The Syndicate

Avenge me.............

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:*crickets*

I do think it's noteworthy that llama has attempted to provide some reads. If he's bad then that's just scraps that can be picked at the civvie vultures afterword.
Even though you were the first to vote for me, I at least feel like your suspicious was honest and not opportunistic. You're a stand up guy, even if I die.
Do you think Dom is bad in light of the point I was making against you? Not just using the word "suspish", but LoRab's treatment of him for it (defending him while attacking you)?

Combined with his bandwagon vote for me, I think it's likely.

That BR vote just pisses me off though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:*crickets*

I do think it's noteworthy that llama has attempted to provide some reads. If he's bad then that's just scraps that can be picked at the civvie vultures afterword.

Even though you were the first to vote for me, I at least feel like your suspicious was honest and not opportunistic. You're a stand up guy, even if I die.

Don't be fooled. It is a Tranq save. Back to Tranq.

Also look at Ninjablooper if I die. She is shifty.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Hey, this isn't cool guys. I was walking home from work and then I was on the radio, and I come back to see this? The whole thing stinks, I tell ya.
Legacy suspects. Please and thank you.
Agreed. If you're civilian then tell us what you think of the people on your bandwagon and its development. Please hurry.

I'm not going to spit out a list of suspects I don't have, but I do think this feels like a pretty obvious Tranq save. YOu know how I feel about DH. I think Dom and Juliets could be bad. I'm still not buying that JJ is. I'm unsure about Matt. He's inscrutable.

People, ask yourselves if all this eleventh hour switching to me really feels like a civ thing that is happening.

I don't understand the phrase "legacy suspects."

Hey, this isn't cool guys. I was walking home from work and then I was on the radio, and I come back to see this? The whole thing stinks, I tell ya.

I didn't miss this, JJJ! I was going back to read a little before responding. Just give me a second.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA

THELLAMA73

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.
I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?

Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.

A lot of people have focused on my use of the word "suspish". I don't remember using it, but okay. I get why some people might feel that I picked it up from a teammate and it's a slip, but I'll remind you that I have played a lot of mafia games here and have heard a loit of varied language. I certainly picked it up from somewhere, but it wasn't this game, because - spoiler alert - I have no teammates this game.

It's certainly possible that Dom is bad. Lynch him if you like. But I am keeping my vote on DH for now.

Ricochet wrote: What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?

I don't understand why people think he's bad.

I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Okay, caught up. I'm still feeling bad about DH, so I am placing my vote there for now, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has the inclination to.
This reads like a bunch of nothing. You already concluded D3.5 by place a left-field vote, based of vibes, which completely extinguished four previous days (two Day phases) of cases, debates, leads you made or had. Now, your "catching up" = "nothing happened, voting vibes again".

Who would you vote for if you could, and why?

Okay, caught up. I'm still feeling bad about DH, so I am placing my vote there for now, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has the inclination to.

Jimmy, you are wrong about me, old friend. Wrong, wrong indeed. Do you think I killed Golden? I didn't.

Matt wrote:Thanks Niju

Now I just need Sorsha, Wilgy, LLama, and Tranq.

Here I am! Busy couple of days. I'm mostly caught up. Will post again when I finish.

Good job on Lorab, gang. I did say Epi's instincts are good.

Ricochet wrote: So throughout four days of lynching, none of the vote paths (until DH right now) have stuck with you in any way.

Funny how that works, huh?

Okay, I read through Eloh/FZ's posts as promised and didn't see anything there to make me want to vote for her. I will be gone most of the day, so I'm going to place my vote on DH. I am getting bad vibes from him.

Matt wrote:Llama, are you and 3J in cahoots?

I've actually been feeling better about 3J but your last two posts defending him, somethin' feels off.

Like, it sounds as if 3J actually got a PM from the hosts telling him "yes you can roleclaim" and that you know about it, as opposed to 3J just seeing Turnip's post quoting the front page.

