The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:The timing and nature of your accusation against me made us think you were an info role, which is why we killed you. We could not risk you getting lynched, your role being revealed, and everyone going back and seeing you accused me.

Oh, and I never had info on you. The only success I had was with Quin, when I checked one of Drums list statements & cleared him. I tried to check you and never succeeded. My opinion that you were bad was total gut. I thought you were incredibly obvious, but apparently I was the only one

Thanks Dom, fun while it lasted, and again, congrats winners

You were not the only one who thought Epi was incredibly obvious, lol. But, I mean, he was on my team, so....

Seriously, though. Some of his posting was so overtly baddie, that I'm not sure I'd have believed he was bad if I were a civ in the game, if that makes sense. He isn't usually so blatant.

Also, it was nice being on a team with those who almost always accuse me of being evil, lol.

You defending me was hilarious.

And such fun!!

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:The timing and nature of your accusation against me made us think you were an info role, which is why we killed you. We could not risk you getting lynched, your role being revealed, and everyone going back and seeing you accused me.

Oh, and I never had info on you. The only success I had was with Quin, when I checked one of Drums list statements & cleared him. I tried to check you and never succeeded. My opinion that you were bad was total gut. I thought you were incredibly obvious, but apparently I was the only one

Thanks Dom, fun while it lasted, and again, congrats winners

You were not the only one who thought Epi was incredibly obvious, lol. But, I mean, he was on my team, so....

Seriously, though. Some of his posting was so overtly baddie, that I'm not sure I'd have believed he was bad if I were a civ in the game, if that makes sense. He isn't usually so blatant.

Also, it was nice being on a team with those who almost always accuse me of being evil, lol.

Quin wrote:

I'm really just trying to come up with something that hints the importance of not lynching me that can be backed up by a lie detector and also doesn't break the info dumping rule.

Would something like

'Alignment aside, if I am lynched, the mafia will be given a significant advantage over the town in the next night phase.' work?

And you replied with...

Dom wrote:That's fine!

Which is a statement of claim. Unlike the statements you were theorizing one could post to be checked. The quotes contain a factual statement that could be checked, that you knew the answer to, and weren't speculating about.

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:Quin fairly blatantly stated that his vote was forced. As compensation, we got an extra force of a vote.

my bad.

Dom, let's settle this lie detector thing once and for all. My statement WAS checkable, yes?

Yes, dom. Please settle this.

Quin fairly blatantly stated that his vote was forced. As compensation, we got an extra force of a vote.

Dom, seriously, this was a great game. Thank you. You brought the joy back to mafia.

DrumBeats wrote:First off - Sorry SVS and TH for being wrong about you.

Secondly, I'm dumb about bringing Scotty back. DFaraday gave me a rubber band and it reflected an action on me the night before TH voted bea, so I thought that was the action. Turns out it was the nightkill on me that was redirected onto Scotty. Shit I'm sorry I dropped the ball on that, but 4/5 in endgame isn't bad. I just wish I pieced it together sooner. Great game everybody.

Third - I was Todd. Hence trying to set up the lynch on myself or Epi at the end.

We figured you for Todd a while back. It's why we didn't even imagine trying to lynch you. And the one time we tried to kill you, we retargeted you so that you'd kill someone else. But you were protected that night.

DrumBeats wrote:Very well played Epi/LoRab/Scotty.

Thank you. And sorry to everyone we were horrible to as baddies. We were just doing our job.

DFaraday wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote:If Enrique doesn't bother showing up again I think we're done. And Timmer is pretty hit or miss.

you know you posted this after the lynch ended, right?

Yeah, I wasn't dead yet at the time, so why not?

And wow, we really didn't stand a chance. Good work baddies, and good job fighting the good fight, DB.

I just meant that it seemed like a plea for Enrique to show up. And it was too late for him to do so.

Also, we'd been hoping he'd show up for several cycles, so there's that.

Also, go us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks to a great team.

Thanks to a great host.

Also, DB, you were still wrong about SVS.

DFaraday wrote:If Enrique doesn't bother showing up again I think we're done. And Timmer is pretty hit or miss.

you know you posted this after the lynch ended, right?

DFaraday wrote:Guys, if you all don't show up and I get lynched, you have to lynch Lorab next. She's got to be one of the last baddies.

But it sure would be nice if someone had a lynch stop right about now.

And who all are you talking to. Your baddie teammates?

There are items in the game that come with powers. I don't discount the use of those in any event in this game.

And you seriously think SVS was bad? I find that incredibly disingenuous for someone who has played with her as much as you have.

DFaraday wrote:Lorab, ask yourself why the baddies would force a vote onto one of their own team members at such a critical juncture of the game. That would be a seriously stupid move.

And where is everyone? Timmer, say?

Baddies do things for all sorts of reasons. Also, targets aren't always intentional. So, there being an apparent forced vote against you doesn't make you seem any less suspish to me.

DrumBeats wrote:@ LoRab - You can keep pulling the "You've been wrong so i don't trust you opinion" all you want, but I'm one of three people (and two alive) who have actually been right and lynched a mafia. You tried to vote Bea out instead of Espers, so why should any of us trust your opinion here? I have admitted I was wrong about the several players that have no possibility of being scum (So sorry Matt, Splints, and Spacedaisy).

However there is overwhelming evidence that SVS is mafia, and you thinking that a civilian item distribution role had to be the cause of SVS's forced vote shows that you are also making your theories match your suspicions.

I've been rewatching, and Kelly would gladly become evil for Ryan. (At least at or before Season 5, where I am at right now) Kelly's entire character is basically the clingy girlfriend who will do anything for her obcession with Ryan. Conversion would not be far off. I'm not saying that had to be what happened, I still think it is a likely option.

