The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:feeling like carp.

This is fishy.

Get well soon, rico.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:Why do you feel good about LoRab?

Because I feel bad about Black Rock and Sorsha, I disagree with the significance of the cases against her (from them and Epi), and I think she's the easiest-button counterlynch and that it built so easily today shows it.

This difference in perspective makes a lot of sense.

I have pretty much complete faith in BR's LoRab read, and read BR as more civ than I've read her in years. She is playing so much the BR I remember from my old RM days. BR is the main reason I'm willing to vote LoRab.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:No. If that is how you'd expressed it, then no, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. You didn't express it that way, though... I would call you a very vocal voice in getting JJJ lynched regardless of what other options were on the table.

But, people are calling, for example, FZ suspicious when she was completely open and up front that her vote was a direct comparative vote (for suspicious of LoRab than JJJ).

So is mine... I was looking for a target of one person, any person, who I suspected was bad who I could actually get lynched instead of someone I strongly believe is town. JJJ is, in fact, my strongest town read

I think the wagon on JJJ is the one that is wack. The person I'm most amazed about is, in some ways, Mac... who, if you recall, was preaching on day zero about how amazing his initial instincts are, and how bad LoRab was, but isn't voting for her right now.

Please re-read my day 3 history again. My first post to even name Jimmy explicitly said I was leaning against lynching him, and I voted for llama. I even posted a justification for voting llama that you said you missed and agreed with. I wanted to wait and see where a town Jimmy would decide to place his case; the one on Boomslang was not what I was looking for, in terms of justification (the effort was still 100% there of course).

Mac joining my side does have me suspicious, especially since he OMGUS'd me day 2 for my Jimmy suspicion. I don't trust him, but I don't mind having him on my side this vote.

I'm aware of the history. It's part of the reason I was surprised at how vocally against Jimmy you've been in this end day. Like I say, I would have completely understood your perspective if it had been framed more comparatively.

Why do you feel good about LoRab?

linki @ Mac - maybe...

It's ironic, Mac, because for me your night zero ping on LoRab is still one relevant factor as to why I'm willing to vote her. Your instincts in that setting have often been good.

Ricochet wrote:But again, I don't care about vouches that a 0-post 0-reasoned vote is "standard", "typical", "to be expected", "in need of time", "intentionally ambiguous".

Perhaps you should.

But in any event, I don't care what shade you throw at Tranq. I care only about the use of the word 'unacceptable' to describe someone in the game of mafia, and I'm asking you and everyone to refrain from it. That's all I'm asking.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I mean, golden, if you had only started a bandwagon against Sorsha instead I would have been cool with that. You can't seriously look at my history and be surprised that I would vote Jimmy over LoRab.

No. If that is how you'd expressed it, then no, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. You didn't express it that way, though... I would call you a very vocal voice in getting JJJ lynched regardless of what other options were on the table.

But, people are calling, for example, FZ suspicious when she was completely open and up front that her vote was a direct comparative vote (for suspicious of LoRab than JJJ).

So is mine... I was looking for a target of one person, any person, who I suspected was bad who I could actually get lynched instead of someone I strongly believe is town. JJJ is, in fact, my strongest town read

I think the wagon on JJJ is the one that is wack. The person I'm most amazed about is, in some ways, Mac... who, if you recall, was preaching on day zero about how amazing his initial instincts are, and how bad LoRab was, but isn't voting for her right now.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:You don't seem to grasp that the essence of what I've been saying is counter-productiveness of civs pulling scummy moves.

I wish civs didn't play like scum too, but I've been fighting this fight ALL GAME and people who disagree just disagree.

But, thats different from calling someone elses game unacceptable.

I think JJ is going down, and I think that his voters are making a massive error. If he is lynched and comes back civ, I'll be putting a vote on HB as soon as the next day begins.

If JJ is actually bad, I've been bamboozled. I just don't think I have.

@Mac - if he just voted llama, the three of you might not be throwing your toys out of the pram at all.

"Calling someone else's game unacceptable".

No, the vote move is. I can criticise someone's vote move all I want, it's called mafia. Doesn't mean I attacked his entire game.

Rico, I'll ask that you don't describe anyone else's anything as unacceptable, ever. You don't actually get to decide their game style.

Recent games have had several mod interactions because of language like this, and its getting old. We can tell others they are suspicious because of things, we can suspect them all we want.

