The Syndicate

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm glad you understand mata. Thank you. It was a tough spot to me it seemed like everyone was like "its cool to say you have RL stuff if you are civvie but if you are bad you can say that."

No problem. I was a civ during one of my family deaths, and mafia during the other 2. It was equally hard and frustrating to deal with ppl's posts no matter which alignment I was. The only real difference is when you're bad, you are also letting down teammates so there is extra pressure to try and defend yourself. I reached a point once where I wanted to say 'fuck it, just lynch me' but I don't know if I said it or not.

probably did.

Once again, thank you MP, this game was so much fun to play, even if it took me half-way through to even begin to understand it.

Turnip Head wrote:FZ, I felt so bad for you this game, but you kept playing as hard as you could even when the whole thread was against you, and that was awesome. Most people would have given up by then, some people basically admitted as much, but not you. Too bad you didn't get to play your game because of all the heat on you, that's always frustrating. But I'm glad you had fun anyways!

I do not think any less of Bass for using the excuse he did. Sometimes you gotta do whatever you can to win. I think he regretted his choice later, I just hope he learned something from the experience. I also think it's important to note that even if RL is affecting your mafia behavior, you really can't expect others to believe you about it, because time and time again baddies have used such circumstances to their advantage, and it happened again here. I try to not let RL circumstances affect my judgment on a player, but sometimes it does, and it's happened enough times now that I should know I can never give these players a free pass.

I just want everyone to know this, that if you bring up RL stuff to defend against an accusation made from me, I will probably work under the assumption that you're a baddie using the RL defense to get me off your case. It won't work on me anymore, baddies, so don't even bother. You've been warned.

I agree whole-heartedly with what Epig was saying about RL, of course it didn't suit the team's purposes at the time for me to say it. All types of rl issues can interfere with game play, especially death in the family. But it doesn't and shouldn't interfere with the rest of the player's game play. If you think they are bad, go for it. If you're a baddie and just trying to build a case on someone for weak game play, go for that too. Having dealt with 3 family deaths in the last 6 years, and always in a game at the time, I know its easy to get frustrated in the thread because of someone saying you are trying to hide, or skim by, or whatever. I spent one game hoping they would hurry and just lynch me because I couldn't deal with the game, but the host couldn't find a replacement. So, yeah, I do agree that you still have to play, no matter what a person is going through.

The difference with me, I think, is that I didn't see Bass's comment as being untrue. Maybe because we knew he had been seeking a replacement. I saw it as a genuine frustration post, not an excuse. Either way, had I been a civvie, I may have been inclined to vote him if I believed he was bad.

[*]As for all the votes listed in my name,

should say all the deaths listed in my name

FZ, I wanted you to know that on our first check, Boo worded it it really well, but it has disappeared from my messages so I can't copy it. We checked you, but told MP to only kill you if your win condition would cause my death. When you didn't die, we were left to wonder if you were our teammate, or Near, or whether I had just been blocked. Which is why I flip-flopped on you many times when Epi was trying to get you lynched. I didn't want to take the chance on lynching someone on our team.

I thought you were amazing, the way you never gave up. When I'm a lynchable civ, I will try to defend, but after a certain point, you run out of defense, because you haven't done anything wrong and don't quite get why the net has been closing in around you. Anyway, you were quite impressive.

As for all the votes listed in my name, they were all for the same reason, and decided on by the whole team. Either we thought someone was a detective, or we knew who they were and we needed them dead, that simple.

As far as deaths in families go, anyone who has ever had that happen, knows that it does indeed interfere with your game play. And it gets frustrating, when people come at you for not keeping up, especially when you know its true. You may be a civ, or you may be mafia, either way, (like Epi said), it can still mess your game up alot. Knowing that Bass had asked for a replacement, but couldn't get one, gets my respect that he stuck it out.

I felt awful about Boo's win being tied to mine. I'm definitely a team player, and I'll do anything my team wants me to do, including jumping under the bus if necessary. So Daisy needed me dead, but Boo was my main teammate, and he needed me alive. Rock and hard place, there. Boo was definitely the lifesaver, he came through for us and it just made a huge turn in the game.

Juliets, I was almost positive you were L. When I had btsc with him, I could have sworn he was you. The only role I could claim at that time was Ray, and I tried, but I realized that it wasn't going to work. SVS was Ray, and Zombarella was her partner. I told L that SVS was Naomi, but I couldn't keep up the deception because I figured that he would expect me to still have SVS's counsel in the chatroom even though she was dead. I can lie well sometimes, but thinking L was Juliets, I knew I wouldn't be able to fool her. It was terrible.

