The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:boo, you rocked as the Warden.

He caught Red (MP) who had like 4 items on him. Damn! MP was pissed. He was hoarding cigarettes. He had four packs.

Ya, was he allowed to target himself all 4 nights, or did he have 2 from sending N1, N3 (or N2, N4) and 2 from prizes? My initial thought when I checked him was that as Red he was able to double target (since he was choosing multiple people a night from my understanding of the role), which made me certain he was Red, but then Nev pointed out no double targeting (which did make sense, I'm not sure why I hadn't at least considered it) but I still figured he was Red and had won 2 prizes (I know we knew he had at least the one from D1, and I think we knew he could have had a second).

MP could always keep one thing for himself. MP could send items to anyone. The double targeting rule didn't apply to him. He got four items each night.

Haha, success. Still annoyed I didn't make a better effort to get him killed. I had that pegged as the most important civvie role I wanted out of the game from the start (Andy and the secret were concerns, but shutting down powers seemed like a bigger deal), and I was quite pleased when I found MP with 4 and was nearly certain I had Red. Plus, I figured I would be able to get contraband he had sent out up to that point mostly out of the game since I figured I could find people had sent to. He tried Mongoose and failed, and I checked SVS and was right, although I'm not sure if she got that from him or it was a prize.

Epignosis wrote:boo, you rocked as the Warden.

He caught Red (MP) who had like 4 items on him. Damn! MP was pissed. He was hoarding cigarettes. He had four packs.

Ya, was he allowed to target himself all 4 nights, or did he have 2 from sending N1, N3 (or N2, N4) and 2 from prizes? My initial thought when I checked him was that as Red he was able to double target (since he was choosing multiple people a night from my understanding of the role), which made me certain he was Red, but then Nev pointed out no double targeting (which did make sense, I'm not sure why I hadn't at least considered it) but I still figured he was Red and had won 2 prizes (I know we knew he had at least the one from D1, and I think we knew he could have had a second).

Dom wrote:Mongoose, why did you kill me in the first place?

Thanks sorsha!

You were one of... three names I believe I tossed out that night (I know rey was one, and I think AP was a consideration). We just wanted someone that night who we didn't see being protected, since there was no especially urgent need to kill anyone.

I was happy to go with you (although rey was my first choice for non-participation), because I didn't want you around to pick up on what was even then making me a bit painfully obvious as a shawshank since other people weren't really picking up on it, and if you did I figured you'd convince the right people. I also didn't want you around in the endgame if we made it there (self-five for the right call on that one), because I figured at some point butting heads with you would undoubtedly occur, and I didn't really want that.

I really didn't think you were the SK (I had figured when we tried to kill llama and failed that both indies were unNKable) when that kill was successful, and it didn't really occur to me that you would be the SK at the end (I was pretty sure you and SVS were sisters the last few days), since BWT had survived a NK from Bogs so I figured he was that role (and that his absence was just a strategy throughout the game to avoid being lynched since he couldn't be NKed).

Epignosis wrote:There is one more thing I wanted to address: "The Eloh Incident."

She was Brooks. I think everybody and their brother knew that by Night 2 or 3.

She struggled hard on how to get people to believe her about johns. I told her she should make a case on him. She asked me if she could just say she had info.

I told her she could say that, and I feel justified in that permission.

I have seen multiple players claim info. I have seen players claim info that was bullshit (DH, still looking at you, ass).

So I had no problem with her saying she had info. Just because she played her role clumsily doesn't prove anything, if that makes any sense. And regarding punishing her, that was out of the question. Even if I didn't know that Shawshank was going to kill her (which they did, a natural consequence of pretty much outing oneself), I don't modkill. And if I did, it would further legitimize her claim. I oppose Modkilling 100% of the time. Don't do the job of the Mafia as the Host.

No, you were right not to. I don't think she ever actually flat out stated it anyways (it was just always a bit painfully obvious). Even the night we did kill her, that was Mongoose's call (I wanted MP dead, since I was nearly certain he was Red after checking him with 4 contraband). It was the right one, but I also wouldn't have done it sooner since I wanted her around for getting john lynched, and she wasn't a risk at that point for voting us.

I also really thought it would be MP who would come back suspecting me... not SVS. Although I guess the rolecheck was responsible for that? I did PM a name for the bird to, I think Word would have been a great name... that would have really changed things I think, if I had managed to take that.

I was still certain SVS was a sister until the end, and that she had thrown john under the bus, but delayed it as much as possible. My problem there was who she was pushing for lynches after johns made zero sense to me (not the people I could see being the SK. lizzy especially baffled me since I thought SVS knew she was a civ since I had that one pegged, guess that wasn't the case), so I guess I should have seen that one coming. I had bullz pegged as a civ though, and figured Dom was the teammate and BWT was the SK (we were told the kill wouldn't pass down, so pretty much the first theory we had for what would happen to a dead killer would be a pass down).

Man... it's really a bummer I got checked. I had made the obvious mistakes that made lynching me easy, but I was getting away with them until SVS started pushing. I had also discussed setting up MP as a Shawshank during my lynch in BTSC (would have been some really intentional WIFOM, but there were some lynches there where I think it would have been enough to get him killed), and I think he would have been lynched before MR replaced in if I hadn't got distracted with other things and not made that post.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I feel terrible about voting JJ. No one should have to go out like that in a mafia game, IMO. And if you are indeed bad, good sir, you've played a TERRIFIC first game, it must be said. I greatly look forward to playing with you some more.

Nonetheless, a JJ vote still makes the most sense, I suppose.

I want to see what the other remaining living players have to say.

This was my point, that SVS has twisted, when if she could actually read me like she claims, she would have easily picked up on my meaning. I think she did, it just didn't serve her purpose.

I think john is bad because I think Epi would have made sure he had BTSC, and we know Mr Thomas had the civ BTSC.
In addition, I'm quite confident Eloh was Brooks, and knew for a fact that john is a sister.

I don't like lynching him for those reasons. Mine is logical, but not based on anything thread related, and therefore impossible for him to defend against. Eloh's is essentially outting, and I don't like that. But it still amounts to lynching a baddie, and passing that up is foolish, even though the reasons for lynching him are a shitty way to end a first-time players game.