We can't tell them what is and is not an acceptable way to play the game.

Ricochet wrote:You don't seem to grasp that the essence of what I've been saying is counter-productiveness of civs pulling scummy moves.

I wish civs didn't play like scum too, but I've been fighting this fight ALL GAME and people who disagree just disagree.

But, thats different from calling someone elses game unacceptable.

I think JJ is going down, and I think that his voters are making a massive error. If he is lynched and comes back civ, I'll be putting a vote on HB as soon as the next day begins.

If JJ is actually bad, I've been bamboozled. I just don't think I have.

@Mac - if he just voted llama, the three of you might not be throwing your toys out of the pram at all.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:And epi has provided decent reason for being suspected, which is exactly why I say 'this is like tranqs standard game'. Tranq plays ambiguous deliberately at all times.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of JJJ's games since I've played probably 50 mafia games with the guy. I am not seeing civilian JJJ here. His cases have lacked fire, his reactions to my pressuring him have been unusually aggressive and he walked away without leaving a legacy. I'm not seeing civilian JJJ.

I was talking about tranq in that quote.

If you are right about JJ, and he did that shift away from llama when he could have just voted llama... well, kudos to Jay for fooling me. I'd call that move, as a baddie, stupid and pointless. But I guess it would have fooled me.

But I'll be astonished if that is correct.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Not posting = not playing tho, and based on seeing Tranq both as a townie and a recruited scum, I can't imagine this is normal for him.

I don't think he was recruited in WR.

And epi has provided decent reason for being suspected, which is exactly why I say 'this is like tranqs standard game'. Tranq plays ambiguous deliberately at all times.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:
I also don't think Tranq is scum. This is pretty standard Tranq.

I don't care if he flips as the Pope. It's unacceptable. If you're a civ, don't do shit like that, guaranteed to get you suspected. If he is silenced, it'd be the first instance I recall of this total silencing, and there are multiple ways to try signaling this.

LET ME POOOST

I don't care for anyone calling anyone elses game 'unacceptable' as a civ game.

This kind of attitude has been around here enough in recent times. It's driving people away. It's time for it to stop.

Every civ is entitled to play the game their own way.

DharmaHelper wrote:What kind of fuckboy wagon is this?

Which one?

Because honestly, I'd agree with you that the JJ wagon is.

HamburgerBoy wrote:In fairness Jimmy's vote for self-preservation is obvious, and FZ at least seemed favorable towards Jimmy prior to the LoRab rush. If Jimmy is scum, though, I think it means FZ was definitely a partner and distancing herself from the Boomslang thing just a little bit, maybe because they thought Boomslang's lynch was going to happen and come back town. Tranq is super massive scum though if he isn't silenced.

I agree that if JJ is scum, FZ is quite possibly a teammate.

I think it much more likely JJ isn't scum, though.

I also don't think Tranq is scum. This is pretty standard Tranq.

"Super safe" - what do you mean by this? That he posted less than usual? But he said he was going to all along...
"Aggressive JJ" I've seen JJ get like this when suspected for crap reasons as a civ. I haven't seen it from him when bad.

But, HB, come back to the main point which you keep missing...

WHY WOULDNT HE JUST VOTE LLAMA? There is no bad reason under the sun that I can possibly imagine for him to go after Boomslang and declare that he felt llama looked genuine in his fight with me.

If JJ is mafia, he'd have to be a pretty daft one. He risked his own life to start a new bandwagon on someone he didn't know if he could lynch, when someone else he had previously claimed to suspect and he could have voted for in self-defence would have been perfectly understandable and not suspicious at all.

@Mac - I won't speak for myself, because I was having the conversation with FZ and JJ in the thread at the time.

Why did he need to toss up Boomslang as a 'desperate counterwagon'????

Why not just vote llama....

HamburgerBoy wrote:But you specifically said you wouldn't vote for Jay, and Jay said he was cool with a LoRab lynch (I think he had her low on his rainbow too), so the outcome should have been obvious. And Sorsha is one of my least townie reads this game, so that doesn't make me feel any better.

The outcome was obvious. It's why I voted LoRab. You think I voted her thinking that the votes wouldn't come in behind me?

I voted LoRab because I feel sure it was the best bet to see Jay survive.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:If JJ is lynched and comes back civ, I'm holding HB and Mac responsible.

