The Syndicate

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
- I don't really get how unfurl ended up dying. A lynch switch of some kind? Although I was thinking the same thing with TinyBubbles, but somehow I doubt that both of the last 2 lynches were influenced by lynch switches.

Apologies for the snip, but what do you mean by this?

What's up with rey? Kinda long the siesta he's taking, innit?

LoRab wrote:
The idea that you were lying was kind of implied throughout. I don't think your rebuttals were honest. When I said you were intentionally misleading, that is a synonym of lying.

Where have I said that I was intentionally misleading?! How many more times do you have to put words in my mouth until I'll finally draw the red card?

Explain how part of my rebuttals where I point out to the facts can be dishonest. Explain how the facts are inaccurate, if you think my rebuttal to them are dishonest. I get the count mistake part is subjective and you are free to treat it as dishonest all you want. But explain the part about the facts being dishonest or prove how they're inaccurate [see further ahead in this post, for clarity's sake].

LoRab wrote:Not sure how that is a new aspect of my suspicion at all. I'll attempt to be clear--you posted mistaken/misleading information. I think you did it intentionally. You said you did not, and that it was just a mistake.

If that's related to the miscount, then fine, weave it as a suspicion all you want. I also pointed out I posted pure stats, not information. I get it doesn't mean anything for you, but that's what it is.

I also pointed out (humorously, at first, but I think I'll put it seriously up here, after so many times of saying it) I theoretically pointed misleading "information" about the civ team count as well. Does that mean anything to you, since you're so keen to interpret my miscount for the bad team count as more than it is? Interpret that as well and tell me how I'm bad.

LoRab wrote:And that I was implying information that you didn't say--my whole point is that I think you posted in a way that was purposefully misleading.

How can I be suspicious for something I didn't say? What is it that you think I didn't say? I'm only compelled to ask you to clarify this one more time, as specific as possible.

LoRab wrote: will it make you feel better if I take each of your posts in the exchange and do a point by point response to them? I can do that tonight, if it will help. But it won't say anything that I haven't already said.

You can focus or start on this, if you want, since it's what you didn't answer me twice, until a third time you just threw at me that it doesn't explain anything and that I'm a liar. How does it not explain anything? How am I lying for pointing at facts?

LoRab wrote: Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.

Ricochet wrote: By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down (...)

As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.

Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.

So where's the "non-accurate information" here?

LoRab wrote: I would answer gut as to why I think you tried to kill me, but that wouldn't be logical. I wanted to put it out there for others to see, though--who might understand where I'm coming from in my suspicion of you. But was planning on going back through your posts to find evidence, so I will post that tonight.

Your suspicion of me being your killer is new, based on Night results, it can't "come from" your original suspicions, if that's what you mean, so you can't point to others that your original suspicions come from me trying to kill you, you can only try to shout to the world "look! Rico wanted to shut me up by killing me". Which is a legit attempt, but will come up as a wrong result. I'm not the Executioner, I didn't attempt to kill you, I'm not recruited by a bad team, so I cannot kill you, I don't have ninja kill positions in my role, so I cannot kill you, I took the debate with you head on and still am, I don't have any meta of shutting my opponents via kill when bad, I don't have any meta weaseling my way out of debates via nefarious attempts. So good luck with presenting your case, if you're going for this angle.

LoRab wrote:And not serious? I am suspicious of you and I'm voting for you. Not sure how that is convenient or frivolous?

Since D3, you took the "I'm hunting neutrals who don't seem civvie, because 6 baddies out of 3x players is just too much for good odds and I have no idea who the baddies" approach and stick to it. You hunted Golden for it. You voted TH for it.

D4 you blame JJJ for that and park your vote on TH again. You do nothing else, except for picking up my post and starting a debate with me.

D5 you keep on debating till you declare yourself satisfied, tag me as a neutral who isn't civvie and vote for me. Are you saying you'll hunt for more suspects, throughout the next 30 hours left from this Day or so? Please do, if so. I'll be watching closely.

It's convenient. You can park votes like this for the rest of the game, for all I know. It's Day 5. We have 6 baddies out there out of 29, it's not an insane pool, it's slowly arriving at what a regular-sized full game would look like. How much longer till you'll get baddie reads? How much longer is "neutral who isn't civvish" going to be your MO?

I also find it convenient because of something else you said, which sounded like you have important goals. I'll paraphrase: "Everything posted is significant evidence. I read things and hypothesize is how I theorize."

So your saying that, for toDay, your grand theory and grand evidence for baddieness is that "I cannot count" and that I want to induce spleen into the crowd with inaccurate facts (a crowd that, apart from the one person pointing I was wrong, which you picked up on, didn't react one bit to it). That's... it.

Anything else? Anybody else? Any other evidence? Any other theories?

No? Well then it sounds mighty convenient. It sounds like a parked vote. It sounds like drumming on an MO to lynch neutrals who aren't up to your standards of civvishness for days and days.

LoRab wrote: I actually misread your earlier post. this is what happens when I mafia before coffee. I apologize.

However, my suspicion stands. And yes, my reasons for suspecting you have evolved. I often find people more or less suspicious based on their response to being called suspish.

Fine.

LoRab wrote:And I have answered all of your questions. Your factual rebuttals either don't explain away your suspicion and/or I think you're lying, especially about your intentions.

No you didn't answer all of my question. You did not answer my point-by-point rebuttal on your initial suspicions, you skipped them twice in fact. You did answer now for the first time, but you didn't before. It's all on record.

Can you explain how my rebuttals don't explain away the suspicions? I'm especially curious how me proving I did not offer inaccurate info about something doesn't explain away the suspicion that I have offered inaccurate info.

Lying is a convenient new suspicion to throw at me, it has nothing to do with any suspicions you've had before. You sound desperate.

LoRab wrote:And I'll be blunt. I think you tried to kill me last night, I think you tried to kill MP, I think you killed Typh night 1, and I think your role is dangerous to everyone, and I don't think that you're playing on behalf of the civ cause.

*votes rico*

Nope.

Can you explain these claims in any logical way?

But don't worry, I was 100% you'll park your vote on me instead of attempting to do anything more serious than that in this game, on this Day. It's so convenient, after all.