No sir. I just don't think he is bad.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Are you fucking kidding me right now.
This post from DH pings me a bit. For context, it was posted right after JJ was allowed to role claim and did so. To me it reads like DH had built his case counting on the fact that JJ wouldn't be able to be too specific about his role, and the hosts ruling threw a monkey wrench in his plans. Almost this exact thing has has happened to me before when I was bad: an unexpected host decision exposing the flimsy nature of my case. It's a small thing, but it caught my eye.
How is a host decision/ruling that has been written in the beginning of this game "unexpected"? JJJ asking for it is not the same thing with JJJ not being allowed until the time of asking to do it.

He was obviously not comfortable being so explicit before the hosts said he could. DH sounds like he wasn't expecting that.

DharmaHelper wrote:Are you fucking kidding me right now.

This post from DH pings me a bit. For context, it was posted right after JJ was allowed to role claim and did so. To me it reads like DH had built his case counting on the fact that JJ wouldn't be able to be too specific about his role, and the hosts ruling threw a monkey wrench in his plans. Almost this exact thing has has happened to me before when I was bad: an unexpected host decision exposing the flimsy nature of my case. It's a small thing, but it caught my eye.

DharmaHelper wrote:If you guys don't feel like JJJ has tipped his hand (which I do, for the record) at the very least vote for his teammate FZ. who has made it perfectly crystal clear she is bad as fuck.

1. What civ minded person would participate in the lynching of someone they FULLY ADMIT THEY BELIEVE TO BE A GENUINE CIV

2. What civ minded person says "Sure JJJ *could* be bad, and if he flips bad, don't look at the people that saved him, look at the people that voted to lynch him"

What a joke that is.

This is a good observation. I'll be sure to give FZ the old eyeball before I vote.

Civs have no reason to care if they die.
Civs have no reason to save themselves or others.
JJ was saved.
Ergo, JJ cannot be civ.
#goldenlogic

Switching my vote to Lorab because I'm more familiar with the case on her than with Boomslang and because Epi's instincts are usually good.

Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.
In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.
Why would any Mafia team avoid taking out an opposing voting bloc that also stops them from killing every night?

That's a good question, but I think it happens a lot in the early game. It's usually beneficial for mafias to cut down the number of civilians and wait to go after each other once there is a nice cushion, and then turn on each other in the mid to end-game.. Remember that lynches are still happening, so the presence of a competing mafia acting like mafia makes for good lynch competition. At least that's my experience.

FZ. wrote:The more people talk, the more confused I get. llama has a way of making me go back on my suspicion. That said, no one really replied to what I asked about him before. I'll post it again:

FZ. wrote: I asked llama why he feels different to me than his normal civ game, and now I'll say what I think his civ game is like, and people can tell me if they see it or not.

Often, when llama is suspected he tends to disregard those accusations with a kind of condescending remark like "you don't scare me", and the likes. He similarly addresses his suspicions in that way as well. For example, I remember a game when he was very suspicious of me (I think it was death note), where he just said something like "nobody is buying what you're selling". When he builds a case, he quotes a lot and shows how those quotes lead to the person being bad. He tends to be cocky in his suspicions, thinking he can't be wrong, or even if he can be wrong, still push his suspicion until he gets his lynch, when he feels someone is bad.

I am not seeing any of that here. I've waited and waited, and even asked him if there's a reason he could think of, to why I don't feel he's being his usual civ. His answer that he's more busy does not explain the attitude. It can explain less posts and maybe less involvement, but I assume the attitude would still be there when he found something he didn't like. Right now, it just looks like he's leaning on what Golden says and replies to him, instead of leading the conversation and pushing him.

Can those familiar with llama's game please tell me if they see what I see?

My response to this is thta it was never my intention to push a case on Golden. The sequence of events was: 1. I said I wanted to look at people who painted a target on Fuzz's back. 2. Golden came at me hard. 3. I defended myself, and in the process saw some stuff that made me suspicious of Golden, but I am far from convinced that he is bad. I was much more confident about Sig.