You specifically said earlier that there were moments where Epi's behavior made you think he was good. Show us them instead of discrediting my opinion because I've been wrong a few times this game. Again, timer and I are the only two alive who have been right, so discrediting me for being wrong on things, which everybody else has been too, is weak. I get that you don't want to vote for your scumbuddy Epi, but if you want me to believe that you two are not scumbuddies, you have to do a better job justifying your civ read of him and your suspicion of DFaraday.

Yes, I was also wrong, but I'm not asking anyone else to trust me on this because I know I'm right. I also was not completely confident that Bea was bad, unlike your posts about TH.

There is not overwhelming evidence that SVS was bad. I will be shocked at the end of this game if she was. I realize that there is circumstantial evidence that she was bad, but I believe that such was the mafia's intention. I cannot imagine that she would have gone through with that plan as a baddie. It just doesn't fit her.

Same with Epi. His play does not fit into to his style when he is bad. Could I be wrong about him? Sure. But I've played enough games with him to recognize his baddie game and this just isn't it. It's tone and style. And with voting against Espers, I don't think he'd save a no-show teammate like that. He'd rather the teammate die and himself get civ credit for it. Even late game.

And Kelly may go evil for Ryan, but she wouldn't go corporate, nor do I think corporate would hire her. It doesn't fit into a real read of the characters and the plot. Again, I think it more likely that Ryan became a spy role.

I have explained why I suspect DF. You can read my earlier posts--this isn't the first lynch during which I have suspected him, and it is seeming more and more likely to me that he is bad.

You are welcome to suspect me for disagreeing with your read of the game. I'm not going to change my mind about what I believe to be right, just because you don't think I'm right. I am not going to vote for either you or Epi, as I don't think either of you are evil.

DrumBeats wrote:I haven't, and I just did say it is a possibility, but I do not believe it to be so. Why are you so certain that it is what happened? You have not acknowledged the possibility of Kelly being converted at all either.

All the mafia roles have been revealed and none could control SVS's vote that night (Jo could not have used her role the night before). This proves SVS is mafia beyond a reasonable doubt, because there would be no reason for a civilian SVS to place that vote and blame it on being forced if she wasn't.

Also, please answer the question about Epi right above the OT text in my last post. I want to know why you believe Epi to be civ.

You believe SVS was bad. There are many possibilities that could make that not the case. And you have not listened to those of us that know SVS well and know how she would play a role. I seriously doubt that SVS was bad. And that you say it was "proven" makes me doubt other of your claims. And while you focus on role descriptions, there is evidence that there are items in the game--why couldn't the use of an item allow for SVS to be civ? I think the answer is because you're too stubborn to admit that you're wrong about a player in this game. Which is also why I doubt your word on other players.

And my main hesitation of Kelly not being converted as part of her role is that it would make no sense within her character in the show. Dom seems to have been careful to keep the balance of show with a game that makes sense--to construct a role in which Kelly becomes evil just doesn't ring true to the show and so I doubt that Dom would construct the game as such.

I don't know what to think of Epi. But none of what you ahve posted has made me convinced he is bad, especially when I've seen you be wrong several times in the game.

So you've never seen a role in which a member of the mafia became civ or was a civ spy all along. I've seen that more than once. So, your never having had experience with a certain idea does not mean that the idea can't happen

Can you show where your ideas on SVS were demonstrated as even likely correct? You claim they are proven. Maybe I missed that

You seem to keep claiming proof on your ideas which are, to me, speculation. Not that there is anything wrong with specuatlion, but I disagree with you conclusions.

DrumBeats wrote:It was a MYLO situation imo. In a MYLO situation why the hell wouldn't anyone do that? It was a way he could win the game.

If you don't understand my "breakdown" of the event then you clearly weren't paying attention during it and are stubbornly pushing a defense of your scumbuddy. Your case on DFaraday is very weak, him voting to tie the votes after mine makes perfect sense imo after what happened with Quin. I don't see what world you find THAT to be scum indicative, but not tying the vote to save a scum member in a MYLO situation. I find your placement of a second vote on DFaraday on that weak of a basis to be odd. You are looking for a basis to justify a false suspicion of the only Epi counterwagon you can get an extra help vote on. Your vote is opportunistic and if it doesn't move onto anybody else (preferably Epi, but hey if you want to vote me go ahead) I will be highly suspect of you. Your vote was also on the bea wagon.

Also, you just suggested in that post that Kelly would convert Ryan to civ. That role would literally kill the game because Ryan would know who his fellow scumbuddies are. We know Ryan caused the Quin death, which needed to be planned with Jo, the vote forcer. They had to have BTSC - therfore Ryan could not have been seperated from the rest. No matter what Kelly could not have converted Ryan.

The two Kelly possibilities left are that:

Kelly and Ryan remains the same -
This would mean that TH knew who Ryan was before she died. Bea died last night, and there does not seem to be any way for a civ/indy to redirect it left in the game so Bea is almost assuredly town. The only other person TH brought suspicion to then is me. I know I'm not Ryan, but you guys don't. If you believe this route, you must believe that I am Ryan, so vote for me and not DFaraday.

Another option I'm thinking of too is if Epi is Ryan, and some part of the role made TH believe that Ryan was converted. I really don't believe this option is likely but I could see it being possible somehow due to Kelly's show behavior. If you find this more likely than me being Ryan, vote for Epignosis, and not DFaraday.

Kelly is converted -
This makes the most sense to me. It explains why TH acted the way he did. It would be balanced gamewise because it makes the mafia a 5-6 player team, which is a good reation in a 27 player game. I find this the most likely because Kelly did get drawn in by him way too easily throught the show, like remember when she broke everything off with Darryl for him. It wouldn't surprise me if she would hop over to mafia as well. If this is your believed case, then you should vote for Epi, and not Dfaraday.