If Lorab gets lynched and comes back civ I am holding you responsible.

If you can't see that Lorab getting 6 votes in record time one after another is fucked in all the wrong ways you are confirmed scum and we should CFD you. You fucking know better.

Fair cop. If LoRab is lynched, I think I am mostly responsible.

I'm doing it mostly because I think the case on JJ holds no merit at all and I have no idea how he is one of the two people even in the frame.

But its hardly 6 votes in record time. People were discussing and agreeing a mutual target in the thread, and then those people all voted that way. It's not hard to follow. Making it out like its everyone just driving by is highly suspect, in my view.

If JJ is lynched and comes back civ, I'm holding HB and Mac responsible.

MacDougall wrote:The fact that Golden, Llama and JJJ all now have their votes on Lorab is absolutely fucked in my view. After what went down today it's completely bullshit.

Heaven forbid that I should be able to both suspect llama and have a suspect in common with him at the same time.

HamburgerBoy wrote: Matt and Draco haven't changed their votes yet, so it's premature to say it failed. In any case, I think an appeal to the middle-ground against someone like LoRab is the easy way to go to move things in a new direction.

But Jay didn't shift it to LoRab. Sorsha and I did.

And Matt and Draco are on llama, not Boomslang. I said the push to lynch boomslang failed.

And you still haven't really provided any answer to the fundamental question, which is why JJ wouldn't just look to lynch llama? Why change his opinion on llama in the heat of me coming in with a completely separate case? For me, that is probably about the biggest civ tell you could get...

I mean, baddies set up their suspicions, and then they look good when they stay on target and get them lynched. JJ switched target when voting llama could have been what saved his life.

I really don't get it. I was feigning a greater confidence in JJ than what I had before that, but that choice alone seems overwhelmingly civilian-minded to me.

@Sorsha - no, your suspicion of me has literally zero to do with it. When I engaged with you yesterday, you satisfied me pretty well on that point.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Dem switcheroos.

LoRab just received four votes in the last 10 minutes.

Pretty disgusting counter-wagon, isn't it? Just when things were getting interesting, it's right back to the same ole.

You think that isn't interesting?

HamburgerBoy wrote:Voting Jimmy now.

re: golden, people on the llama bandwagon are generally going to be those more won over by Jay than llama; in effect, he's just re-consolidating an old power base with a new target.

That really doesn't answer the reason why Jay would shift from suspecting llama to going after Boomslang.

Jay didn't consolidate anyone around boomslang. It failed.

If Jay was bad, he had literally no reason to shift from suspecting llama, to start seeing him as good. He could have continued to consolidate his 'old power base' around llama and make sure he himself didn't get lynched.

I don't follow your logic at all. I want to understand your vote for Jay but I don't.

@sorsha - on a gut based level, you feel like the sorsha I trusted in world reborn, yes.

Sorsha wrote:

Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.

So because I suspect you (weakly) for a reason you don't agree with?

Not really. Just that I'm not really getting a civ Sorsha vibe this game.

Of course, I'm not exactly known as being good at reading you.

Not so much that Boomslang is civ... just that in review I'm not sure I see enough that I, personally, would vote for him today. I'd probably have him at a very mild anti-town read. His sig vote does stand out, for example.

But I just switched my vote to LoRab.

@HB - But why should he weaken the llama bandwagon?

I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.

And in fact, your theoretical is pretty much how he has handled it.

Instead of saying 'what do you think of X' he just says 'do you think x could be bad'.

FZ. wrote:

Golden wrote:

FZ. wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I just realised - Boomslang currently has the curse Draconus had on day one.

I hadn't noticed this either. Good eye.

I'm willing to bet the question-curser is on a separate mafia team to Zebra's. Unless Boom was cursed by a team mate (here we go again), that'd be a tick in his favor at least for one side.

Boomslang was being talked about and suspected. He had more to gain than you in terms of using the curse on himself if he's on that team. And again, what is the curse?

Speaking only in yes/no questions.

You can still say whatever you want with a curse like that, can't you? So the curse shouldn't stop him from speaking his mind.

Theoretically, one can say, "Don't you think X and Y?" or stuff like that.

I wasn't intending to imply that I thought the curse should prevent him being lynched. Just stating a fact.

FZ. wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:I just realised - Boomslang currently has the curse Draconus had on day one.