Also, if you look at my recent games (which I don't really expect you to do) you will see that big case building llama hasn't been around for a while. It just takes more time and commitment than I have been able to muster in the last six months or so.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: When I look through the llama posts that Golden has brought out, this is the one I think is most important:

thellama73 wrote:The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.
My immediate reaction to this was negative. I understand why Golden might think this looks like a pre-meditated maneuver, particularly considering the fact that Golden knew he was going to be a primary suspect emerging from llama's proposed approach. However, I do have one doubt about this line of thinking: if llama and his team consciously planned to kill Fuzz and then cast suspicion upon the people who were calling him a town read, then this post evidences a very transparent effort by llama to execute that plan. It'd almost be like a person farting in an elevator and then shouting "OH MAN WHO RIPPED ONE" despite already having drawn disgusted looks from at least one other person inside.

Thank you for giving my gameplay some respect, JJ. You are a gentleman.

Ricochet wrote: Well, you brought it up as if it was a scenario applying here. Again, using the words "I think" or "I believe" at the right time, instead of retroactively, can make things a lot clearer.

I never intended to say I think or I believe that there are two mafia teams. I said it's likely, and it is. You're misreading my post anyway. Golden said he could not conceive of any situation in which not calling out civs could be beneficial, so I pointed to a possible one. It wasn't meant to imply that this was the case in this game.

Here is the chain of quotes that gave me the impression you were both buddying and painting a target on Fuzz. I hesitate to post it, because I know you'll quibble with each post as if I am misrepresenting the facts, so I'll reiterate, it's a matter of interpretation, not of facts. I'll also once more highlight Fuzz's post accusing you of the same thing, to prove that I am not the only one who feels this way. It's long, so I'll spoiler it.

Spoiler: show

RadicalFuzz wrote:I might've not said hypothetical or theoretical when referring to "2 wagons" in my short conversation with Golden, or maybe he didn't, mostly irrelevant and we've cleared up the confusion.

Yeah, that in addition to his compliments unnerve me. The entire chain of events feels like:
"Fuzz I like how you think"
"Fuzz engage me in this conversation"
"Fuzz is my strongest town read, I wanted to get his perspective to understand where he's coming from"

Now, I love my name being thrown around like hot potato, that's not the issue, but it feels like an accelerated process. Even taking into account the fact that "strongest town read" is a fickle thing on Day 1 this trust Golden has built feels artificially quickened, if that makes sense.

Golden wrote:Of the two with most heat right now (RadicalFuzz and LoRab) I'd be far more likely to vote LoRab.

The suspicion on RadicalFuzz reminds me of a standard suspicion of sig. Or a little bit of how people thought I was bad because I tried something different in recruitment. I don't see where the baddie motives are for claiming that you are going to play a different style this early in the game, for a couple of reasons 1) drawing attention to a change in play style is hardly helpful - I'd think a baddie would more likely want to avoid drawing attention to it... and 2) because I don't see it as likely that he is paranoid enough about how different his baddie meta looks that he would need to protect it in advance.

JJJ's quote 2 on LoRab - that is standard for all LoRab metas and she would say it either way. She isn't easy to read. I'd like to know more about why you and Mac feel the other two read as constructed, because they don't deeply to me. But I find LoRab to be good at hiding her affiliation, and so she could be bad. If I was to vote LoRab, it would be more because I trust the instincts of both of those people who have called her out (should they be town) and not based on my own read.

I'm more suspicious of two people who don't have a lot of heat right now.

My eye is more on Rico and Mac at this point. Rico minimises the value of the poll without any evidence beyond his own opinion that he has presented, but also claims certain options benefit him. He claims he thinks it has no value, but he immediately questions me for apparently being so sure that roles are imported wholesale, as though there could be some kind of baddie motive for that in a poll he apparently doesn't think has any meaning. His mindset just doesn't add up, to me, I don't know what his perspective is. He is drawing a lot of attention to himself with apparent nonsense/jokes (like that rainbow list). Maybe his agenda is just to have fun and be a little zany, in which case success. But I'm wary of the things that seem to me to be contradictions.