Bullzeye wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I think it was established that somebody voted during the first 24 hours of the poll for Golden but didn't revote when the new poll was placed. That vote still counted.

That's confusing, I didn't catch that. I treated the redo poll as an actual redo, both in my stats keeping and the results.

From what I have DH voted Golden the first day and didn't revote the second day. Is that it?

Yeah I think so.

I see it now, BR offered to redo the poll, Golden and JJJ suggested we carry on from there or count the old ones by the end of it. I still treated it as a redo mostly, on the second day, because of the voters didn't return their votes before proceeding further. A few did, but it wasn't a general trend at all.

My mistake, then.

Bullzeye wrote:I think it was established that somebody voted during the first 24 hours of the poll for Golden but didn't revote when the new poll was placed. That vote still counted.

That's confusing, I didn't catch that. I treated the redo poll as an actual redo, both in my stats keeping and the results.

From what I have DH voted Golden the first day and didn't revote the second day. Is that it?

ok what the hell



sorry for the mess

derp

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

It's kinda ironic that you say here that you can't count since by my count the votes weren't tied that day (Golden 7, Boomslang 6).

The Hosts published a screenshot of the results, it was 6-6.

[img]http://s247.photobucket.com/user/jdeale ... 1.jpg.html[/quote]

Which one is your 7th Golden voter?

LoRab wrote:
I was going to do a point by point response but I really think there is only one relevant thing you said. That you don't understand or like the way I play.

"I don't understand or like the way I play."

You say I said that.

You think I said that.

Congratulations, you've earned 200 eye rolls. I counted these ones properly, fear not.












Your error invalidates mostly everything else you said, so I have nothing to reply to that. Except maybe to the following, equally contrived logic.

LoRab wrote:I find you suspicious. That you don't understand my suspicions, I can't do anything to do about it."

I understood your suspicions, except when I didn't and promptly asked you to clarify them. That it has proven so hard to get clarifications out of you, and instead being called dismissive and insulting, is all on the way you chose to handle this.

You have not one, but two previous replies from me already in which I offer factual rebuttal to all your suspicions. Based on my standards, the rebuttal points that your suspicions are either erroneous (because of they're based on stuff I did not actually say or stuff I was not innacurate) or subjective (because they're based on your style of interpreting and seeing things for more that they are).

You keep evading such argumentation altogether. You were saying something about dismissiveness and insult?

LoRab wrote:No U: Please, quote the post where you are saying I did that. Or maybe we understand the term differently? Because I'm not seeing where I did that.

Not addressing your previous post: What have I not addressed?

Yes, I admit I probably have difficulties using the term the correct or classic way, I've been pointed that before. Nevertheless, here is one more time what I meant by you turning back to me something I did.

I make this post interpreting what you say or what your views/stances are.
You make this reply in which you interpret what I said in the same style I did. You don't even make it a secret that is your intention, as shown in the quote I already quoted.

LoRab wrote:So, to interpret your response in your own style etc.

You don't actually address, refute, etc. my interpretation of what you said - except for the inserted hint that you think I'm delegitimizing you - you just sling it back at me in the same manner. I get it that you felt I was dismissive in my interpretation, I get that you felt the need to reply in the same manner, nonetheless this is still a sort of redirect that has nothing to do with addressing the issue, but replying to me in the same manner I did to you. We have a local phrase for this called "paying back with the same coin".

--------------------

LoRab wrote:My play: Not generalizing. But my own defenses, when they literally describe how I always play, are basically just describing how I always play. As I am still relatively new to this site (or at least to many of its players), it is generally relevant to the accusations against me. It is not, to me, the same as saying that someone's points have no validity and are out of no where. It is reframing motivation for actions. To me, there is a difference. YMMV

I can accept this, but I don't personally feel it's always the case. I remember vividly spending a full cycle arguing with you in Watchmen, when I read you as bad, and I often felt like hitting my face against a wall with you implying I just don't get or like the way you play. This is the type of defense that I reference.

LoRab wrote:One statement about my posts: ?

Ricochet wrote:if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

Ricochet wrote: Ah, the good old feeling of talking to the moon when trying to discuss anything with you is returning.

...***post truncated for length to relevant lines***...

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

Oh, also, "entirely silly thought process" in this post is also in this category.

That is definitely more than 1. Also, the general tone of your responses is dismissive of me in general.

Oh god no, do I really have to spell it out? Just look at how you've changed the perspective on what I meant in the previous reply:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

I have made one statement about how I found that something you said doesn't make sense. If you don't clarify what you meant by it and I have to ask again for you to clarify it, then yes, I also have to remind the fact that it did not make sense to me. Saying "My posts" is plural, generalizing and untrue of what I did. Keeping being evasive, though.

So you took "I made a one-time statement about how something you said doesn't make sense" and turned into "I made 'more than 1' statements that are 'dismissive and vaguely insulting every time'". Is it out of misunderstanding or because it suits you better to villainize me, I wonder?

But fine, I'll spell it out again. Here's the entire sequence, in fact:

LoRab wrote:Starting to wonder if your posting is intentional and subtle misdirection.

Ricochet wrote:What am I misdirecting towards?

LoRab wrote:It read to me like you were creating an association with all prior lynches that included an aspect of closedness. And you were not painting a picture of caution in general, in fact you even said that he was quick to draw prior to this.

LoRab wrote:All lynches except D2 were facilitated by tallies being frozen or shut down. This is factual. If the Judge will lockdown this Day at any point until EoD, he will technically facilitate a lynch result by shutting down activity. Huge association there, what can I say.
All of the Judge's previous actions were quick. This is factual. You are correct I didn't call the Judge cautious in general, because I didn't. I called him cautious with using his current lockdown. It is only you who say I painted a picture of caution in general.

LoRab wrote:Like I said, subtle misdirection. So that you can come back and say it wasn't there and so that it might not be noticed.

Ricochet wrote:[I have absolutely no idea what your first sentence means, but I'll give it a shot at interpreting anyway:] etc.

LoRab wrote:interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

Ricochet wrote:I've responded to everything you said (...) Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense?

LoRab wrote:If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

- Generalizing from one argument to making it sound I meant all your posts don't make sense, clear as day.

Ricochet wrote: have made one statement about how I found that something you said doesn't make sense.

