The Syndicate

Phoebe Buffay

Isaac wrote:
Rachel wrote:It's only fitting that I be killed before the people who out themselves.
Thanks for the wonderful game, Epi-- maybe I can come back.
I didn't want to out, K? I hope you do get a rez. Sorry I went after you.

Phoebe Buffay

Just a suggestion to make things easier. I log on as the sock using Explorere and just leave it on, instead of chrome for my regular account. I left this one open on the game, so I couldn't make any mistakes.

Rezz please?

Phoebe Buffay

Nice Job.

Pile on the votes when I couldn't defend myself

Thanks for the game Epig. Fascinating and fun as always

Phoebe Buffay

I need to go now. I'm going with Rebecca.

Phoebe Buffay

This is Rebecca's post before her vote last day

Rebecca wrote:Ruth was the 6th vote for Uzziah when Jeph had 3, and also suspected Uzziah throughout.

Save one baddie by sacrificing a teammate is not the most optimal situation for a team, but it happens.

It looks like Jeph tried to push Samuel with 3 votes on Uzziah already, and that may have backfired when other votes were cast for Jeph himself.

However, he has 0 votes at the moment. And in lieu of that, I feel most comfortable about casting a 2nd vote on Rachel, most likely to be his and/or Uzzy's teammate who had to vote to sacrifice him.

She talks about how Ruth voted to maybe save me by sacrificing Uzziah. Says it's not optimal but it happens. Then she says that because I didn't have any votes, she's not voting me. Why didn't she vote Ruth?????

Did I misinterpret what she said here? I might choose Rebecca after all.

Phoebe Buffay

Belshazzar wrote:I don't find Jeph's theory on Rachel totally disprovable, tbh. She really hasn't brought up much about Ruth in general. Her being wrong about Job does not make her bad and she has received her fair share of accusations that she might be Uzziah's teammate, whilst she was hunting down Job, but she generally dismissed them well and it doesn't read like she covered Uzziah's ass, either. I remember Jeph also making a bold, slightly out-of-the-box read on Rachel, but frankly I can't read her as bad based on everything else.

I just went back and read her again. I agree, most of her posts don't come off as baddie's posts, nor do her defenses. I still think that we have to find a baddie between her and her voters. I don't think it's Jacob or Isaac, which again, leaves Rebecca and Mordecai. I'm not impressed with Rebecca. She keeps saying she's a fail, but she did have time to come in and give a second vote to Rachel exactly after Ruth got her fourth vote.

Phoebe Buffay

And you say a vote for Mordecai will sort things out. But if he comes out a civ, we're still left with Rebecca possibly being the baddie, and we're still wondering about Rachel. If anything, we'd learn more from lynching Rachel. If she turns bad, we know to look at the spreaded votes. If she turns civ, you'll all be looking at me for suggesting it, but after you might lynch me, you know that there are baddies in those who voted for her. Possibly two

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:My order of trust in that list that people are not heathen

Balaam
Absalom
Belshazzar
Rachel
Jephthah.

But Rachel has been generally helpful.

And your own logic is so all over the place. If Rachel is bad, then why are you looking at Mordecai and stuff for being Rachel voters.

At least a vote for Mordecai might sort a few things out.

@belshazzar. Not worried. I'm setting my watch by it. I think it's important we are relatively united today.

My logic states two possible scenarios. I don't know that Rachel is bad, but I think it's a valid option. One that we shouldn't rule out.
If she isn't, then Mordecai and Rebecca seem like good places to look.

And really, how has Rachel really helped in finding baddies? She's being aggressive, that's true. But I expect a good player to be aggressive when bad. Not all baddies come up with stupid reasons to vote. The better ones seem very civvie like. But if you look at the voting records, Rachel doesn't come out very well at all. Her only decent vote is her last, and if she was going by the notion that extreme conditions call for extreme actions, she could have thrown Ruth under the bus.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Jephthah wrote:
Lot wrote:I'm trying, but I've always been terrible at role hints. I just can't see what you are all seeing with Jacob. I've read the roles and all of his posts twice. I guess I have to take it on trust for this time. I'm not overly comfortable taking Jephthah's words on trust at all. Rachel, Balaam, Absalom, Belshazzar, can you please clearly indicate whether you have seen and understood what Jacob is getting at - without making it obvious what it is, of course.

Why are you so sure Rachel is good?
Why are you sure that I'm so sure that Rachel is good?

I don't even know that I am so sure Absalom is good.

But I'd call the six of us the core six right now, and if any of us are bad I feel sure that we will figure that out in time.

Because when I voice my suspicions of her, you make me to be the bad guy, and you seem to trust her a lot more than you trust me, and I'd like to know on what basis.

She's voted for Job 3 days, and yeah, a civ could be wrong, but if you look at what went down last day, and how votes were so spread out, the most likely explanation is that the top two people with votes were both baddies. Because why not vote Rachel who was second after Ruth, to save Ruth? Hell, why didn't Ruth vote Rachel?

Phoebe Buffay

Jonathan wrote:Pilate voted me without saying anything about it? Herod is dead so what's the reason for the vote? You guys, I'm telling you are wasting your votes voting for me. Remember I told you this ad nauseum over and over and over. I know this is WIFOM but I would never do this if I were bad. I would say to hell with it and enjoy my memorial day weekend.

I didn't like Pilate's vote with Absalom who he supposedly thought is bad. But he voted Uzziah first, two times. That makes him look pretty good.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:I'm trying, but I've always been terrible at role hints. I just can't see what you are all seeing with Jacob. I've read the roles and all of his posts twice. I guess I have to take it on trust for this time. I'm not overly comfortable taking Jephthah's words on trust at all. Rachel, Balaam, Absalom, Belshazzar, can you please clearly indicate whether you have seen and understood what Jacob is getting at - without making it obvious what it is, of course.

Why are you so sure Rachel is good?

Phoebe Buffay

Just looked at the votes. So Pilate is now voting with the person he was most suspicious the previous day?

Phoebe Buffay

Belshazzar wrote:Yeah, but Ruth voting for Absalom (in the idea that he might stand at 7 votes in that case) and the others spreading votes around (in the idea that no other player would get 7 votes or more that way) wouldn't be putting all eggs in one basket. That's the B-tactic of my theory.

I totally get your theory as well, but as you've said it yourself, it would be a "fantastic distancing" from Rachel. Granted, her actual vote post ("Oh do I need to save myself? Ruth then.") wasn't by far completely sound - it wasn't actually backed up by anything she had on Ruth on that Day, but self-preservation votes in the heat of the moment aren't un-civvie-like, either.

