The Syndicate

Sophie wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'm not saying you should suspect anyone for coming after me, never have and never will. In fact, I've got a hilarious idea which I won't share til close to my lynch (whether that's day four or day fifty) that might lead to a decent suspect. It's the kind of theory that, if you share it too soon, you warn the baddies against taking the action that would otherwise condemn them. As for proving people shouldn't be listened to, certain people are acting like I'm so obviously bad and they should obviously be listened to and followed (one of these was BF, fwiw) and so proving them wrong would correct that a little.

Linki - There's still a 50% chance I'm an Old Rogue, and a reasonable chance I'm independent. In that case, I'd be siding with the civs because as much as I say indies are lame for always doing that, there's a good reason why it happens.

this intrigued me, the theory on how to trap baddies and if it was applied before.
what do u mean you wont share it close to your lynch? are u close to be lynched? as far as i know only llama and one or two other people mentioned you?

Okay, I will explain it for you since you asked rather than acted like I'm claiming some secret infallible knowledge. I probably shouldn't have said anything at all. Basically, I have a thought. This thought is that a person who acts a certain way might possibly stand a chance of being one particular baddie role. The behaviour in question will happen if I'm about to be lynched, which I think there's a decent chance of. If it does happen, I will point it out, if not, there's no point mentioning it at all. I regret saying anything now since certain people are twisting it to suggest I'm saying I have some perfect way of finding guaranteed baddies, or am claiming secret knowledge. Neither of those things are the case, I never do either.

Also this is not what I did in HSK. What I did in HSK was try to discredit a case in which someone who doesn't know me at all made a bunch of assumptions about the way I act as a person and accused me of lying about being busy with uni work.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why would Bullz self-vote? Unless he was cursed.

Welcome MP, nice to see you again!

As for Bass 2.0 voting for timmer as well without saying anything, I don't know what to make of it.

Have you been reading his posts? He's not interested in doing anything but feeling sorry for himself because I and BF and Rabbit suspect him.. It's literally three people. I can't understand why he is so upset over it.

Nope.

I've been really ill lately and in a horrific mood because of it. Everything I say seems to be getting twisted and used against me, and BF even admitted he was waiting to be able to do that. I'm tired of defending against the same old accusations constantly and I'm tired of every single post I make being used to make me look bad regardless of content. If people want me lynched so badly, come at me. If it was only three of you I wouldn't have got nearly half the votes on day 2. I really want to play this game but I'm really burnt out because of personal circumstances. Saying this will lead to me being accused of making up excuses but I'm not really bothered. I want to try to play it's just a case of finding the energy and I'm not sure if I can.

FZ. wrote: linki: Bullz, if you have a theory, why not share it? This kind of attitude is frustrating me. You pay attention to those who allegedly wrongly go after you, but you won't help those who have not voted for you since day 1

My theory says a person who does X in Y condition is likely to be a baddie. If I reveal what X is before anyone has done it, then the baddies are warned against doing X. When you're doing science, you don't reveal the hypotheses to the participants until they're debriefed. I do intend to try and find baddies, I'm just frustrated and grumpy as well.

I'm not saying you should suspect anyone for coming after me, never have and never will. In fact, I've got a hilarious idea which I won't share til close to my lynch (whether that's day four or day fifty) that might lead to a decent suspect. It's the kind of theory that, if you share it too soon, you warn the baddies against taking the action that would otherwise condemn them. As for proving people shouldn't be listened to, certain people are acting like I'm so obviously bad and they should obviously be listened to and followed (one of these was BF, fwiw) and so proving them wrong would correct that a little.

Linki - There's still a 50% chance I'm an Old Rogue, and a reasonable chance I'm independent. In that case, I'd be siding with the civs because as much as I say indies are lame for always doing that, there's a good reason why it happens.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'd actually like to see cases against me. I'd like everyone who plans to vote for me to explain in detail exactly why. That way everyone knows who to stop listening to once I flip civ. I'll probably be voting myself anyway FWIW.

See, it's this kind of petulance that makes me feel bad about you, Bullz. You sound like a baddie angry about being caught for the wrong reasons, and you haven't let it go since I first brought up your name. Instead of being proactive and coming up with alternative suspects, you just complain that my suspicion of you is unfair and predict that you will get NKed over and over again.

When have I predicted I'd be NKed since Night 1? You're making that up. I've alluded to the fact I'd rather be lynched but I haven't once said since day 2 began that I expect to be NKed. I'm not angry. I'm just done. There is no case against me, not really, just a handful of people constantly shouting that I'm bad for X or Y and then whenever I say otherwise I'm told I'm bad or angry or bad and angry for responding. I have given up because I'm tired of feeling like anything I say is just going to be twisted. BF even admitted he was planning to do so at one point. I've never called your suspicion of me unfair. Wrong doesn't mean unfair. Incorrect doesn't mean unfair. Silly doesn't mean unfair. I don't think it's unfair. I think you are deliberately misreading the things I say and making them fit your own narrative.

I'd actually like to see cases against me. I'd like everyone who plans to vote for me to explain in detail exactly why. That way everyone knows who to stop listening to once I flip civ. I'll probably be voting myself anyway FWIW.

thellama73 wrote:Welcome Devin!

