The Syndicate

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

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

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

SVS does completely agree with you on this.

I think both of you are wrong.

But, once again, no several people were 'extremely confident'. I was never extremely confident. I called him my top town read on day ONE. At that point, he was literally the first person I felt good enough about to put a town read on. So stop making it out to be something it isn't.

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

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

Llama, I'm sorry - but you seem to be relying on the idea that if noone is called a civ by anyone, the baddies will just put up their hands and say 'guess I'll kill no-one'. Civs die in this game more or less every night, and with them go their role powers.

I'm not so arrogant as to assume my role power is the important one, no. And playing the game in a survivalist way when its a team victory will absolutely actively hurt the chances of the civs winning.

But, your attitude towards this doesn't even track into a survivalist game. If I should absolutely care about survival, then I should primarily care about the survival of the one person I know is a civ... me. In which case, if your theory is that I put the target on Fuzz... well, better him than me, eh? Because from my perspective, he might be bad and I'm definitely not. That's where your survivalist perspective gets me.

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

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.

OK, so now, to be clear, you have moved on from it being because a number of people called him civ to Fuzz dying specifically because I called him civ?

Fact: The only way you know why Fuzz died is if you are on the team that killed him.
Fact: You've so far said that Fuzz died because lots of people said he was civ, because I buddied him, and now because I alone called him civ.

If others cannot see what I am seeing - that you are driving a specific narrative to put suspicion on me... I don't know what else I can say.

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?
Yes to both. It was a time when I had an amazing role and played it to the best of my ability. I am proud of my performance in that.

The point being, there is a mentality to staying alive even if civilians win as a group.
I agree. If I have a powerful role, I will play the game in a way I think might keep me alive.

But, lets say in that game, I called someone else 'my top town read'. Lets say, Fuzz. If you are the one with the amazing role, is it now in the civs interests that I did that?
Given that set of data alone, no. However, a number of people will have expressed their opinions on who is good, just as they have here. Kill any one of those, and does your rationale still hold up?

The entire "somebody killed Fuzz because I said he was my top town read" is based on speculation. Unless you are Mafia, you don't know why Fuzz was killed. Two other people got killed at the same time. When I'm bad, I kill people for the whole gamut of reasons: He was putting his nose where it didn't belong, I thought he was on the other team, nobody would trace the kill back to me, my teammates like that option better than my suggestion, it'll mess with their heads, I literally pulled his name out of a hat, or maybe just because I owed the bastard one.

So I'm not entertaining this business about Fuzz getting killed because someone said he was good. Y'all can keep up with that if you want to. I'm going to do work.

Exactly. Well said epi.

HamburgerBoy wrote:So, re-reading llama's post history, particularly the day 3 stuff, the biggest issue I have isn't what he's saying as much as how he's staying on this one "target painting" issue, not to mention focusing just on golden rather than considering that many people were leaning town on Fuzz after the early day 0 stuff. llama is at least consistent though; he pressed the same suspicion of golden day 1 so it's not like he came up with this view only just now. I still find Dom's day 0 intention to vote for llama among the most suspicious things against the latter. I don't trust Dom in this game, and that early stuff looked like transparent distancing/soft-bussing to me. The other thing would be the word of Syndicate players that know what town llama looks like; FZ and golden both look fairly sure, I'm not too suspicious of either of them, and I also trust both quite a bit when it comes to their meta-game. llama isn't my top pick, but I feel keeping my vote here for now isn't a bad idea.

It also goes to show that llama was well aware of how he could play this out if he killed Fuzz. And, to my way of thinking, makes the way he has played today look even more disingenuous, given he played the start of the day as if he didn't know who had called Fuzz civ and had to go reread the thread to find out.

That's a good find, I'd forgotten that llama had ever said that stuff.

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?
Yes to both. It was a time when I had an amazing role and played it to the best of my ability. I am proud of my performance in that.

The point being, there is a mentality to staying alive even if civilians win as a group.

I agree. If I have a powerful role, I will play the game in a way I think might keep me alive.