But how would Absalom get all those votes if they all spread them? They'd have to wait and see if it works. Since they spread it earlier, it gave th other civvies options to vote with them instead of focusing on Absalom

Phoebe Buffay

Still not getting it.
Baddies can talk here during the night, right? So hypothetically, 4 votes are piling on Ruth and 3 on Rachel, who for the sake of this demonstration is bad. Rachel then decides that one of them will probably be the one going down, so she needs to survive and make herself look better for next day. She votes Ruth. Ruth comes to term with the fact she'll probably be the one lynched, but her only way to save both baddies is to go after Absalom, hoping that if we do lynch her, we'll think she's trying to distance herself from him.
Ruth is lynched, Rachel looks better because she voted relatively early when it wasn't sealed and others look worse.

linki: Okay, I get it. I still think that putting all eggs in one basket would have been too dangerous for them, so they couldn't have decided to all vote for the same person. So I don't see how the Lazarus theory works

Phoebe Buffay

As for your previous post, you lost me where you exonerated Rachel. If Ruth voted Absalom hoping he would get more votes instead of voting Rachel, wouldn't that make Rachel look worse? I guess I misunderstood something. I'll try and read it again.

Phoebe Buffay

Belshazzar wrote:
Jephthah wrote: I'm ruling Jacob out because of his hinting. If he were lying, it would be a very bold move on his part to be that specific.
This makes me think you picked up on a lot more hinting than I (or Balaam) did.

Jephthah wrote:I just went to read the roles again. The baddies do have a power that checks dead players' roles, so it is possible that Job is using that.
This makes me think we're not thinking of the same role, because the role I have in mind that Jacob hinted at would still be alive (thus Jacob couldn't possibly dead check it and pretend he's him).

LOL

Yeah, we are talking about the same role, I'm just stupid

Phoebe Buffay

That's supposed to be Jacob of course, not Job

Phoebe Buffay

I just went to read the roles again. The baddies do have a power that checks dead players' roles, so it is possible that Job is using that.

Phoebe Buffay

Belshazzar wrote:
Jephthah wrote:Continuing:
Side note: everything I've said is under the assumption Rachel is not bad, but it's also possible that she decided to cast a vote that would be at the most crucial time, when she herself was gaining momentum as a lynch candidate. That would establish a fantastic distance. But I'm going on with the first option first.

Now comes the Tricky part. Ruth has 4 votes and Rachel has 3. Assuming Rachel is good, they can't all bandwagon on the same person- 2 at most. So they either wait, or they cast a vote on another candidate and see how it develops with Ruth.

While I write this, I go back to the option that Rachel is bad, because I don't get the voting pattern otherwise. It's silly to jump in and vote for another person who doesn't have any votes, unless they were already giving Ruth up and planning for the day after because a civvie lynch would just secure Ruth's guilt. If that's the case, why not just vote for Ruth herself?
That would make Belshazaar the candidate for a baddie among the Ruth voters. Not too early, and not too late.
I didn't have any suspicion on Rachel as to choose between her and Ruth at that 3-4 votes point. I was pretty clear which players I was actually torn between at that point. Sure, you can put it down as a "distancing" theory, but that would mean I am bad and I had to choose which of my teammates to throw under the bus. Bit extreme, if you ask me.

You're also not taking in account that I was aware (alongside Balaam and ...Lot?) of the possibility Absalom might be doomed at that stage, because of Lazarus' vote for him. This is also why I went with Ruth.

It was just a theory. I'm just trying to explain the votes for the othe people who are not Ruth and they don't really make sense. I'm feeling pretty okay about you, but I can't completely rule out different possibilities.

I'm ruling Jacob out because of his hinting. If he were lying, it would be a very bold move on his part to be that specific.

Phoebe Buffay

Here it is Balaam. I took out the unrelated stuff.

Jephthah wrote: I was looking at the voting pattern too, and I think you're going about this the wrong way. For example, if a person voted for Uzziah when it was sure he wasn't going to be the one lynched, not only wouldn't I count that as a sure civvie vote, but would even be a little suspicious. So if you look at Mordecai's votes in light of that, his vote for Uzziha this day came when it was sure Uzziah would be the one to go. Here is Mordecai's voting record:

day 1: when Uzziah had 2 votes, Mordecai came in right after and voted for Smason. And if I recall correctly, you me and Absalom thought the reasons for voting Samson were as bad as it got.
Day 2: Uzziah had 2 votes and so did Rachel, and then Mordecai comes in and votes for Lazarus. On a side note, this plus a few others things make me view Rachel in a whole new light, and I think she's another person we should be looking into.
Day 3: Uzziah didn't get any votes when Mordecai voted, yet Job looked to be the top candidate for a lynch. I think Mordecai didn't want to be looked at when Job would be gone, so he voted again for Lazarus, to at least look consistent. I think we all know what Lazarus is doing, so a Lazarus vote is probably not aimed to take out a baddie.
Day 4: Mordecai votes for Uzziah when Uzziah is a sure lynch.

I say Mordecai is bad

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:
Jephthah wrote:Isaac voted before for Rachel before Ruth even had a vote and it was long before the first person, i.e. Absalom, started talking about her. And Issac's vote seemed like an annoyed vote for someone who he thought was framing him. It could have been fabricated, but I don't see it.

The next non Ruth vote is Pilate who voted for Absalom. Yeah, it can be an attempt for a save, but if it is, why not find a reason to vote Rachel too, to make this closer? Still, Ruth has only 2 votes at that point, so it's an open game.

Now Ruth gets another vote, and is leading 3 to 1 (on Rachel and Absalom). Next vote comes from Esther on Pilate. If you're trying to save Ruth, that's not the way to go, spreading it yet again. Better to wait and see where things are going. So I'm ruling Ester out for now.

Ruth gets another vote and is now 4 to 1. Still a chance to save her, but baddies need to move things. Now come in Rebecca and Mordecai and cast two consecutive votes for Rachel. I doubt they would be so obvious to put two baddie votes together, but I'm putting money on one of them being bad.

Rest of the analysis in the next post to cut this one short :P
-Agree on Isaac (for now)
-Reasonable assumption on Esther
-I'll have to go back to see if it feels like an attempt to ignite momentum on Rachel

Jephthah wrote:Continuing:
Side note: everything I've said is under the assumption Rachel is not bad, but it's also possible that she decided to cast a vote that would be at the most crucial time, when she herself was gaining momentum as a lynch candidate. That would establish a fantastic distance. But I'm going on with the first option first.