I'm guessing you've never seen a game where there is a mafia member who is/becomes, essentially, a mole or a spy for the civies? If you haven't seen that, then I guess that you wouldn't understand my understanding of the likelihood of the Kelly/Ryan relationship, based on the sorce material. But I know that Dom knows that mafia can be recruited/become civs--mainly because I hosted him the first time he encountered that. So, I'm not discounting that possibility.

Your conclusions are based on your not necssarily true asusmptions. And I'm not just going to follow you. Nor am I going to follow you because you threaten me. I think you're wrong. I'm not going to step in line because, well, you weren't right last time and I dno't think you're right now. Your coming up with a bunch of explanations as to why, although you appear wrong, you actually aren't, doesn't help your case in my book.

I suspect DF. I have for a while. If you dn't agree with my reasons, then don't follow my vote. I don't play for your approval--I play the way I play and I have my own set of strategy. Yeah, I know, it doesn't make sense to a lot of folks, but it's been working for me for a while.

And don't insult my intelligence. I understand how the events of this game have worked. I just don't understand how you're using the word "breakdown"--the syntax is off and isn't making sense in context. Maybe if you try to use different words to describe what you're trying to say, it might be clearer. As of now, it seems as if your obfuscating facts to fit your theory and make everyone other than those who have votes seem suspicious.

And, no, I won't play your reindeer games and I have no plans to vote for you. I don't think you're bad, either. So, no. Not taking your deal. And I don't think you're right to make such dichotomies. Yes, there are baddies. I simply think you are wrong about them. That doesn't make you bad. It just makes you wrong.

DrumBeats wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:The main suspicion of him wasn't being TH's teammate, it was his jump in suspicion from INH to Bea, immediately when espers was about to be lynched. He then stealth switched his vote to bea on the last minute, which had a 50% chance of saving espers life. There's no way in hell that was a coincidence.

Most of your posts seemed to be about connecting them, but I'll have to reread to see what you mean. I do find it hard to believe tht Epi would be so obvious--in my experience he's a much better baddie than to be so obvious. What you describe doesn't seem to be what I'd expect from an evil Epi. He could be fooling me, but it's not the sense I'm getting. It just doesn't feel like FEB Epi to me.

You seem to be overly convinced of his badness, just like you were about TH. And you were wrong about TH. So, I'm finding it hard to trust your read on Epi because you were wrong on TH. And, in my own reading back, I'm more leaning towards DF being suspish than Epi being suspish. So that's where my vote is.

Consider that it was likely a MYLO situation and why the hell wouldn't Epi do that.


I'm still not 100% sure I was wrong about TH. Look at the role. TH had to find Ryan, a mafia. Until then, somebody had to speak in questions everyday - that hasn't happened in a while. I highly suspect a mafia convert occurring imo because TH's two suspicions afterward were false (one on bea and one on myself).

You claimed Lorab that some situations have made Epi seem to "break down" the fact that he is bad. Where? Give me situations because factually, Epi pushed INH constantly, then jumped with little reasoning to Bea and I, despite his prior persistence on INH. Then stealth forced a tie to SAVE A MAFIA MEMBER. Make a case on DFaraday right now that is better than that. Otherwise, I am going to assume that your vote on him is solely taking advantage of my own vote on him and that you are the next mafia to lynch.

Your opinions seem to align more against myself, as do Epi's, so I propose we make this lynch interesting. Let's all vote between Epi and I this phase. I could use some excitement

Going in order...

I've played with Epi a long time. What you describe doesn't sound like he way he plays. i get why a player would do what you describe, but that doesn't sound like how he plays the game. It's a judgment call. I'll revisit in the future, but for the moment, I'm not reading him as bad.

Your posts about TH seem like you are hanging on to your theory, even after it hasn't followed through. Given the characters, it makes no sense that Kelly would become bad--maybe that Ryan would be converted to civ, but it makes no sense within the plot that Kelly would go bad. I just can't see that happening.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "break down" can you clarify? I really don't know what you mean.

I've stated my suspicion of DF and my reasons. You can read them in my earlier posts. And I don't assume that INH was necessarily civ, just like I don't believe that any night kill was necssarily civ. If you make that assumption then you are either naive or mafia. I don't think your'e mafia, for the record. But I think you're not looking at the full picture.

I don't think Epi would be so obvious in defending and saving a no show teammate. I just don't. I have played with him a long time and I don't think he'd do that. He'd much sooner throw a no show under the bus and drive over him back and forth a few times. What you describe isn't how FEB Epi plays.

If that makes you suspect me, so be it. I have reasons for my suspicions and assumptions. That they may not agree with yours has nothing to do with whether or not I am correct. After you insisted on our lynching TH, then I really don't think that you're in a position to threaten anyone that doesn't agree with you.

That's not how I play. Sorry.

DrumBeats wrote:The main suspicion of him wasn't being TH's teammate, it was his jump in suspicion from INH to Bea, immediately when espers was about to be lynched. He then stealth switched his vote to bea on the last minute, which had a 50% chance of saving espers life. There's no way in hell that was a coincidence.

Most of your posts seemed to be about connecting them, but I'll have to reread to see what you mean. I do find it hard to believe tht Epi would be so obvious--in my experience he's a much better baddie than to be so obvious. What you describe doesn't seem to be what I'd expect from an evil Epi. He could be fooling me, but it's not the sense I'm getting. It just doesn't feel like FEB Epi to me.

You seem to be overly convinced of his badness, just like you were about TH. And you were wrong about TH. So, I'm finding it hard to trust your read on Epi because you were wrong on TH. And, in my own reading back, I'm more leaning towards DF being suspish than Epi being suspish. So that's where my vote is.

Honestly? I'm not sure. He seems arrogant with an aura of eff you to the players, but that's kind of how he plays generally (not a criticism or an insult, it's how he comes off in the thread usually, and I believe intentionally). Which makes him hard to read. There are moments at which he has seemed to be obviously bad, but then others where that totally breaks down. And more moments at which he's been a question mark.