But, lets say in that game, I called someone else 'my top town read'. Lets say, Fuzz. If you are the one with the amazing role, is it now in the civs interests that I did that?

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.

Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?

DharmaHelper wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?
Nope it was G-Man in Recruitment mafia

Not G-Man

I still owe G-Man a good turn for being Balaam to my Lot.

DharmaHelper wrote:Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?

Recruitment, and it was epi I was deliberately trying to set up. I don't actually know that me putting a target on epi actually had anything to do with the success, though, but I got lynched for admitting that it was what I was trying to do. I wouldn't say I got 'shafted', but I did get myself in a position where several people couldn't see any possible explanation for that except being bad.

Boomslang wrote:Can we get anything out of nijuukyugou, Spacedaisy, or Tranq? Doesn't it feel like at this point in the game we should be able to have some sort of read on any of them? Hasn't Tranq not claimed business as an excuse, opposed to the other two of them?

Tranq wrote:
sig wrote:The people voting for me are either lurkers who voted for the largest lynch wagon or people I've suspected or Mac who thinks he can read my scum game but can't.
Did i vote for the wrong player?
Does this feel kind of sarcastic/mocking to anyone else? Do we have anything else to go off of regarding Tranq?

Or possibly he was the victim of the Draconus curse on day two. Has anyone got it today?

Did that post answer your question to me, Sorsha?

Sorsha wrote:I'd rather have Fuzz alive.

OK, but say you are civ Sorsha... which you may well be.

Fuzz being alive might be you being dead. For all we know, your power is more important than Fuzz's power.

Besides that, Fuzz might not even be civ. You only have my gut feeling that he is to show for it. If the baddies kill him just because I say he is civ, then I'm dictating their kill targets for them. They might take out a baddie from the other team just as equally.

And if there is only one team... then they know everyone else is civ, so we are going to be losing a civ either way. If someone really is a consensus civ option, then they are just as likely to get the benefit of positive civ abilities as they are to get killed. It increases the likelihood of using civ abilities well.

Sorsha wrote:
Golden wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Sorsha wrote:@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?
This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?
I'm not sure what Goldens intent was but I think it's possible. And Fuzz is dead now.

Golden wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
motel room wrote:Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?
Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.
Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?
If I think someone is civ I don't try to draw attention to their civviness, no. At least I try not to... if someone is trying to drum up some suspicion on them then I'd speak up to defend, but not for no reason.
What about your answer to the first question? I've explained above why I think calling people civs is inherently to the civs advantage. Why do you see it as bad?
I already have... it makes them a target.

And this is bad because...

Sorsha wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Sorsha wrote:@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?
This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?
I'm not sure what Goldens intent was but I think it's possible. And Fuzz is dead now.

Golden wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
motel room wrote:Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?
Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.
Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?
If I think someone is civ I don't try to draw attention to their civviness, no. At least I try not to... if someone is trying to drum up some suspicion on them then I'd speak up to defend, but not for no reason.

What about your answer to the first question? I've explained above why I think calling people civs is inherently to the civs advantage. Why do you see it as bad?

Long Con wrote:I am a big fan of thinking through likely baddie behaviour scenarios and then watching to see whose behaviour matches my prediction. So, I understand your motivation in pursuing this on Llama... I feel like this is the part of the sentence where there's a "but", except I don't have anything to say on that front. I'll be very happy if this works out for you.

There was a game this year where the baddies seemed to be specifically targeting the players at the Civ end of rainbow lists. Perhaps the same baddies are involved. I don't remember which game, unfortunately.

I'll be honest, my suspicion of llama isn't just because he conformed to that.

It was my original ping and vote for that.

My suspicion now is because of some of the points I've made about the way he has built his posts and case in wake of that.

But... I will give him that my posts could read like buddying. Not because of calling Fuzz civ. Not because of agreeing with his perspective (because I didn't much). But just because I was complimentary of the fact that someone who I don't know at all was being a good contributor.