And we're back to present day.

-----

LoRab wrote: And yes, everything you post in mafia is significant evidence. That's kind of the point of the game. That I read things and hypothesize is how I theorize--sometimes my theories are spot on, sometimes they are not.

If you feel posting stats and screwing up a count by one is your "significant evidence" out of this entire game, then by all means. I'm not the one overblowing "you read a team count by an extra one" into "you're trying to throw the players into despair", you are. That you can't handle sarc from others (in that I dismissed this suspicious as weak and ridiculous whilst forgetting to keep my srs biz face on) and you further overblow into "that's how baddies would deflect things", again, it's not my fault and you are free to weave it, if it makes so much sense.

On the other hand, after being on Golden's case throughout the entire D3, on D4 you've only been emotionally defensive towards JJJ, you've stuck with an older suspicion on TH and you picked on me. I will be scrutinizing your activity from now on, to see how serious you are in continuing to search for "significant evidence" and "read things and hypothesize", because that was weak activity in D4, by your standards.

LoRab wrote: In this particular case, I threw the comment out there. That your response has been dismissive, insulting, and overblown, I think says a lot about where you stand in this game. And it's not on the side of the civies.

Except for the sarc you couldn't handle, I have not been dismissive, insulting and overblown in my initial reply to your ping. I have asked for reasoning, I have clarified my own - this is all normal rebuttal. The fact that it has since grown out of proportion is as much your contribution as it is mine, per evidence by each sequence of replies we currently share.

I'm not civ, I'm not bad, I'm neutral and unrecruited.

Also I notice you are now completely shapeshifting your case. I'm suddenly not suspicious for misdirecting anymore, I'm suspicious for being dismissive, insulting and overblown. Could the change be because your initial case is almost entirely debunked?

I have not posted "non-accurate informations" about the Supreme Judge's actions. I have proven that factually.
I have not posted the team stats with nefarious intent. It is only your option to interpret my count mistakes as such.
I have not implied anything about shenanigans being from the same player, in order to distort reality. I have proven that factually. I have proven that you are the one reading that the wrong way and as such you are the one interpreting it as nefarious out of a misread.

I have asked you in the previous reply to counter, point, or clarify where have I posted "non-accurate information" about the Supreme Judge. You have skipped this entirely and not addressed it one bit. Not one single bit.

---

I am hencefort going back to focusing on my cases and the general direction of the game throughout D5. It is clear you have no case on me and you are switching to interpreting tone and appealing to me being dismissive and insulting, because it suits you better.

Case closed.

Bye MP.

I'm gonna cut short on reviewing position 2, because apart from Uzbargan doing double damage, the Executioner's failed attempt, the lockdown not happening, the Master of Ancient Arts' and Immortal's vote manipulation not accounting to anything given the lynch switch, I don't think I see anything else that could have surfaced out in the open (lot of checks, blocks, protect, the Shield Spinner was safe from being killed by Uzbirh, etc.).

Here is position 4 for today

Put message in the thread through hosts [Children, civ leader]
Kill [Brotherhood, civ leader]
Poison [Warrior, mafia leader] ugh, this guy really gets to do too much damage in a row
Curse [Warrior, mafia leader]
Negative a vote [Sorcerer]
Vote worth 2 [Unaffiliated]
? [Warrior]
Power Absorber [Brotherhood]
Track the amount of votes each player ended up with [Children]
Silence [Guardian]
Seemer [Sorcerer]
Fire Vision [Sorcerer]
Immune to Ahriman Kill [Guardian]
Sees if a player is recruited [Guardian]
Coupler effect with ? [Children]
Restart night [Children]
Night Kill Survive [Warrior] So safe passage tonight
Temp BTSC [Guardian]
Choose a player, if they are targeting someone they need to pick a new target [Brotherhood]
Temp BTSC with dead player [Guardians]
Random Item give [Children]
Picks Player [Brotherhood]
Kill a Warrior [Warrior]
Chaos Curse [Sorcerer] What does this mean?
Choose three players, nothing can happen at night and none can be lynched the next day [Warrior] So three of us get safe passage N5/D6
Rogue Mercenary - Warrior Clan Big night for this fella
Knows who a Position 4 role targeted [Brotherhood]
Message to the thread [Children] or is it?
Cast a shadow on a player, all votes for that player will be cut in half [Warrior]
Low poster police [Brotherhood]
Every person who has voted for you in the past starts the lynch with 1 vote for each time they voted for you [Guardian]
If you are targeted with an odd number of night powers, they will all be negated. If you are targeted with an even number of night powers, you will attract the direction of another night power for each one you are already targeted with. [Sorcerer] Sounds like he'll get lucky or run into a lot of trouble tonight.
Check Player to see if Guardian [Guardian, indy leader]

----

Scotty, I think the purpose of Master of Shadow's presence was mainly attributed to his position, in that he was simply free to post as himself for a cycle. That he loafed and contributed with nothing was probably his choice. His previous positions allowed him to work at his leisure (choose his own position) or enjoy safe passage (position 5 during D2/N2). The question is whether he has acted like a recruited baddie or not, but I feel we have no info on this and it would take several layers to be able to project that.

Wow, MM's really not letting go of position 5, whenever it's up on the poll. This time he's the only one currently going that path.

Oh, almost forgot to vote and was ready to go to sleep. I don't think we got an answer if consequences will be permanent for the second rotation, but from LC's actual reply, it sounds like by voting a mild consequence position would be much like voting for someone to be targeted with those consequences, to which, at least for now, position 4, while undesirable on its own, still sounds slightly better; in a twisted way, though: it's slightly better only because you're voting for everyone to stand equal in front of the potential targeting and perils the position poses. So let's wrap the rotation and see next time what arises, regarding these consequences.

LoRab wrote: I am not switcherooing you. I am reading your posts, thinking about them in context, and offering my thoughts on them, as one does in mafia.

Generalizing. I only mean your previous post, in reply to my post previous to it (which you quoted, albeit snipping it). Your no u is literally in there

LoRab wrote:So, to interpret your response in your own style

You're doing only that and addressing nothing else, really, about my previous post (except maybe that I may seek to delegitimize, which you imply in your paraphrases).