Mac, has felt more like town Mac for me except that one trap he put me in which reminded me much more of TH where he liked to try to talk people into traps. I don't remember him doing that when civ, and I don't like it from either player. I might have felt a little better if he'd taken the time to explain where his mindset was on that after I called him out on it. But I feel much more wary of Rico at this point.

Golden wrote:
RadicalFuzz wrote:I haven't heard your vocaroo. If you think we should stop fighting and just be friends then which of us would you rather see gone? I also really dislike it when people say votes not on leading wagons are going to waste. It's a very narrow-minded viewpoint that completely ignores any effect of lynch votes aside from voting to kill.

Hey Mac, question. If you had to blindly trust one player for the rest of the game, who would it be?
I like a lot of your posts, Fuzz. They bring an interesting perspective that I think is helpful.

I think votes off the main wagons can definitely be meaningful and analysed (see: G-Mans rainbow lists in Biblical). I don't think anyone should pick someone on one of the main two wagons if they feel that both are civilian. However, I tend to prefer that people at least declare which of the main wagons they would vote for, if they voted for either, because being off the wagon is an easy place to hide for a baddie.

Golden wrote:But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

Golden wrote:
RadicalFuzz wrote:So he compliments people with the intent to legitimately compliment them? That bugs me, one of my pet peeves is feeling manipulated when people say nice things about me. That's why I prefer people to suspect me, I know where their mindset is.
I have told you exactly where my mindset is. It's up to you to choose whether to 'know it' or not.

Choosing only to trust my mindset if I'm suspicious of you is flawed. It just means that I know my best move when bad is to be suspicious of you. It wouldn't make my suspicious mindset genuine.

I'll give my reads whatever they are. I don't really care if it makes you uncomfortable that I trust you. And, as Mac's basically implied, I don't even care if it gets me suspected. I think part of Mac's reason for suspecting me in that game may have also been that he was concerned I was being manipulative.

There are lots of reasons you are my top town read, including:

1) The way a number of people jumped on you for poor reasons, at least some of which I think is likely from baddies.
2) The way you called that out when it just got dropped (completely right, and although I still haven't analysed who those people were I'm waiting to find out...)
3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.
4) The way you have handled Dr Wilgy... unflappable in the face of meaningless suspicion.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.
In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.
Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.
Don't know, but lots of players and three kills last night points to it.

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.
There's been lots of players in Talking Heads too, with only one mafia team and an SK.

Three kills on N2 was unusual in pretty much every way possible. It can't be deciphered as two mafia teams, anyway. That's not how two mafia teams usually work.

Same thing. It doesn't make the mafia "know" anything.

[/quote]

And I never said "there are two mafia teams this game". Of course I don't know that. I just think it is more likely than not.

Golden wrote:Before I get in to it llama - these points contain what I consider most of the compelling evidence against you, because they are the pieces that indicate that your mind set is not genuine. They show, to me, that you are just putting a suspicion out there without looking at it from all sides and going 'what are the civ explanations for goldens behaviour'. Despite the fact they are the primary reason for my case, the answers you've given have all been about buddying vs saying someone is a civ and why Fuzz would be killed, which neither of us know. The things you haven't answered are the crux of my suspicion on you. Here they are.

1) The closest you've come to answering this is saying buddying is different to saying someone is a civ. You've never explained how volunteering someone is a civ is different to answering a question that someone is a civ. Wouldn't both create a target? About three or four people tops said they read Fuzz as civ. If you really think civs shouldn't call other people civs because it paints a target, wouldn't you just not agree to answer such questions?

Golden wrote:Um, I was asked. Do you want me to ignore the question? That's completely different than volunteering "Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!"
Why is it completely different? If you ask everyone how they read someone, and they all say civ, does it not paint a target?

2) Why do you see this as bad golden behaviour?