Also, it will be interesting if you remember what game. I bet it won't be anyone who actively does rainbow lists, because in doing them you quickly come to understand their usefulness and limitations and you don't get hung up on them. I think it is a very flawed way to run a mafia team, because people who will run rainbow lists also tend to be very happy to raise or drop people at will (My top town read today could well be the person I want to lynch tomorrow - I had no suspicion of llama or sorsha yesterday and right now they would be 1 and 2, on the other hand you are working your way off the bottom). It's very much a snapshot of how one is feeling in the moment. But, ultimately, if that became common here I'd start exploiting it and guiding mafia kills on to people I don't trust by sticking them at the top. If mafia let civilians control their kill targets, they are creating their own risks. When I'm an info role, I do often deliberately set out to put the mafia target on people whose identity I don't know, and keep it off those who I know are civ.

Long Con wrote:
Golden wrote:Well, the bits you have put in the quotation marks are exactly what I'd put in the blank.
Huh. Ok, then I guess we'll see. I do see that Sorsha is leaning toward just that possibility. Is she saying the same thing Llama is saying?

I'll go a step further, LC...

I think Fuzz was killed expressly by people who are anti rainbow lists and similar specifically to try to damage their credibility and usefulness. It's why I was waiting for someone to posit the theory that llama posited. Only about three people actually called Fuzz civ, and other than me I think the only place anyone else said it was... in a rainbow list. My exact thought at the moment Fuzz was killed, was that the only reason I could see to kill him was to specifically discredit those people. And then someone came along and proposed exactly that.

Long Con wrote:Llama is saying "buddying", and Sorsha is saying "intentional NK target". Pretty different accusations for the same thing. I just don't think Sorsha's is a thing.

I agree.

Honestly, this is kind of besides even this game or anything going on, but I guess its on topic.

The idea that a civ should not call out other people as civs just does not compute with me, no matter what angle you are coming from. I just can't even begin to fathom why anyone would genuinely hold this opinion.

The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.

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

I will try my utter hardest to get the civs the win this game. If that means I get lynched or NKed, then so be it... but I'll do it while doing my best to expose baddies, and to help the town figure out who the civilians are.

I have proven over and over in many games that I have no problem dying if it means getting the town over the line.

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

Llama's buddying case - that case against me has a lot more merit, objectively speaking. It's wrong, but at least it isn't trading in a mafia-friendly ideology. So at least if people see that side, I can see it as genuine. But people who suspect me for 'painting a target on his back' - Sorsha being the most recent - are getting

two big eyes from me because, as I said from when llama first raised that theory, the whole theory has no real merit.

Long Con wrote:
Golden wrote:Fair enough, LC.

At this point, llama has gone far past you in my order of suspicion. I could see a world in which the pair of you are teammates... but the impact of your statement, I agree, is not in your words, but only in the fact that it was support for llama's perspective at that time. And you make fair points about the nature of your post.

I'm arguing the point because I believe llama is bad, and I think the choice of Fuzz was deliberately to make me look responsible for putting a target on Fuzz's back. I'm arguing the point because I think I'm just as much a part of the mafia's intended plan of targetting as Fuzz was. I care about being seen as responsible insofar as llama is arguing this is an indicator that I am mafia. But I don't care about the fact of whether the actual behaviour was part of the mafias choice processes. I'd do the same thing again tomorrow. In fact, I did the same thing today (I said I'd use my vote to save JJJ) and I have no fear of either a) it causing JJJs nightkill tomorrow or b) if JJJ is nightkilled, being responsible. Anything you do or say in the game thread could make you or someone else the mafia target. You can't avoid it. All you can do is play the best game you can, as a civ, to unmask the baddies. When I read people as civ, thats what I'm doing.

If people want to see 'declaring someone as a civ read' as being poor judgment, that's up to them. I disagree on many levels. I think the town figuring out who other members of the town are makes a town win more likely. Most of the town wins I've been a part of, there have been so many civs that seem so townie or are so confirmed that the mafia simply cannot kill them all.
I don't think your subjective level of responsibility for Fuzz's nightkill has any bearing on your likelihood of being bad.