That the main case against him recently was that he was TH's baddie teammate, the fact that TH flipped civ gives me a hole lot of pause. Your explanations, tbh, seem to be reaching to make reality fit into your assumptions. The facts make Epi seem less suspish to me now than in the last lynch.

But my mind is open. At this point, I suspect everyone other than myself. We're at that point of the game.

DFaraday wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I went ahead and put a vote on Epi for now to make sure we don't have another SVS/Quin situation. Although now that TH flipped civ, I need to reevaluate the players we have left for connections.

TH flips civ, and you vote Epi to make sure there isn't another early end day? I'm not sure I see the logic. And I'd think if the baddies were doing another Quin situation, they'd already have gone forth with their plans.

That said, I'm finding you increasingly suspish and I'm going to vote for you, for now at least. Since you seem to be up on voting early, you surely understand.

I voted early because DB voted extremely early with zero explanation, which is obviously reminiscent of the SVS debacle. If the vote hadn't been on me, of course I wouldn't have felt the need. You're seriously saying you wouldn't be on edge if someone immediately votes you with no reasoning in a game where someone instantly died as a result of that? Yeah, they probably would have done it already, but I was occupied during the 15 minutes or whatever between DB's vote and the time I saw it, so I reacted as soon as I could. I voted Epi because even though TH has been cleared, Epi still has been distinctly unhelpful lately, and I'm not at all convinced that he's good.

And if you have other reasons for finding me suspicious, please elaborate.

From an outsiders point of view, I see a difference. Dom posted the lynch post 16 minutes after SVS posted that she had voted. Your post was 22 minutes after DB's post. Sure, the same end day could be in play, but I don't see why the baddies would wit that much longer. Also, they used up that power, according to the roles. Do you know that they have another save? Do you have reason to think that they might have another save?

My base reasons of suspecting you haven't really changed from what I posted earlier. You made good post in defense, but baddies are more than capable of doing so. I don't think you're civ.

DFaraday wrote:I went ahead and put a vote on Epi for now to make sure we don't have another SVS/Quin situation. Although now that TH flipped civ, I need to reevaluate the players we have left for connections.

TH flips civ, and you vote Epi to make sure there isn't another early end day? I'm not sure I see the logic. And I'd think if the baddies were doing another Quin situation, they'd already have gone forth with their plans.

That said, I'm finding you increasingly suspish and I'm going to vote for you, for now at least. Since you seem to be up on voting early, you surely understand.

Except that Oscar was alive until Day 6, so targets could have been switched before then. And we don't even know all the roles to even know if it's possible that there is another civ or indy target switcher (even putting aside baddie shenanigans). I think it's dangerous to assume that all night targets are civ, especially before Day 6.

And the further back we go, the less likely someone is paying attention. And even if a deadie is following the game, one's level of following is different when one isn't in the game--moreso the further back one goes.

I think Scotty is the best choice. For these reasons and because he was clearly on his game when he was alive. I want an active player back in the game who won't have too much catching up to do. Voting now.

DrumBeats wrote:SECOND CHANCE VOTE HELL YEAH. Let's talk about this civs - Which dead players do we trust the most, both on a judgement level and on them being civ?

I for sure think that:
Elochin
Leetic
SVS

Should not return. All of them have a relative chance of being mafia because Eloh and Leetic died on the same night, meaning one was for sure not a scum kill. There has still been no explanation for SVS's forced vote and we have next to no roles left to reveal.

Personally, I think we should bring Scotty back. He was active when he was here, which is important. He died after Scranton Strangler was dead, which means that could not have been the cause of his kill. He died relatively recently too so he should have less catching up.

I was actually going to suggest Scotty, as well. He was one of the most active players and has likely been continuing to pay attention because he died so recently. I also felt pretty good about him throughout the game.

My suspicion of Bea and DF stand, but DB makes excellent points about TH. I also know I have a soft spot for him and often don't recognize when he's being evil. I'll vote that way, at least for now. Especially because it's a short day and I actually have shit to get done today.

Sorry you're having a rough time, Bea. <3

Voted David Wallace. I realize it's probably an unpopular choice (although most have voted that way), but I'm not confident that Michael is a civ. On the show, he is generally not a benefit to anyone that works at the paper company and is not entirely the enemy of corporate. I think he makes sense as an indy, and I'm not sure I want to give him a benefit. I guess I'm going with known bad is better than unknown factor entirely.

TH makes a good point. And Bea's post didn't make me feel better. I also think Espers is a really easy target for baddies to jump onto since he's been so absent.

Voting INH, at least for now. I have a migraine and just took some migraine meds, so I may be a bit incoherent when it kicks in, so figure I should take care of this sooner rather than later.

Ugh. I find myself second guessing myself on everything. Because it was asked, my suspicions of the moment are: INH, DF, and Bea as my top ones. I just can't help but think that they all have been skating through and manipulating us all. I also have my questions about espers, as he's been so quiet. DB remains a question mark, as wel, but he seems to be coming off as more misguided civ than manipulative baddie at the momentl. But at the moment I'm thinking Bea or INH.

Bea has just been a question mark. I feel like she's been sliding by. I tend to want to think that she's good, so I often am misguided by her. I'm just not sure in this case.

And INH, he's had a number of moments where I've disagreed with him, but also where he seems to have tried to steer the thread towards ideas that are based on his own assumptions and not on fact. I don't have anything solid, but my gut tells me that he's trying to mislead us. As the game goes on, I find it less and less likely that he's civ.

linkitis: If the mafia had the majority, then the game would no longer be happening--why are you trying to convince us that the situation is more dire than it necessarily is. That post kind of bumped you further up in my suspicion.

bea wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Hope everything is ok, Dom!!!!

And neutral, not evil. But I still don't trust neutrals. So I'm good with the lynch result.