SVS knew that was point my point, but decided to twist it. She is also a sister.

As for why eloh wouldn't have been hostkilled, she stuck by her weak thread-based theory (john being a sister based on llama being a sister), and never actually broke rules (she never explicitly outed, and while she said she had info, the rule is not to state the contents of PMs, not that you cannot say you got PMs). I don't like how she played it, and I think it's what got her killed, but it's within the rules so she technically did nothing wrong.

But if everyone wants to ignore that and let SVS and co take control of the game today, then by all means, the result won't come back in her favour, and assuming the roles needed survive the next night period, you can lynch her and john. I think their third is dead, or I just haven't found them. I have some beliefs about who is on shawshank, but the play of it still feels to far off to make any real sense, and discussing it won't work in my favour in this lynch since it would only have them pile on me.

S~V~S wrote:Yes, i did. But I always watch boo very carefully, he is awesome and he is very, very good. ANd no way no how would he say something like he sais about voting John anyhow in a shitty case just to see what happens.

No fucking way.

She's dead, so here it is. I believe Eloh was Brooks, and she has voted john. If he is a sister, she would know it as a result. Her NK makes me think that shawshank came to the same conclusion.

Your pushing me for something that obvious (you trusted Eloh earlier in the game, was the Brooks belief not the reason why? It's been my reason for trusting her for days now) makes me seriously doubt you though, and your sudden distrust of Eloh's judgement after trusting her most of the game makes me peg you as john's teammate, casting doubt on Eloh now to save your teammate. Of course, you claim I'm a coniving baddie, but you've played enough with me to know I'm always an easy lynch, so I guess that's today's play from your team. Hopefully your third is dead... or you may actually take this one at the very least.

I'd be happy with a john or SVS lynch. I'll start on john because I feel comfortable trusting Eloh, especially given her death, as it rules her off of being Shawshank, and I think she was preparing to dismantle the sisters.

Sorsha wrote:Went with the plate shop... Sorry I missed the lynch vote but I'm not up to speed enough to have made a good decision anyway.

Would someone please explain what the suspicion of Dex was? Seems like it was something to go with the SK role?

The SK hasn't killed yet, so shortly before you replaced in I said because rey hadn't been around I believed he could have that role. I do hope for you (and so that we don't have 2 people killed tonight) that Blatch doesn't kill tonight, because it would not look good, and fresh eyes would be nice to have if it starts seeming like you can be trusted (rey not being around could also fit the bill to being Mr Thomas's BTSC partner, and I'd rather hope you replaced that role than the SK role).

So... nothing for you to speak to really. And it seems the only person I convinced with it was me, so it's not like it matters much.

Elohcin wrote:

boo wrote:Well, I am not entirely surprised that he was civ, but I am kind of surprised he had civ BTSC. It does make me think the first-time player BTSC rule applies in this game, so I kind of doubt john now. But maybe Epi accounted for that and Thomas and john had civ BTSC. Bleh, not an easy result anyways.

Are we sending in votes via PM Epi, or is the poll just going up later?

I am doubting JJ too now. I was thinking about how llama kept using his almost death and Nev's kill to explain his civviness.

thellama73 wrote:For those of you interested in actual evidence, consider this:
On Night 1, the baddies tried to kill me.
On Night 2, the baddies killed Nevinera, who vocally defended me in the thread on more than one occasion and would certainly not have voted to lynch me.
It would appear that both baddie teams want me out of the picture. Why? Could it be because I am literally the only person pushing Mongoose as a suspect, and if I go she will be able to recede into the safety of the shadows?

Then I was thinking about the back and forth convo between JJ and llama in the beginning of the game. What if this thread talk was all to distance themselves b/c they really have btsc.

thellama73 wrote:
Aso, John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt has been voting for me without explanation from the beginning of the game. Why has no one called him on this?

More distancing.

We know that Shawshank baddies did try to kill Llama night one. What if Llama and JJ are Sisters. Llama could use his almost getting killed as a "proof" of civvieness. Then llama/JJ could kill Nev on Night 2 (someone who was defending llama), say "the baddies did it" (not a lie) which becomes llama's second "proof" of his civviness.

Then, when I changed my vote to JJ a couple hours before the lynch ends, llama gets defensive. Weird.

What do y'all think, Llambaddie?

Numbers 32:23 "But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out. Haha!

No, for real, I have a lot of favorite verses. But Isaiah 9:6 is pretty befitting for this time of year. It shows the prophesy of Jesus' birth many many many years before it was to happen For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

It seems to me eloh's case against john is predicated on the idea that llama was a sister and john was his teammate. We know llama wasn't a sister, so why is eloh still pushing that john is?

I can't actually find anything else she has said to support john being bad. While I did say I could see him being bad because of the Mr Thomas lynch, and that I thought that was support of new players getting BTSC being something that is occurring in this game, but she didn't actually agree with me on that reasoning, she just said she was also suspicious of him and here's why.

I hadn't previously leaned bad on eloh, but this doesn't actually make sense, so now I'm concerned. Now, I can still fit it into some of my previous thinking, and that's what makes it hard. I would like to believe I've been right to see eloh as civ and have called john a baddie early in the game correctly (even if it is a shitty reason for him to get lynched on).

I don't know. At this point I think I'd have to go with my gut and still trust Eloh on voting john. Her reasoning doesn't still hold up, but I have my own, and I don't want to start doubting my read on her.

Tarring the roof gets you beer, therefore, it is the right option.

Lizzy wrote:You know what? Shan't randomise. Although I'm not a big fan of civs (oops! slip! ), I have to comply with the rules. A civ friendly SK (yes, Mr Blatch is one whether dead or alive - laying low or not participating at all) is preferable to baddies since the only people NK-ing at the moment are the latter, wouldn't you agree?

Well, since I can't vote rey now, I'm voting for you for this post, because 1) No, I don't agree, and 2) WTF?

For what little case building there can be:

Rey has 13 posts (lowest of any living player by 6).

9 of those posts were made during the prologue.

His last post was D2 when he self-voted.