So, the idea here is that the baddies look at Golden's declaration of Fuzz as Civ, and they choose to kill Fuzz in order for __________ to happen to Golden as a result.

I don't know what the blank is being filled in as. I don't feel like "a lynch" or "extra suspicion" fits in that sentence. Help me out here, I think I'm failing to understand the issue.

Well, the bits you have put in the quotation marks are exactly what I'd put in the blank.

Sorsha wrote:
motel room wrote:Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?
Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?

Long Con wrote:
Golden wrote:
Long Con wrote:I agree. Someone being a trusted or proven Civ in the thread is extremely likely to be nightkilled in my experience.
I'm not going to win this fight.

Needless to say, I read both Long Con and llama as bad, and think their key intent here is to discredit.

Llama calls RadicalFuzz 'unlynchable' which is obviously extreme given I think about three players called him civ.
Long Con brings in 'proven civs' which Fuzz was obviously not, and calls them 'extremely likely' to be NKed, which is a clear exaggeration.

There are a whole lot of people who I would say right now are, overall, trusted civs. RadicalFuzz was one. I wasn't even saying he wasn't killed because of the conversation about him being a top civ... I just find it much more likely he was killed for it deliberately to put heat on those who said it and not merely because he was a top civ. And Long Con, I very much doubt even you could deny that the 'extremely likely' kill is going to be based on far more than such a simplistic and (in llamas words) 'obvious' explanation.
Read my post again. Am I stating my opinion, or am I attempting to discredit you?

You're allowed to be wrong about the amount a Mafia team would need to kill a trusted Civ. I don't think you lose any credit for having the opinion you do about that. I think there's some main reasons I have seen the Mafia choose to kill: kill a player who is after one of them, kill a trusted player that is unlikely to be lynched, kill a player who is known to be dangerously effective in hunting you, kill someone to frame another player. Off the top of my head, these are some common reasons for choosing who to kill; these are reasons I have seen come up over and over. And yes, killing someone who is perceived as a 'trusted Civ' in the thread is commonly a reason.

To me, it seems like you are arguing the point because you don't want to be seen as responsible for putting a target on RFuzz's back. Beyond some debatably poor judgement, I'm not accusing you of anything or trying to discredit your opinions or your reputation. You have a thing going with Llama here, but I haven't been part of that at all. I don't want to be dragged into it either. I don't think that it inherently looks suspicious for a player to declare someone a Civ in the thread like you did to Fuzz. I don't think that a baddie specifically calls someone a Civ in order to get them nightkilled - maybe that's a ploy I haven't seen yet, or realized when it was happening.

There is the possibility that you are Mafia and you were buddying with Fuzz. At this point, that's not even enough to put you on my suspicion list.

Fair enough, LC.

At this point, llama has gone far past you in my order of suspicion. I could see a world in which the pair of you are teammates... but the impact of your statement, I agree, is not in your words, but only in the fact that it was support for llama's perspective at that time. And you make fair points about the nature of your post.

I'm arguing the point because I believe llama is bad, and I think the choice of Fuzz was deliberately to make me look responsible for putting a target on Fuzz's back. I'm arguing the point because I think I'm just as much a part of the mafia's intended plan of targetting as Fuzz was. I care about being seen as responsible insofar as llama is arguing this is an indicator that I am mafia. But I don't care about the fact of whether the actual behaviour was part of the mafias choice processes. I'd do the same thing again tomorrow. In fact, I did the same thing today (I said I'd use my vote to save JJJ) and I have no fear of either a) it causing JJJs nightkill tomorrow or b) if JJJ is nightkilled, being responsible. Anything you do or say in the game thread could make you or someone else the mafia target. You can't avoid it. All you can do is play the best game you can, as a civ, to unmask the baddies. When I read people as civ, thats what I'm doing.

If people want to see 'declaring someone as a civ read' as being poor judgment, that's up to them. I disagree on many levels. I think the town figuring out who other members of the town are makes a town win more likely. Most of the town wins I've been a part of, there have been so many civs that seem so townie or are so confirmed that the mafia simply cannot kill them all.