Hi Sylar

I was not at all Sylar.

I was Arthur Petrelli.

*high fives Bea*

wait, was this a separate joke or were you really not sylar-- that was my first game.

I was really not sylar. I was Arthur. I was a neutral role (alive at the end). Sylar was last man standing I think. That's partly why I differentiate between neutral and Indy. And why I will always argue that neutrals are dangerous--except when I'm neutral, lol.

You weren't auther. I was. Remember I subbed in for coxie and you hadn't recruited me yet and put me through the ringer cuz you were playing for the civs then. My first bts words ever to you were see...told you I was a civ. in the 11th hour we decided Canuck played a great baddie game and switched sides.

You were Nathan. I was Arthur. (I looked at the game and checked because I wasn't sure). I remember the whole recruiting piece and subbing and all that.

And I'd say the decision to switch, in addition to KNuk being great, was that the civies (especially a certain civie) had gotten so incredibly cocky that we felt the need to bring him down a few notches. Which did not check his ego, but damn felt good. That is the win that I is tied for the one that I am most proud of, tied with my first win as Tin Man in the first fairy tale game.

Dom wrote:Sigh. can't even remember my first game correctly.

You remembered the way the game played out. And that's what matters.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Hope everything is ok, Dom!!!!

And neutral, not evil. But I still don't trust neutrals. So I'm good with the lynch result.

Hi Sylar

I was not at all Sylar.

I was Arthur Petrelli.

*high fives Bea*

wait, was this a separate joke or were you really not sylar-- that was my first game.

I was really not sylar. I was Arthur. I was a neutral role (alive at the end). Sylar was last man standing I think. That's partly why I differentiate between neutral and Indy. And why I will always argue that neutrals are dangerous--except when I'm neutral, lol.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Hope everything is ok, Dom!!!!

And neutral, not evil. But I still don't trust neutrals. So I'm good with the lynch result.

Hi Sylar

I was not at all Sylar.

I was Arthur Petrelli.

*high fives Bea*

Hope everything is ok, Dom!!!!

And neutral, not evil. But I still don't trust neutrals. So I'm good with the lynch result.

I hope Dom is ok!!

And that he didn't forget about us--or that Daisy isn't a role in which if she gets the most votes, the host is actually lynched, but we never find out because the host can't write the post (having been lynched) and the game never ends.

DrumBeats wrote:I hate that wagon inflation. If Daisy flips anything, but scum, I'm looking into the other votes there (LoRab on)

I actually find that bandwagons are usually started by baddies (whether they vote the person or not), and that it's mostly civies who jump on. That said, given the current numbers, I think it's likely true that some of the later voters are bad. I would not include myself in that group. Also having posted about Daisy earlier in the day, I don't think you can really say that I inflated the votes. But eye me all you want. (sorry, old habits)

It seems like the best bet at this point. *votes Daisy*

My opinion on trusting neutrals is well documented. In short: I don't. So, whether SD is telling the truth and really is neutral (I realized what I was missing from my earlier post). Or if she is mafia and lying. Either way, I don't really trust her.

That sounds like the civ DF I expect. So, he's moved down my list, as well.

Daisy, on the other hand:

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm having internet issues apparently. Anyway, I have seen my name tossed around a lot today and that's cool, I can't blame you all because I have been shit this game. Vote me if you like but I can tell you it is guaranteed to be a complete waste of your time and a lynch no matter who you are. If you put my gameplay all together with what I've said recently I'm sure you can figure out why. But do what you like.

It seems as if you're hinting at Erin. Because no other role would be a complete waste of time and a lynch no matter who you are. And Erin was lynched day 2. So...am I missing something?

And I think, if you were implying BWT was a seemer, that you'd have said something or implied something when he flipped as your role.

So, in short, I'm not sure I believe you.

Also, I feel bad suspecting Daisy in this game in particular, since The Office game back in the day (before I was LoRab, even) on LP was Daisy's first game, I believe, and we had wonderfully lovely civ BTSC with all of the Warehouse Workers (TH was there, too, of other players in this game)--until fucking evil bastard (FEB) DD frigging killed me. Ah, memories. But, really, it was a fun game, and I feel bad suspecting you in a game of the same theme--does that make any sense?

insertnamehere wrote:

LoRab wrote:@INH: In light of Splints' flipping civ and there being a pile up of votes on her (which, to me, says bandwagon--which means not all baddies, but certainly some). Does that change your view of DF?

If anything, it just reinforces my view of him as civ, okay?

OK. But can you explain how that logic works? A player had 2 votes. A slew of votes pile up on another player. That other player is civ. I would really like to know your logic on how that makes it more likely that the original player is civ.

Seriously--please explain your logic. Even in questions.

@INH: In light of Splints' flipping civ and there being a pile up of votes on her (which, to me, says bandwagon--which means not all baddies, but certainly some). Does that change your view of DF?

Sleeping a bit and rereading a bit, my suspicion of DF remains. With Splints flipping civ, I can't help but think that her lynch was a bandwagon that got going to save DF, who seems to me to have been the next most likely person to have been lynched. Which further firms my own suspicion of him, and makes me eye those who voted Splints. INH's post actively throwing doubt on those of us who had voted DF, fairly early on in the lynch, before Splints' lynch got steam, makes me throw an eyeball that way.

Been AFK pretty much all day. My thoughts haven't really changed since the last lynch. I also need to sleep before I actually think about anything.

insertnamehere wrote:

LoRab wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I voted the player I suspected most. I stand behind my vote. I don't have a baddie vibe from Splints, so I didn't vote there, although she seems to have the clear majority.

Why would disagreeingon suspicion make someone your top suspect?

If somebody helps to lynch a civilian for what seems to me like weak reasoning, I see that as cause to suspect them.

So if Splints flips civ, will you suspect everyone who voted for her?