Now... for anyone who hasn't played with rey, or hasn't played with him much, unless his game has changed a great deal since when I last played actively, this is extremely unlike him. Certainly, as a civvie, he is always very much involved in my experiences, and while I would expect a similar game from him (slightly more subdued) as a baddie, I'm just not understanding this at all.

Now, we can make the argument, that if he's a baddie, his team would be yelling at him to come and play. Unless that's the teams strategy, playing as minimally as possible? It is something that seems to work for baddies lately.

More likely in my mind - we have a SK role, that we know for a fact is LMSing. We have not seen that role kill at all, or even a failed attempt. By this point in the game, I can't make any sense of that. So, my guess is, rey is the SK, and we haven't had a NK from the SK because rey hasn't been playing this game.

Now, whether we want to risk keeping him around if I am right, since he isn't active, therefore in my mind becomes the real question for this lynch. Personally, my answer is no, because if we let ourselves leave him now, we'll be tempted to continue that pattern, the baddies probably wouldn't NK him (since we know from llama, that the one of the indies of this game can survive at least one NK, so I can see that being the case for both roles), and then it would give him the chance to swoop in at the end of the game and give us a pretty nasty surprise. Plus the role does need to be dead for a civvie win, so it needs to be done sooner or later, why not sooner?

Admittedly, I only came up with all of this after voting for him, but I've actually managed to convince myself, so now I'm pretty confident that's where I'll be leaving my vote.

I am going to start by voting rey because it's going to be a busy couple of days. If any of the discussions we have had become more compelling or someone brings something new up, and I have time, I'll look at it, but as I've said before, I find how quiet he has been to be very unlike him, and it makes me think he's trying to play an under-the-radar game.

I do find vomps to be a weird NK choice given the votes he took d4, so if I have time I think I'll look back at that, because there could be something there.

FZ. wrote:

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:Every vote SVS made was when people were already on the lynch. She voted for Lizzie when there was already votes on her, she voted for MR, and for MT. All had votes but were not sure to get lynched when she placed the vote.

It feels a little WIFOM-y, simply because Hadley could take the strategy of not voting different people each time for fear of getting caught, but could also take the strategy of going with the majority every time. It really comes down to whether or not they (and their team) felt it was worth trying to get a single civvie, who is otherwise vanilla.

I wouldn't vote for someone (SVS or Mongoose) on it alone, but it is something I would take into account in looking at lynching them.

Also: as far as I'm concerned, BIH llama. An indie with unspecified win conditions is not a civvie, so as far as I'm concerned, his death is a good thing. I would have preferred him to be the SK ofc, but I never expected him to be a sister (or on shawshank and they RBed the NK N1 to give him cred).

I agree, but that's why SVS seems baddie to me more than Mongoose, because saying something like she might vote for Mongoose just to call llama's bluff seems ridiculous. If you think he's bluffing, vote for him, not for her. Wouldn't that prove it better? That is so the opposite of pro civ.
And with that, good night

Ya, I see where you're coming from.

I did a brief read of SVS to see if anything stuck out. She does seem to have a lack of really discussing anyone other than who she has voted for and the more discussed people (ie llama), but that's something I have a feeling that can be said for most people in this game simply because of how things have gone.

The one thing that I am considering, is this post of hers from N2 (discussion about voting for people in what we thought was a poll to remove a player from the following days lynch but turned out not to be):

S~V~S wrote:Well, the poll implies someone will get a reward. I would prefer it be a civ. Now I do not have any info, but after seeing what Elo said, I went back and took a good look at BWT. I think I read him pretty well. I think he could be a civ. So I would prefer to reward him rather than someone else. Saying who you feel good about and could potentially trust is as much a part of mafia as saying who you suspect.

And for all the baddies know, with 2 mafias, me, Elo, & BWT could be bad teammates making a particularly ballsy move. I have been known to do so

So saying I trust a particular person in a poll structured this way will not put a target on them anymore than Llama is having a target painted with the votes he has.

It doesn't make me think she's bad any more than the possibility of it I could already see (basically just the same probability of anyone being able to be bad), but it does make me think that if she's bad than either: 1) She, BWT, and Eloh are teammates, and are really relying on a 'none of us will get lynched strategy (and if anyone does, we WIFOM our way out of the ensuing shitstorm)'. OR 2) She wanted (and has continued the strategy since she has continued to show trust for Eloh and BWT) to set at least one of them up in case she gets lynched.

It really doesn't help much, since in either case it results in WIFOM, which takes us back to square one, but I still think if we're going to be discussing SVS for tomorrow's lynch, then this should also be part of the discussion.

My one thought on her being bad: I usually have some opinion of her in a game, with that usually being some reason to trust her, by this point in the game. I really don't have that this game. That being said, if I'm going to vote for someone because of that, I'll be voting rey (I believe I've mentioned this before. He is usually quite active, but he's been just shy of absent this game, and that makes me lean baddie, or maybe LMSing) before I vote SVS.

FZ. wrote:Every vote SVS made was when people were already on the lynch. She voted for Lizzie when there was already votes on her, she voted for MR, and for MT. All had votes but were not sure to get lynched when she placed the vote.

It feels a little WIFOM-y, simply because Hadley could take the strategy of not voting different people each time for fear of getting caught, but could also take the strategy of going with the majority every time. It really comes down to whether or not they (and their team) felt it was worth trying to get a single civvie, who is otherwise vanilla.

I wouldn't vote for someone (SVS or Mongoose) on it alone, but it is something I would take into account in looking at lynching them.

Also: as far as I'm concerned, BIH llama. An indie with unspecified win conditions is not a civvie, so as far as I'm concerned, his death is a good thing. I would have preferred him to be the SK ofc, but I never expected him to be a sister (or on shawshank and they RBed the NK N1 to give him cred).

FZ. wrote:I'm literally falling asleep on my laptop, so I'm just going to vote. I was hoping for more votes before I decide, but it looks as though it isn't happening. Don't know what's going on with llama, but I guess I can understand your vote change.
As for Mongoose, I don't get why she voted for Vomp of all people.
SVS, I didn't like her line saying she would vote either llama for his suspicions on Mongoose, Mongoose herself just to call out on llama's bluff, or she'll vote someone else completely. If she's so suspicious of him, why not vote him and prove he's a baddie. So I'm torn.