MP, this was a fantastic game. The details, and checks and balances were just awesome.

Spacedaisy wrote:Who was it?

I'll have to go and see what his name was. Thank you guys for helping me so much during this game. I was so impressed with Daisy's skill at mafia, and MM's and Boo's. MM made me laugh a zillion times, and I didn't even trust him. I thought he had a secret win con with TH. And TH was amazing, holy shit, he was on top of everything all game. I learned something really important, if you take a long break from mafia, never come back and sign up for an MP game.

play something easier first.

I didn't get my head wrapped around the game until TH let Llama know that it was time for DH to start killing. That post finally got me invested but, I was already outed.

Golden!!!!!!!! I can't wait to suspect you again

Elohcin- please don't feel bad about your blunder. I made a horrible mistake during this game, and I was sweating bullets for days. I decided not to tell my team because I didn't want them to worry too, if nothing bad came of it. I did tell Boo though. There was a day when we couldn't reach Boo, and we needed him asap. I remembered that he was on my facebook list, from an old game at TP, so I sent him a pm at FB that started out with "Boo, this is Mata". Hours went by and he still hadn't come to the chat. So I needed to go to bed, and I went back to FB and added that Daisy and MM needed to finalize some plans.

The next day, Boo was in the chat, so I sent Boo a pm here, and I told him to just ignore the FB message, and he said it wasn't him.

I was so scared that the person I sent that message to was going to be someone in the game. Like 3 years, maybe more, I thought this guy was Boo

And the guy on facebook finally pm'd me back and said he used to play mafia but not anymore, and he wished me good luck.

geez, I'm an idiot.

I was amazed at how balanced the game was- baddies start out with a major handicap in any game with a rolechecker. 2 rolecheckers, and btsc with L? That pretty much balanced out things. Llama, I thought you were a female.

so lets get this shindig started

Bass_the_Clever wrote:To slow there was just seven people lynched and kill in two day and night phases

Yeah, now theres a handful, looks like we could snap it up.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Mata who doo you want to vote for.

hmmm, I think whichever one DP doesnt vote. One things for sure, this game is moving too slow.

well, DP? the tie seems like a great idea, which one are you voting?

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Goin' for the ol' 7-way tie?

Are you going to take Zeek or Metalmarsh?

I'm not going to catch a delicious bass today, and I'm sure not voting myself, what a wasted vote that would be

I'm looking at the players who don't have a vote yet, and TH is by far the most suspicious of those. I might vote him.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I think I should be lynched asap lol

ok, I'm going to go ahead and vote TH, although I don't agree with the current theory out there. Besides he has all those extra votes anyway, so goodbye cruel world.

hmmmm. I don't know if I trust Sidoh.

Turnip Head wrote:Lol. Damn, Mata. That's cold.

Wouldn't expect anything less from you though. I'm guessing the baddies didn't like me very much this game

I'm so cold, the Rolling Stones wrote a song about me

Turnip Head wrote:
Ricochet wrote:TH, if Spacedaisy is right about your win condition and you can somehow confirm or nod to that, I could consider voting for you to fulfill that condition. I think you would deserve a win as an indy, because you played a great game. I'm sorry if I was a nuisance, just like I'm sorry if I was to FZ. I think Epig and Llama did you a disservice, even if they were good (well, at least if Epig was good too).
You played a great game too Rico. I would be honored to have your vote today

Surrrrrrree. So my theory was wrong, huh? Then no way am I going to vote for you to win. I will be joining zeek and voting for myself. I'm glad to see someone else agrees that you shouldn't win.

I have a theory about the shinigamis, especially Sidoh. I'm thinking that if they don't get voted twice, they win. They can't die, so what kind of incentive do they actually have to be helpful? With Sidoh being an indy, I think it doesn't stand to reason that he can win with the detectives or some such. I believe he only needs to convince the detectives he is working for them, and prevent his second lynch, and he wins. Hopefully you survivors will make sure that all shinigami suspects will receive second lynches after I'm gone.

I'm probably going to vote a shinigami.

I see Llama has votes, I'll go back and read the cases.