I hadn't noticed this either. Good eye.

I'm willing to bet the question-curser is on a separate mafia team to Zebra's. Unless Boom was cursed by a team mate (here we go again), that'd be a tick in his favor at least for one side.

Boomslang was being talked about and suspected. He had more to gain than you in terms of using the curse on himself if he's on that team. And again, what is the curse?

Speaking only in yes/no questions.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Jimmy how come every time I interact with you to put pressure on you you react like a scolded dog?

I'm sorry, I shouldn't lash out like that. Forgive me. It's just frustrating to be held to the "massive legacy post/make posts from bathroom stalls/be a lunatic" standard all the time.

MacDougall wrote:That is obviously the question, why wouldn't you just put the foot down on Llama's throat. Why haven't you? Was your previous suspicion of him disingenuous?

I've talked about that in the thread recently, just have a look.

Hey, JJ, I don't intend to hold you to any standard about legacy posts or posting a lot or posting from bathroom stalls

But from now on I intend to hold you to the standard of being a lunatic, ok?

@JJ - ninjad you

MacDougall wrote:I actually can see where HB is coming from. Plucking Boomslang's name out and making him the counterwagon makes me feel like you've done it quite deliberately because you know that there has been suspicion on him from other players so he's a very good chance to be counterwagoned.

Boomslang and I have been at odds in this game and my feeling is hard to put aside but I can't deny what I am seeing.

And you're going to sleep on a day where you are looking like a good chance to get lynched and you haven't left us with a legacy post either which is totally unlike you. You've picked a candidate to hang your counterwagon on and expect it will work. That doesn't sound like the actions of a civilian JJJ.

But JJ already had suspicion of llama. Why ignore the viable counterwagon that already exists and completely be consistent with JJJ's stated suspicions, instead turning it around in a completely different direction which risks his own lynch more?

I'm not sure I follow that logic from a baddie mindset.

To be more specific - I had the impression the boomslang was being blendy and not really doing much but agreeing with other people... but in iso, he has actually contributed a number of original thoughts.

I just isoed boomslang and, honestly, I don't see as much there as I felt like there was. I think my suspicion of boomslang might be residual from being fooled before.

I just realised - Boomslang currently has the curse Draconus had on day one.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have to go to sleep soon. The discussion has moved nicely but the tally remains particularly gross. If I get lynched that'll be two town lynches in a row for me, and that's not how JJJ plays ball.

I'm willing to shift to boomslang, but I'm not going to shift my vote if it puts you in jeopardy of a lynch.

There is two ways this could be, in my mind.

1) Llama really does see my behaviour towards Fuzz as odd. He forgot that he had called it out on day one, and so when he came out with the case that 'he needed to look back at who was calling Fuzz civ', he had genuinely forgotten that he had already called me out on that. Then he remembered he found that suspicious when he went back and looked. Yes llama, I can see this as possible. My mind isn't made up.

2) Llama remembered full well, killed Fuzz, and did it knowing full well he'd set up the thread for me to be his lynch target the next day.

@llama - I'll point out that fuzz and I (and you, whats more) had a discussion at the time where I addressed fuzz's concerns.

I can't quibble with you posting a list of posts which fairly represent the evolution of my read on fuzz and explain pretty clearly from the first post to the last a consistent set of reasons for reading him as civ.

I have even admitted multiple times that, at least, the 'buddying' side of your case has some merit.

You see, I don't see you as bad for that side of things at all. BUT

All of those posts came in day zero and the first half of day one. That was the context of developing that read. To say it is 'very confident' in that context... how confident is anyone of any read that early in the game?

I also said these things about fuzz on day one.
I'd also add that I mentioned Fuzz exactly once in all of night one, day two and night two, and that one time was my rainbow list in which I named every player.

And yes people, that second quote I posted was from day one. You'd think it was from day three, when llama and I have been spatting, but llama had already once accused me of buddying fuzz on day one.

You still haven't actually answered number 3. All I did with Fuzz was call him, once, my top town read... and after that all I did was respond to specific questions and concerns. Do you think I should not have addressed those? What do you think I should have done differently? THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ME.

It indicates what you think appropriate civilian behaviour would be in the circumstances, given you are accusing my behaviour of being bad.

juliets wrote:I just re-read llama and did not find places where he didn't answer questions HOWEVER I did not read Golden in tandem with llama so that possibility still exists. Golden are you saying you are going to list the points that llama did not address? That would be very helpful.