Now comes the Tricky part. Ruth has 4 votes and Rachel has 3. Assuming Rachel is good, they can't all bandwagon on the same person- 2 at most. So they either wait, or they cast a vote on another candidate and see how it develops with Ruth.

While I write this, I go back to the option that Rachel is bad, because I don't get the voting pattern otherwise. It's silly to jump in and vote for another person who doesn't have any votes, unless they were already giving Ruth up and planning for the day after because a civvie lynch would just secure Ruth's guilt. If that's the case, why not just vote for Ruth herself?
That would make Belshazaar the candidate for a baddie among the Ruth voters. Not too early, and not too late.
I wouldn't say Rachel was gaining momentum when she voted. There were four non-Rachel votes in a row. I'll go back and look for when the Rachel momentum fell apart.

I don't think this theory has as firm a foundation as mine.

My theory lacks a third Heathen. It's possible Rebecca or Mordecai fit that mold. The timing of some of their votes could be intriguing. Blow your ideas up to the macro level- apply your suspicions from Day 1 on and show how the people you suspect fit into a larger picture alongside the votes by Uzz and Ruth. We're past the point of taking it day by day imo. Build a full case and we'll see if it all gels.

Sir, yes sir!

Actually, if you'd bother to look, you'll find that I built a case on Mordecai after Uzziah was lynched. But why bother? I'll find it for you :P

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:blah. my reading comprehension skills let me down there. Let me read through all that again.

Yeah, why don't you?

Phoebe Buffay

In any case, if we belive Rachel isn't bad, then I think we should vote for either Mordecai or Rebecca. Question is-who?

Phoebe Buffay

Continuing:
Side note: everything I've said is under the assumption Rachel is not bad, but it's also possible that she decided to cast a vote that would be at the most crucial time, when she herself was gaining momentum as a lynch candidate. That would establish a fantastic distance. But I'm going on with the first option first.

Now comes the Tricky part. Ruth has 4 votes and Rachel has 3. Assuming Rachel is good, they can't all bandwagon on the same person- 2 at most. So they either wait, or they cast a vote on another candidate and see how it develops with Ruth.

While I write this, I go back to the option that Rachel is bad, because I don't get the voting pattern otherwise. It's silly to jump in and vote for another person who doesn't have any votes, unless they were already giving Ruth up and planning for the day after because a civvie lynch would just secure Ruth's guilt. If that's the case, why not just vote for Ruth herself?
That would make Belshazaar the candidate for a baddie among the Ruth voters. Not too early, and not too late.

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:Okay, so I re-read Jacob and I haven't seen anything to make me feel any better about him. Anyone not named Jacob want to give me some reasons why I am off base in leaning his way in the vote? Also, I think that I may have caught the vaguest of references in one of Jacob's posts that could be construed as a hint at a role. Not sure I buy it as a hint though. Belsh, you say you think you spotted it. Coincidence or not?

Now to re-read Jonathan.

There's no one else to claim he's lying, and if I'm not wrong, he's hinted at it a few times, and at least once before all the pressure was on him, but I'm not sure. Not to mention the fact he seems genuinely frustrated to me, but that's just me. By the way, I'm sure the baddies are on to it already, because they're not as lazy as some of the civvies.

Looking back at the last lynch, I'm assuming they would have tried a little harder to save Ruth because they just lost one baddie, but had to be careful to not be caught as Ruth.

Question is, what was more important to the other baddies? Let's say they start by trying to save her. That would work until the time she got 5-6 votes. After that, whoever bandwagons on someone else, starts looking bad if she's lynched.
So these are the players who had votes:

Absalom
3
Pilate (7), Lazarus (16), Ruth (21)
12%

Jacob
2
Jonathan (17), Deborah (18)
8%

Pilate
2
Esther (11), Rahab (15)
8%

Rachel
4
Isaac (4), Rebecca (13), Mordecai (14), Jacob (20)
16%

Ruth
9
Absalom (5), Stephen (6), Lot (9), Jephthah (12), Rachel (19), Balaam (22), Belshazzar (23), Samuel (24), Bathsheba (25)
36%

Isaac voted before for Rachel before Ruth even had a vote and it was long before the first person, i.e. Absalom, started talking about her. And Issac's vote seemed like an annoyed vote for someone who he thought was framing him. It could have been fabricated, but I don't see it.

The next non Ruth vote is Pilate who voted for Absalom. Yeah, it can be an attempt for a save, but if it is, why not find a reason to vote Rachel too, to make this closer? Still, Ruth has only 2 votes at that point, so it's an open game.

Now Ruth gets another vote, and is leading 3 to 1 (on Rachel and Absalom). Next vote comes from Esther on Pilate. If you're trying to save Ruth, that's not the way to go, spreading it yet again. Better to wait and see where things are going. So I'm ruling Ester out for now.

Ruth gets another vote and is now 4 to 1. Still a chance to save her, but baddies need to move things. Now come in Rebecca and Mordecai and cast two consecutive votes for Rachel. I doubt they would be so obvious to put two baddie votes together, but I'm putting money on one of them being bad.

Rest of the analysis in the next post to cut this one short :P

Phoebe Buffay

I can't stay because I have work, but voting Jacob at this point, seems probably the most stupid thing to do! So in case I don't come back in a while, don't vote there.

Phoebe Buffay

Great results once again! Good call Absalom.

I'm inclined to feel the same way about Jacob. He seems genuine. Naturally, I'm feeling better about Rachel, but I still have reservations on Mordecai and Samuel. Though the former is more suspicious.
Here is Mordecai's post and vote before the end of the day:

Mordecai wrote:Going over the votes, 3 things caught my eye. When I do these vote analysis('s)(ses)(?) I look for people who consistently vote together, odd drop offs in votes after a lynch, and after somebody comes up mafia, players who voted with said baddie throughout the game numerous times.

Deborah and Balaam voted together until day 4, where Deborah submitted a vote for herself. Voted Cain day 1 and 2. Mary Magdalene on day 3.

Malchus voted with Cain for Absalom Day 1. Malchus then voted Cain day 2. Disappeared from votes entirely after Cain was lynched as a civ.

Uzziah and Rachel voted for Job Day 2. Voted together on Job day 3 again. First two votes on Day 4 for Job subsequently. Rachel flips on Uzziah Day 5.