Turnip Head wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Matahari wrote:So, who needs a vote today?
How about two?

someone let me in on the joke?

this will be my last chance to help the detectives, tell me who I should vote please, so my vote won't be wasted.

So, who needs a vote today?

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

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

I think that answers the second and third question, they are kind of tied together, because I'm basing everything on the fact that I don't know what is going on. I think I've missed a few posts from ppl, so I promise I will try and address them when I get home. Not sure what time that will be, it Depends on how long it is t
Mata, I'mma cut you with Occam's Razor. What's more likely? That you've been the "victim" of some crazy baddie scheme to save your butt, or that you are yourself bad and were unlynchable? More importantly, why would the baddies bother to save you unless you were bad? They want the civs dead.
Exactly. They want the civs dead. If they can set up a civ with some kind of lynch save, then that civ makes a perfect patsy. A few ppl make cases against someone and use a lynch save=unlynchable baddie. If you make me look like a shinigami or a kira now, then as soon as you think I can be lynched, you will do it because its been 'generally accepted' that I'm bad. You pretending that you don't get that sounds pretty shady to me. But go with Occam's Razor, if you're a misguided civ, what else can you do. If you're not, we can all laugh when the game is over about how sneaky the baddies were.
That's an atrocious strategy if you are bad. You use that save to keep yourself or your teammates around, not protect a civilian from a lynch in hopes you can set her up the next Day. That's inefficient. That's uncertain. That's a waste of time. And it's a waste of a resource (the save). No ma'am: You let the civilian get lynched so you can keep working those numbers down.

In this game, has Turnip Head been lynched a second time? Has Metalmarsh89? No one has been lynched a second time. There is no rationale for Mafia burning a save to keep you around.

Not even to get suspicion off FZ? and now, I'm stopping.

well, linki. Bass- I will still keep looking for Kira and I'll vote for who I think seems most likely.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Mata what are your thoughts on Rico?

Currently, my thoughts on him are the same as everyone else, yourself included, TH and MM excluded. I think everyone is potentially bad, because someone is

and I'm not sure who. I have trusted everyone at certain points during the game, and mistrusted everyone as well.

And for now, I'm going to pipe down because you guys have made your minds up about me, so you need to concentrate on finding Kira for the next lynch.

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

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

I think that answers the second and third question, they are kind of tied together, because I'm basing everything on the fact that I don't know what is going on. I think I've missed a few posts from ppl, so I promise I will try and address them when I get home. Not sure what time that will be, it Depends on how long it is t
Mata, I'mma cut you with Occam's Razor. What's more likely? That you've been the "victim" of some crazy baddie scheme to save your butt, or that you are yourself bad and were unlynchable? More importantly, why would the baddies bother to save you unless you were bad? They want the civs dead.

Exactly. They want the civs dead. If they can set up a civ with some kind of lynch save, then that civ makes a perfect patsy. A few ppl make cases against someone and use a lynch save=unlynchable baddie. If you make me look like a shinigami or a kira now, then as soon as you think I can be lynched, you will do it because its been 'generally accepted' that I'm bad. You pretending that you don't get that sounds pretty shady to me. But go with Occam's Razor, if you're a misguided civ, what else can you do. If you're not, we can all laugh when the game is over about how sneaky the baddies were.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Matahari wrote:DH - The thanks Ukita was a half-joke, half-question. I figured some ppl might jump on it and try to use it against me, and other ppl would just laugh because they didn't it, either way I might learn something from the reactions. I mean, seriously, did you think I did that so that Ukita would say, "No, I didn't!"

Ricochet - do you really think everything has been revealed? Was it ever revealed that no prizes were awarded from the day 0 poll? Things happen in games all the time that can't be discussed in the thread.
Alright a couple things:

1) I don't think anyone expected prizes from a Day 0 poll, the express purpose of which was to determine the lynch mechanic for the game

2) The Ukita thing being a "half joke" makes no sense. Of course Ukita wasn't going to out himself regardless of what you said. The point is your defense was "Ukita must have saved me" and then it was "Golly I'm being set up by mafia".

3) I'm being 100% serious. If you can describe to me right now a situation where it makes sense for the mafia to have set you up (and saved you from this lynch), I will not vote for you for the rest of the game.

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

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

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

DH - The thanks Ukita was a half-joke, half-question. I figured some ppl might jump on it and try to use it against me, and other ppl would just laugh because they didn't it, either way I might learn something from the reactions. I mean, seriously, did you think I did that so that Ukita would say, "No, I didn't!"