Bullzeye is bad. Roxy is bad. I'm good, and so are several of my friends. I think that's all you need to know.

String me up then. I'd love to prove you wrong. Have already said I don't care any more, as long as I'm lynched. I've pretty much been daring people to lynch me for a while now, but no takers.

Also gonna stick my vote on BF. I feel sure he's not a detective, and a lot of people seem to think he's bad. Let's see.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You know, I was willing to drop my suspicion of Bullz for a while. He sounded authentic in the wake of my lynch. But the constant whining about an impending NK is starting to feel forced. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but it is starting to swing me back in the "suspicious of Bullz" direction.

Am I talking about an impending NK? No. I'm talking about one that would have happened in a certain circumstance. Don't twist my words.

I am hunting scum. what are you doing?

srsly, rvs, sus(s)

None of that is an answer to the fact that your post misrepresents what I'm saying. Just because you're a confirmed civ doesn't mean you get to make things up.

thellama73 wrote:You know, I was willing to drop my suspicion of Bullz for a while. He sounded authentic in the wake of my lynch. But the constant whining about an impending NK is starting to feel forced. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but it is starting to swing me back in the "suspicious of Bullz" direction.

Am I talking about an impending NK? No. I'm talking about one that would have happened in a certain circumstance. Don't twist my words.

FZ. wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

FZ. wrote:Bullz, for what it's worth, I think most people here don't necessarily view you as a baddie, so I wouldn't worry.

I agree that a lot of what I think about BF is riding on what llama says about him, so I hope he stops by soon, because I'm really tired and want to go to sleep. I don't really get BF's vote, nor do I get MM.

Between Roxy and Aces , I think I'd rather go for Aces, but I'm not convinced he's bad either.

I think if BF were a detective, I'd be dead. I don't think he's on team Llama.

I thought about it, but that would make it very obvious that he is a detective. Do we always learn who was responsible for a NK?

As far as I know we do. BF is really determined to see me dead, and seemed really smug at the thought of the ninja killing me N1. I can't imagine he'd have passed up on that opportunity. It would be better for him too tbh, if I'm lynched he and MM lose their credibility.

FZ. wrote:Bullz, for what it's worth, I think most people here don't necessarily view you as a baddie, so I wouldn't worry.

I agree that a lot of what I think about BF is riding on what llama says about him, so I hope he stops by soon, because I'm really tired and want to go to sleep. I don't really get BF's vote, nor do I get MM.

Between Roxy and Aces , I think I'd rather go for Aces, but I'm not convinced he's bad either.

I think if BF were a detective, I'd be dead. I don't think he's on team Llama.

FZ. wrote: I didn't think Bullz was bad either, and I hope he doesn't take it the wrong way, but I feel that when I am bad, I let real life become an issue more than I do when I'm a civ. I don't do it on purpose, but it's like I allow myself to be less active because I'm busy, whereas when I'm a civ, I can't help myself and I am engaged no matter what. I don't know if that's the case with him, but it seems as though him not feeling well has made him absent. I hope it's just that.

Catching up but wanted to respond to this first. I'm always far more engaged as a baddie, I don't really like being civ and would rarely be one if I had the choice. That's not to say it ruins games or anything, some of my favourite roles have been civ ones, and some of my favourite games have been where I was a civ, but I find it harder to get into a game if I'm not bad or at least if I don't have a team of some kind. I'm more likely to allow myself to be inactive as a civ tbh. Being ill during the week did make me a bit absent but as I've said I'm generally feeling burnt out by this game and being constantly on the defense. I don't particularly want to die, especially not at night, but at this point I also really want to see certain people proved wrong about me - more than I want anything else in this game. I'm sick of defending basically and don't want to do it any more.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, since I will probably by night killed tomorrow, I might as well go for broke today. From beyond the grave, I saw this post of Roxy's and became convinced that she is bad.

Roxy wrote:Bye llama I do not understand why you would want to draw so much attention to yourself with your monkey antics with such an important role. :/

You thought I would draw attention to myself as a mafia member, but not as an important civ role? That's disingenuous, and phoney, and I think you're bad, and I'm voting for you right now.

Everyone should vote for timmer
He is surely a bad guy
He really ought to go
And miss the rest of the show
And have some American Pie

I assume you mean me, since you've voted me again and clearly enjoy being wrong. Maybe you should make a case that isn't the same old crap and see if anyone cares.

Stop being such a baddie, and timmer will change timmer mind.

Can't stop doing something I haven't started doing. Your case on me is literally you're bad because I say so. Get over it. As I've said, I'm done defending myself against pointless accusations so either push my lynch harder and be proven wrong or hope Llama's ninja buddy kills me so you don't have to worry about losing credibility when I flip civ.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Well, since I will probably by night killed tomorrow, I might as well go for broke today. From beyond the grave, I saw this post of Roxy's and became convinced that she is bad.

Roxy wrote:Bye llama I do not understand why you would want to draw so much attention to yourself with your monkey antics with such an important role. :/

You thought I would draw attention to myself as a mafia member, but not as an important civ role? That's disingenuous, and phoney, and I think you're bad, and I'm voting for you right now.

Everyone should vote for timmer
He is surely a bad guy
He really ought to go
And miss the rest of the show
And have some American Pie

I assume you mean me, since you've voted me again and clearly enjoy being wrong. Maybe you should make a case that isn't the same old crap and see if anyone cares.