Since it doesn't look like either will be leaving us, it means I need to choose between llama and Vomp. I'll take Vomp down any day because of what I said in the other game, but I think we'll all be voting for him for really bad reasons.

Lynch ended like 10 minutes ago.

FZ. wrote:Does anyone know where the tally is standing right now? Who has what votes?

I think llama voted Mongoose and so did someone else. Mongoose voted for Vomp, and so did he himself. Did anyone else vote him? I think two people voted for llama. Who were they? And are there other votes not shown in the poll?

It was 2-2-2. llama and john voted Mongoose, eloh and I (and now BWT) voted llama, and vomps and mongoose voted vomps.

So, currently 3 votes on llama, 2 on Mongoose, 2 on vomps, and 1 on SVS.

All that assuming that no one had voted without posting.

Epignosis wrote:Post your favorite Bible verse. State why. Argue.

I saw that bit. But it says lynch someone, I thought we were having a night lynch.

Anyways, I'll snap up Psalm 23 then.

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, 3 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

I like it better with thou's but, it's c+p and I don't feel like changing it.

Why? None of your business.

Argument for it: AAA on Lost was a badass.

Well, I am not entirely surprised that he was civ, but I am kind of surprised he had civ BTSC. It does make me think the first-time player BTSC rule applies in this game, so I kind of doubt john now. But maybe Epi accounted for that and Thomas and john had civ BTSC. Bleh, not an easy result anyways.

Are we sending in votes via PM Epi, or is the poll just going up later?

thellama73 wrote:If I seem less analytical and more vibes based this game, it's because in the past I have gone to great lengths to construct cases and defenses based on logic only to see them completely ignored by less logically minded players. For example, I have pointed out to A Person many, many times that the way he plays almost always flies in the face of game theory and logic, only to be met with shrugs and indifference. The effort is simply not worth the return on investment anymore. No one is going to listen to logical arguments anyway, so why make them?

And this is another argument about the game as a whole, and not this specific one.

If your mentality is "I need to win this game, or else what's the point?", then sure, playing in a way you don't like because you think it increases your odds of winning makes sense.

But if that's the entire reason you play, go play solitaire. I'm interested in playing for fun. If, using your example, A Person has fun playing the game his way, and you have fun playing a logic-based game, then you should each play your respective games, and the enjoyment out of them that you do. Yes, I'd prefer if he and everyone else who doesn't played a logic based game, because it would increase my overall enjoyment of it, but it's a multiplayer game, and people have the right to play in the way that maximizes their enjoyment, even if you and I don't like, and don't even understand, how they play (and how it could possibly be fun).

But, you have more votes than just mine. Clearly, at least some people are willing to listen to fact based arguments.
Your case against Mongoose has resulted in a grand total of... literally only you voting for Mongoose.

So yes, my facts will eventually beat up vibes. It may take a while, but it will happen.

Based on nothing but you and A Person's banners, I count 6 wins for facts, and 0 for vibes.

You're just looking at things in a short-term way. You had things right before.

@MP: My issue with his vibes is they are extremely self-serving. He is suspicious of Mongoose because she twice, in a single post, stressed that she went to the front page to check something, and that made her over-eager to come across as civ.

Since Nev has been killed, llama has stressed, over and over and over again, that Nev was his defender, and the baddies killed him. Somehow that correlates to llama being civvie.

By the same logic he has applied to Mongoose, based on absolutely nothing else, the case for llama based only on those comments are, by his own logic, as compelling as his reason for why Mongoose is bad.

Vibes have their place, but if I only started going after llama after Nev was killed, and only because of his Nev related comments, that would be an illogical case. If I did that, I would fully expect people to find me suspicious. It would be illogical nonsense, that would not help the civvies in any way, shape or form. So why is he getting away with it? Vibes.

Saying you find llama good because of vibes doesn't make sense though. The only fact-based compelling reason to lean civvie on him is because he survived a NK. There is nothing else. I made it clear in my case against him that I do not think he is on that team. Probability is worth taking into account, but only so far, and letting him get away with the things he has so far well exceed what BOTD he deserves for surviving a NK.

You can lynch Mr Thomas today. It won't solve the issue going forward, and lynching the guy who hasn't posted at all, and only voted twice, is not going to give you any information moving forward regardless of the result, within the confines of this game (I do think it will make him understand he needs to actually play in future games, so there is that benefit). There are always lynches in the game where there are actually hard decisions, and I would have liked to forestall Thomas's lynch until that point. I really don't think this was a good one for it, even if people weren't ready to lynch llama, because it has led to no actual attempts at countering what I have said about him. Why should I think I'm wrong when I have facts and you have vibes? If you, or anyone else, had pushed for the lynch of a player that I could have any opinion of (and no llama, your Mongoose case, or any other vibe based case is not something I would include here), we could have had a discussion about them vs. llama. Lynching thomas makes that impossible, because none of can have an opinion on thomas beyond "wow, this guy isn't playing at all, so lets get rid of him". That isn't a debate, that's an inevitability.

thellama73 wrote:Boo and I have remarkably similar views, it turns out. The main difference is that he tries to play the same game every time, and I try to vary my game, at least a little, every time. This is partly strategy, but mostly boredom.

When I am bad, I can generally force myself to actually forget my alignment and play just like a civvie. That tends to help immensely. As George Costanza once said: "It's not a lie, if you believe it."

And that's the difference between us this game. I actually believe what is true, you are trying to believe a lie. Either you aren't doing it as well as you would like, the fact we do things essentially the same way makes it easier for me to spot it, or I'm wrong and this is a game where your boredom or some weird strategy is causing you to fail to follow the strategy you say we share.

thellama73 wrote:YOu talk of facts boo. I say again that the facts of both baddie teams trying to kill off me and my defenders point to me being civvie. No other player can point to those facts in their own defense. You've singled out the person most factually-likely to be civ, so don't pretend you are not bending things or going on vibes.

If you were factually-likely to be civvie, you would reply to my actual points, and not rely on stuff like this.

You survived a NK. That proves nothing. It makes it likely you are not on a single team of 3 baddies. I am not arguing you are on that team, so it is irrelevant to my argument of why you should be killed.