The people I am going to dig into following this post, are Malchus, Rachel, and Deborah. Another thing that has been bothering me this whole game though that I've been keeping my mouth shut about, are all these people that come in here every single day phase with the same opener of "Sorry I've been gone! Catching up now!". One time is fine whatever. But doing it basically every day? I dont like it. I find it telling of paranoia, that people find it necessary to constantly explain away their absence even when not asked. Like they're afraid of always being watched. Unless you're a millionaire that sits at home all day, or unemployed, nobody can be here 24/7. Everybody has lives. I work 8-12 hour days 5-6 days a week. I post when I can. I dont feel like I owe anybody an explanation though, aside from when I justify my short posts because my phone is a piece of shit.

Gonna try and go back through the thread tonight to connect my voting notes to some dots.

1.To the first underlined, why? Why look for that patter.
2. To the second underlined sentence. While he says he's going to follow this post with analysis on all pepople he mentions, he doesn't. He just adds one more post before deadline :
3. At the end of the day he said this:
" are all these people that come in here every single day phase with the same opener of "Sorry I've been gone! Catching up now!". One time is fine whatever. But doing it basically every day? I dont like it"

But one post before that, he apologizes himself, or sort of excuses somthing he did.

And of course, there's the voting pattern. He voted third for Rachel when Ruth had He never really expalined it, and there are all the previous days' votes we talked about.

I think the baddies spread their votes. We should decide who's looking the worst from each vote train. I also wonder whether after Ruth being caught for voting for Uzziah to look better, if even one of them voted Ruth.
Another person I want to look at is Rahab, but it has to wait until tomorrow.

I really need to go, sorry, but I'll be back tomorrow

Phoebe Buffay

I need to toI'm just going to vote her. I hope it's not a mistake.

Phoebe Buffay

Stephen wrote:Ahhh typos! I meant "it" not r and I meant contemplating NOT voting for her.

Sorry, I'm on phone briefly and voted earlier because I didn't think I would be able to sneak back on here.

The more I think about everyone's behavior, the more I feel confident in my vote for Ruth.

This is Ruth's last post before the vote (or at all):

Ruth wrote:They might silence Rachel twice becasue she is a problem for them.

I don't think Jeph is bad (regardless of him kinda hissying on me earlier) I am going to go with Uzziah.

She mentions how I said earlier that maybe she was trying to subtly push more suspicion on me. She dismissed it here and even sai said she doesn't think I'm bad. Why do all that? Why not just vote for me.

I really need to leave. Still torn

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:Hey Isaac, since you were interested in talking earlier, riddle me this:

You say now that you wish you could pull back your vote on Rachel. If you were still able to vote, who are your top 2 or 3 suspects as of right now?

linki: Jeph- Yeah, I think we are too. I'm just THAT big of a data person that 16th v. 12th bugs me. it drives what few friends I have left bonkers.

I'll add another question to this. Isaac, do you now think Rachel is a civvie or is it just that you're not as sure, but still feel she's more bad?

And Balaam, you could have fooled me :P

Lot, can you say what made you decide to vote Ruth after being torn? I have the same problem, and I'd like to know what sealed the deal for you.

I think Isaac is good. He feels genuine to me. As for Jacob, I'm on the fence. He seemed okay, but the following post caught my eye:

Jacob wrote:I have to agree with Isaac here (regarding Lot's methods etc.), and since I'm in a similar boat I'm willing to give him and Jeph BOTD for now because they seem like they are also genuinely civvies who inadvertently look bad. Voting patterns are by no means any more of a secure way to determine who's bad than anything else in-thread. When I voted for Mary Mag I really thought she was bad, whereas Uzziah didn't seem like a threat. I posted my honest thoughts and now it's come back to bite me because I happened not to vote for a baddie and because I happened to vote at a certain time? Sorry I don't fit your flawless formula for innocence

Interesting quote from Rachel there. Not sure what to make of it. I've been getting weird vibes from her all game and am definitely considering looking at her for today. There are a couple other players whose posts I might look through if I have time. I'm really afraid of wasting another lynch, but it's so hard to be sure of anyone.

I'm not sure I like the way he's putting the 3 of us in the same boat and is willing to give me the BOTD. I don't know if I like it. It's like he's trying to connect us and maybe trying to get more trusted by associating himself with civvies.
So out of Isacc and Jacob, I'm more suspicious of Jacob. Still not sure yet though.

I still think we should look into Samuel and Rachel as well

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:
Jephthah wrote:
Absalom wrote:Guys, I wish I could tell you about how crazy the last few days have been, but I can't. State secrets. Anyway, it is nice to have a clue in Uzziah's death. I've gone over the voting record, and I submit for your consideration: Ruth.

Day 1: She votes for Cain after it's clear Samson will get lynched.
Day 2: No vote.
Day 3: She votes for Mary Magdalene, bring it to 6 vs. Uzziah's 4.
Day 4: She is the only vote for Uzziah. Distancing.
Day 5: She votes for Uzziah after he has 5 votes. The next highest vote getter at the time has 3. The writing is on the wall. Time to save herself and face the inevitable.

Note the lack of consistency in the first four days. She pinballs around from suspect to suspect because she is more concerned with keeping her hands clean than pursuing bad guys.

I'm voting for Ruth right now.
I had thought about Ruth and agree that her votes look really bad. My only doubt is her vote on the last day. The fact that she voted 16th, and there were 7 votes after her meant that I could have still gotten more votes. What I'm saying is, wouldn't she wait a little longer to see where this was going? Even one more vote for Uzziah would have done it. That said, I could see the baddies talking BTSC after Job's lynch and saying Uzziah is likely going down after that, and that if it comes to that, they should save their own skin.
I agree with Jeph that Ruth's D5 vote seems to work against her being teammates with Uzz. Uzz was two votes ahead and she made it three. Sometimes baddies will split the difference, with some voting for their teammate while others vote for someone else, either to save their teammate or to keep themselves spread out. For this reason, I'm not giving Ruth a free pass but I still have to think on it.

Also, Jeph, Ruth was the 12th active player to vote D5. I think you're looking at the poll page Epi makes, which include non-active voters for the host option. Check out my technicolor vote analyses again for the real vote order (in terms of who is playing the game):

I was looking at the poll page Epi makes, but I took out the non active players. So when I say Ruth was 16th to vote, it's true that there are non players who voted before her, but what matters is those who voted after her, and there, I took out those who are non players. So it's basically the same. I also make sure to notice the order of the votes from start to end, taking out the non players. So I think we're on the same page here.