Golden wrote:Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.

3) You've not addressed my assertions that you are misrepresenting my actions. All I did was say he was a top town read once until other people specifically started probing me on it. You haven't provided an explanation for what civ me should have done instead of responding. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns? I've asked this one a few times, but constantly ignored.

Golden wrote:Saying someone is your top town read on day one is hardly extreme. And your 'double down' is me responding to the questions I was asked about it. It wouldn't have been more than a short sentence if Fuzz himself hadn't pointed out that he felt uncomfortable about it. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns?

4) You appeared to accept my inexperience, but if you really believed your case on me you would believe that I had literally just done what I claimed I've never seen. Your response wouldn't be accepting my inexperience, it would be thinking I'm lying.

Golden wrote:This is the other thing re point 2. Llama's choice of talking about my inexperience indicates an acceptance that I have not been involved in such discussions.

If I genuinely suspected someone had been buddying specifically to put a target on someones back (which is llamas premise) then I couldn't possibly believe they would have no experience of that being a factor for mafia teams. Or else I might look at this and go 'oh, if golden doesn't have that experience, perhaps my theory is wrong'.

Llama, however, remained unperturbed by this. It didn't make him think twice about his suspicion at all.

5) You haven't addressed my statement that you are overstating the truth

Golden wrote:2) You keep overstating things. In epi's terms, this might be 'use of adverbs' but I'd also say adjectives and other intensifiers. Things like "Fuzz was obviously killed because...", "golden has repeatedly", "golden has heaped glowing praise". These intensifiers have the effect of making your points look like facts, when in reality they are overstating the facts (or, in some cases, assuming them entirely).

6) You haven't addressed the fact that you can't keep your own reasons for having a firm knowledge of why Fuzz died straight:

Golden wrote:Llama, I went back to loo to see if I'd been misunderstanding you all along and you hadn't equated the two.

thellama73 wrote:I never said calling someone civ is buddying, Golden, no matter how many times you accuse me of that.

thellama73 wrote:The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

thellama73 wrote:It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.
Just a demonstration that although llama has now got a developed case that see the two as separate, there are legitimate reasons for me not seeing it this way, given that earlier on in his case he did use the two interchangeably.

linki @motel room - you see what I mean, I've been banging on about that for half the game. PS, my illustration in that case was that zebra had talked about 'reading the thread the same way as me'. In my discussion with Fuzz, I was busy telling him all the reasons I didn't agree with him and why I thought his positions were flawed.

I do think, though, that it is easy to confuse me being nice to people with buddying them, and I would agree that I was nice to Fuzz, especially as I don't think I've played with him before. I set out to try to be nice to everyone.

(and add to this, your recent accusation that he died because I, specifically, called him civ.)

7) This wasn't the first time I brought up that you were ignoring my questions. Last time I brought it up, you completely ignored that fact, you didn't endeavour to ask me what things you thought I was missing about your case:

Golden wrote: 1) You have avoided addressing any of the points I've made against you, other than one - that you suspect JJ. You were happy to call that one out and respond to it. But you've ignored literally every other question without making a response. Interesting selectiveness. Notably, this is also what you were doing to JJ back on day zero.

8) You didn't address it when I pointed out the logical fallacy you gave to juliet

Golden wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: Want to address anything I HAVE accused you of? Like switching between the two depending on what suits you to make the point that you think makes me look worst?
See above. YOu seem to think it's impossible to suspect a person for two reasons, even when those reasons are related.
No.

Here is the thing llama...

1) Llama: I think golden is bad because he called Fuzz civ.
2) Llama: I think golden is bad because he is buddying Fuzz.
3) Llama: JJ is a civ.
4) golden: Hey, llama, what is the difference between (1) and (3)
5) Llama: Juliets - can't you see the big difference between (2) and (3)?'

That is what I'm saying you just did.

I understand you suspect me for (1) and (2). No problem with that.

But when I question the comparison between (1) and (3), you are making out like I'm comparing (2) and (3) when I'm not.