Ricochet wrote:
Golden wrote:Llama, I went back to loo if I'd been misunderstanding you all along and you hadn't equated the two.
Why do you need to hide in the bathroom when playing Mafia?

I was hoping no-one would notice that typo

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

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

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

thellama73 wrote:It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.

Just a demonstration that although llama has now got a developed case that see the two as separate, there are legitimate reasons for me not seeing it this way, given that earlier on in his case he did use the two interchangeably.

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

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

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: Want to address anything I HAVE accused you of? Like switching between the two depending on what suits you to make the point that you think makes me look worst?
See above. YOu seem to think it's impossible to suspect a person for two reasons, even when those reasons are related.

No.

Here is the thing llama...

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

That is what I'm saying you just did.

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

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

thellama73 wrote:You're very confused, Golden, and I'm worried you will confuse others. I'm also bored of this same argument, so let me try to make my point clear here.

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

1) Lucky I didn't do it 'over and over again' then, eh?
2) I've made my defence to that.
3) I myself am a civ, but this bit is very important. NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.

People call people civs all the time. The whole game is based on a mix of reads.

If the mafia go 'oh, golden called someone a civ, therefore he must die' then honestly, that mafia is stupid.

Llama - I believe, and have believed from the start, that this entire thing (including Fuzz's death) is a very intentional character assassination against the whole idea of calling people civs.

But I'll keep doing it as long as I play mafia, and no-one telling me that I'm responsible for their death is going to make it true. Because it's just bullsuit.

(I have accused you of that. It's just really not the main point, and you keep focussing on that at the exclusion of all my other points)

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

I suppose it's lucky I haven't accused you of that.

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

Juliet, for your benefit

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

Llama is retconning this to make it look like he was talking about buddying, but he wasn't. He was saying that calling someone a civ puts a target on his back. He also understood that was the point I was making, as seen in this response:

thellama73 wrote:Um, I was asked. Do you want me to ignore the question? That's completely different than volunteering "Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!"

To now make out like I was comparing the concept of buddying with saying someone is a civ is disingenuous. I'm the one who has spent the whole game saying the two are different.

thellama73 wrote:He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

No I didn't 'repeatedly' go 'out of my way' to heap 'glowing praise' on Fuzz's civvieness. I had a conversation with Fuzz, mostly to disagree with his ideas by the way, because he was saying things I didn't agree with, and over the course of that conversation questions were asked which I responded to (not just from Fuzz) and reactions were given which I addressed.

I engaged him in conversation, and then at the end I was honest about my conclusions. He said he felt my read was artificial, and people asked me questions about why I had it, and I responded with the reasons I found him to be civ. After the point that I gave those reasons, neither Fuzz nor anyone else continued to claim that it felt artificial until you have now, and I did not after that point 'repeatedly' make claims about Fuzz's civvieness.

It was all part of a single conversation, in which I responded to questions and addressed Fuzz's concerns with me. I'll ask you again - would you prefer I just ignored the questions and ignored Fuzz's concerns?

In summary, if you want to call saying someone is my 'top town read' 'glowing praise', then ok, I'll cop to doing that... once.

But I neither did it repeatedly nor went out of my way to do it.

In addition, llama:

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

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

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

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.
YO8ur inexperience is not my fault. I've been part of such teams and I've hosted such teams. If a player is unlynchable due to being widely trusted, they make a good target for a mafia kill.

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

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

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

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote:
FZ. wrote:llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?
As far as I can glean, he voted me for calling Fuzz my top civilian read, before Fuzz was nked.
It's more complicated than that. At the time, you didn't really have a good reason to think Fuzz was good, but made a very strong claim about it anyway. Then you doubled down on it. It just came across as extreme and unnecessary. Plus all the stuff I mentioned above.

On day one, I already had four different things I considered civilian tells, all of which I said.

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

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?
It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.
3. The way he was lying in wait to pounce on anyone who made the argument I made (seems pretty contrived)
4. The way he has been misrepresenting me since then (saying I went after JJ when I never did).