Ricochet - do you really think everything has been revealed? Was it ever revealed that no prizes were awarded from the day 0 poll? Things happen in games all the time that can't be discussed in the thread.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Matahari wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:First, a question for the Host

Do you indicate in your failed lynch posts precisely which player was lynched or is the "Sockface writes player X's name in the Lynch Note" flavour?
The player is indicated, apologies for it not being more clear.

Turnip Head, Metalmarsh89, and Matahari have all survived one lynch attempt.
Thanks for that, at least I know for sure now. Someone was up to some shenanigans yesterday, and it wasn't me
If you've decided not to defend yourself based on the premise of "How can I possibly convince people they are wrong about me in a game where one of the most important things to do is try and convince people who suspect you that they are wrong about you." You can at least drop the fake-civvie act. You certainly dropped the "Praise Ukita" act quickly enough.

Join your buddy MM in reveling in your baddieness.

See what I mean?

I can't defend against 'civvies or baddies would do this and do that' Its good reasoning to notice or watch someone, but not such a good reason to be 100% sure about them. And things can be orchestrated, like me surviving? Pish, I had nothing to do with that. All I can do is plead the Bea defense, lynch me and you'll see.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:First, a question for the Host

Do you indicate in your failed lynch posts precisely which player was lynched or is the "Sockface writes player X's name in the Lynch Note" flavour?
The player is indicated, apologies for it not being more clear.

Turnip Head, Metalmarsh89, and Matahari have all survived one lynch attempt.

Thanks for that, at least I know for sure now. Someone was up to some shenanigans yesterday, and it wasn't me

zeek wrote:
Matahari wrote:I just want to say thank you to Ukita. I'm not sure which of us you were trying to pardon, but I'll take it
What a load of shit this is. Least its original I guess.

How fast can you shovel?

And we both know its the most unoriginal thing to say, ever, but I always like to get a laugh, (thanks DH)

I am not FZ. If she is a civ, which I still can't make up my mind about, she has defended well. Its hard to defend anything that is just the way one person interprets your actions. If she is bad, she has defended for her team's sake.

I don't try as hard when someone starts building cases against me based on how they interpret my input, because how can I convince someone that their thoughts are wrong? Or are they baddies who are using that kind of case against me, because they know its hard to defend against.

I can say I have no idea what happened yesterday, but it feels like I was set-up. If I am lynched again tomorrow, I would die, and then you'll see I am a detective. The only way my voters will accept that is to do it.

I won't be doing the hard defending against the cases made on me because there is no way I can. I think most voters were misguided, except TH who has some agenda going on. Indy, shinigami, I don't know.

Epignosis wrote:If I were Ukita, I would go find some sprinkles because I would be straight up vanilla this game.

If you save someone, you could die at the risk of saving someone bad. And the person you DID save would end up looking suspicious anyway.

Yep, sprinkles.

But who would he have been trying to save, if he was brave enough to try? who was supposed to die?

I just want to say thank you to Ukita. I'm not sure which of us you were trying to pardon, but I'll take it

juliets wrote:mata, i don't know if it matters but we were all quoting the question then answering.

sorry, I was too late

time to catch up properly

MovingPictures07 wrote:
The Sockface Death Note Mafia Trivia Game Show
Question 10:
How many kills have failed?

zero

Ricochet wrote:
Matahari wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I'm definitely considering the BTSC angle. They've had it since at least Night 5, and possibly earlier than that. Also notice how Mata recently had a sudden clarity about a bunch of people she thinks are civs, and was totally okay talking openly about those reads, unprovoked by anyone to do so.... despite her later claims of not wanting to discuss who she thinks is civ because it would put targets on their backs. Who would want to rattle off a list of civs like that? Probably a baddie who had recently gained BTSC with (almost) her entire team. Probably a baddie trying to gain the trust of the people she named as civs.

As for the drunken bea angle, the easy answer is that it was Marshy's idea.
Sudden clarity? Thats funny. I have read a few posts about me not posting much, and I do a list at some point in every game. Nothing new or unusual here. Discussing good vs bad, or civ vs mafia is what we do. Even if no one wants to read it, I don't need an invitation to post my thoughts on players as I get them. My list is kind of weak, but it might get stronger as the game goes on. I don't know about the BTSC angle, you said you know which night they had it- well I don't. I am not a part of this 'they'.