That appears to be everything.[/quote]

1. No, I don't see it that way. It's one person's opinion given in response to a solicitation. It's different from enthusiastic confidence expressed in someone, especially when there's no reason to do it.

2. I don't rely on meta for you very much, Golden, because I think you do a generally good job of making your civ and mafia games look similar. There's nothing I associate with "civ Golden." So I only point out that things don't make sense. Recall, that this started out with you calling me bad, not the other way around. It was your sudden attack that didn't make sense to me that got me feeling bad about you. My original statement was just that intended to look at people who, in my opinion, contributed to Fuzz's death.

3. This is a matter of interpretation. I read your early interactions with Fuzz as over the top and fake sounding. YOu say they are not. Okay, but that's a difference of opinion, not facts.

4. The inexperience line was a snarky barb based on your claim. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

5. Perhaps I tend towards hyperbole in games about lynching and murdering, but I don't believe I have substantively overstated things. Any exaggeration was done to make a rhetorical point.

6. I don't know for certain why Fuzz died. I am making an inference based upon a chain of events and past experience and the logic of how I think mafia teams might operate in a given situation. Of course I can't know. Generally, people know very little in thee games, but it's tedious to couch everything in "in my opinion" so sometimes I state my beliefs as flat assertions. Almost everyone does that in mafia though, in my opinion.

7. First, I'm busy. But mainly, as I said, I don't think you are making any points you haven't made before, and I am frankly sick of saying the same things again and again when it feels like I'm arguing with someone who is less interested in uncovering the truth than in playing "gotcha" with me. I don't really feel that I've said anything new in this post either, but hopefully you feel that I have addressed your points.

8. We've been over this a hundred million times. Your repeated assertions that all you did was "call Fuzz civ" is either a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my case with you, or a genuine inability to understand what I am saying. Calling someone civ, especially when asked, is not the same as what you and others were doing with Fuzz. I would also note that Fuzz himself agreed with me on this, and thought what you were doing was weird, so I'm not the only person who feels this way.

I hope that satisfies you for now.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.
In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.
Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

Don't know, but lots of players and three kills last night points to it.

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.[/quote]

Golden wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: We went around in circles because you ignored my questions and kept answering points I wasn't asking to make it appear as though there was nothing new to answer.

Would you like me to go back and point out the things you haven't addressed? Because, frankly, the most compelling thing for me that you are bad is the fact that you more or less completely ignored my case, focussing only on the minutiae of whether or not you were talking about 'buddying' or 'calling Fuzz a civ' when that was really not that relevant.
I disagree that I didn't address your points. I think you're wrong. You said people don't get killed because they are called out as civ. That is untrue, because I have seen it happen. If you think my saying so is some kind of baddie ploy, I don't know what I can say to you.

Your mind is made up, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I see no reason to waste my time.
Well, then, I'll do the list, so everyone can see that your disagreement is utterly and completely wrong, eh?

My mind isn't made up, my mind is never made up. But yeah, things like 'no, even you point out what I haven't answered, I'll ignore it' certainly won't make me feel better.

Fine, do the list. But explain how my boredom with this same debate over and over again makes sense if I am bad.

Golden wrote: I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Golden wrote: We went around in circles because you ignored my questions and kept answering points I wasn't asking to make it appear as though there was nothing new to answer.

Would you like me to go back and point out the things you haven't addressed? Because, frankly, the most compelling thing for me that you are bad is the fact that you more or less completely ignored my case, focussing only on the minutiae of whether or not you were talking about 'buddying' or 'calling Fuzz a civ' when that was really not that relevant.

I disagree that I didn't address your points. I think you're wrong. You said people don't get killed because they are called out as civ. That is untrue, because I have seen it happen. If you think my saying so is some kind of baddie ploy, I don't know what I can say to you.

Your mind is made up, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I see no reason to waste my time.

Golden wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.
You have ignored nearly every point I've raised against you and nearly every question I've asked you.