He's got it in for me, and I'm not sure why, but I do not interpret his actions as those of a civ at this time.

I don't have it in for you, as such. I feel LC is a more compelling lynch.

But - if you want to know why I suspect llama, here is the answer in a handy dandy response to Llamas 4 points:

1. Llama claims calling someone civ is buddying. You can judge for yourself whether you think calling someone civ is buddying. Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.
2. Unless llama killed Fuzz, he has no idea why Fuzz was killed. He is trying to push an angle on that.
3. Fuzz dies, and then llama says he was 'obviously' killed for having been called a top town read, and that the people who CALLED him their top town reads were therefore suspicious. Which, as I've pointed out, is full of logical fallacy (its chicken and egg. If Fuzz was killed for being a top town read, then why would he be killed for being apparently unlynchable by the people calling him a top town read? If the mafia were the ones calling him a civ, then they wouldn't be worried about the fact he had people calling him civ) but, to me, also sits with a common mafia strategy... make a kill with a plan on how you can pin that kill on others afterwards, and then execute the plan. And llama has admitted the logical fallacy, but continued to say I'm probably bad for it anyway.
4. Llama was having disagreements with JJ in the thread. They looked to me like he was reading JJ as bad. He clarified since that he wasn't, and I accepted that. This is hardly 'misrepresenting him since then'... its being incorrect once and admitting it.

And I also have another point to make on point number 2, but I'll do it in a separate post.

FZ. wrote:llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

As far as I can glean, he voted me for calling Fuzz my top civilian read, before Fuzz was nked.

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: Exactly JJ. This is what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that RadicalFuzz 'couldn't be lynched' is kind of silly anyway. He was taking heat on day zero. I call him my top civ read and suddenly a whole lot of people bandwagon on to that on their rainbows, but beyond me I never saw anyone give reasons for seeing him as civ.

And, as per the point I've been making all game.

SAYING YOU READ SOMEONE AS CIV IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BUDDYING. To claim it is, is utterly disingenuous. Llama just called JJ civ, does that mean (since he says that only mafia people buddy) that I should call llama confirmed mafia, because only mafia buddy? Because, thats where llamas logic takes you.

And it is actually ridiculous to suggest people should not say they read people as civ. If we took this approach, the town would literally never win the game.
Um, I was asked. Do you want me to ignore the question? That's completely different than volunteering "Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!"

Why is it completely different? If you ask everyone how they read someone, and they all say civ, does it not paint a target?

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

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.

Your inexperience is not my fault. I've been part of such teams and I've hosted such teams. If a player is unlynchable due to being widely trusted, they make a good target for a mafia kill.
I agree. Someone being a trusted or proven Civ in the thread is extremely likely to be nightkilled in my experience.

I'm not going to win this fight.

Needless to say, I read both Long Con and llama as bad, and think their key intent here is to discredit.

Llama calls RadicalFuzz 'unlynchable' which is obviously extreme given I think about three players called him civ.
Long Con brings in 'proven civs' which Fuzz was obviously not, and calls them 'extremely likely' to be NKed, which is a clear exaggeration.

There are a whole lot of people who I would say right now are, overall, trusted civs. RadicalFuzz was one. I wasn't even saying he wasn't killed because of the conversation about him being a top civ... I just find it much more likely he was killed for it deliberately to put heat on those who said it and not merely because he was a top civ. And Long Con, I very much doubt even you could deny that the 'extremely likely' kill is going to be based on far more than such a simplistic and (in llamas words) 'obvious' explanation.

Llama's theory as to why Fuzz died makes him look like he was following through on the specific mafia agenda of the kill, to me.

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote:Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.
When did I go after JJ?

My impression. You have now cleared this up.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Now, would it make sense for you to kill Fuzz after this? Probably not, but if there are multiple killers as there appear to be after last night, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them.
How do these three sentences make sense together? If it "probably wouldn't" make sense for Golden to kill the object of his proposed malevolent buddying, then why wouldn't it surprise you if he was one of the killers (Fuzz being among the dead)?