You suspected Nev. He thought you were civ. He was killed. You also suspect Mongoose, and she also stands by you. If she and not Nev had been killed, I would be no more convinced by that point than I am because Nev was killed. Therefore, this is not a line of defense.

Every suspicion you have had, and every person you trust you have mentioned, have been about vibes.

You can argue that I'm not dealing in facts and you are, but even people in your corner are not taking that stance, and I really believe even you don't believe what you're saying. If you want them to stay in your corner, then actually accept the fact that you are wrong about the issue you keep going back to, and defend yourself. Otherwise it's inevitable that they will reach my conclusions, put aside their vibes about you when they are forced to recognize those vibes don't hold up in the face of facts, and then they will lynch you.

FZ. wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Hi guys! I better vote now, since I'll be out for a day pf tourism here. Going with Mr Thomas for now. It's Day 3, and by that point people should be doing things. I also just don't know where to fall on boo/llama yet. My brain says boo is making strong points, but ky gut os reading llama as sincere, which is unusual.

Wow, you took the words straight out of my mouth. That is exactly how I feel about the Boo/llama issue.
Is Boo always like this? I am such a sucker for logic, and I should know better. Sometimes, it's the most logic arguments that are the baddies' ones. So, to anyone who knows Boo, does his accusations come with such logic when he's a baddie as well? Also, how good is he at finding scum?

llama, if you were so sure about Mongoose, why'd you stand on the side and let people lynch MR instead of trying to convince them harder that she's the one they should go for?

I'm not going to be here for about 30 hours or more, so my vote goes on Lizzie again. Sorry. You're probably not going to like it, but I have my reasons.

I like to think I know me, so I'll take a stab at this.

As far as I'm concerned, I play exactly the same game regardless of alignment. In the second game I ever played, I was a baddie, and a teammate I had got killed I think D2, but quite early anyways, because he played a drastically different game when he was a civ vs when he was bad, or that was the common consensus. Playing these different games gets people killed. Trying new strategies gets people killed, and they ultimately go back to what they did quite quickly, or they go game after game of getting killed early (Dom was like llama when I started playing with him, and that's what people expected. When he became a quiet player, it got him killed a fair bit, and suspected a good deal more).

My point being, a single style of game has always struck me as the only way to play. I still wind up dead early more often then I would like, usually a result of playing with new people, or people who don't like being told what to do (I tend towards forcing cases to have 2 camps, my side and the wrong side. It's not pronounced at this point, but I already see it forming, and while it isn't something I like, I find it's inevitable so I just accept it).

So, for your actual question, yes, I would argue my cases usually come with similar logic when I'm a baddie. And when I'm a civvie. And when I'm and independent. If you still think of yourself as a civvie regardless of your real alignment, most of the time (being a baddie in a game with a single baddie team and no indies being the only real exception) you can actually convince yourself that's the case. I suppose I take it a step further, and really just think of myself as an indie. If I don't have to worry about making mistakes that kill civvies (and that's never the goal. Getting a civvie lynched as a baddie is just as bad as getting a civvie lynched as a civvie from how I approach the game), because I always place the responsibility of their getting killed on them and not me, it's much easier to treat mistakes as mistakes, and not let them get you bogged down. Mix it with keeping thoughts outside of the game, but written down (BTSC when I'm a baddie or a civ with BTSC, just writing down thoughts the thread isn't ready for yet otherwise), allows for speculation that putting into the thread would probably get me killed for, but I need down so I've written it. I don't even go back to it (things I've already said in BTSC or notes), I just need it said. The one benefit of BTSC is having people to play off of, and reminding me of things I've said, but even without it I can generally manage if I can reach a point where I can put into the thread things I previously couldn't.

As for actually finding baddies. It's hit and miss, same as everyone else. I don't have some weird inherent gift for calling people out (and there are players who manage it. Although I really think it's only a result of familiarity + wild speculation + luck), I just deal with the facts as I see them, and when I think the thread is in a spot where it can handle them, I share it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I have to say I am not feeling the case against Llama.

While boo makes very strong logical points and I do feel relatively good about boo, I have been getting nothing but civvie vibes from Llama, and it's true that boo could make a similar argument against AP (who I actually think may be bad this game and has been far from contributing), Lizzy, etc., but somehow is stuck on Llama.

Yes, Llama survived an NK and it is far from confirmation, but it's more concrete than what we know about other players.

I am voting for MrThomas because I agree that a refusal to play, even if you are new, can't continue on. Hopefully he gets the message and comes to join us! And either way, we obviously can't tell if someone is civ or bad when they don't post at all.

Vote MrThomas

Well... I probably could construct a similar argument for anyone in this game. It just wouldn't hold up in fact based terms. You can have all the vibes you like, and I don't disagree that they have their place, but placing vibes before logic makes very little sense in practical terms, and that's what I care about.

Now yes, for some players I could construct cases on, the entire reason the case would fail to work is because they don't feel the need to participate, which it seems is llama's biggest issue with my case. He hasn't actually argued that I'm wrong, he has come from a point of frustration saying what is applicable to him is applicable to others, and the reality of it is, that is not true. His participation hasn't helped him in the case I was able to build, and he uses that fact to try and ignore the actual reasons behind it, and instead put focus on people who have a consistent style of trying to coast.

Now, we can argue about the merits of coasting along quietly. I despise it, it adds nothing to the game, and in its more extreme forms, I find it baffling why the people who do it even bother signing up. However, for all I, and people who have a tendency to post a good deal (ie, llama), know, they despise all the talking that goes on and find it overwhelming, and would be happier if everyone played their game. I have no idea, because if they tried telling me, they would cease to be coasters. I'm always happy to kill them off, it's why I like voting no-shows, specifically habitual no-shows, on D1. When an actual case comes up though, and that can be against anyone, the tendency of course being the vocal, because there are things to use to establish reasons they should be killed, continuing to put focus on the quiet and the absent, who can easily be dealt with later if they remain the same (and this is why I don't trust someone who my expectation is to be vocal, but remains quiet, in this game that being rey), is foolish. Even worse, trying to stand behind that as a defense, while complaining about having nothing to defend against (he does, and you acknowledging that I make good logical points also means you have to acknowledge that he is willfully choosing not to defend himself against those points), only adds to the refusal of dealing with anything that is not vibe-based, which I place firmly in the realm of baddie behaviour. The facts will always inherently favour the civvies if they are accurate, while anyone can bend a vibe to suit their needs. Certainly, facts can be bent as well, but when no one, including the person the case is being built against, shows any sign of trying to point out flaws in my logic, my only conclusion is they have tried and failed to find anything logically wrong with it, and either follow the case and vote against him, or do exactly what he's doing, and turn instead to using vibes.