LoRab wrote: And, really, my posts are not about my play, but about your posts.

Great Scot, generalizing again. Also I don't know what this means. I didn't say your posts are about your play. I said your defenses are often (or often include) deflections about how your play is viewed.

LoRab wrote:
If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

I have made one statement about how I found that something you said doesn't make sense. If you don't clarify what you meant by it and I have to ask again for you to clarify it, then yes, I also have to remind the fact that it did not make sense to me. Saying "My posts" is plural, generalizing and untrue of what I did. Keeping being evasive, though.

LoRab wrote:And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

See my earlier reply to SVS, pretty much same answer as there. You can't take "I may not reply further if I don't see the point in replying on this matter" and make it "I'm not talking to you any more". And you're further misconstruing by implying my motivation was "unworthiness in thought process" when it was "futility in debating this way". So you keep twisting things in the same sentence you deny twisting things.

----

LoRaB wrote: And I will attempt to explain, yet again, what I was saying. Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.

By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down For 1), you are correct, I was inaccurate by one regarding a baddie team's componence. You found it to mean something significant, I dismissed it as me being bad at math (and, I'll add, properly scanning the Host posts). Was I full of sarc in that dismissal? Yeah, probably, because that's how I reacted on the spot to my being bad at counting being regarded as significant evidence.

Not to mention that I mentioned later about how I actually blew it just as much by counting the civ teams as 4, before the Hosts confirmed the new recruitings. If my mistake about Azura's team would mean I want to make things seem "more dire than in reality", my mistakes about the civ teams should technically mean I want to make things seem "more optimistic than in reality", no? Entirely silly thought process, of course, but since you're keen on this angle, then my mistakes should neutralize themselves and point out to what I've been saying the whole time: that I'm simply bloody bad at counting and can sometime get stats inaccurate, with no bearing to any intent of mislead.

As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.

Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.

So where's the "non-accurate information" here?

LoRab wrote:The first time, it made the situation seem more dire than reality.

Providing stats can be infered as making a statement to influence people's perception of the situation only if you choose to infer it that way. It does not mean that I did anything except providing stats for the current count of the teams. The post would have served a statistical purpose even if my figures would have been accurate.

LoRab wrote:The second time, you seemed to imply that all of the day/night end shenanigans were the result of one player--perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the way it read to me--and I believe that you purposefully posted in that way, so as to make things seem the way you want them to seem, and not the way reality is.

Well I made no such implication, indeed, so you are growing the nefarious purpose that I'd be intentionally doing such an implication (to distort reality) from reading it the wrong way. It's not coming from me.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote: If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

I wasn't twisting your words, i was giving my interpretation of them. Obviously, that is what we do, we read what each other writes and put our own interpretations on it. If we all read everything the same way, this would be a boring game indeed.

I found it to be an uncivil reply, which indeed was the point on my bringing it up in the context in which I did. If you did not mean it in a dismissive way, my apologies.

I can accept that, but it's still a niche for excusing actual misinterpreting and words-twisting. And taking "I consider it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters" (I've highlighted the keywords, in case they really needed highlighting) and interpreting it as "people telling other people that they refuse to talk to them anymore" is still pretty bendy, at least in my view. Also don't know where you get the idea that I would desire for "everything to be read in the same way", because it is never something I pursue in debating, at all. I don't want to bring people down to my views, but I do want to feel there is a compatibility and coherence to what we're debating about, regardless if it's on the same page or different. See paragraph above.

Was I dismissive of pursuing the debate in that manner that I regarded as incompatible? I made no secret of that.
Am I increasingly frustrated that I try to discuss things from a factual viewpoint and get blocked with empirical ("I know how it is because of the past games") or literal viewpoints, which the person doesn't even have the courtesy to make it clear from the beginning? No doubt.

Will I ever tell someone I'm done talking with them completely and without a reason? No - or to be fair if I'll ever make such a slip, I will accept any correction, rigth on the spot. Is it rather uncivil to put a halt on talks in the way I did? I can take the blame, but see the paragraph above as to why I did it.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote: If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I just wanted to say that I've changed my mind and asked to be replaced, despite how amazing this game really is, and how long I've been looking forward to it. I will continue playing if LC and BR don't have a replacement or there's someone else who actually needs the replacement (I'd rather give it to someone else before myself), but otherwise it's clearly best if I deal with my own stress outside of the thread and find a new less emotionally stressful hobby for the current duration and for the foreseeable future while I juggle teaching for the first time, my PhD class workload, and trying to figure out my dissertation, among other things. I hope all of you will understand. I apologize again for my behavior not only in this game that was distinctly un-fun, but for anything I've done to make anyone else's game un-fun in previous games.

Can I reserve a spot for dead subbing your role, in case I die?

I'm sorry to see such moments occuring and would hate for them to cause any real departure from you, but I'm also entirely sympathetic to your idea of re-balancing RL stuff with how much you can dedicate here. It is exactly what I'll need to do myself probably starting next month, probably after this game and maybe Syndicate Mafia (because I am genuinely psyched for that one, so I don't see myself being able to take time out earlier than that).

I didn't last long in Omerta and I don't remember anything from Bubbles.

In Watchmen, she replaced Bass and then needed to be replaced herself. Literally no gaming content, except for a great post, in between these stages.

That's the only feedback I have.

If the consequences are only punitive for not choosing position 4 to wrap up the first rotation, then I can vote position 4 in order to evade the consequences.

If all positions will have mild consequences starting with their second rotation, then I find it less relevant, because we'll face the consequences eventually just like we said we'll face the nastier positions eventually. In which case, if I don't like the prospect of position 4 instead of the other two (and I can't say I do), I'll probably vote for one of the others. I wasn't a fan of the notable effects from either position 1 (the way the lottery-style early end of Day happened) and position 5 (on a personal level), so it'll still be a hard choice.

But this thing about consequences being permanent or just for this Night needs some confirmation first.

RIP unfurl.

Whoa boy, three-page blowout.

I'm mostly inclined to believe this is Uzbarack's doing (Lynch Switch). It'd be extra cheeky for redirecting it to someone who got no votes, although unfurl did get suspicions. Can that mean he is one of unfurl's hunters?