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I voted the player I suspected most. I stand behind my vote. I don't have a baddie vibe from Splints, so I didn't vote there, although she seems to have the clear majority.

Why would disagreeingon suspicion make someone your top suspect?

DFaraday wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I actually think TH feels sincere, if misguided. LR's vote and reasoning came off half-hearted to me.

EBWOP: Timmer, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

Neither my reasoning (which, did I miss where you responded to it?) nor my vote, based on that suspicion, which I didn't see disputed by you or anyone else, were half hearted. Sorry if they seemed that way.

Voting now, before I head out to meet friends for dinner--may be able to pop on here and there, but not sure, and no idea what time I'll be home, and don't want to miss the vote. Voting DF, for reasons stated above.

DrumBeats wrote:(On mobile and don't want to backspace for long enough to quote it)

@LoRab - Your post about me still pinging your suspiciometer was way after I made those lists, and you previously were not suspicious of them. Additionally, the use of the word "still" there implies that more recent activity. Was there anything else that pinged you, and what made your thoughts about the lists change?

Actually, I mentioned it originally with this post:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

And in our entire back and forth about the nature of wasting a civ's power and the nature of lie detectors, I thought it was kind of implied.

When it turned out that Quin was civ, it didn't change that I thought your posting those lists was anti-civ behavior.

You haven't done anything particularly suspicious to me since then, but you haven't done anything to make me change my mind.

Given that the top poster hasn't posted this cycle, I'm going to go with his probably having been silenced.

And I wanted to respond to this (posted when I was silenced):

DrumBeats wrote:This one I had to split up the types of mechanical discussion and different types of it.

LoRab ISO

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:hey, y'all! Excited for the game. So you all know, I'm in the middle of a 2 week intensive for a graduate program I'm starting--the program is mostly online, but we're in the midst of our first in person seminar--I will not be able to be playing a whole lot. But after that i'm all good. So, I'll be around when I can, but my days and nights are both a bit insane right now.

Day 0 Fluff - prefacing that she might be inactive due to a graduate program which is definitely a good thing to do. Not alignment indicative at all imo.

LoRab wrote:Are votes changable?

insertnamehere wrote: LoRab -3 doesn't have a muppet avatar anymore

Beware the meeping angels is both muppet and Who, so I'm still muppety--only better.

Day 0 Mechanics and fluff. I'll categorize it as mechanics due to the vote question.

LoRab wrote:Voted memo, at least for now. Don't want to not get a chance to vote tomorrow.

Night-vote.

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Missed all of day one. Points out that Creed was civ and apologizes for missing the vote. Then begins her mechanical suspicion of Quin, which was a popular opinion at the time.

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

Mechanical clarification with Dom

LoRab wrote:Voted customer service.

Night-vote.

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Suspicion on Quin based upon how she perceives the lie detector to work.

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

No, he did not.

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

More suspicion into Quin based upon LoRab's opinion on how Pam works.

LoRab wrote:He was pretty clear about it in this post. Maybe you missed it--or did you just forget?

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

I am getting further questions via PM, so let me clarify further.

If someone frames something as a theory, it is NOT checkable. The context matters.

If someone claims something, that is checkable.

Quoting Dom's statement about the lie detects, claiming that it supports her theory when it really could go either way imo.

LoRab wrote:That is not how LD roles work. And I clarified with the host that it doesn't work that way in this game.

If you post a theory, that is not checkable, because it is not a matter of telling the truth or a lie. If you post a claim, it is either truth or a lie. The LD is not a fact checker--it is exactly what it says it is, a lie detector.

@Drumbeats: That is not what the host told me when I asked, or what he said in his follow up post. Again, it is not fact checking it is LIE detecting.

@Dom: Please clarify in thread.

Further pushing that her idea about Pam is right.

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

Claims that suspicion on Quin is not mechanics related. This post however is the only one so far where the push on Quin seems like it could be more than just mechanics, so I'll give LoRab this one for content.

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:So basically I was right. Cool.

New rule: We should all present everything as fact. Get rid of any "I think" or "Maybe" statements in order to allow everything we say to be checked by Pam.


@ linki Quin - you've given me worse reasons to push you than that, but INH is my current vote. You're a close second though, and LoRab is working his way up to third

@ linki LoRab - What are your thoughts on the following people? :

INH
3J
Scotty
Matt
Indiglo
birdwithteeth11

No, you were not right. You were presenting conjecture. That is not a claim. That is not checkable. You apparently missed the "context" part of Dom's explanation.

And, as I said, I have barely had time to spend reading this game. I do not have opinions on most things or players at this point. I like to think about things and come to some conclusions before I form suspicions. I don't often give opinions by request.

Very adamant that she is right about Pam. Also refuses to provide any other reads.

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

What is your perspective on me now knowing what you now know?

Dom has confirmed what I said, so my opinion has not changed.

Adamant about the Quin suspicion and that Dom has confirmed what she believes.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Still pushing that Quin is wrong and bad and she is right. Nothing new either, just restating the same suspicion.

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

He earlier called me out for feigning ignorance as to the LD's limitations, and right now I'm kind of seeing the same thing here in that he's pretending not to realise he's wrong in the hopes he can latch onto the possibility of voting me later. Or maybe he's misinterpreting what Dom said. But I think it's the former.

Dom was clear. You are not understanding what Dom has said. I believe that you are feigning ignorance. I am not wrong--you are.

Having played in many, many games with LD's, I cannot even begin to comprehend why what you are claiming would begin to make sense. If I thought you were being accurate, I would probably quit the game because it wouldn't make sense in terms of game set up--but I trust that Dom hasn't changed the idea of an LD so much as to make it an entirely different role (which would be an interesting role, but isn't what an LD does or should be able to do).

Does anyone else who has ever played with an LD think that an LD can determine if a conjecture is correct or not, especially when posted in a list of conjectures listed for the explicit purpose of being checked?