Most of this is applicable to things outside this particular game, and apologies for the rambliness of it, but these are the kind of posts I try to avoid heavily editing, but I just start going around in circles when I do.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:
Lets all look at how right you were about MR, even though you refused to vote for him. I could make a similar claim about you based off of that same essentially non-reason.

I suspected both you and MR at the time, but I thought you looked worse than him which is why I voted for you on Day 1. His civvieness does not acquit you, as I think it would have been a very bad idea for both of you to try the same strategy if you were both bad. I never thought both of you were bad, just one. I thought it was you then and I think it's you now.

But don't worry, I'm still voting for Mongoose tomorrow.

Oh, I'm not worried.

I see multiple possibilities for your NK tonight because of things you've done, and the non-favour people have done you by voting for you in this poll. You've been painted as civvie looking by 4 people now, and if the sisters reached (or agree with) my reasoning for why you're likely the DA or SK, neither of which is a role I imagine they'd want to keep around, then through either avenue, they may decide to target you tonight. Whether that would kill you or not will I suppose depend on how you survived last night.

Even if they choose not to (which is what I'd prefer if you can't survive a second time, so long as it doesn't mean I'm the target), and even if you do get taken off the poll tomorrow, I think by D4 people will be seeing in you what I am, and be ready to lynch you, and I think the results will be good.

Anyways, since you have the lead on this one, I'm moving to BWT, because I want to be able to vote for you tomorrow, at least right now.

And to be specific, this is the post I'm referring to when I say you have something to defend against.

Points you could argue:
1) I think you've tried to beat over peoples heads how civvie you seem, using the survived NK as your example. You ignore that there's a second baddie team, and the other 2 roles. You ignore there's no stated way a civvie could survive a NK, and therefore it's easier to see scenarios in which that means you are not a civvie.
2) In the post of mine that you quoted, I brought up how you have not provided real reasons for any of your suspicions or reasons you trust the people you trust. Put some effort into countering it. I'd like to see you quote yourself where you have given us any reason to agree with you.
3) You didn't so much as bother replying to this post at all. We can't have a discussion on why I suspect you if you refuse to participate, and trying to shut down discussion of suspicion on yourself is a baddie tactic through-and-through as far I'm concerned. Not responding to that suspicion is the easiest way to shut down that suspicion, especially when I had mentioned the D4 bit which may have made you think I'd leave it until then, compounded by the fact that you and I had agreed about Mr Thomas.

Just some starting points.

thellama73 wrote:I'm just frustrated because I think I have been more obviously civ this game than in any other game I've played, so obviously so that the baddies tried to kill me on the first night. Now three people jump right out of the gate and vote for me, having made no case so far as I can see to defend against. I honestly don't know what it takes to not get lynched early around here. Maybe next game I'll just be like Thomas and not say anything. It seems to work, and it's ever so much fun for all involved.

I very clearly stated why I voted for you during the night, and that as long as you were on the poll I would be voting for you.

You haven't been obviously civ. You have thrown out my name, MR, mongoose, and nev.

Conversely you've said you think you can trust MP, BWT, and john,

That's from skimming only the first one and a half of the 3 pages of posts you have this game. You never provided any real reason for why you suspect or trust any of those people.

The closest you've come to giving a practical reason for why you'd vote someone is Mr Thomas not participating, something I think everyone in the game can agree on, so literally the safest push for a lynch you could make.

You'll have to excuse me if I find it extremely funny if you can say you're upset that 3 people voted for you when there's no case for you to defend yourself against (there is), after you've specifically stated 7 names of people you suspect or trust, and have offered no reason that could be argued in any of those 7 cases.

Mongoose wrote:^ That was unintentionally homoerotic sounding.

How freudipenis.

thellama73 wrote:I honestly can't believe people are jumping out and voting for me today, of all the other suspicious people out there. It's odd considering that just hours ago people were saying how civ they thought I was. I am surprised and disappointed with you, SVS, and I just don't trust boo at all. I urge the other players not to let this turn into a bandwagon on me.

A compelling defense if ever I have seen one! Because some people said they thought you were civ, people who had already at that time made it clear they didn't agree are voting for you, who could have seen that coming? And you don't trust me, which is the extent of the case building you have done on everyone you've been suspicious of, that's a great way to convince people to your side AND give the people you suspect something to actually argue with you about.

See, I'm trying your casual and kind of melodramatic snark, that manages to not be offensive (hopefully I hit that point), to win over people who somehow see you as being civvie to seeing you how I do, because I guess that's what they respond to. But I really can't manage it without sarcasm, so I guess we can call that the Boo Being Llama Whilst Blending it With Sarcasm Gambit. Or something.

Also, where the hell is rey? He has 4 posts since the prologue. I do not trust quiet rey.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote: My problem with the presumption of innocence is that if he's a baddie, generally keeping him out play could be a ploy to still have him around later in the game where his vote could matter, so leaving him in play could bite us in the ass down the line. Voting for him could help force him out and start talking, at which point he would at least be contributing, which could help give a read either way.

My problem with the presumption of innocence also spills over into future games. Ignoring this sort of absenteeism sends a clear signal to future baddies that they can win by simply not playing. I think thta is bad for mafia as a whole, not just for this game.

Well, I don't disagree, but it isn't exactly new behavior, and it is quite prevalent with some players. Maybe that's just the sort he'll be, but since we have no way of knowing right now, I don't think letting it slide is a good idea. And if it were the type of player he was going to become, and this made him change his mind in the future, even better as far as I'm concerned. Near complete non-participation doesn't make the game fun, so I see no reason to put up with it from him, or anyone else, and at this point in the game, I think he should realize people want him to show up. Since that hasn't happened, if he's a civ, I'm assuming he isn't reading, so maybe taking some votes will force him to re-evaluate and actually read and learn.