Misa Amane (Second Kira) ...
She gains BTSC with Light after one of their Death Notes has been relinquished or taken by Sidoh, or after the end of Night 5, whichever comes first.

Thanks Ricochet for your input, although you are wrong. Please tell me why you think this. I still want to hear what TH thinks.

As for me, I am going to vote FZ today.

Spacedaisy wrote:Here is my dilemma. I don't trust Epi. I don't think he is kira (or at least not an active one), but I don't think he is working for the detectives. I think he has his own agenda. However, I also think he really and truly believes he is right about FZ. He might not be, but he believes he is. And while his math seems sound, it's based on some assumptions. And until now, I have dismissed it because you feel really genuine. But the thing is FZ, when you claimed an unlynchable role, it looks like a preemptive strike. Like you are trying to hold onto a death note as long as you can. As if you can give it up and be unlynchable for a few days I would bet, but you don't want to have to.

Mata, what troubles me with you is two fold. You have listed some people in the past as your trusted players. it feels an awful lot like buddying up. Additionally you lately mentioned something that can't be discussed and I was looking at the roles to see what I thought of this statement. I don't know how I feel about it. And you fit the profile of what I believe a Misa or Mikami player might do. Blendy, not too many posts, but not too few.

I could see placing my vote on either of these two today. I will have to decide before I go to work tomorrow afternoon. I'll read some tomorrow morning and see where I land, there are a couple others I want to read up on because I'm not sure how I feel, but they are secondary. We will see how much time I have tomorrow.

Daisy, I don't buddy up. Maybe it appears that way to some ppl, or maybe its something that some ppl choose to use against someone. I just say what I think, and sometimes I don't say what I think, for various reasons.

Can't be discussed means a lot of things, but it can't be discussed is the main one.

I probably fit several different profiles, but I think that's weak as evidence.

Turnip Head wrote:
Epignosis wrote:It's an old picture that predates Harry Potter by far.
Is it old enough for an old-timey mafia veteran like Matahari to have seen?

Overkill. In case I forgot to ask in earlier posts, I'm going to risk repeating, who do you you think I am? oh and what is your opinion of FZ?

Turnip Head wrote:I'm definitely considering the BTSC angle. They've had it since at least Night 5, and possibly earlier than that. Also notice how Mata recently had a sudden clarity about a bunch of people she thinks are civs, and was totally okay talking openly about those reads, unprovoked by anyone to do so.... despite her later claims of not wanting to discuss who she thinks is civ because it would put targets on their backs. Who would want to rattle off a list of civs like that? Probably a baddie who had recently gained BTSC with (almost) her entire team. Probably a baddie trying to gain the trust of the people she named as civs.

As for the drunken bea angle, the easy answer is that it was Marshy's idea.

Sudden clarity? Thats funny. I have read a few posts about me not posting much, and I do a list at some point in every game. Nothing new or unusual here. Discussing good vs bad, or civ vs mafia is what we do. Even if no one wants to read it, I don't need an invitation to post my thoughts on players as I get them. My list is kind of weak, but it might get stronger as the game goes on. I don't know about the BTSC angle, you said you know which night they had it- well I don't. I am not a part of this 'they'.

Turnip Head wrote:I want to call extra special attention to that last quote, because look at it one more time:
Matahari wrote:I also trust ppl who are susp of MM, and I could vote there as well. Made and TH are ppl I have voted because I couldn't understand their behavior. I was wrong about them, but still, it was my reason, and I can do that again.
Look at how hard Mata is trying to justify her vote for MM based on how she's voted previously.

Dude, you have now run out of eyes. Thats not a justification, that is the reason for some of my votes in this game, because I have no one better to vote at the time, so ppl acting weird will be better than someone else.
No let me ask you something. I couldn't bring myself to push the button on FZ, because I had a slight feeling that she might be a civ. So I went with a vote on someone else. More than once, I might add. It took me until just recently to finally think that I was being silly, and if Epig was going to keep on pushing a case, that maybe I should rethink Epig. As in, maybe he is 100% sure of what he is saying and can't say it any other way. Now that I have decided that I might be wrong, I see that other players are beginning to think the same way about FZ as I was thinking thru the game. :circles:

So, what is your opinion of FZ?

Turnip Head wrote:
Matahari wrote:Slightly on the bad side, or on the fence are Llama and Epig.