Phoebe Buffay

Absalom wrote:Guys, I wish I could tell you about how crazy the last few days have been, but I can't. State secrets. Anyway, it is nice to have a clue in Uzziah's death. I've gone over the voting record, and I submit for your consideration: Ruth.

Day 1: She votes for Cain after it's clear Samson will get lynched.
Day 2: No vote.
Day 3: She votes for Mary Magdalene, bring it to 6 vs. Uzziah's 4.
Day 4: She is the only vote for Uzziah. Distancing.
Day 5: She votes for Uzziah after he has 5 votes. The next highest vote getter at the time has 3. The writing is on the wall. Time to save herself and face the inevitable.

Note the lack of consistency in the first four days. She pinballs around from suspect to suspect because she is more concerned with keeping her hands clean than pursuing bad guys.

I'm voting for Ruth right now.

I had thought about Ruth and agree that her votes look really bad. My only doubt is her vote on the last day. The fact that she voted 16th, and there were 7 votes after her meant that I could have still gotten more votes. What I'm saying is, wouldn't she wait a little longer to see where this was going? Even one more vote for Uzziah would have done it. That said, I could see the baddies talking BTSC after Job's lynch and saying Uzziah is likely going down after that, and that if it comes to that, they should save their own skin.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Jephthah wrote:
Lot wrote:
Isaac wrote:What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on
If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?
Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your ego
I have no time for ego. I don't care if I'm better or Isaac is better. If you and Isaac want to kamikaze because you'll get satisfaction out of proving me wrong, go ahead. It's your choice to read whatever in you want. But what both of you should know is, I have no pegs to be knocked down. I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.

All civvies are wrong in the game of mafia. So what? Apologies if to you it's about who knows better. To me it's about who's bad. End of story.

I don't have time to play the game by saying 'I think you might be bad', or 'this is just my perspective, you can have your own'. That should be taken as read. What is even the value of those kind of sentences? None. It's obviously my opinion.

I know it's your opinion, and I haven't told you to lynch me. I'm fighting this for the civvies just as much as you, if you really are, that is. And no, it's not about who is right and who is wrong, but for some reason, there are people here who think that if you change your mind a lot, it's a baddie tell. Why? Why is my wishy washiness, or flip floppiness, or mixy moxiness or whatever, means I'm bad? It means I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on, and I raise and toss new theories. The fact that you don't hesitate is what annoys me. But whatever, keep going. I had a very bad day at the end of last day, and I didn't feel like continuing. I'm here now, and I'm trying again.

Phoebe Buffay

Mary Magdalene.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Isaac wrote:What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on
If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your ego

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:No. Day 4 is when Job was lynched. Day three was Mary Mag. But who was lynched is not important. The fact was that at the time there were two votes on each of Uzz, Job and Rachel. Voting Lazarus would be an odd thing to do right at that point in time if bad. I could understand him voting Job or Rachel right then, or holding his vote till later and voting Lazarus a little later. But right then, voting Lazarus seems like an unlikely move when Uzz might need saving.

Not an impossible move, just that it would definitely have been to the detriment of the heathen team in that moment.

Sorry, I mixed them up. But the important thing is MM's first voter was 14th out of the voters. If Rachel is bad, then giving her the vote was not an option. But I agree that giving it to Job would make sense. Still, he had only one vote. If it was just Job against Uzziah who were fighting each other, bandwagoning on Job would look bad later. Why not introduce an new suspect, one that is easy to frame. He's voting without good reason.

That said, I, the wish washy person, just read Mordecai's post and it felt on the genuine side. Not sure if I should be fooled by it.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Jephthah wrote:I was looking at the voting pattern too, and I think you're going about this the wrong way. For example, if a person voted for Uzziah when it was sure he wasn't going to be the one lynched, not only wouldn't I count that as a sure civvie vote, but would even be a little suspicious. So if you look at Mordecai's votes in light of that, his vote for Uzziha this day came when it was sure Uzziah would be the one to go. Here is Mordecai's voting record:

day 1: when Uzziah had 2 votes, Mordecai came in right after and voted for Smason. And if I recall correctly, you me and Absalom thought the reasons for voting Samson were as bad as it got.
Day 2: Uzziah had 2 votes and so did Rachel, and then Mordecai comes in and votes for Lazarus. On a side note, this plus a few others things make me view Rachel in a whole new light, and I think she's another person we should be looking into.
Day 3: Uzziah didn't get any votes when Mordecai voted, yet Job looked to be the top candidate for a lynch. I think Mordecai didn't want to be looked at when Job would be gone, so he voted again for Lazarus, to at least look consistent. I think we all know what Lazarus is doing, so a Lazarus vote is probably not aimed to take out a baddie.
Day 4: Mordecai votes for Uzziah when Uzziah is a sure lynch.

I say Mordecai is bad
I definitely agree about Mordecai's day 5 vote being something that could be baddie tactics. But what about day 3? Wouldn't a vote on Job or Rachel make sense right then? What about day one, when he was the FIRST vote on Samson, rather than waiting to see where others went and jumping on. Mordecai could be bad, but his voting pattern doesn't scream bad in the way some others do. I'll definitely be going back and rereading Mordecai, but I tihnk his vote record suggests more likely to be good than bad.

The fact that you say 'I'm going about this the wrong way' does not make me feel good about you. So you pick on one thing?

Boy, and then you go after Rachel...

Jephthah, you are looking snakier and snakier.

Day 3 is when Job had plenty of votes. If Mordecai knew Job was a civvie, why put himself in a situation that would be analyzed later by voting for a lynched civvie? Why not lie low and make it look like he's not part of that bandwagon? And if Rachel is bad as I think she is, voting for her would not work for him

Day 1, Uzziah has 2 votes, Samuel, which I'm still wondering about, has 2 votes. If both are bad, he had to find a new person, and I think he found the easiest target, hence why everyone followed.

As for me picking one thing, it was an example, like I said. The important thing was you can't just count how many times a person voted and who. You have to view it in a more complicated way, because baddies are tricky like that.
And yeah, Rachel feels bad to me after last day's lynch. I guess I have nothing to add. You've got it all figured out. Me bad, Rachel good. Balaam good. I'm surprised that with all your knowledge, you don't already know what I am

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam, sorry but I can't read this. I would have much rathered you did this on a sheet of paper fo your own benefit, and then gave us your conclusion. I applaud anyone who's going to read this.\

I skimmed though. Naturally, I skimmed through what you wrote about me. Apparently, you haven't done a good job, because you ask where is the evidence of me thinking MM was bad from day 1. How about my vote for her? Would that be considered evidence? And I kind of resent the whiny comments. And to answer your question, yes, I'm wishy washy all game. I call it thinking. I guess for you thinking is making endless and pointless lists. And forgive my sarcasm, but it just annoyed me.
I do wonder about you and Lot. You said you cut down on Lot because he knows you are a civvie. Do you know he's a civvie?

