin if you know what I mean. I expect Quin (not town Quin or scum Quin) to get into arguments over wording. So I think SVS being like "I'm not gonna get into it with you" is reasonable but it does nothing to convince me Quin is scum, either. Haven't played with SVS before. What do you think of SVS's case on Quin, specifically in your thoughts on SVS.
I'm very happy, thank you. Apparently, posting smilies is a tell for me. Means I'm at my pc. I usually phone post and can't be bothered to go through the menu and I don't know the smiley shortcuts on this board yet.
Epignosis wrote:This was Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:13 pm EST. I note that there were only seven pages, which means DF was only four pages behind. Surely he could have skimmed and made a more informed decision in that time, could he not?DFaraday wrote:I won't be able to catch up on the thread until tonight, so I randomized Sawyer. I hate randomizing, but I haven't read since page 3 and literally have no suspicions yet.
This next post is Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:15 am EST, over 36 hours later. In it, DF did nothing but talk about Jack- no mention of suspects, whom he would have voted had he been caught up, no ideas on who is a civilian- nada.DFaraday wrote:Finally caught up. Good result, all! RIP Elo.
I agree that there's no rush to lynch Jack, we just need to be careful about how close lynches are or he could tip the scales. Then again, I doubt he'd use that to save a teammate, but rather frame a civ.
To Sawyer: I have no suspicion of you. I randomized from everybody besides myself and it was you. That's all.
I'm voting DFaraday.
Wouldn't almost everyone qualify as low posters at this point?Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.
Jackofhearts, I see you.
Why does Wilgy do anything?S~V~S wrote:I know what he's saying. But why?Quin wrote:He's letting us know we should lynch Epi Day 1.S~V~S wrote:What is the point of this?DrWilgy wrote:Hi everyone! I'm a doctor and Epignosis is bad!