So yes, I more or less agree with you.

Now, people, vote for BWT so we can lynch llama. SKs and unknowns are bad for business.

Dom wrote:I went with BWT.

Are you fly-bying, going with Eloh/SVS stuff, going with MP stuff (which I think is my reason, under the guise of Eloh/SVS stuff, but he wasn't actually ready to confirm), going with my stuff, or some other reason that you just didn't care to share?

Ya, twice. He's voted in a lynch, and showed up to vote for himself in this poll. I don't really know what to think of what he's doing. If he's a civ trying to learn the game, I would expect posts asking questions. I don't think a baddie team would tell him not to post from the start of the game, but if he just wasn't around, or didn't want to, maybe they're telling him to stay the course.

My problem with the presumption of innocence is that if he's a baddie, generally keeping him out play could be a ploy to still have him around later in the game where his vote could matter, so leaving him in play could bite us in the ass down the line. Voting for him could help force him out and start talking, at which point he would at least be contributing, which could help give a read either way.

It isn't what I want to do for D3, but if other options are closed off, I could see going that way, at least putting enough votes on him to try and shake him (and his team if he has one) into having him participate.

Elohcin wrote:

boo wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also, how long are we prepared to tolerate MrThomas' complete absence from the thread? I am starting to lose patience with him, personally.

I agree but do we really want to be lynching no-shows on day 3 or later? If he's civ that's a day wasted, if he's bad he's not contributing to his team anyway.

He has shown up, he's voted. He's just never posted.

He hasn't voted in every pole though, right? And...even though he is absent, (if he is a baddie) his team can still use his power if they are sending in group PMs, yes?

I think he's only voted once. I asked at the beginning of the game, and Epi said he would accept (and prefers) group PMs, so yes, they'd be able to use his power even if he weren't around.

FZ. wrote:Hey, where do I find the keep me signed in option?

press log out, press log in, there's a stereo button that says log me in automatically, check it off, then log in.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Can anyone at all explain where all the vote for me tonight are coming from? Because I've honestly tried really hard to think of what I've done that's made me appear so civvie (I've missed both votes after all!) that I continue to keep getting votes. And I don't get the logic at all.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate it that so many people are confident in me. But the lack of explanation concerns me.

I've wondered this too. I have wondered if there's a role checker in there OR they want us to think there's a role checker in there.

Comments like this make me think even more that llama may just be onto something with you.

Comments like this just let you know that I'm not the role checker. They either have checked BWT and he pooped up civ or they just are insinuating they have to make us think he's kosher. And I'm on the fence about BWT so I can't chance it. Even though I'd wish Llama would expend his voracious energy elsewhere, he seems legit civ to me, despite his unquenchable thirst for my untainted blood. I have a few roles in mind for what he could be, and most are the C-word.

Right, but go actually read the RCer role (Brooks). It works by giving the role of the player the person votes for. That very much narrows things down, if you are right, and paints a target on a single person, which I believe is why MP has a problem with you pointing it out. If the baddies hadn't thought of it, you've done them a favour, and that hardly feels like civvie behavior. While I haven't followed llama's reasoning's for why you were bad prior to this, so I don't know what MP has seen in addition to this, this does not make me trust you, because it really only serves to harm the civvies.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Can anyone at all explain where all the vote for me tonight are coming from? Because I've honestly tried really hard to think of what I've done that's made me appear so civvie (I've missed both votes after all!) that I continue to keep getting votes. And I don't get the logic at all.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate it that so many people are confident in me. But the lack of explanation concerns me.

No idea. If it's any consolation, my vote for you isn't because I have any confidence in you. I struggle to understand how given your relative lack of participation, anyone, let alone 3 or 4 people can be this confident about you, but I suspect it's more of a chain of trust anyways, so I'm not sure they all independently really trust you as much as this makes it look like they do.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:
Lets all look at how right you were about MR, even though you refused to vote for him. I could make a similar claim about you based off of that same essentially non-reason.

I suspected both you and MR at the time, but I thought you looked worse than him which is why I voted for you on Day 1. His civvieness does not acquit you, as I think it would have been a very bad idea for both of you to try the same strategy if you were both bad. I never thought both of you were bad, just one. I thought it was you then and I think it's you now.

But don't worry, I'm still voting for Mongoose tomorrow.

Oh, I'm not worried.

I see multiple possibilities for your NK tonight because of things you've done, and the non-favour people have done you by voting for you in this poll. You've been painted as civvie looking by 4 people now, and if the sisters reached (or agree with) my reasoning for why you're likely the DA or SK, neither of which is a role I imagine they'd want to keep around, then through either avenue, they may decide to target you tonight. Whether that would kill you or not will I suppose depend on how you survived last night.

Even if they choose not to (which is what I'd prefer if you can't survive a second time, so long as it doesn't mean I'm the target), and even if you do get taken off the poll tomorrow, I think by D4 people will be seeing in you what I am, and be ready to lynch you, and I think the results will be good.

Anyways, since you have the lead on this one, I'm moving to BWT, because I want to be able to vote for you tomorrow, at least right now.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I haven't really felt that way about boo yet. Was it just the late vote or is there another reason?

This was my initial suspicion for him, and I stand by it.

thellama73 wrote:This is going to sound weird, but honestly, boo and MR are pinging me the most for saying that there's nothing useful to be gleaned from me being the one who cried out. I mean, they are right. There is nothing useful to be gleaned from that. But my intuition is telling me that they know I'm civ (or at least not on their team) and they know I am likely to get lynched early so they are purposely not going after me, when it would be easy to do so, so when I flip civ they can avoid having been a part of it and establish credibility.

I know that sounds crazy convoluted and insane, but that is what my gut said to me when I read their posts.

Lets all look at how right you were about MR, even though you refused to vote for him. I could make a similar claim about you based off of that same essentially non-reason.