Mordecai wrote:On break so I'm gonna keep this short. Jeph I didn't vote Uzziah yesterday because he was a sure lynch. I votes him because Job flipping civ made be second guess my opinion on Uzziah. I've explained my opinion on Uzziah numerous times before then.

If I wanted to vote Uzziah because he was a sure lynch, I could've done that practically every day this game. Job being civ was the turning point. And as I agreed with others on day one, Uzziah wasn't actually contributing to civs. Just being a smartass and ab overall antagonist. Vote analysis on my laptop later.

How is that true when he wasn't lynched any day before? Sure lynch means actually lynched.

linki: great. Can you give us your bottom line?
I can't post with your tons of posts

Phoebe Buffay

Rachel wrote:Lot, having read the votes, I come to the same conclusions. A reread of those players is in order.

I think a reread of you is in order. I think you're the kind of baddie I like. The kind that is aggressive, that goes after people and doesn't shy away from confrontation. The kind that hopes that when their record shows they've supported the wrong person, people would think you wouldn't have been so aggressive about accusing Job, nor defending Uzziah. Especially, when you kept saying you're not ruling out Uzziah as a baddie, just sure that Job is one.

If we look at your voting record, which I'll summarize later, I think we'll see a baddie. And the following post doesn't make me feel better about you at all.

Rachel wrote:
Jacob wrote:I feel like Uzziah is too much of an easy target. He could turn out to be bad, but for now it doesn't seem all that worthwhile to go after him.

I'm not really clear on what the cases are against Absalom and Job. I felt okay about Absalom, and I think Job said he wouldn't be around so I don't really want to vote there.

I think I am most likely to vote for Mary Mag at this point. She jumped in, didn't even wait to finish catching up, saw someone's (I forget whose) point about Rachel (I don't think it was even that great a point) and immediately votes based on that. It's like she just assumed that she was going the popular route at the time and was a bit too eager to establish her willingness to go along with others' suspicions.

And I'm sorry my posts have been sparse and fluffy. I've had a really busy couple of weeks, and I'm still having a hard time keeping track of all the names and suspicions going on in this thread. I'm trying to keep up but I don't have the greatest mental picture of this game.
This is Jacob's first mention of Uzziah. Very dismissive and does not address anything that matters.

Jacob wrote:I'd be happy to see either Uzziah or Jephthah gone today. Honestly I'm surprised Uzziah wasn't lynched within the first couple days, since he was acting weird and has been a consistent back-burner suspect ever since -- somehow other stuff always came up that pushed discussion of him away. I think both Uzz and Jeph are bad and I'm honestly having a hard time deciding which one to vote for (though it looks like Uzz is more likely to be lynched at this point)
Tone changes a few days later when Uzziah is more likely to be lynched. Covering his ass for when he misses the vote.... again?

You choose the easiest person to go after- the one that missed the vote. I think this is BS. His posts are not as thought through as yours so it's easy to catch him in what appears as baddie behaviour.

My two top suspects this day are Mordecai and Rachel. I'm still looking at Samuel, who could be another one.

Phoebe Buffay

Sorry, there's a part there that I forgot to delete, where I quote the poll. Ignore it please

Phoebe Buffay

Good job!! I'm glad people chose him over me. I'm sorry I didn't vote for him, but honestly, I hate those kind of players, no offense, and I've lynched them before only to find out they were civvies. So knowing that my emotions influence my judgement, I tend to stay away from voting them unless I don't have a choice. I'm glad he's out. Too bad we didn't listen to Job much earlier, we would have one less baddie and one more valuable civ.

Now, I've gone to look at the day one votes, and here they are. I took out those who didn't have any votes.

Absalom
2
Cain (13), Malchus (19)
6%

Barnabas
1
Stephen (9)
3%

Cain
5
Deborah (14), Absalom (15), Uzziah (25), Ruth (28), Balaam (32)
15%

Gideon
1
Hagar (29)
3%

Jephthah
2
Rebecca (18), Lot (26)
6%

Lot
1
Gideon (5)
3%

Lot wrote:So. This is just vote analysis. Post analysis when I have more time. Sorry for being a bit vague with 'when I have more time' posts right now, it's just that I don't want to be specific for identity purposes.

Day 4 Uzz didn't need saving, so I've analysed only if they voted for Job or not (an Uzz opponent)

Mordecai

Day one - first vote on Samson, 2 votes on Uzz
Day two - no vote
Day three - first vote on Lazarus, 2 votes on Uzz (Job and Rachel had two).
Day four - voted Lazarus
Day five - Voted Uzziah ninth (and last)

Isaac

Day one - third vote on Samson, 2 votes on Uzz
Day two - no vote
Day three - second vote on Job, 2 on Uzz
Day four - no vote
Day five - fourth vote for Jephthah, 7 on Uzz (possibly only 6 when he looked).

Jacob

Day one - fourth vote on Samson, 2 votes on Uzz
Day two - no vote
Day three - second vote on Mary Mag, 3 votes on Uzz
Day four - no vote
Day five - no vote

Deborah

Day one - first vote on Cain, 2 votes on Uzz (also 2 on Samson)
Day two - fourth vote on Cain, 1 vote on Uzz
Day three - fifth vote on Mary Mag, 3 votes on Uzz.
Day four - selfie
Day five - voted Malchus, after Uzz had nine votes.

Absalom

Day one - second vote on Cain, 2 votes on Uzz (also 2 on Samson)
Day two - second vote on Cain, 1 vote on Uzz
Day three - third vote on Uzziah, Job and Rachel had 2
Day four - Balaam
Day five - third vote on Uzziah, noone else more than one.

Jonathan

Day one - fifth vote on Samson, 2 on Uzz (2 on Cain)
Day two - third vote on Uzz, 7 votes on Cain.
Day three - second vote on Lazarus, three on Uzz, two on Rachel and Job, one on Mary Mag
Day four - Job (late)
Day five - fourth vote for Uzz, no more than 1 on anyone else.