Sorry for missing the vote. I meant to try to check in on my phone and vote but things got a bit crazy. I think based on where my thoughts were at the time I'd have voted Daisy. No idea what I'll do today, I've skimmed a little but need to proper catch up after a nap.

Okay so first off, I'll talk about myself as usual. I don't see how I'm obstructive. I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything, I'm not getting in the way. You're all more than welcome to stop talking about me and find some baddies instead. I'll even help once I can get properly back into the game. I've been put on the defensive from day one and been hounded over the fact Llama decided I was bad and I screwed up. In all honesty I wasn't considering the fact that baddies didn't have btsc when BF got my attention. He'd gotten defensive toward me earlier with the joke thing and then he was way pushy over people suspecting Llama. I didn't trust him one bit and he seemed to be dripping with blatant baddie. It slipped my mind that he couldn't actually have btsc with anyone if that were the case. I wasn't painting a target either, regardless of what he wants you all to think. I'm also not refusing to help my fellow civs. I did, once, for a few hours because I thought it might keep me alive for a little while longer and I didn't really have much of an answer anyway. At this point I don't really care any more, if people want to be wrong then let them do it. Anything I say and do gets stretched out in attempts to make me look bad, BF even admitted he was waiting for me to post so he could find more to use against me. Maybe it's because I'm ill and not in the best of moods anyway but I'm feeling kinda burnt out now. I've been forced to keep defending myself over the same tiny things over and over again. From now on I'm just going to ignore most of it because it's getting incredibly boring having to repeat myself over and over. If Wally West wants to kill a friend tonight he's more than welcome to look my way.

As for the rest of the players, I'll make some points on a few based on the main discussions I'm seeing:

I don't really see what LC is seeing in SVS. I can see how her vote post kinda looks like she's discrediting TH's reasons for voting Bass but tbh I didn't really see the case on Bass either. I literally voted him to protect myself, as I said at the time. I didn't know if he was bad, I just knew he and I were 50/50 to go and better him than me. He felt the same about me. I sometimes feel like SVS gets defensive over the players she likes a lot, and wants to believe they're good. Maybe that's what we're seeing here. At the same time, I could see her checking Bass if she were the recruiter baddie but otherwise I just don't think she's bad. In typing this I've talked myself onto the fence a little.

At the same time, I don't get why LC is suspect. His points about Magenta are decent and I agree with him. In fact, if I was Magenta and his interpretation of the role were correct, I'd have stopped the lynch on day one because I agree BTSC is a better weapon. Plus I love having it anyway. I'm guessing either he's wrong or Magenta doesn't share that viewpoint and wants to protect themselves, which is fair enough. Nobody wants to save someone from a lynch only to get lynched themselves the very next day. Regardless, I don't think LC being confident enough in his interpretation to come into the thread with it and offer advice to the player makes him look bad. I don't think he's trying to avoid responsibility for his votes.

As for Daisy, I don't see how Aces' vote had anything to do with me or why it should encourage her to vote for me. I had thought BF was civ. Not a detective, but a civ of some kind or perhaps a neutral. She also says I 'went after' Llama as if I crusaded against him and her vote implies I knew his role. If I'm so obviously bad why suddenly jump to LC rather than vote for me again? If I'm a baddie, Bass and I probably didn't have btsc. If we did, we were the only baddies who did. So the people splitting the vote between us can't be ruled out as suspects and nor can I (ie if you suspect me for whatever reason, Bass' alignment shouldn't change that because we probably didn't have btsc even if I am bad). I'm not sure what I feel about SD.

BF is definitely salty. I'm not sure if it's because I've not been lynched yet or if it's because he's sad Bass got lynched. I feel he mischaracterized why Bass was lynched and in doing so criticised everyone responsible for lynching a baddie. Maybe because it was directed at me but I really didn't like when he said he was waiting for me to post more so he'd have more ammunition. That sounds like he's just planning to twist anything I say to make me look bad because he doesn't actually care what my real alignment is and simply wants me to die.

Have to go and am not sure who to vote yet so will try to vote from my phone at some point.

Still ill, can't get a break. Gonna catch up now and will perhaps have to vote early because it's a friend's birthday and I'm going to try to go out and enjoy myself regardless.

In case anyone was wondering, I'm not silenced or anything like that. I've been super ill for the past couple of days Still feeling a bit crappy but getting better and thought I'd just check in here. I might come back later if I feel better but more likely tomorrow.

Spacedaisy wrote:
Bullz dear, I love you, who way back. But surely it is not such a reach for someone to suspect a guy who went after and voted someone who flipped like llama did.

It's not like I'm alone in having done that. Llama's death isn't my fault. I didn't convince anyone else to vote for him.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Sorry bullz but I have to vote you.

Yeah I know. I did the moral high ground route one game, refused to vote the other guy because I thought it'd make it clear I was good. Didn't work. As I recall the lynch ended in a tie which I lost. If I'd voted him I'd have been fine and I'm pretty sure he turned out bad in the end. So ever since then I've never used that tactic or judged anyone for not doing it.

Linki - you did forget that. I'm such a cheater. I once gave my brother all my properties in Monopoly for free because our dad was winning and I had half the properties but no money so we teamed up. It's a shame I can't give all my votes away.