And... the late vote (and what late vote? D1 I voted when john made his post and that made me think MR was bad, you were suspicious of me prior to that) wasn't your initial suspicion, as shown by you quoting yourself so...? I put a vote on MR yesterday, fifth one he got I think, but I think most of the votes he took prior to me voting him used my reasoning from D1 to vote him.

While the NK makes me think you aren't on that team (FZ did point out the possibily your team targeted you, to add to that, they would have RBed the killer, and the post does, looking at, read like a teammate interrupted the kill, but that all seems a) like a foolish play in general and b) an especially foolish play N1 when you aren't being suspected), the way you're spinning things now makes me really not trust you. Your survival isn't explained by any civvie roles outright, so either you're the secret civvie role, contraband protected you (which doesn't prove anything, as the sisters can get contraband, or someone who does not know your alignment could have done it), or you're the DA or SK. At this point, DA or SK seems like the most likely explanation, and since we know the SK is LMSing (with the possible exception of the DA), and we don't know the conditions of the DA, you're looking worse and worse to me.

-lots of linki, will read it after posting

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also, how long are we prepared to tolerate MrThomas' complete absence from the thread? I am starting to lose patience with him, personally.

I agree but do we really want to be lynching no-shows on day 3 or later? If he's civ that's a day wasted, if he's bad he's not contributing to his team anyway.

He has shown up, he's voted. He's just never posted.

Mongoose wrote:

boo wrote:Alright... I really don't understand your behavior then MR.

And, voting for myself because I think the winner will be off the poll tomorrow.

I'm going to vote for Matt/A Person because I think he's civ and I feel pretty confident about it, so I want to give him a good shot at a prize. I think Matt is a good option for today's vote (instead of voting myself) because maybe some others will feel good about Matt too.

SVS - How do you feel about Matt/A Person for this?

MR - I'm sorry, dude.

Because self-votes, especially self-votes after d1, make people feel good about the person doing the self-voting? Not seeing that logic...

S~V~S wrote:Sorry also MR, I am at a loss over this

I would self vote too but would rather see if we can find someone we mostly agree could be civ. If we can't then i will self vote, lol

Can still move votes, don't see the point waiting. And I don't think there will be agreement this early in the game.

Alright... I really don't understand your behavior then MR.

And, voting for myself because I think the winner will be off the poll tomorrow.

Mister Rearranger wrote:Oh, and as for a reason why: I think you're bad, Bullz. Nuff said.

Well, at least you're thoroughly making yourself look bad, makes things a lot easier.

voting MR

Elohcin wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Mister Rearranger wrote:I will most likely be voting for MP today.

Anyone have a problem with that?

*Raises hand*

If you had a legitimate reason to vote for him, then sure. But I have yet to see one from you.

Maybe you're trying to deflect attention away from yourself and John?

I'm wondering the same. I am still uneasy about JJ even though this is his first game. Especially if he has BTSC with MP...he could be coaching him.

I assume you meant MR?

But yes, I really think MR and john have BTSC, and while I briefly considered that they may have the civvie BTSC (I was trying to figure out who the third baddie was if I have them being teammates right), I really don't see them playing like they are right now if that were the case, because it just feels like a defeated baddie play.

Mister Rearranger wrote:I will most likely be voting for MP today.

Anyone have a problem with that?

You can do what you want.

I'm still planning on voting for you again. I think there's a good chance you're a sister, and I think john is your teammate.

I haven't actually seen a good reason to vote MP beyond the surface of what john said d1, but that fell apart almost as soon as an actual look was taken at it. It really doesn't help your case in my eyes that you're still pushing there, since looking over your posts you haven't actually offered a reason as to why you, and more importantly, anyone else, should vote MP.

S~V~S wrote:Boo, FZ has experience, the others I have no idea.

Ya, maybe they can enlighten us, because it changes things, at least for me.

S~V~S wrote:

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

FZ. wrote:
No one died? That's good.
Do the stories reveal what really happened or are they for flavor?

It depends on the game and the host. They are usually meaningful when Epi is the host. Looks like there was an attempted kill on llama. I suppose the killer was blocked.

Glad you're still around Llama, even if you think Mongoose is bad for a silly reason

Or he's a baddie immune to night kills. I forgot if there's a role like that. Though I'm leaning to trusting him at the moment. But there could be other reasons.

None of the 6 non-secret baddie roles can survive a NK. Could be the case for the DA or Elmo though, but we don't really know for that.

I thought you were new? It doesn't strike me as apparent that a baddie would have NK immunity, and it isn't the case in this game, so where did you pick that up? I'm pretty solidly in the expecting a new player to have BTSC camp, and with 8 people in the game having BTSC and only 2 being civs, that doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy about you.

Shes new to us, but she (and several other new members) play at Ksite, with a decidedly different culture (roles are secret is the biggest difference, longer lynches and nights, zero talking at night, calling each other by names totally unrelated to their screen names which is HELLA HARD TO FOLLOW lolol etc.). So she is an experienced player, but is unfamiliar with how we do things.You might consider signing up for one of their games. i could not do it, but i think you might like the challenge.
And I do not see any baddie tells from llama. I will also say that I do not necessarily agree with him about Mongoose. But I think I need to reread both of them tonight.

Oh, good to know then. Is that the same case for other 'new' players in this game, or is there anyone who is actually playing their first game for real? I was under the impression FZ, mr thomas, and john were all playing their first games (on any site).

FZ. wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

FZ. wrote:
No one died? That's good.
Do the stories reveal what really happened or are they for flavor?

It depends on the game and the host. They are usually meaningful when Epi is the host. Looks like there was an attempted kill on llama. I suppose the killer was blocked.

Glad you're still around Llama, even if you think Mongoose is bad for a silly reason

Or he's a baddie immune to night kills. I forgot if there's a role like that. Though I'm leaning to trusting him at the moment. But there could be other reasons.

None of the 6 non-secret baddie roles can survive a NK. Could be the case for the DA or Elmo though, but we don't really know for that.

I thought you were new? It doesn't strike me as apparent that a baddie would have NK immunity, and it isn't the case in this game, so where did you pick that up? I'm pretty solidly in the expecting a new player to have BTSC camp, and with 8 people in the game having BTSC and only 2 being civs, that doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy about you.