Further uestion to everyone: If Ubzarg did this, do you think or find it more likely that a) Bubbles is part of the team and he openly saved her or b) the situation didn't put himself or his teammates in any danger and he just performed the switch for sport and chaos, just like he locked the thread at a two-way tie point?

If b), do you think him and his teammates still tried to blend in during the Day and hunt or even vote for the main wagons or did they wander off, bringing out other ideas or suspects, sidelining etc.? If Uzbark's action is clear nonchalance, how can we profile him within the thread - or his teammates for that matter, how would they have behaved, knowing they'll totally manipulate the lynch?

Can we get an angle out of this? Not sure, but it makes me wonder.

Azura's power would mean that the only way unfurl would get Azura's votes and get lynched would be if Azura had gotten the most votes (hence being in lynch position). That would mean Azura is TinyBubbles.

DH brought up The Apprentice's Random Potion and Pyromancer's Fireshield, but I don't think we got an explanation for what they do. Can the potion really be as strong as lynching a player regardless of the tally / switching a lynch / etc.?

---

About the positions, if we go with Position 4 and complete the rotation, will the positions still have "mild consequences" added to them during the second rotation or will they be consequence-free? What are the mild consequences supposed to mean?

LoRab wrote:Like I said, subtle misdirection. So that you can come back and say it wasn't there and so that it might not be noticed.

What sources do I have? How it has worked in this game and how I have seen day stops work in other games? I'm not sure why here is a question there. Also, even with the night stop, the thread didn't stop--that is a huge difference. When people cannot post for an extended period, their thinking changes by the time they can post. Locking the thread is different regardless. Not sure why your are trying to argue that. Even when day immediately followed night, discussion was not interrupted.

And, no, it's not hypocritical. Defending an action and explaining why it does not make me bad is NOT the same as blowing off an accusation and saying that the accusation is not even worth responding to.

Ah, the good old feeling of talking to the moon when trying to discuss anything with you is returning.

[I have absolutely no idea what your first sentence means, but I'll give it a shot at interpreting anyway:] "I suspect you for something you did not say being a subtle misdirection, because it allows you to argue that you did not say the thing you did not say and that there's nothing suspicious about what you didn't say."

"My idea of how day stops work comes from previous games I've played, but I don't bother to mention this from the beginning, nor do I find it relevant how the day stop actually worked in this particular game. All that matters is what I know, not what happened."

"The meaning I attribute to day stops not stopping discussion is purely technical, broad, general and/or metaphysical and again do I not bother to make this clear from the first time, nor do I, again, find it relevant to how it fits the current game. All that matters is that discussion is not censored in general, not that the entire discussion throughout a phase, related to that phase, specific to that phase, is halted or rendered useless by that phase's sudden, premature end. That's not a discussion halt, because I only accept literal definition of what halting a discussion means."

"Constantly twirling in rebuttals, telling people to eye-me-all-they-want, saying I-am-not-bad-and-I-know-it and appealing to emotion by saying people just don't get or like my way of playing is called <Defending an action and explaining>."

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

LoRab wrote:There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not.

Also, what sources do you have on this?

The D3 lockdown closed the thread, hence ending discussion along with voting until EoD (due to the timing of the lockdown). So it must mean that you say that ending a Day early doesn't end discussion.

Yet the previous end of a phase, as a mechanic, was a night end (Night 3), which ended as soon as the Judge's action was validated. It ended discussion, voting for positions and sending actions. A skip to the next phase (D4) followed.

That would mean the same mechanics apply for ending a Day early. The reason why D1 did not end early properly was because the Hosts couldn't validate the Judge's action in real time. That doesn't mean his action wasn't validated - all votes and actions after he sent his action were invalidated. Hence that would mean the early end would have ended discussion, as well, producing a skip to the next phase (N2).

So no idea what you're crafting suspicions out of or grasping at.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Time is growing important, since we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place - he's been vigilent before, but so far he's not quick to draw the curtains; can this mean he's not content or approving with the main wagons and/or doesn't want to shortcircuit the EoD? Could be.

There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not. And ending night early is a mixed bag (and different entirely). Either of those actions could have either good or bad strategy behind them. Without saying so explicitly, you seem to imply that the prior lockdown was also connected to his role. Which makes me wonder.

Also noting that you earlier posted about the number of baddies and added an extra person to one of the baddie teams in your count. Which could increase paranoia and is a tactic oft used by the evil (make things seem worse than they are).

Starting to wonder if your posting is intentional and subtle misdirection.

What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

It read to me like you were creating an association with all prior lynches that included an aspect of closedness. And you were not painting a picture of caution in general, in fact you even said that he was quick to draw prior to this.

And the sarcasm in the "oooo, evil" response does not lesson suspicion. It actually makes it a smidge pingier on the suspiciometer. Blowing off suspicion is often a thing baddies do.

Not ready to lynch you, but definitely eyeballing you.

All lynches except D2 were facilitated by tallies being frozen or shut down. This is factual. If the Judge will lockdown this Day at any point until EoD, he will technically facilitate a lynch result by shutting down activity. Huge association there, what can I say.
All of the Judge's previous actions were quick. This is factual. You are correct I didn't call the Judge cautious in general, because I didn't. I called him cautious with using his current lockdown. It is only you who say I painted a picture of caution in general.

Your sentence about blowing off suspicion being a baddie trait is hypocritical, considering half the times you blow off suspicions on you with Eye-me-all-you-wants, twirls and claims that your game is misunderstood. Besides, if there's anything I'm blowing, it's ridiculous suspicions, not suspicions per se. Just to prove that, I also happened to count the civ teams having an extra member, before the Hosts actually confirmed that recruiting as finalized. Is that supposed to mean, by contrast, that I'm giving civs hope? Is that supposed to mean anything, just like me accidentally writing one extra baddie in a camp is supposed to mean anything? Of course not. Me not getting my mechanics talk or facts/stats check always accurate is no real surprise. Smidge pinge away.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Time is growing important, since we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place - he's been vigilent before, but so far he's not quick to draw the curtains; can this mean he's not content or approving with the main wagons and/or doesn't want to shortcircuit the EoD? Could be.

There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not. And ending night early is a mixed bag (and different entirely). Either of those actions could have either good or bad strategy behind them. Without saying so explicitly, you seem to imply that the prior lockdown was also connected to his role. Which makes me wonder.