Ruth

Day one - fourth vote on Cain, 2 on Uzz (7 on Samson)
Day two - no vote
Day three - sixth vote on Mary Mag, 4 on Uzz.
Day four - Uzziah (Job at 6)
Day five - Sixth vote for Uzz, Jephthah at 3.

What do I get from this?

Jacob and Isaac look really very very very bad, to me. Both of their day one and day three votes both feel like they came at critical junctures. Day two and four, days when Uzz was less under pressure, neither of them voted at all. I'd gladly see us take out these two the next two days, and feel like we could comfortably say there is a high chance that each of them is heathen.

Ruth's votes came at slightly less critical junctures but day three especially was still critical enough (day one would need to be more along the lines of lynch switch protection) and then her vote for Uzz on day four could be an intentional distancing tactic, coming as it did so late.

Deborah's votes are slightly less suspicious than Ruth's, but she could definitely still be bad, especially days three and five look a bit that way.

Absalom, to me, his voting record speaks to the fact he is definitely not heathen. Mordecai and Jonathan's voting patterns also seem fairly unlikely for heathen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For good measure, Jephthah's voting record...

Day one - voted Mary Magdalene, a person who could not be lynched, long after the result was determined
Day two - no vote
Day three - fourth vote on Mary Mag, 3 on Uzz
Day four - fourth vote on Balaam (the infamous 'Lot thinks Jephthah is wishy washy' day), 6 on Job.
Day five - first vote on Samuel.

By no means is Jephthah's record terrible, but it isn't clean. Day three could conceivably be a save on Uzz, Day one was an irrelevant vote and directly contradicts Jeph's 'I only want to vote a way that is meaningful' stance on day four. I think my view on Jeph might come back to a reread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TL; DR...

Jacob and Isaac are probably heathen. Ruth and Deborah could be, worth a reread.

I was looking at the voting pattern too, and I think you're going about this the wrong way. For example, if a person voted for Uzziah when it was sure he wasn't going to be the one lynched, not only wouldn't I count that as a sure civvie vote, but would even be a little suspicious. So if you look at Mordecai's votes in light of that, his vote for Uzziha this day came when it was sure Uzziah would be the one to go. Here is Mordecai's voting record:

day 1: when Uzziah had 2 votes, Mordecai came in right after and voted for Smason. And if I recall correctly, you me and Absalom thought the reasons for voting Samson were as bad as it got.
Day 2: Uzziah had 2 votes and so did Rachel, and then Mordecai comes in and votes for Lazarus. On a side note, this plus a few others things make me view Rachel in a whole new light, and I think she's another person we should be looking into.
Day 3: Uzziah didn't get any votes when Mordecai voted, yet Job looked to be the top candidate for a lynch. I think Mordecai didn't want to be looked at when Job would be gone, so he voted again for Lazarus, to at least look consistent. I think we all know what Lazarus is doing, so a Lazarus vote is probably not aimed to take out a baddie.
Day 4: Mordecai votes for Uzziah when Uzziah is a sure lynch.

I say Mordecai is bad

Phoebe Buffay

And I'm leaving. I'll be back after the day ends

Phoebe Buffay

I like Deborah's posts a lot. I think they are to the point, and sum things up nicely. I'm still not sure on Malchus and Lazarus. It sucks that they don't give enough to help us read them, because if they are civvies and get lynched, it will ruin the game for us. If not, they're just playing an awful game.

I'd rather vote for one of those who drive by, post one post just to look active, vote and then disappear into oblivion once again. These include Samuel and Rebecca for starters.

Lot wrote:
Jephthah wrote:If you wish for the civvies to win, voting me is the worst thing you could do. I'm done defending myself
Yeah. I've read that plenty before.

You know what? If I wish for civvies to win, voting civilians out is a bad idea. But no one civilian is 'the worst thing I could do'.

I have no will to fight it either. I've failed to get anyone I actually find suspicious over the line in this game. The only person lynched that I was suspicious of was Job. I'm hoping that finally one of the people I actually suspect is lynched. And is bad. I believe you are. I have to go with my gut.

Great, if you succeed with this one, and you are a civvie, do me a favour, practic what you preach and stop using illogical reasoning to explain pushing for a civvie's lynch.

I'm voting Samuel, because Uzziah just annoys me and I have no idea how to read him. I'm choosing to act like he's not playing the game

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Jephthah wrote:And here's the part where I go NO U on Lot:

While reading everything Lot was saying, and trying to think why he was pushing for those voting for Balaam, I figured he must either have information on Balaam, or has BTSC with him. Or....it is what he wants us to believe.

Balaam had the second most votes last day, and some, like me, thought the votes for Job were an attempt to save Balaam, and when Job flliped civ, that notion gained more credit.
Suddenly, Lot comes in, and scolds us for almost lynching Balaam. Conveniently, he was silenced, so he couldn't vote, which makes him look more trust worthy. If Lot and Balaam are bad together, how are they going to make Balaam look better for next day? Have the silenced player come in and vouch stronly for him. That way, we end up looking bad, and Balaam's save is twisted to make the civvies believe that I knew both Job and Balaam were civvies and had no problem votind for either, so I made it look like I'm struggling.
Again, Lot who accuses others of not thinking logic through, does not give a reason for why I would do that instead of voting Samuel who was the trigger to my vote, if I didn't need to save anyone, and made myself look so flip floppy and all over the place.

So, as crazy as this may sound, I think there's a way Lot is bad after all, and Balaam is also bad.

Looking at the record of the votes here, I'm betting money that I'll be lynched today. If this ends up being a bandwagon on me, please go after these people after I'm lynched. Hopefully, it won't be too late
I'm just going to quote this post and underline everything I think looks designed to get people on side and not to actually build a case.