If you had bothered to answer the charges against you, maybe I'd feel differently against you. But you haven't. You've ignored them.

That's not true. I spent all day yesterday answering all your points. It got to the point where we were just talking in circles and I felt nothing productive was being said. I've explained myself at length, and you haven't accepted it. The rest of the players are not benefiting by our continuing to say the same things over and over again, so I refuse to do it.

I don't think JJ is bad, and I have no particular feelings about Boomslang. However, JJ has at least contributed to the game in a substantive way, so if I have to vote one of the two of them out, I would rather it be Boomslang.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.
Would you consider a Boomslang lynch?

I am open to that possibility.

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Llama, what is your read on me?[/quote
Civ.
Based on what?

Basedon that I don't see anything about you to make me thin you're bad and my default read is civ unless I have reason to think otherwise.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, am I the only one who noticed that Golden said civilians shouldn't care if they die? That might be the craziest thing I've ever heard anyone assert in a mafia game. I guess civ night powers mean nothing and don't contribute to the victory, and being able to post in the thread and vote is pointless.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane.
That's not what he means.

A town full of survivalists does not win in this format barring extreme good fortune. Teamwork is needed, which implies openness and transparency (within reason depending upon role strength). Reading players as town, as a collective, drives process of elimination. Otherwise everyone is trying to solve the game on their own and it doesn't work.

In a game with survival win conditions it would be different.

I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement with you both about gameplay.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.
If you're positive Fuzz died because of Golden calling him civ (wait, wasn't him buddying with Fuzz the issue earlier??).

This is starting to stink of Recruitement, when Golden was hounded for behaviour that others could not fathom. And the main hound was top bad...

Of course I'm not positive. But the facts are hta several people, most prominently Golden, went on record as being extremely confident that Fuzz was civ, and the next night he died. Maybe there's no connection, but that's not what I believe. It's a shame SVS is hosting and not playing. She is usually the first to call people out for target painting and completely agrees with me on this. Right, SVS?

Also, am I the only one who noticed that Golden said civilians shouldn't care if they die? That might be the craziest thing I've ever heard anyone assert in a mafia game. I guess civ night powers mean nothing and don't contribute to the victory, and being able to post in the thread and vote is pointless.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane.

Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.

Except someone did, so you're wrong.

Golden wrote: Want to address anything I HAVE accused you of? Like switching between the two depending on what suits you to make the point that you think makes me look worst?

See above. YOu seem to think it's impossible to suspect a person for two reasons, even when those reasons are related.

You're very confused, Golden, and I'm worried you will confuse others. I'm also bored of this same argument, so let me try to make my point clear here.

I think calling someone out, over and over again, as a civilian is dangerous, and puts a target on that person's back.
I think your reason for being so complimentary to RadicalFuzz was buddying.
I think you didn't really care whether Fuzz was a civ, because you are not yourself a civ, and were hence indifferent to the fact that highlighting his civvieness might get him killed, probably to the point of not even considering it.

I never said calling someone civ is buddying, Golden, no matter how many times you accuse me of that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quick question for anyone who cares to answer:

What Syndicate game comes to mind first when you think "civilian llama"? I'll use this information to check some gut suspicions of mine against meta.
Anything that is not Zelda Mafia (Ocarina of Time)

Haha, yeah. I was so bad in that one.

juliets wrote:I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.

I already responded to that, but I'm happy to do so again. First, I didn't say calling someone a civ means buddying up. He didn't just say Fuzz was a civ. He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

FZ. wrote:llama, I have to say I'm a little worried about you? There are certain things I expect civ llama which I haven't seen this game. We haven't played together in a long time, but is there a reason why you would change how you play?

I'm not consciously changing how I play. The last few games I've played, I've been terrible about participation and my ability to keep up. I'm a lot busier now than I used to be. Maybe I'm not as intense as in earlier games, I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but it's probably something to do with lack of time combined with the mellowing wisdom of age.

Search found 132 matches