Also noting that you earlier posted about the number of baddies and added an extra person to one of the baddie teams in your count. Which could increase paranoia and is a tactic oft used by the evil (make things seem worse than they are).

Starting to wonder if your posting is intentional and subtle misdirection.

What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

Synonym wrote:Okay, trying to keep up with this game on mobile is hard but I think I'm starting to get there.

I've spent a bit of time reading, not a complete thread read yet but I wanted to see where yesterday's lynch was forming from.

I have also had the majority of my mechanics questions answered by the GM's, however I might not be 100% across everything so apologies if I still get it wrong.

More general question, is it considered scummy/bad to post suspicions or courses of action during night phase here? The meta I'm used to it's frowned upon until the next phase as it can help guide mafia's actions.

Night activity here is usually consistent and certainly not frowned upon. Just go with your tactic in what (or how much) to say during Nights.

Bullzeye wrote:How do others feel about Unfurl's suggestion that Golden's lynch was an attempt to save Boom? Am I the only one who finds that crazy?

Not all the way through. It feels weak of unfurl to steer talk in that direction, but it's not crazy talk per se. I didn't catch any "what's the case on Boom? voting Golden instead" stances, so yeah, Golden took pretty direct hits overall. Nevertheless, Boom was still second wagon and we don't know his status. If he'll flip bad, save attempts can totally come back as a valid angle.

I'll proceeed further with a few more suspects from the Golden file that I can write about in a quick (enough) manner

not getting great vibes from Timmer overall. when he can't keep up, he gives me more the Deborah vibe than the "I really shouldn't be playing this and am unworthy" self-voting vibe (this is not to say I don't understand his RL reasons). he switches that often into a more insightful mode, which is closer to the active good stuff I know/expect from timmer, but still feels like switching gears quite a lot.

D1 - very late pitch in the Golden vs Epig spat, calls Golden phoney in his initial chatter about recruiting tactics
- then a postin which he thinks Golden is fake playing a civ game as a neutral, yet also doesn't regard him as a lynch target. I find this alterning of stances most confusing.
D2 - misses out
D3 - isn't as strong on Golden as when he called him phoney on D1, kinda puts him and MP in the same slot and labels Golden as unwanting to admit his actions have been weird; does a "THIS" on some thoughts on rey, then switches to make a six-point or so insight on the situation - again the kind of gear-switchin' that bothers me a bit

So from the rather consistent Golden voters, his own reasoning never reads strong or flexible (as in reviewing in depth his case) enough. Could be an unfortunate surf on a mislynch, but could be a bad surf just as well.

Devin is a lot simpler to process. His vote for Golden was turd. Because he's the main attention? Because he asked for a pass from undecided players? He even quoted Boomslang's own shady vote for Golden "asking to be lynched" and I have no idea what that quoting was supposed to mean. All his "reasons" are quotes by others. Bandwagoning with style, at least; like diving from a plane to land on a wagon. Besides, I don't remember anything significant from him, apart from being vocal about BWT being bad.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vote registered for Master of Shadows

yeah but which one from the poll is he? :P

Time is growing important, since we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place - he's been vigilent before, but so far he's not quick to draw the curtains; can this mean he's not content or approving with the main wagons and/or doesn't want to shortcircuit the EoD? Could be.

Between Sorsha and Bubbles, I felt the latter was more suspicious already from surveying the Golden case; in other words, as a main wagon today she also aligns better with my own suspicions. Her stances are all over the place and flippy galore. Sure, in thinking if this would make her bad, you could admit she has regular problems keeping up and sounding decisive. But there's something in her D3 activity that makes it sound different to me.

But first, a very quick rundown of her stances.

D1 - Golden seems genuine
D2 - I want to vote TH, but it would go to waste, so I'll focus on main wagons: what's the case on Bass? Golden doesn't seem like his normal self. what's the case on Bass? what's the case on Bass?
Golden seems to attract enmity because of his past games and simply get lynched early to take him away; I don't like this, but I have nothing on bass, so I might still vote Golden, because I want to stay within the wagon. what's the case on Bass?
voting Golden, don't want to vote bass and Golden doesn't seem to be his (civ) self
D3 - oh no, not Golden again! Don't want to vote him this time. "It feels like rejecting a friend". [keeps insisting on Golden posting a lot being the issue, which is so far from the reality]. voting rey to pursue golden's testimony

The impression her D3 stance/switch gives me is that of steering away from this lynch train, self-aware or not that her D2 vote was pure bandwagoning, either mirroring some other statements (Golden doesn't seem himself - translating into either a soft parrotting of SVS or the regular "I'm not seeing player X's civ play"), either reading the debate all superficial or plain wrong. How can she feel on D3 that she'd be 'rejecting a friend", if she just voted for him the previous day for, to paraphrase, not seeming the friend she knows as a civ? I also remember Golden clearly calling Bubbles shady out of all his voters (alongside rey), which further makes me feel her response is a backpedal to save appearances.

Sorsha's stances towards Golden, meanwhile, are the following:

D1 - I don't believe Golden, as a recruiter, would openly ask for advice or feign interest in such angles
D2 - If Golden baited a mafia team to dispose of Epi, why would the mafia take the bait in the first place instead of letting the spat go on? is it for painting Golden? is it for the WIFOM?
D3 - I don't think Golden is part of the team that killed Epi; I think that team meant to frame him; I believe some of them are also hounding him in the open

I'm reading most of this conventional, except for maybe her "why would mafia take the bait" part. It could be tin foiled, perhaps, as taking considerable distance from Golden's lynch, whilst throwing in conventional thinking as smokescreen (it's a frame up, we should look at those who hound him instead of elsewhere). I see Scotty brought up a much more damning angle than that. I'd label both angles, however, as a bit of a stretchy WIFOM at this point.

The suspicions I'm getting about her is that: 1) she didn't do anything to save Golden*; 2) she focused on mechanics that could have caused Epig's death or might frame Golden and such awareness could only stem from slipping as a baddie or as a player who caused a manipulation 3) she could be weaving WIFOM by addressing the mafia's (on killing Epig) and hunter's (on lynching Golden) actions head on. The first two, I think, belong to Wilgy, the latter was analysed by Scotty. These are good interpretations**, but I don't quite get the same vibe that she'd tangle herself as painting the painters or something of the sort.