Exactly JJ. This is what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that RadicalFuzz 'couldn't be lynched' is kind of silly anyway. He was taking heat on day zero. I call him my top civ read and suddenly a whole lot of people bandwagon on to that on their rainbows, but beyond me I never saw anyone give reasons for seeing him as civ.

And, as per the point I've been making all game.

SAYING YOU READ SOMEONE AS CIV IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BUDDYING. To claim it is, is utterly disingenuous. Llama just called JJ civ, does that mean (since he says that only mafia people buddy) that I should call llama confirmed mafia, because only mafia buddy? Because, thats where llamas logic takes you.

And it is actually ridiculous to suggest people should not say they read people as civ. If we took this approach, the town would literally never win the game.

Dom is always expressive of his emotions, civ or bad, and the bea thing could easily be genuine. That aspect was not really what pinged me about dom when I first read that exchange (it was previous content). The second read through that exchange something about it felt off. Can't put my finger on exactly what, though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:Actually, my ping on dom is a lot higher than that now. I just reread his interaction with JJJ and it is bad. Really bad. The guilt trips like 'that seems like a shot at bea' and criticising JJJ for doing what he has to to explain the difference in his post count. Ugh. It feels like a trap he is putting JJJ into.
I honestly read Dom in the town direction because of that. I don't know him as well as you do perhaps, but I don't know if he's the kind of person that'd go below the belt like that just to help get me lynched. I get the impression he really felt the way he claimed he felt.

I agree with you about LC and llama though. I agree with FZ about DH.

I don't read dom well at all. He fits in that category (like juliets) of people that knowing them for a long time and playing with them a lot hasn't made me read them any better.

Actually, my ping on dom is a lot higher than that now. I just reread his interaction with JJJ and it is bad. Really bad. The guilt trips like 'that seems like a shot at bea' and criticising JJJ for doing what he has to to explain the difference in his post count. Ugh. It feels like a trap he is putting JJJ into.

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

Besides that, the case is a crock.

Long Con's case is around JJ's thing about llama. But JJ clarified that as soon as he was out of cursing, and what more was he supposed to do beyond the simplistic while cursed? In addition, the theory was good - he theorised llama didn't respond to his case effectively because he knew Jay would be cursed and so it wasn't an urgent priority. As far as day one theories go, it's as good as any.

JJ has claimed he won't be able to post as much (and he isn't posting as much) but the truth is that he has still contributed and the posts have had content.

I will use my vote to save JJ if I have to.

This is the line I like the least:

Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Like... I'm not convinced my theory is impossible, therefore I still think you are bad.

????

My strong preference is a lynch for Long Con, who I think has been pingworthy in just about everything he has done the entire game.

Matt wrote:

Golden, as you know, I was quite involved in another game here at TS, as well as the fact that this game was bombarded with lunacy (and lots and lots of posts to go along with it) until Rico was lynched. Today was my first of three days off in a row, and I finally caught up. You will be seeing a lot more of me from here on out.

I slightly town read you because you've been quieter. I know people can switch it up at any affiliation, but at this specific moment in your mafia career I think its more likely you would have aimed to live up to the perception of civ Matt. Quieter is Matt is different Matt. It's not a particular strong town read, but it's my starting point on you for now.

I'm looking forward to hearing your epi reasons, when you are at a point you feel you can give them. How do you feel about llama? LC? JJ? Wilgy?

Matt wrote:And your thoughts on Epi, Golden?

I'm feeling relatively good about epi at the moment, although its also accurate to say I can't really think of much he has done other than suspect LoRab. I don't know if that has been because he is off my radar and I'm not really noticing or if its because he hasn't really done much other than that.

A couple of times, though, I think good questions have been asked of epi and from my perspective his answers have passed muster.

A question for you, Matt. Why are you less involved and vocal in this particular game than you normally would be. I don't really know much you stand for either, although you suspect MM, right?

I think what it boils down to is this... when I think people do a good job and acquit themselves well, I'll say it.