I already have.

And I'd ask you and everyone to read them and everything llama has done from one perspective.

Do they indicate a consistent, genuine point of view that would lead to his suspicion on me being genuinely held, or do they appear more as though his thoughts on what baddie behaviour looks like are shifting with the wind.

thellama73 wrote:Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.

[/quote]

You've stated that a lot. Why don't you pull the quotes to prove it.

I didn't have over the top confidence. I called him my top town read. On day one. I've made this point over and over. This does not equate to 'over the top confidence'. At that point in time, I had no other people that I felt in any way had demonstrated they were civilian. With Fuzz, he'd hit four indicators. Which I set out.

Here are the four reasons I gave.

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

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

Which of them do you believe are 'very little reason'? Why don't you explain why they are not good reasons? If they are such bad reasons for thinking he is civ, why does me calling him civ make it so obvious to the mafia that he is civ and not bad, so that they have a much better chance of killing a civ by killing him?

Can't people see why the stuff llama is saying doesn't stack up... when with one hand he attacks by civ read on Fuzz as having 'very little reason' but on the other claims it is so valuable that it damaged the civ cause because it stopped them from having any chance of killing a baddie.

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

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

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

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

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

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

The thing rico said in pink is exactly what my response to that llama post would have been. It's a big part of why the argument was fallacious from the start. The kill is no more likely to hit a civilian because they listen to me as it was by the mafia just using their own gut and analysis skills. For llama's point to be true, he has to LITERALLY believe that I am so good at mafia that every one of my reads is correct.

The idea that because I say Fuzz is civ, that means he is civ... is daft. And I already made that point yesterday. He could well have been bad. And if I had so much control over who the baddies were going to kill as you claim I do, llama, I could easily use that to the town advantage... if I actually knew who was civ and bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

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

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

No.

Here is the thing llama...

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

That is what I'm saying you just did.

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

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

That appears to be everything.

thellama73 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Well, then, I'll do the list, so everyone can see that your disagreement is utterly and completely wrong, eh?

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

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:

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

You have ignored nearly every point I've raised against you and nearly every question I've asked you.

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

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

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

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

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

You have ignored nearly every point I've raised against you and nearly every question I've asked you.

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

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand

I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.

You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.

Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while

I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.

So you would have vote literally anyone opening their mouth and saying the words?

Also, llama's theory was not an attack on you specifically, at that point, I think, but a general angle, unlike people freaking out about you in Recruitment post-Epig's death and following your comments. So I still feel you were a bit of a bobcat jumping from the bushes.

Yes I would have, but not necessarily kept my vote there long term. As I said, my vote is currently not on llama just for that theory, but for his responses and approach in the wake of that. And I know llama wasn't after me specifically at that point (at least, not overtly... I am not so sure if he wasn't in actuality, in hindsight), which should go to show you that it was genuinely me jumping on the theory I had in my own mind for why Fuzz was killed, and not a no u.

But waiting to jump on a theory maker, whomever he/she may have been, doesn't make it... sound...better...?

Why? If you think a kill has been done with a particular plan in mind, the person executing that plan would be bad. Doesn't matter their identity.

I also have a red read on boomslang, so if the lynch goes that way I won't be upset.

After today's lynch, I'll be quite absent for the next three day/night cycles (9 days). I won't be able to thoroughly keep up with the thread. I'll do my best, though.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand

I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.

You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.

Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while

I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.

So you would have vote literally anyone opening their mouth and saying the words?

Also, llama's theory was not an attack on you specifically, at that point, I think, but a general angle, unlike people freaking out about you in Recruitment post-Epig's death and following your comments. So I still feel you were a bit of a bobcat jumping from the bushes.

Yes I would have, but not necessarily kept my vote there long term. As I said, my vote is currently not on llama just for that theory, but for his responses and approach in the wake of that. And I know llama wasn't after me specifically at that point (at least, not overtly... I am not so sure if he wasn't in actuality, in hindsight), which should go to show you that it was genuinely me jumping on the theory I had in my own mind for why Fuzz was killed, and not a no u.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Draconus wrote:Here you go Jay.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... ank#p43974

People keep calling someone else in this game "JJ" and it's confusing me.

I call you JJ.

Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand

I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.

You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.

Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while

I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.