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

Matahari wrote:Boomslang, Zeke, MM, and Ricochet are ppl I'm not familiar with. With the exception of MM, who seems kind of whacky, the others trouble me because they are not saying enough to get a grip on. Although, when they do post, I don't see it as dishonest.

Matahari wrote:I also trust ppl who are susp of MM, and I could vote there as well. Made and TH are ppl I have voted because I couldn't understand their behavior. I was wrong about them, but still, it was my reason, and I can do that again.
So Mata would rather vote for a player who she felt hasn't been dishonest, for reasons that were wrong reasons in the past (her words!), rather than vote based on "feels" for either of the two players that she actually lists as being on the bad side of her suspicion-fence.

Alrighty then, Mata.

I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying here. Could you reword that? If I vote for players that I think are being deceptive or up to some kind of tomfoolery, I don't see where that is so bad, I'm definitely not the only one who did the same thing. And I didn't try to convince other ppl to follow my lead on it either, as it is just my feelings and nothing concrete.

Let me ask you this? If I said that I don't trust Llama and Epig, because they tried to take control of the thread early in a game, and they frequently sound slick and tricky, would you be persuaded to vote for them? Yeah, thats what I thought.

If I didn't understand you, please ask me again, but differently so I get it, thanks

Turnip Head wrote:
Matahari wrote:When I have reason to think there is a slight possibility that someone is a very important civ, I will not discuss that in thread. There is no call for putting a target on someone.

Matahari wrote:I used to have TH slightly on the bad side of the fence, but not now. He is moved more into the good side. DH went from gray area, by-passed the bad side completely straight to good side of fence. Daisy, BR on the good side
Alrighty then, Mata.

I don't mind saying if I trust someone or think they are good or bad. But I don't like specifically quoting posts that might point to a role for someone I trust. If I think someone is not trustworthy, I will say what I can to show why I think that. Speaking of which, since you think I'm bad, what role do you think I am and why?

Turnip Head wrote:
juliets wrote:Who are you going to vote and why?
If I had to vote right now, it would be for Matahari. I just discussed FZ's actions during the MM lynch, and Mata did basically the same thing as FZ, yet even more suspiciously in my opinion. I felt she was trying too hard to justify her vote for him. Boomslang brought some of these points up; Mata called it cherry picking and dismissed it outright. I've got my eye on her big time.

Apparently you have 3 eyes on me

I always give a reason for voting unless I have no reason at all. So I did the same thing that FZ did, but more suspiciously? Please explain this.

I responded to Boomslang after challenging him. My first post to him, the dismissive one, was to make him explain further, which he didn't do. But I took what he did say to me as possibly being honest, so I did respond to his first post. It amazes me how often I have seen people say something about me not posting, when I just posted the page before. I must be invisible.

DharmaHelper wrote:Some cursory thoughts while I continue to read:

Boo Vs. ...Well, Kinda Everybody? - I've been reading boo as genuine thus far, even if he was wrong about Bea. Boo has always struck me as the sort of player to be very confident (to a fault perhaps) in his suspects. His tunnel vision is perhaps he most obvious flaw, and I'm interested to see how his suspicions develop.

MM vs. TH - They've both survived lynches, so that narrows down who they could be quite considerably. Of the two, I'm most confident in trusting TH for now, as I'm seeing a more involved play style from him rather than from MM, whose posts of late have rung pretty false to me. MM does not seem interested in defending himself or seeking out mafia, whereas at least TH has been making a show of looking for Kiras and helping detectives. A little voice in the back of my head is stuck wondering though if perhaps this back-and-forth love story they have going is designed to make us trust one or the other. Perhaps they are two unlynchables on the same team going after each other in an effort to help themselves get their win conditions accomplished.

Matahari - I'm getting odd vibes from her and might do a specific re-read of her. I'm wondering Mata, why is it you trust me?

Juliets - I'm noticing a lot of "can you please post the case on X again I seem to have forgotten it." In regards to my own experience, these posts from JC are often in regards to conversations we've already had, and cases that she has commented on. Pingy, but nothing I would stick a vote on just yet.

FZ. - I will be re-reading her shortly.

Black Rock - Not sold on her being bad as much as I was previously. Mostly due to the clusterfuck bringing more interesting suspects to light

Boomslang - That vote for bea was the absolute most noteworthy thing from him I can remember all game.