"Some, like me" - everyone is just like Jeph, his behaviour is no different.
"Conveniently silenced, so trustworthy" - in a world where we don't even know who is silencing or why (but it's clear to me it's coming from multiple sources) and where mafia silence themselves regularly, why would being silenced give me any credit.
"Balaam's save is twisted" - trying to turn Balaam's 'save' into 1) a fact and 2) a baddie move (hence the use of the word twisted).

~~~~~~~~~

linki - So, you think in a game of mafia, people just all vote the way the really deeply believe, and no-one follows established bandwagons? How does it NOT make sense... Absalom keeps being an early vote in a large group. It is, in fact, a FACT that people have followed him into the vote. It says nothing about their affiliation that they did so, my point was about the fact that I thought people (civilians, anyone really) was listening to him because he made his case HARD. More than that though, Absalom had picked up on one small aspect of my case and was pushing it, when my case was a whole lot of things. I've backed off Absalom because I actually read back and don't think he truly pushed the case hard, and think I was wrong about that. But there was nothing logically fallacious about it.

As for "Why should you care who gets lynched" or perhaps more importantly "Why should you look like you care who gets lynched"... because civilians care who gets lynched, and no baddie wants to look like they are not civilian.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Linki - I'm perfectly willing to consider Samuel. He could very well be bad. I do think your logic for suspecting him yesterday was flawed since I agreed with Samuel's perspective entirely.

I don't even know what you're saying here. Sorry. I don't care, just vote me.
Next time I'll just sit on the sidelines, come in, vote with a single line, not bother to try and discuss things with people and basically do all the things that are civvie like.
I've voted for only one civ that I know of. If Balaam is a civvie, that would make two. I've tried to look at all angles and not just jump on waggons, and tried to discuss things with people. I don't know what more a civvie is supposed to do. But recent events in RL leave me with no will to fight this.
If you wish for the civvies to win, voting me is the worst thing you could do. I'm done defending myself

Phoebe Buffay

Rebecca wrote:Going back to square 1. I'll take a chance and believe I'm right about Jeph being bad. Everyone's playing pretty soft going into these lynches and I feel that contributes to the disappointing results.

I urge others to follow through logically on their reads of him too.

I can't believe people don't find this kind of vote & post scummy.
How easy is it to just come in, say some stupid one line and then vote. You can't take back your vote, so no one can blame you later. Too many people are acting this way, yet I, the one who sits here and discusses things, and tries to get people to talk and explain things, am being voted for baddie behaviour.
How's that for logical thinking?

Phoebe Buffay

Fine, if you're off the poll, I can look for someone else to vote for. Doesn't mean I trust you. How about Samuel? :P

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:Jephthah, Absalom had no ideas - he just went after ME. As those posts prove.

The underlined statement that apparently 'proves I use flawed logic' doesn't do that at all. It had nothing to do with my actual case. No, I never said his teammates would pile on his votes after him.

He kept claiming he had answered by substantive case, but actually for all of the period of time you just quoted, he had almost entirely ignored it (other than responding to one single word of it, 'hard'). Instead, he posted all sorts of things which didn't address it at all, and conveniently avoided every point made and question I asked.

Your reasons are flawed because you make accusations based on things that make no sense. I've given two examples. The point in Absalom's post was that you bring up the fact that people follow him as a case against him. How does that make any sense?

Linki: I'm not impressed with people being silenced. I've seen baddies do that plenty. And if you do it, you don't do it on the first or second day, but a little later, after you establish that there's a silencer, and when at least some people who were silenced, were proven civvie. I can't take your word for it not being convenient, just as I can't take your word when it comes to Balaam.

As for the "do what" question, I meant vote for Balaam instead of Samuel when I know both are civvies. Why should I care who gets lynched? I could just vote Samuel, and appear like I voted for my top suspect and stay out of the flashlights.

Phoebe Buffay

Rebecca wrote:Going back to square 1. I'll take a chance and believe I'm right about Jeph being bad. Everyone's playing pretty soft going into these lynches and I feel that contributes to the disappointing results.

I urge others to follow through logically on their reads of him too.

Give me one logically reason why I'm bad. One!!

Phoebe Buffay

And here's the part where I go NO U on Lot:

While reading everything Lot was saying, and trying to think why he was pushing for those voting for Balaam, I figured he must either have information on Balaam, or has BTSC with him. Or....it is what he wants us to believe.

Balaam had the second most votes last day, and some, like me, thought the votes for Job were an attempt to save Balaam, and when Job flliped civ, that notion gained more credit.
Suddenly, Lot comes in, and scolds us for almost lynching Balaam. Conveniently, he was silenced, so he couldn't vote, which makes him look more trust worthy. If Lot and Balaam are bad together, how are they going to make Balaam look better for next day? Have the silenced player come in and vouch stronly for him. That way, we end up looking bad, and Balaam's save is twisted to make the civvies believe that I knew both Job and Balaam were civvies and had no problem votind for either, so I made it look like I'm struggling.
Again, Lot who accuses others of not thinking logic through, does not give a reason for why I would do that instead of voting Samuel who was the trigger to my vote, if I didn't need to save anyone, and made myself look so flip floppy and all over the place.

So, as crazy as this may sound, I think there's a way Lot is bad after all, and Balaam is also bad.

Looking at the record of the votes here, I'm betting money that I'll be lynched today. If this ends up being a bandwagon on me, please go after these people after I'm lynched. Hopefully, it won't be too late

Phoebe Buffay

This is the post where I show Lot is either a hypocrite or a manipulative baddie.

The first post is him telling Nicodemus, that his analysis of Balaam is not logical, and that sometimes people don't think logic through.

Lot wrote:
Nicodemus wrote:
Lot wrote:Argue it, then.
You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.
1) It wasn't a suspicion of me, so it's not a defence. Completely different thing.
2) The idea that civilians scramble is bollocks and ridiculous - that doesn't mean you are lying about it (no, he definitely didn't scramble, you were truthful) or the fact you take that view is laughable (no, sometimes people don't think logic through). It just means the statement was utterly factually incorrect.
3) How exactly did I fundamentally misconstrue your point?

In this post, especially the underlined, Absalom shows him the flaw in his logic, as will I in a later post. But you know, people don't always think logic through

Absalom wrote:
Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?
You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So he faults others for using flawed logic, yet has no problem using it himself.

The next post is him addressing me claiming that I turned his case into a single obviously false statement to try and make his case look like it holds less weight (his words)

Lot wrote: You know as well as I do that I was not arguing that 'changing your mind is a baddie tell', and I have to say I really don't like it when someone turns my case into a single, obviously false, statement to try to make the case look like it holds less weight. Just like Absalom, you call me a hypocrite in fewer words.

Yet here, he does exactly the same. He makes Absalom's answers look like they hold no weight and should be dismissed. He mocks Absalom's defense, ignoring the real answers Absalom has given, like the one I quoted above.

Lot wrote:So the list against me from Absalom today currently stands at:

I'm laughable
I'm embarrassing myself
I'm a hypocrite
I'm a liar

This is way better than aiming at the substantive aspects of what I've said about him. Let's see what's next, shall we!

There are more examples, but I'm not going to give them all. My thoughts, in the next post, because people don't read long posts...

Search found 155 matches