*side-note to this: does Wilgy have any opinion on other players who also failed to save Golden (such as MP) or is Sorsha the only player you noticed?
**side-note to this: Scotty, you bring up Sorsha defending Golden in your ISO and I'm not sure if you mean to say you find it fake/forced defending, for appearances, or think she's bad for having defended Golden. Because, if the latter, how can you retroactively call a player bad for "defending" an unrecruited neutral lynchee? "Defending" is rather more used to suspect someone of defending confirmed baddies.

So I don't think either come clean out of such a scan, in fact they're quite interesting opposites. Bubbles is almost on the threshold of real sloppiness (bandwagoning, flip-flopping), whilst Sorsha proving to be bad for the reasons brought up would be closer to finesse (distancing, debating baddie motivations in everyone's face, invoking mechanics). It seems more tempting to verify a "what if" on Sorsha, but my feel is that the backpedal is clearer in Bubbles' case.

These are not the only players I intend to analyse from Golden's walkthrough, but given that I'm doubtful I'll manage to go through everyone until EoD and that a lockdown might happen at any time (although, again, the Judge seems cautious so far), casting my vote for Bubbles for now.

Looks like we('ll) have company.

Scotty wrote: Now go take a nap.

I went biking instead.

Ricochet wrote:Anyway, these are not interpretations of the actual context, but a list of the events and main ideas

Actually in fairness I should fine tune this statement a bit. They are meant to list the events and main ideas those players have brought in those posts, but the orange highlighted ones will sometimes include (either in brackets or in form of exclamation) some idea was to why I found them odd. I sometimes felt the need the add that, in order to keep track.

SVS's orange post is, however, not taken out of the context of that post, only compared to her case evolution.

I have no reasonable way to upload this kind of list into the thread, I will only break it into my own thoughts on it later on.

Did the hyperlinks in the document actually lead to the specific posts or the top of the page in which the post reside? Cause it's doing the latter for me, and if that's the case for everyone, fark, it's almost useless! I pray it's just my Excel being screwy (although the hyperlinks appear full and correct, so wtf), because it's being doing shit like this for the past weeks.

SVS, I assume you mean only the one post by you that I highlighted in orange is taken out of context or do you feel all of them are taken out of context? Anyway, these are not interpretations of the actual context, but a list of the events and main ideas, plus there happens to be hyperlinks providing context for certain important specific posts. As for the big picture (instead of specific posts), I remind that I highlighted in real time, so until I got to revisiting your D2 suspicions, I still had the feel about that post being contradictory with your hunt on Golden, at that early stage. That is not to say I do not understand the evolution of your suspicions.

I believe this post would be more representative of your change of view, although even here you state you are not unfamiliar or disapproving of the tactic itself that Golden used (in fact, you relate to it by having used it before, on the same player, for WIFOM purposes), yet it's the "bragging" part that got you so disconcerted.

MM already provided an update list of links to player's posts, I have it saved and anyone can do the same (or browse posts in a different way), but it's not working anymore on the front page, that was my point. Your "In Topic" choice is slightly more impractical (and slower) for me personally, but that's about it.

Ricochet wrote:
[This probably has to be downloaded and read in Excel properly, because I can't find a way to unscrew it in Drive visualisation]

Either that or open it in full on Drive, if it allows you to.

Aaaand time!

...oh my





That took like four...five...s- know what, let's just call it "afternoon".

I said I'll look into how things unfolded with Golden, case, hunters, voters, however undauting (boy is that an understatement) and so the monster above has been created. It will probably blind me a bit for this EoD in considering other leads or storylines, except if it'll align with players I'll deem suspicious out of this analysis. I'll try to catch up later with real time events and cases, too, but right now I almost feel the need to nap. This has also done nothing but to prove to me that I can't keep up with such activity without screwing up my RL schedule big time. Starting tomorrow, during the next three weeks or so, I will no longer choose these sort of big stats-making or reads over my PhD presentation and other duties.

Anyway, get your "didn't read lol" memes ready, cause here is

The story of Golden - A walkthrough

[This probably has to be downloaded and read in Excel properly, because I can't find a way to unscrew it in Drive visualisation]

It contains interactions between Golden and other players (related to the case on Golden) or stances, thoughts, reads, ideas by other players about Golden, the case on him, the entire situation, etc. If important details are still missing from this, apologies (from page 40 or so onwards, I resorted to just search "Golden" in the posts instead of re-reading the whole content).

Cells highlighted in orange-y are the posts that I deemed suspicious, pingey or questionable. I cannot fully revisit each right now to explain my thought process, because I highlighted them as I went through compiling this list, but I will pick some angles, suspicions out of this entire endeavour anyway so most of them should be addressed a bit later. I'm posting it now for others to (maybe) have something to work with, if they feel inclined to.

Also, the Hosts should look into the link to all player's posts on the front page, I think it got broken and only links to the front page itself. I'd also be a good idea to link to MM's updated hyperlinks, since Synonym joined.

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Ok, I'll treat it as very plausible, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, yes, there's a 50% chance Golden knows who survived the lynch if Thunder added votes and if Thunder did that in time for the early Day end. This would also be valuable info, given that the lynch survivor was probably Uzbargan or Jilted Lover (so 50% chance Golden may have known Uzbargan?).

The 50%, however, has to be lower, actually since a) the requirement to even begin projecting such odds was for both Golden and Thunder to have made their move in time, and b) if Golden picked in time, but Thunder took off votes, there's still no valuable info to result from that D1 lynch.

Based on

Golden wrote:I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder

I think we can safely assume Golden got his action in on time, why else mention it?

I'm off to bed, I really hope I won't wake up to another 10 pages or so

True, keyword was "both".

Ok, I'll treat it as very plausible, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, yes, there's a 50% chance Golden knows who survived the lynch if Thunder added votes and if Thunder did that in time for the early Day end. This would also be valuable info, given that the lynch survivor was probably Uzbargan or Jilted Lover (so 50% chance Golden may have known Uzbargan?).