Switching vote to Bass in the interest of self-preservation.

timmer wrote:This is turning into an interesting lynch.

For you maybe I was excited to be a civ for a change.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

FZ. wrote: I'm not talking about when you do an obvious screw up. I'm talking about when you play the game and people just start going after you.

I think anyone would be mad. In fact, I know it. I'm quite annoyed that I might be lynched as a civ day 2 because of a case that makes no sense. If anything I'm more annoyed than I would be if I were bad.

Bullzeye wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: People should definitely vote for me if they wish to lose yet another ally/friend/civ. I make no claims of having any grand power, but I (EBWOP) am definitely a good asset to my civ friends and don't feel the case on me is even half as strong as my opponents would have everyone else believe. Epi is certainly a strong candidate though.

Lost some of that sentence somehow.

What's wrong with you now? I'm going to laugh at you all if I do get lynched. None of you are close to being right. This reminds me of The Hobbit where you tried to string me up for being Smaug.

FZ. wrote: I'm not talking about when you do an obvious screw up. I'm talking about when you play the game and people just start going after you.

I think anyone would be mad. In fact, I know it. I'm quite annoyed that I might be lynched as a civ day 2 because of a case that makes no sense. If anything I'm more annoyed than I would be if I were bad.

I said I was voting Epi then apparently didn't. I've corrected that now.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:This is a fair point. It'd be a better point if all the baddies had btsc and we were looking at a clear save attempt, but it's still a good point.

So question for you: In this setup on Day 1, why would you vote for someone if someone is, as you say, "invested in keeping him alive?"

At the time I wasn't considering the nature of the baddies in this specific game and it just seemed ridiculous to me that BF would be defending Llama so hard. He's not even a detective, because I'm still alive, so it's still weird that he did get so defensive but I buy his explanation.

Okay, now who's making assumptions?

It doesn't take a mind reader to see that BF wants me dead.

FZ. wrote: I haven't tested it statistically, but I'm willing to put money on the fact that baddies always think the reasons they get voted for are stupid and that their not really doing what people are accusing them of. That's why they're usually pissed off when caught, because they are convinced it was a load of crap, and think that if the civvies had caught them for real reasons, they would accept it. That didn't make me feel good

Sometimes you know you've screwed up. Sometimes you know that X will come back to haunt you if Y happens and sometimes someone just catches you out. I disagree that baddies always think the cases on them are a load of crap.

Actually since an Epi lynch still looks possible I'll put my vote there for now and probably end up moving it no doubt.

Epignosis wrote: Bullzeye. He always plays his "baddie game." He always gets defensive. Everything anybody says about him is met with ridicule and scorn. He is unique among the llama voters in that llama called him out first. Bullzeye's vote was reactionary, and I don't think he would have voted llama if llama had picked on someone else. He also claims he voted for him because you wanted to keep him around...how does that even make sense? Bullzeye can read. He knows the Mafia don't start with BTSC. So where was he going with that?

Addendum: I guess I'll find out.

Not everything is ridiculous. I'll happily admit (post game) if a case was good and won't call things stupid unless I think they are. Llama called me out saying I was doing things I always do and am therefore bad because reasons, and followed it up with the kind of psychology you see in TV cop shows that also think you can get a crisp HD picture out of a three pixel reflection on the edge of someone's kettle while hacking a computer by typing furiously on a keyboard. His case was simply NOT GOOD. I can read, thank you for giving me that credit, but I just didn't think BF was coming from a good place after he got defensive over me saying people take jokes too seriously.

Linki - voting for me is wrong. Since I'm not allowed to say what I think of the case, not allowed to explain my vote, and not allowed to defend myself without it being suspicious I'll just say don't vote for me unless you want yet another civ dead. At this rate I'm going to be voting for someone to save myself. I'd rather see Epi lynched personally.

Bullzeye wrote: People should definitely vote for me if they wish to lose yet another ally/friend/civ. I make no claims of having any grand power, but I (EBWOP) am definitely a good asset to my civ friends and don't feel the case on me is even half as strong as my opponents would have everyone else believe. Epi is certainly a strong candidate though.

Lost some of that sentence somehow.

Epignosis wrote:
There shouldn't be a difference between the people who voted for me and the people who voted for llama? Really? I have an additional piece of data that holds true for llama voters but not for people who voted for me.

This is an assumption. A reasonable assumption, but an assumption no less. We don't know that either detective voted you, it's possible they agreed with LC's position that the lynch was likely to be stopped regardless or maybe they thought Llama was safe.

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH was annoyed. He also expressed dissatisfaction with llama not refuting speculation. In a later post, DH said he would pull some quotes after his reread, but he did not do this. He spent the rest of the time making fun of me.

Well, that's certainly a well put lie.

I pulled a quote, as I promised I would. I didn't pull every single quote, but I didn't need to.

If you said you would pull quotes (plural), and you claimed you pulled a quote (singular), then what I said was not a lie.

All this post shows is that you know 2 is bigger than one. You said he didn't pull quotes, and the tone of your post implies you mean he didn't pull a single one. He pulled a quote. Technically he didn't pull quotes but he still made the effort when you claim he didn't. You misrepresented his post and actions.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Thanks for doing my work for me there. So where in that is "OH MY GOD HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT MONKEEEEEEYYYYYYYYS!" as someone's reason for voting?