Also, I'm female.

linkitis: I will link momentarily.

Yawn. Still pushing it along with the Quin suspicion. Asking for other opinions at least.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Could you please show me the conjectures you're referring to? Much of the context here is lost on me, because it looked like he was promoting a concrete statement be checked.

~~~

Separate note: I don't care about the bloody lie detector role and I encourage Pam to just do her thing.

Here you go:

Here is where Quin first brings up the idea:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

She even says that they are hypotheses (which is the same thing as conjecture or theories). Then, when given an answer, she posts a list of theories, posted for the sole purpose of Pam checking them, as opposed to making claims.

And it is clear that Quin knows what a claim is, as she made one regarding her role.

Quin wrote:I made sure to get up super dooper early this morning to catch up, even if it is freezing cold.

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

So, let's come up with some hypotheses for our good pal Pam.

There are items in this game.
We will eventually receive a complete role list.
Voting for either of the three options on Day 0 would have had had a different effect on the game.

Add your own.

linkitis: @drumbeats: I happen to be online now. And I'm arguing because I'm cranky and because I strongly believe that I am correct and that this is indicative of Quin being bad. I'm less convinced aobut you. But because you are posting those lists for the purpose of them being checked--not because you are making a claim, I do not think that they are checkable. And I disagree that there is no harm in Pam submitting a statement that cannot be checked. In general, if a statement cannot be checked, then the LD is not able to submit a follow up statement, at least in my experience (as player and host). So it wastes the role for that night. That is why I think Quin's intentions are not good. And why I hope Pam has the sense to use her brain to check actual pieces of posts for truth/lies.

linkitis: @Quin: That doesn't make sense. What you posted, and encouraged others to post, was not presented as fact/claim--it was presented as theory and hypothesis.

Mentions arguing it so hard due to being cranky, which is definitely a possibility. The certainty expressed in that if Pam checks something that isnt checkable Dom will not let her resubmit feels like it might be an attempt to scare Pam away from asking Dom if she could check any of the statements I provided. Keeps pushing Quin.

LoRab wrote:I can appreciate that.

Can appreciate 3J's theory that they are both wrong. We will see if this changes anything later.

LoRab wrote:My program has ended, so I'm here for real now. I am way too tired to fully process anything right now. So, need to reread the past couple of RL days and ponder to form opinions. But wanted to let y'all know I'm around and I'll be able to play for real now.

Disappears for a while after that. First post is fluff and promise of future activity. Normal enough but not alignment indicative. Currently has not mentioned Quin's civ flip, but we will see.

LoRab wrote:

S~V~S wrote:German.

Who needs a better theme?

I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.

Night-vote

LoRab wrote:Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

Takes a civilian stance on SVS but acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Still yet to mention Quin. Reasoning for SVS civ read feels very forced to me because it makes no sense imo since we can just go back and look at the polls.

LoRab wrote:

bea wrote:I don't work that way DB. I work backwards.

tbh, I usually need a few days on SVS and you see I keep finding scenarios where she could still be bad, but honestly, if I use Occum, she reads and feels more civ to me than most.

I'm sad Wilgy died now that I know he was the tracker. Go back and look at my answer and ask yourself, would I have been talking about anyone but SVS? Or maybe Wabbit and Epi?

I felt good about JJ before he claimed/notclaimed indi. JJ - the students of Lorab are watching you. I currently see no reason to not keep him around. But I will flip a bitch as fast as you if make me think you are not working with the civs. As long as he's helpful he's ok. There will - if he lives - a long enough time where his survivial won't be ok. I reserve the right to lynch him when it's time for the potential indy to go. I think deep in his heart he is a civ leaning indy. I'm ok with letting him prove me right or wrong.

I trust a few others. Reading my posts will help you figure out who.

I'd like to hear more from indi and lorab and splintsy just cuz it's all us!! And come on -this is a fun time!!!

sig's still playing right? And he's the low poster I *remember* is playing. I"d like to hear from anyone who has less posts than sig.

linki - what the fucking fuck. Ok - more backtracking.

Other than the fact that "students of LoRab" made me guffaw, I'm confused by this post. You speak as if JJJ is still alive, even though this came after the night post (and I know you post as you catch up, so that's fine), but then you talk about the fact that he might not make. And i don't think you ever went back to correct yourself on him not surviving the night. This almost reads as if you knew he was going to die.

This is my favorite post by LoRab so far. Calls suspicion to bea for unique reasons. I'm not sure I agree on the suspicion but it feels more genuine than the mechanical tunnelvision on Quin.

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

That's... oddly specific. And I'm not sure I agree that it would be any more strategic.

It was what I thought when I read through that section. Why announce that you're voting if you're trying to be sneaky and end the lynch? Maybe I'm wrong that it would be any more strategic. I still don't think it's a scenario that SVS would play out either way.

More SVS defense on the same logic that I don't get. Now says that she doesn't think SVS would do it either way, despite previously saying that she thought SVS was capable of it. Odd imo.

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:
Noted about timmer. The one I suspect most is Lorab. One mechanics-based suspicion on Quin, who happened to be the person who the mafia benefitted from lynching. I also don't like Lorab's thoughts on SVS because they seem forced regardless of how SVS flips. Acknowledges how SVS is capable of a gambit like this, but then says probably not because SVS announced the vote rather than silently voting (which would be a terrible move for ScumVS).

Sorry you don't like how I play. I can't really do anything about that. I get caught up in mechanics that I think are important--more importantly, when I think another player seems to be bad based on those mechanics, I go after them. As for SVS, I was (probably poorly) expressing why I didn't think she was bad--and I still don't. I know how she plays--I've been playing with her for a long time. The way things played out, specifically how she played them, doesn't feel to me how she'd play out that scenario--at all.