If my theory that TH And MM are Shinigami on the same team is true, Then the MM voters are worth a look.

Two reasons, although I'm aware that you could fool me. First is the gut thing, I've looked for certain tells that I associate with your baddie game. I've seen none, if I do, I would put you back in the gray or baddie section. As I've explained earlier, I am not putting total faith in the gut stuff yet, because ppl change up their game over time. But the second thing was something you posted earlier in the game, that I don't think you would have posted if you were bad.

If you say or do anything that sounds false to me, I would question it. It just hasn't happened yet.

Boom, it still seems like you cherry-picked to support your own agenda, but I will go ahead and respond to each point in case you were serious.

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

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

'not understanding their behavior' was a sum-up of why I voted certain players. When I vote, I give the reason at the time or sometime during the day of the vote. Each player that I voted for 'off' behavior was mentioned before each vote. If someone gives flip answers, or doesn't show up for discussion for several days, I find it off. I also don't understand it. But it's a great way to throw ppl off as in "I obviously don't care if you vote me, so overlook me please" But again, I explained my reason each time, and the post you pulled was just a sum-up of the different votes I made. I saw no reason to relist each one and re-explain why again.

Matahari wrote:I have flip-flopped a bit on FZ for various reasons, and was ready to go ahead and vote for her today, until Epi posted this. I disagree with most of his comments here. They smack of old-school baddie.
If you've independently judged someone as bad, I don't think that should change because someone you also think is bad makes an attack on that person. Especially in a game like this, where baddies don't have default BTSC.

When I have reason to think there is a slight possibility that someone is a very important civ, I will not discuss that in thread. There is no call for putting a target on someone. While FZ had appeared to be a little shady to me at times during the game, there was also an issue that made me see a slim chance that she could be a very self-protective civ. When Epi made his first big case on her, I thought it was straight up his honest opinion, and I began to trust him just a bit more, and to believe that he was probably right. Then he did the (what I perceived) overkill post on her, which I saw as not sounding honest. If you need me to explain why I saw it as dishonest, I will in a separate post, just say the word. LSS- FZ's posts today are weird, I don't get what she's getting at, and unless other peoples posts help me understand it better, I'll be voting her. If its a trick of some kind, and ppl decide it would be bad to vote her, please say in the thread, because I'm not getting it. I have flip-flopped several times about FZ, due to something not discussable, but I believe I'm past the obstacle.

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

Matahari wrote:And- I'm not ready to vote Llama or Epig yet, because I want to have something to more to present than 'feels'.
But this was posted as the rationale for joining the Snowman lynch:

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

We haven't played together much. I'm primarily a gut based player, and when I play back to back games with the same group of ppl, I actually have pretty good luck at pegging good vs bad. That got a bit boring though, so I started taking breaks between games (usually about 3 months), because when I'd play again, it would be like being new. My last break was almost 8 months- I really feel like a fish out of water. I have feels about players, but I'm not rushing to judgement because I am fairly unsure of myself and whether I would be right. As for the Snowman lynch, the bold part above is important. During my first year, I didn't know how to handle info. I'd just blurt out an accusation and ask ppl to trust me because I knew I was right. Eventually I got the hang of the info role, but in this game, I thought I might be seeing that in Zombarella. Hope this explains better, but if not, we'll try again.

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

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

Matahari wrote:I have flip-flopped a bit on FZ for various reasons, and was ready to go ahead and vote for her today, until Epi posted this. I disagree with most of his comments here. They smack of old-school baddie.
If you've independently judged someone as bad, I don't think that should change because someone you also think is bad makes an attack on that person. Especially in a game like this, where baddies don't have default BTSC.

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

Matahari wrote:And- I'm not ready to vote Llama or Epig yet, because I want to have something to more to present than 'feels'.
But this was posted as the rationale for joining the Snowman lynch:

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

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

Turnip Head wrote:
Matahari wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I'm glad you brought up Mata, Boomslang. She is someone I would like to discuss in-depth tomorrow.
Finally something I agree with TH on.
I know right? Weird!
Bring it on boyz. I party at night, but by morning, I'll be ready for ya
Oh it has already been broughten

Turnip Head wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I'm glad you brought up Mata, Boomslang. She is someone I would like to discuss in-depth tomorrow.
Finally something I agree with TH on.
I know right? Weird!

Bring it on boyz. I party at night, but by morning, I'll be ready for ya

Search found 137 matches