I never said that anyone voted llama for that reason. I said that my reasoning was better than that one (i.e., better than people examining Day 0 jokes).

So you were saying your reasoning was better than a reason nobody had used? Was there a point to saying that?

Epignosis wrote:
But his accusation wasn't contrived and it wasn't witchcraft. Do you mean to tell me that, if thellama73 had not pointed his flashy finger at you, you would have still voted llama?

If he hadn't acted like the armchair psychologist trying to "analyze" me like I was lying on his couch, then perhaps I'd have voted for you instead. He said I claimed I always play my 'baddie game' because I 'want to be caught' and tried to bring in concepts of guilt as if anyone actually feels guilt over being a baddie. That's ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:This is a fair point. It'd be a better point if all the baddies had btsc and we were looking at a clear save attempt, but it's still a good point.

So question for you: In this setup on Day 1, why would you vote for someone if someone is, as you say, "invested in keeping him alive?"

At the time I wasn't considering the nature of the baddies in this specific game and it just seemed ridiculous to me that BF would be defending Llama so hard. He's not even a detective, because I'm still alive, so it's still weird that he did get so defensive but I buy his explanation.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: What do you have against adverbs? I don't deliberately use them. I don't type posts and consciously think "right, time for a pronoun now". I say words as they come into my head and put them into a logical structure so that a person with a reasonable grasp of English might make some sense of the message I wish to convey.

I know you don't deliberately use them. That's kind of the point.

But what is this point? It doesn't seem very good. Are unintentional adverbs the tic of an evil mind? In that case I must be genuinely evil irl because I post the way I think.

Soneji wrote: So in this post and a good deal of ones after you just freak out over the possibility of being offed when no one has said anything regarding you being a target. You put on an act of being spiteful for things that only may happen and are entirely self-interested, even going as far as to not help the side you claim to be on.

This is the mother of all preemptive defenses.

No act. Hi, I'm Bullzeye. I'm a spiteful douche and sarcastic to the point that people think I hate them. Pleasure to meet you.

I genuinely thought I'd be NKed last night. It's not hard to see why. The freaking Flash himself wanted me dead and I helped get him lynched. If I were a detective and someone else were in my shoes, I'd totally want to NK them. Wouldn't you?

Soneji wrote:I just didn't generally think much of it at the time. With my SVS vote going nowhere and it being late in the phase, my vote had more power choosing between Epig and Llama based on who I had more suspicion on. I don't see what difference it would have made to say who I was voting for, with how close they were. Who would it have influenced that already didn't vote themselves, to change off/switch? Unvoting/changing votes is the norm on NF yes but when we vote its done in a post. Announcing my vote change in that late stage didn't really even cross my mind given the oddity of the poll throwing me off.

It probably wouldn't have influenced anyone, but when you change your vote without saying so it looks like you don't want anyone to notice. If you don't want someone to notice you, you're probably not a civ.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Sophie is a darling. I would not vote for her today.

I think you all should vote for Bullzeye, or even Epignosis.

People should definitely vote for me if they wish to lose yet another ally/friend/civ. I make no claims of having any grand power, but I don't feel the case on me is even half as strong as my opponents would have everyone else believe. Epi is certainly a strong candidate though.

Epignosis wrote:People who voted thellama73:

Thanks for doing my work for me there. So where in that is "OH MY GOD HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT MONKEEEEEEYYYYYYYYS!" as someone's reason for voting?

Epignosis wrote:Bullzeye:

thellama73 put Bullzeye on the defense. llama explained what he was looking for in potential Mafia, and he also cited his recent experience hosting evil Bullz in HSK. Bullzeye's responses were defensive, almost to the point of "How dare you suspect me?" He admitted this much. Bullzeye voted for llama because llama suspected him.

Thats a huge simplification. I voted Llama because of the contrived nature of his Freudian witchcraft pseudopsychology accusation and the fact that BF was so invested in keeping him alive.

Epignosis wrote:Also, for those like keeping up with such things, I am almost sure that Bullzeye has used more adverbs than anybody else. His latest penultimate post alone was a doozy.

What do you have against adverbs? I don't deliberately use them. I don't type posts and consciously think "right, time for a pronoun now". I say words as they come into my head and put them into a logical structure so that a person with a reasonable grasp of English might make some sense of the message I wish to convey.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I kinda have the feels that BF/Bullz can be civ/civ. I am not seeing anything alarming from BF, and Bullz seems pretty sincere. Having just seen baddie rage from him in HSK, this looks different to me, this feels more indignant. Less angry. More civ. Like everything else, God knows I could be wrong

I don't know, he sounds angry to (at) me.

I'm not angry. Certainly not at you. You'll know when I'm angry. I turn green and become very large, then start destroying everything in the surrounding area. Well, I don't. But I may as well. I just think your accusation is poor and would only make sense if I were an idiot.

FZ. wrote: First, let me start by asking why are you focusing on the llama voters? Aren't you a civ? Granted, we don't know it, but you do. So there shouldn't be a difference between your voters or him for that matter. This makes me think you're trying to focus on the llama voters because it's easy to make them look bad. You of all people should think the votes for llama mean nothing if you're a civ too. Were people trying to save you and therefore voted for him?