That I disagree with you does not mean that I'm bad. Simply that I think about games differently than you do.

Sorsha wrote: I'll read their posts and let you know where I am with those three, I'm leaning bad on LoRab so far though. The whole "not having time to give reads but having time to argue about the LD" is my basis.

I've barely had time to play. When I did have time, that happened to be the topic that struck me. I often find one thing to latch onto and stubbornly argue about that one piece. And I did form suspicions based on that--Quin (whom I was wrong about) and Drumbeats, who I'm still unsure about and is still pinging my suspiciometer. The way you are describing my play, as someone who has played many games with me, and knows how i play, seems disingenuous, tbh.

Self-defense based mostly on meta. Says that I'm pinging her, but doesn't say why or when, and NO U's Sorsha. Finally mentions Quin and acknowledges being wrong about him.

LoRab wrote:Voting Matt. Was unsure of him based on what other said about him, but that he hasn't really defended makes me suspicious of him.

Vote on Matt with no specific reasoning other than that he is not defending himself.

LoRab wrote:Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Night-vote.

LoRab wrote:

Serge wrote:

LoRab wrote:Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Yeah, should we reveal no more roles doesn't roll off the tongue like should we reveal the remaining roles :P

Exactly. If the question is: Should we reveal no more roles, I think the answer is no. Given we don't know the question, I felt a tie was a good choice.

Defends the night-vote.

Day 0:
Fluff: 1
Mechanics: 1
Night-vote: 1

After:
Mechanic Speculation with suspicion based upon it: 7
Mechanical Clarification: 1
Night-vote: 4
Mechanical Speculation without suspicion based upon it: 3
Content: 5
Fluff: 1
Defense: 1
Day vote: 1

I feel just about as I expected about LoRab. I could be a bit biased, since both of the only real stances LoRab has taken I disagree with, but I just find the content ratios so out of whack for LoRab. LoRab was way too invested in the Pam case and was VERY confident she was right about her opinion. That certainty + interest is something I read two ways, which is that LoRab could have been mafia who interrogated Dom to know how to word her own posts. Or the other option I see is that LoRab is Pam, which would also explain her interest and level and certainty of knowledge. My only thing that makes me feel otherwise is that LoRab has not taken many hard stances that I would suspect from a lie detector. LoRab has provided very few reads outside of the Quin push, the vote on Matt felt off when the only other suspicions that LoRab mentioned were of Sorsha and myself. I'm getting a scum read on LoRab, the only thing that is giving me pause is that I can see a situation in which LoRab is Pam.

My rating:

3/10

Questions:

How do you feel about Quin's flip?
What is pinging you about me? Point out where please.
Why do you suspect Sorsha?
What was your reasoning for voting Matt in your own words?
Who are your top three suspects and why?

(I'm low on time right now, so I'm going to skip over Serge since he has a lot of posts and hit someone with less to read before I go. I want to hit Sorsha and timmer at least by EoD since they are the other two top votes. I currently want a LoRab lynch though)

I tend to base much of my game on mechanics, so yes, I posted a bunch about mechanics. It was also a discussion that was directly relevant at the time that I was able to be online, so I was able to take part in it. When others responded, I got caught up in the conversation. I tend to get caught up like that, for better or for worse. In this case, I thought, and still think, that it was an important point. I think that Quin, although it would now seem inadvertantly, was encouraging players to post statements that would be uncheckable to the role checker (I still have the same belief about Pam's ability)--and note that you were a player that followed suit, making long lists of posts that I do not believe Pam would be able to check. This would effectively make the lie detector inoperable, if she were to follow suit. So, yes, I thought it important that a civ role was being encouraged to waste her power. It also led to my Quin suspicion--which I was wrong about. It also has given me an ongoing, low level suspicion of you. And yes, re: Quin, I do tunnel--it's a bad habit. You and I haven't played much together, but many players here can tell you that I tend to get stubborn with suspicions.

And, yes, I got caught up in the Pam mechanics. And I did PM Dom for further clarification. I like to understand the rules and roles--it's how I get my brain around the game. To me, Dom's ruling on the role is and was clear--and completely counter to what Quin (and you) seem/ed to think it was. So, yes, I wanted to clarify. I'm not sure why you're so bothered by my wanting to understand if the lie detector was being encouraged to waste her role or not. And I'm not Pam--if I were, I'd not actually been as worried about how the role was going to be interpreted, because I never would have attempted to check those statements. I was more concerned with a civ wasting their power.

And my thoughts on SVS stand. I do not think she is bad. I do not think she would have played out that scenario in the way that it happened if she were bad and if she were trying to play a con. It's not her style. I stand by that belief.

As to your questions:

How do you feel about Quin's flip?

I thought she was bad, so I was surprised. Although it seems as if she simply misunderstood the role. It actually made me suspect you a bit more, because it seems unlikely that 2 different players would misunderstand the nature of a role that exists in many games.

What is pinging you about me? Point out where please.

Mainly that you were posting lists of non-checkable statements for the purpose of Pam checking them. I actually asked Dom specifically about that and he confirmed that statements made for the purpose of being checked would not be checkable, so it seemed like misdirecting a civ power.

Why do you suspect Sorsha?

Her suspicion of me didn't ring true--it didn't make sense for someone who knows my game well to suspect me for the reasons she gave. Also, given her role reveal, it seems as if she wasn't civ, and was probably evil/indy. So in retrospect, I stand behind my blip of eyeballing her.

What was your reasoning for voting Matt in your own words?

Re: Voting Matt: I thought I was pretty clear in my post when I voted. He didn't defend himself. That made me doubt his civ-ness. I feel that civs typically defend themselves when they are being falsely lynched. Therefore, I suspected and voted for him.

Who are your top three suspects and why?

DF and you, probably. I don't have solid suspicions of others at this moment. I tend to focus on 1 or 2 players at a time with my suspicion.