The 50%, however, has to be lower, actually since a) the requirement to even begin projecting such odds was for both Golden and Thunder to have made their move in time, and b) if Golden picked in time, but Thunder took off votes, there's still no valuable info to result from that D1 lynch.

aapje wrote:The Wielder of Lightning and Lord of Thunder work together with their power. One of them picks who is targeted and the other picks the target. So the Wielder (Golden) picked player x while the Lord of Thunder decided to add or subtract 3 votes.

I assume the Lord of Thunder will now wield those powers alone, but the hosts wouldn't confirm that:

Long Con wrote:

aapje wrote:What happens to Thunder and Lightening if one of them dies? The other one cries. And the powers will change.

Definitely an interesting deduction - the "picks players" mix between the two would make sense, indeed - but was it confirmed anywhere? I checked your posts for asking about this and couldn't find anything, but I could be wrong.

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote: I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.

This posts is a lot more interesting now that we know Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. He would know with 50% certainty the player who survived the lynch, assuming Thunder picked +/- 3 in time before the day ended.

Err...?? You're talking about Lord of Thunder's vote manipulation, but Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. How would he be aware of Thunder's actions?

Because he picked the target for the vote manipulation

Black Rock wrote:Wielder of Lightning - Brotherhood of the Inner Eye

Position 1: Picks Player
Position 2: Picks Protect or Block
Position 3: Picks Player
Position 4: Picks Positive or Negative Boon
Position 5: Picks an element, if Thunder picks the same element they both use that element’s power

Lord of Thunder -Brotherhood of the Inner Eye

Position 1: Picks 3 minus or plus votes
Position 2: Picks Player
Position 3: Picks Alignment or Role Check (they both receive info)
Position 4: Picks Player
Position 5: Picks an element, if Lightning picks the same element they both use that element’s power

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote: I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.

This posts is a lot more interesting now that we know Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. He would know with 50% certainty the player who survived the lynch, assuming Thunder picked +/- 3 in time before the day ended.

Err...?? You're talking about Lord of Thunder's vote manipulation, but Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. How would he be aware of Thunder's actions?

aapje wrote:I hate you all right now. So many posts

Ricochet wrote:Catching up on the stats, for now

Team Azura recruited and Teams Caelia & Ahriman launched a contest D3, so, except a few of the night victims were recruits, I assume this is the standing right now, or?

Team Caelia - 4 players
Team Ahriman - 4 players
Team Ubzargan - 3 players...?
Team Azura - 4 players

How did you arrive at 4 Azura? My count has them at 3.

[/quote]

You're right. Post D0 + D3. Don't know why I thought I read a third action.

Boomslang wrote:Wait a minute, you know who's really flying under the radar? Russtifinko. Only 9 posts the entire game, and none after Day 1?! There are a few good points he makes that early, mostly about the need for neutrals to basically play civ unless otherwise recruited, but also some filler. The only vote he's justified so far has been for Timmer, and that because Timmer was an adjunct to the points MP had been making. What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Russ?

I imagine him saying "lol".

As do I.

:P

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Also, I don't think players can ever just come in and shout they've been forced to vote or do something; they can try to signal it, at least. So MP heavily denying to have been forced doesn't fully detract me from finding the other version to be a plausible signal or tactic in dealing with a forced vote. In fact, a pee fountain sort of signaling.

Is there really any precedent for players abjectly denying that they were forced to so something they didn't want to do when that is in fact the truth? Couldn't they just ignore those comments to allow the theories to survive instead of putting a concerted effort into eliminating them?

It's a thing of principle that you carry your cross, when you've been afflicted, and don't resort to admitting, even if the signs are clear or you signal it yourself.

The comments/theories started rolling as early as MP started acting that way, so at first I thought his denial was also part of his "whatcha talkin' about, silly people, I'm real, this is real, Golden must go down, yeeehaw" shtick. Afterwards, I can only assume he had no choice (no pun intended) but to reiterate his denial.

Again, how does MP being genuine in his crazy act make him look better? Sure, I'm not giving any verdict yet that he'd be as suicidal as jumping on a Golden wagon as a bad recruitee, with no prior reasoning, but I still wouldn't be able to call him "genuine" and well intent after such a performance. At best, I'd label him a neutral who did more harm than good by disorienting the game with such antics.

Roxy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Roxy wrote:I hope people today will act more reasonable. For me yesterdays lynch was rather disturbing and I do not understand some of the way over the top antics that are being employed during this game. It is distracting and for me very unhelpful.

I want to hunt baddies - there have been recruits and there are recruiters. I am done hearing about how Neutrals can be bad. I am sorry but Neutrals are Neutrals. How can you be a bad Neutral? Makes no sense.

If you would like to discuss possible recruiters/recruitees then quote this and list your top two suspects that you feel fit the bill.

If the first paragraph was mainly about MP, then my personal impression of it is that his vote was forced (you'll notice his vote stayed on Golden) and then he decided to go batshit about it in sign of protest instead of having to adopt a more conventional tactic. It wasn't elegant, but he would have been in a much tighter spot making a serious case against Golden after treating him as genuine the past phases. Azura (or the punisher?) must have clearly taken advantage of this.

I'll think of the angle you're suggesting as well, in addition to scanning Golden's voters, but right now I don't feel I have strong leads as to who would be a recruiter/recruitee/recruit material.

Why does it have to be someone that voted golden?

I am suprised you don't have any opinions on who has been recruited - you have opinions on everything else.

True, it doesn't have to be strictly related to voting Golden. I just meant MP's behaviour fits the profile, for me.

Also, I don't think players can ever just come in and shout they've been forced to vote or do something; they can try to signal it, at least. So MP heavily denying to have been forced doesn't fully detract me from finding the other version to be a plausible signal or tactic in dealing with a forced vote. In fact, a pee fountain sort of signaling.

What do you make of MP's D3, if you trust his version that it was all genuine?

And true, you don't have to tell me I'm not doing a great job so far.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Why have you been voting nutella since D3, Marsh? You've barely replied to her three times and never stated any suspicion.

Day 3 was for reasons. Day 4 is just a placeholder so I can see the poll.

Where were reasons, though?

Why have you been voting nutella since D3, Marsh? You've barely replied to her three times and never stated any suspicion.