This is a fair point. It'd be a better point if all the baddies had btsc and we were looking at a clear save attempt, but it's still a good point.

blindfaeth wrote:I wonder if there is a possibility rabbit is cursed too.

Or perhaps he just has a firm grasp on the obvious.








I'm kidding, of course. It does look like he is cursed.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:If I'm wrong, someone tell me.

Bullzeye had no interest in lynching Epignosis Day 1. Bullzeye would not offer reads last night. But now Bullzeye wants to look at the llama voters and is emphasizing now that he wants to lynch Epignosis for events that happened Day 1.

This smells to me like a baddie recruiter who failed to recruit Epignosis.

LC must be psychic because here I am to tell you how blatantly wrong you are. I'm pretty sure I did mention Epi as someone I might have voted for once or twice during the day, but I could be wrong. I was pretty focused on shutting down Llama's ridiculous case tbf. In the night I definitely mentioned that I might have voted Epi. It's not that I had no interest, I just had other interests instead. I never once defended him or argued he shouldn't be lynched during the day 1 discussion. I might actually have voted for him if BF hadn't encouraged me to vote Llama.

Saying I want to look at Llama voters deliberately misrepresents my intentions. What I actually said was I wanted to look within the context of Epi's exaggeration of the case against Llama. If anyone genuinely did vote for him because of the day 0 stuff, I would find that suspicious. On day one however, there were good reasons to vote for him and I'm not surprised he got lynched.

Tell me, do you think I suck at this game? Or do you just think I'm stupid? Because those are the only two reasons I can think of for why I, if I were the recruiter, would begin to go after someone I'd confirmed wasn't bad. I'd gain nothing from doing that except making myself look worse. Knowing someone isn't bad and knowing someone is a particular role are different things, and since I still wouldn't know who Epi was I'd just leave him alone since he's probably going to get lynched with or without my help at some point.

It's also pretty obvious why I didn't offer anything last night. It has nothing to do with my role or alignment. I spelled it out pretty clearly.

FZ. wrote:Bullz, thank you for the answer. Did you read what I said about Epi? Did it make any difference? If not, why?

The one where you said you think bad Epi would be more careful? I saw that. There were other things you said about him as well but this one stands out to me as an interpretation I particularly disagree with. Just last game he (a baddie) accused LC of having info on him when LC had no such thing and was simply making a case. If I'd not also been bad I'd have seen that as a confession of guilt and voted him regardless of my hate for info. The defence he put up there was definitely a risk and it didn't pay off at all, but Epi certainly takes risks when he wants to.

FZ. wrote:And can you repeat again why you think BF is bad? I'm on the fence with him. Not sure what to make of him. I've never played with him again, nor with you, I believe (so hi ). He seems to badly want to lead the game. My question is, is that something he'll do as a baddie?

I'm also curious about this. I don't think BF is bad. He tried to lead last time as a civ and it didn't end well at all. There is only one way I see BF being bad and it's currently too much of a stretch to bother sharing.

Linki FZ - I must have been wrong about which Epi post you meant. I don't agree with that logic either simply because it's based on assumptions we've got no way of really looking into properly and that come from things which may or may not have happened outside the game context. Does it mean, however, that you mean to vote for Timmer today if you think Epi knows he's a baddie?

Epignosis wrote:
Ah. You mean to say that I'm trying to distract, only without using that word.

I suppose distract would be a fair word to use. Do you think I avoided it for some specific reason?

timmer wrote:While BTSC is a little hard to pin down in this game (neither the arch villains or the detectives actually say they have btsc, for instance, though I assume they probably do, being small groups), I'm a little surprised that you still are pushing bf as suspicious for this, bullz.

I only just noticed this now in my re-read of the thread, but I can't believe anyone thought I was pushing BF as suspicious. I was saying I found his atttitude suspicious at the time of my vote, a whole day before the discussion this post references. Given that I can't see the future, I had no way of knowing whether it was a good or bad thing until too late. Any discussion of BF I have engaged in has been within the context of justifying my vote. If I didn't do that, I'd get heat for having voted Llama and not even having a reason why. I 100% believed I was dead as soon as I saw Llama's role, and decided to try to change the mind of the ninja. Besides, I won't lie about myself to help someone else, especially not somebody who is trying to get me killed anyway.

In fact, regarding BF, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that he's not a detective. I'd be dead if he was. His attitude towards me is not the attitude of a man open to being convinced. He'd be dancing on my grave right now if he had the ability to kill.

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace splintsy and DF.

I agree with Pied Piper, I will be looking at Roxy today. I felt like she used a manufactured reason to vote for Epi yesterday, and her tone so far has had me concerned. I'd also like to hear more from ika and Soneji today.

I do see what people are saying about Roxy but it does look like she's silenced so I will let it go for the time being since I'm not willing to vote a silenced player this early without much to support it. Not to mention, I'm not convinced Epi isn't bad. His fixation on an Elo lynch for arbitrary reasons is not something I trust or see as genuine. At best, I think he could be indy, and if I could be convinced he was at least that then I'd happily let him stick around.

timmer wrote:Roxy is def. on my list of people I'd like to hear from. Also, I'd like to know what Sophie thinks, once she locks in on a game she often has good instincts about things.