Regardless of what sig's affiliation ended out being, I felt he did what he could do to convince me otherwise. He couldn't have done any more. I just still thought he was bad. He deserved to know that before being lynched.

Matt wrote:I dunno, that post of yours I quoted sounded basically like "Yo sig, great defense. I think you could be alright. But hey, gonna keep my vote where it is, k champ?" I'm hesitant to ever vote for sig early ever again really, and I was surprised to see you were one of the peeps leading the charge on him.

What's your read of Epignosis?

Its silly to be hesitant to vote for someone early ever again. You vote for who you think is bad. I defend sig when I think the case on him is bollocks and trumped up. Sig was not getting caught in apparent (but really not actual) scumslips. Plus, don't forget... I was calling him out as bad in Dune. I was calling him good in Reborn. I was calling him bad in Broadway. My reads on sig have generally been pretty good.

But yeah, he created doubt, for me. Enough doubt that I went back and read again and confirmed that I really felt that it was the right call.

PS, I had no vote yesterday to either put on sig or move somewhere else. If I did, I would have handled all of my suspicion yesterday very differently.

Ps Matt, search your feelings, you know it is true (that I express multiple sides of conflicted emotions when civ). Trying to compare one sig lynch to another sig lynch in different circumstances is hardly using your full knowledge of my meta.

Matt wrote:Linki - I'll have to go check Dune then, Golden, I swore you didn't want to lynch him.

I didn't want to lynch him like that. But I was also the one saying that the fact we were all forced to vote him didn't make him civ (a conclusion that many others jumped to).

And anyway, I don't really understand where your analogy is coming from, in that no-one was forced to vote sig yesterday, so I'm not sure why you'd expect me to be particularly negative about his lynch situation. I was one of the driving thread forces speaking to the fact I thought sig's behaviour was bad. Saying he'd created doubt in my mind was the truth, but I don't tend to be redirected by doubt, because I regret second guessing my correct reads a lot more than I regret getting a read wrong.

Black Rock wrote:
MacDougall wrote:BR I don't remember you being so committed in the previous games we played together. You on holidays or something?

I've been busy since June, January - April are my quiet months. I've been a pretty crappy player as of late. I joined this game promising myself I would get back to the true Mafia BR! At least for a game. There is folklore that surrounds that Black Rock that I feel I haven't been living up to. I once was so committed to Mafia that I even voted while in labour for my second born child?

Linki: ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

I'll say, this game is the BR I remember from good old RM days.

And it makes me trust you, because its the civ BR I remember.

Matt wrote:Caught up...

Golden wrote:@sig - I think you've defended well and defended all the cases. You've done enough to give me doubt. I'm by no means certain about you.

But you've also done enough to make me feel comfortable about voting your way, I feel good about it. But when people (including me) defend you for 'just being sig'... well, that shouldn't be dismissed. There is genuinely something to you getting lynched for nothing. In this case I just don't feel it is nothing.

I guess we will see.
Lol. Golden's obvi bad. Even when Golden was forced to vote for sig in Dune where sig was bad and Golden was civ, Golden was like "Sorry sig I don't wanna do this" or something to that effect. I think an iso of Golden is in order!

You just pretty much demonstrated how my civ game in Dune, where by the way I thought sig was bad, is exactly the same as the game I'm playing here. I tend to express the various sides of my conflicted emotions when civ.

DharmaHelper wrote:Oi real quick before I clock out tonight, Anybody wanna talk about why the fuck the thread says "Day 3.0" and not "Day 3"

LC and HB do.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Golden wrote:HB, you felt that sig might have stopped a kill on night one, and said something about evidence pointing that way. Can you be more specific about what you were referring to?
It was Turnip's "At least there was only one death!" shortly followed by DFaraday's death, which seemed like a nod that the latter was for some unrelated reason. Additionally, if there's only one mafia team, it would imply that the intended mafia kill was blocked unless Zebra was forced to shoot herself or something like that.

Oh, I just took that as evil host being evil because he knew DFs death was about to be posted by SVS.

Search found 353 matches