And I haven't played with rabbit in forever, but I remember his instincts being pretty good too, so I'd like to see what LC has to say about rabbit's calling him bad.

I don't feel great about bullz' posts about bf, either.

I'd like someone to explain how else I could defend my opinion on Llama when it was almost entirely based around BF's reaction to people voting for him. You could argue I should have kept quiet at night but even before then it wasn't hard to play spot the defender. Plus I was convinced I'd be killed anyway so wanted to try to talk the detectives out of it.

timmer wrote: Yes, that's exact why. He didn't specifically say it out loud, he just kept mentioning how much bf had been fighting against a llama lynch in a way that seemed to be wanting others to come to the detective conclusion. I found that weird. And while none of our win conditions actually say that we need the detectives to be alive, it's not like they are irrelevant? They fight the New Rogues, which makes them direct allies! So anyone trying to point one out without saying it is more likely to be a New Rogue, imo.

The Day 1 case against bullz wasn't good at all, but his later posts about bf have changed the outlook on him in my eyes.

I only spontaneously mentioned it once. Then I said something like it's easy to find someone suspicious if they're being so heavily defended and got asked who was defending Llama, so backed up my points. In hindsight, that one wasn't the best idea but I could hardly ignore a direct question. I wasn't trying to help anyone come to any conclusions about BF, I thought he might be a detective personally but I'm now convinced he isn't. That explanation of what he thought Llama's role was was far too intricate to be made up on the spot. Again, I only mentioned BF's opposition to Llama's lynch in the context of how it influenced my vote. I couldn't defend it without doing that. Nobody can deny he was trying to squash discussion - an accusation that I personally loathe but find fitting here.

I will also echo the sentiments of those hoping to hear from Soneji, perhaps it's just a different site culture but slapping a vote down (particularly into a bandwagon) with no comment is interesting for all the wrong reasons.

Epignosis wrote: It's a matter of phrasing. I don't qualify my opinions or thoughts with "I think" or "In my opinion" or "I personally believe."

I personally believe you probably should. I think it would help you a lot. In my opinion, it's a key aspect of people misunderstanding your intents and you look worse for it. It's also a pretty lazy way of doubling back on something. "Oh I totally didn't mean to present that as fact I just didn't explicitly state it was only a guess".

Epignosis wrote:I voted based on probability predicated on an assumption I had a good reason to make. For Day 1, I think my reasoning was a hell of lot better than OMG HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THE MONKEY.

I want to go reread the people who voted for Llama because I feel like this is a gross over-exaggeration designed to push heat away from you. There were good reasons to vote for Llama. They may not have been correct, but they did exist. Anyone who did vote him for talking about a monkey is certainly worth investigating.

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:FZ, and that is also possible. I am just trying to wrap my head around the whole "Well, I decided to kill her regardless" aspect of this, and WHY he would do that rather than saying, "Hey Elo, I know you don't really want to play, why not let Timmer have your spot?". I guess I just don't understand it at all.

Because Epi also thinks that the mathematical probabilities point to Elo/Timmer being bad.

TH, what do you make of all this? Who is looking fishy to you?

What do you think about the BF/Bullz back and forth?

Bullz, I don't remember if you answered BF, but now that you're still alive, would you share who you're suspicious of?

I didn't answer BF yet, have been having tons of fun in the library and on residence support duty. I'll answer you now: Basically Epi at this stage, Soneji to a lesser degree because while I think his(?) vote is suspicious, my own mental devil's advocate is telling me there's a logical explanation. Sometimes I think I'm too open-minded. I can and do talk myself into neutrality on almost any subject. There are a few people I will look back on either during the next few hours or tomorrow morning who currently sit in a grey area of my mind. It might be easier to name the people I definitely don't and probably won't suspect because that's how I work in early game scenarios.

Wow. I am actually genuinely surprised. Thanks for not revenge-killing me Wally, that was a smart move

FZ. wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

To be honest, I've probably already been killed by Llama's ninja friend and refused any defense despite being a civ and posing no threat to anyone, so I don't see why I should give a crap about helping the rest of my team if that's how things are going down. I will answer that question if I live to day 2.

That's a really bad answer, in my opinion. I think that civvies should do everything in their power to help the civvie cause no matter how pissed they are at others for going after them. If you are a civvie, I would like to know if there's someone you suspect. You can choose to refuse, but how is screwing others going to make you feel better?

I never claimed I was particularly good at being a civ. I always look out for myself first. Being bad at being good doesn't make me bad. I'm not trying to screw anyone, if anything I'm trying to keep myself alive. I know Llama's team will want me dead because he was so sure his pop psychology case was bulletproof. So I've tried to convince them to not NK me by first asking nicely and now not-so-nicely. If they've killed me, I don't want to help them. Call it spiteful, call it petty, call it screwing my own allies over, I never claimed it wasn't either of the first two. As for screwing people, I don't think what thoughts I do have offer any profound insight that would be lacking in my absence.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

To be honest, I've probably already been killed by Llama's ninja friend and refused any defense despite being a civ and posing no threat to anyone, so I don't see why I should give a crap about helping the rest of my team if that's how things are going down. I will answer that question if I live to day 2.

blindfaeth wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Yes, you did fail. If there was any doubt in someone's mind, you made sure it say painfully obvious. And if you were civvie you wouldn't have done so IMO.

So what should I have done instead? I'd already said when I voted Llama that you were a big reason why. Then you came in trying to manipulate what I'd said because you're determined to come after me. Even if you hadn't, someone would've asked me to explain my vote unless I've been spite-killed already. Don't act like you know what I would or wouldn't do as a civ when you've played one game with me and I was bad in it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Why expend so much energy discussing a particular player if you don't plan on lynching them?

To signal to someone else to NK them?

I've discussed him in the context of explaining my Llama vote. I thought it was suspicious that he was defending Llama. Given that Llama wasn't bad, I obviously don't suspect BF but that doesn't remove the fact that his behaviour towards Llama voters was an important factor in my vote. Should I not say that? Should I lie about why I suspected Llama, at cost to myself?

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Maybe llama's role had something to do with it? I don't know what else to say.

Linki @LC: Did he play that card himself, or did someone else draw that comparison and accuse him of the behavior?

Was I supposed to know Llama's role before he got lynched? I had no idea why BF was so desperately defending him, and that's kinda the point. I'm not accusing BF of anything now, but his defensiveness at the time did neither of them any favours.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Linki - When you have a guy going round eyeballing people for suspecting someone and making out anyone who accuses that person to be bad, outright calling them liars, it's pretty easy to "hop on".

Who are you talking about?

BF:

blindfaeth wrote:

Roxy wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Bullz or Epi. That doesn't mean everyone else has to think the same way. I just don't think their suspicion of llama over someone else is genuine.

Here you say you want people to vote Bullz or Epi, but you go on to say not everyone has to think this way.

But then you continue and say that their suspicion of llama or someone else is not genuine.

Well which is it? How do you feel? Can others have suspicion of someone else and be genuine or must they vote how you wish them to in order to be considered genuine by you?

Of course, you can suspect whoever you want. All I'm saying, I think the non case on llama is crap.

blindfaeth wrote:I see what you're saying. He has definitely been over the top. I just don't believe that they genuinely think he (Llama) is the best candidate for their vote at this point.

blindfaeth wrote:

Long Con wrote:My vote is going to Llama, not that it will matter much for now, for playing the "just like Civvie Llama in X-Men" too hard. I also thought that the post about other ways Llama is "acting too Civvie-Llama" was a good read.

These are a sample of the reasons why. I basically felt like he was trying to shut down any conversation about Llama by questioning the intent of anyone who suspected him, threatening to suspect people for voting him, claiming people's suspicions of Llama weren't genuine, and essentially saying that people can vote for/suspect whoever they want as long as it isn't Llama. I felt like he had a strong interest in keeping Llama alive, and it influenced my decision to vote.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:If the detectives insist on vengeance, at least let me be lynched so I can defend myself and eventually have everyone proven wrong so I don't have to deal with smug posturing every time I read the thread post-death.

Good luck, since llama thought you were bad.

For no real reason though. His case on me was awful and backed up with very little, but I'm probably going to die tonight because of that and because he chose to try too hard to look good, drew tons of attention to himself, and BF tried to shut down anyone who questioned him.

Linki - When you have a guy going round eyeballing people for suspecting someone and making out anyone who accuses that person to be bad, outright calling them liars, it's pretty easy to "hop on".

Long Con wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:If the detectives insist on vengeance, at least let me be lynched so I can defend myself and eventually have everyone proven wrong so I don't have to deal with smug posturing every time I read the thread post-death.

*...votes Bullzeye?*

Well I'd rather not die at all, but knowing how Llama was so sure of his contrived pseudopsychology case on me and the fact I voted for him, plus the fact I have a brain, I feel quite confident in my belief that I'm now a target of my own side. As soon as his role was revealed I told myself I was going down for it. I'm just trying to convince them not to kill me, if they do actually want me dead I'd rather they find reasons to try to lynch me so I can prove them wrong one way or another.

If the detectives insist on vengeance, at least let me be lynched so I can defend myself and eventually have everyone proven wrong so I don't have to deal with smug posturing every time I read the thread post-death.

blindfaeth wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:I have to say, I absolutely abhor the last five votes on llama.

Bullz voted llama in spite of me to try and prove something. Good job cowboy you win a prize

TH, who was Epis sidekick signaler voted next. Soneji was next and didn't even post they were voting in the thread unless I missed it somehow. Then br and LC back to back. I've seen myself mention LC before somewhere... Oh yeah :P and these were all like within the last hour, probably even closer than that. Why the sudden push to lynch llama? You might think the case on Epi was ridiculous, but the non case on llama was 50 times more so.

Yeah I expect my prize will arrive with the night post. I don't ever make RIP posts because I think they're meaningless and fake and it goes without saying that I'm sorry that I was wrong. I didn't vote him to spite you or prove anything. Your influence on my vote was because of the way you defended him in combination with your reaction to my post about joking. If he'd been bad, I'd have voted for you next. I didn't see the point in voting for you this time because it would not have accomplished anything IMO.

I look forward to you receiving your prize, I think that would be a great decision on the civ ninjas part

I think it'd be a dick move personally. Llama was wrong about me and killing me out of spite won't bring him back, nor will it do anything but help the baddies.