Ricochet wrote:Ok, work today meant to wait for two hours for a student to come give me some diplomas copies, so I can file them for some school funds competition, so here's my catch-up of D6.
Throwing it out there.
RAW
1) The "leader back story" winner would have received one role from each team. What Caelia did is either simple gossip post (her own position) or gossip transposed into the format of the contest (her own position, manipulated to sound like the result of the event). Unfortunately, she pretty much botched her own attempt because: a) she suggested four
bad players (she should have received two civ, two bad, if genuine) and b) she gave
players instead of
roles. So it's clear her post is still gossipy, no matter the format.
Side-note, how would the prize winner be allowed to share his info, if he'd choose to share it? Open message to the thread or hinting through posts, as usual? If the former, since Caelia gossiped, I don't think we got any real info so far. There's also a 50-50 chance the winner kept it to himself; or is bad and the info suits only him and his team now. Heck, I submitted myself a story and it was pretty bitchin' if you ask me, so for all I know, I could have won, but got killed at the same time and the result was thus null.
HOWEVER, whilst I still believe gossip posts don't need to be treated as truths or info (remember Speaker?), we are still talking about one of the civ leaders. Her attempts, even by tricks such as the card she tried to play here, are still supposed to be genuine. She doesn't have a check position, but she could have teammates with check positions, so real info is not truly out of the question.
This being said, I think I'd give the following grades to those who reacted to this:
Bullzeye: minus, because of his outright dismissal and calling her effort a waste. Dude, she's a civ leader, she can coat her efforts however she wants, it doesn't make her perspective be any less genuine. If she has no real info, then those are her suspicions. If she has real info (from teammates who can check), some of it could be true. Honestly, I can only imagine someone being this dismissive if he feels stung by her claims.
LoRab: plus, because she questioned the veracity and the format of Caelia's message, as a way of defending herself, in a focused and (
*gasp*) logical way.
SVS: null, because she briefly questioned the format and denied her name on the list being correct - which is pretty much what I'd expect of SVS
TH:
comci-comca about Caelia's message containing both true and false info, so I'm
comci-comca about his approach, too
timmer: taking it for granted at first, plus saying something confusing about Jay, then questioning the format after other players pointed it out. Not sure what to make of this.
Side-grade: did Scotty address his name being in the message or is he staying away from it?
----
2) Llama's picks from his own review of interactions (or lack thereof) with Bubbles [actually it's more the way Bubbles interacted with others, not how others addressed or interacted with her, which is just one side of the spectrum. hmmmmm...] were TH (interaction) and Bullzeye (no interaction). My questions are:
for interactions: why only TH or why TH "most likely"? what about Roxy, Canuck (whom Bubbles also defended)? what about rey (Bubbles is confirmed to have buddied up with Golden and thus voted rey to respect Golden's wishes and legacy)? what about Boomslang (Bubbles ignoring his case constantly)?
for no interactions: why only Bullzeye? What about Wilgy, for instance?
why only the "Bubbles interacting with" angle and not the "Bubbles addressed by" angle as well?
Also, I get the gloating (you're llama after all), but I'd suggest easing up on it with the supatowning and the "in your face" comments such as the one to Bullzeye. It's been pointed already that we don't know exactly when Bubbles was recruited and if Uzboing handpicked her early on or got her as teammate via other ways later on. So you could still have been wrong about her being bad early on, up to the point when she got recruited and your suspicions were suddenly valid. The only way you'd know for sure that you've been right about her all along is if you have info that she got handpicked early on or you handpicked her yourself. Which frankly would put you in the Uzbeg camp or in Ubzit's shoes themselves.
Also, you described Bullzeye's activity as "preventing good people from being lynched [rather] than in lynching bad people". Is "preventing good people from being lynched" inherently a bad thing or am I misunderstanding something here?
----
3) Bullzeye's pause about Uzbo not switching the lynch to Sorsha (second wagon) instead of unfurl of all people (no wagon at all) and his idea that Sorsha might be also bad is valid, but he forgets that Ubza is a vicious chaos-maker. Why get rid of second wagons instead of creating an unexpected death? What's the point of questioning his actions, apart from the Sorsha link? Is there a slight chance? Sure, if Ubzargan had to derail a lynch in which his teammates were first and second wagon, his team was in pretty dire shit that day. Otherwise, I'm not sure I fully understand this line of questioning.
----
4) Aap's D6 contribution gives me pause and I think it adds up to his overall contribution as well, although I'd need to re-read. His posts are just focused on mechanics, speculations (the Speakers being dead because he hasn't sent messages? how are you sure about that? it's an old story, but what if his positions 2-5 aren't messaging?), skeptical about Wilgy WIFOM and something about Ahriman not killing DH? wut? Anyway, I don't see so far how his input aligns with the current topics and leads, so I'm starting to be wary of him.
----
5) JJJ seems silenced
----
6) nutella's "I'd like to find Bubbles' teammates but I haven't the first clue how." pinged me. it's D6, some of us are doing efforts, so why the resignation?
----
7) Wilgy said he'd look into my death. Any finds, bro?
Wilgy also said something about finding out who's poisoned. How can we even begin to know or be able to tell that, right now? What's the significance of this?
----
8) The talk about Host Posts containing hints (nutella, aapje) doesn't seem positive to me. LC was clear that we shouldn't look too deep into the story. What's the point to say that LC could still be lying about it or something (aapje, I think)? According to the N5 story, I'd be an Ahriman recruit, but I'm not (I'm unrecruited), so yeah, story is story.
----
9) SVS's post about the Executioner not killing her last Night and how that would have proven a point? Huh? What point would him attempting to kill you have proven? What did you mean by this?
----
10) LoRab, you've gone back to TH, but do you have any other opinions, suspicions apart from him and me? It's D6, the bad teams are at a standard size; the field is also down to a standard full-game size. Your nod to SVS's case on Bullzeye is pretty mellow, almost as if to tell the thread that you're receptive to others, but not much more than that.
Also, as a general side-note, although this should probably be saved for post-game, I cannot express how much I dislike the "placeholding" vote tactic. Changeable votes are supposed to influence the course of a Day phase, in a way - they can be placed to influence, fish out reactions, shape discussion, make a temporary but clear stand and so on. Parking votes just because of how big the field of players is and unwillingness (or laziness?) to check (or open a separate tab with) "View results" doesn't fit into any of those categories.
----
11) SYN WHEN DO YOU START PLAYING. OH CAPS
----
12) Sorsha's "someone please do leads for me" pinged me. Sounds like a catch-up comment without any catch-up, thrown in just to please the thread.
----
13) Spacedaisy's case seems genuine, but there's a tiny part of me that finds it also sudden. She points out Llama's evolution in addressing Bubbles throughout the game, but during the phases when it worsened, I don't remember her actively questioning him at that time. The last time was D4, when she called Llama reasonable with his activity. Also she suspects Llama for a change of tone in the last Days, but gives the verdict that Llama recruited Bubbles, which is the sort of manual recruitement Bugzybargan could have only done in the early stage. So it's the same "recruiting" dillema: if you suspect Llama's moodchange is due to Bubbles becoming his teammate recently, you can't also say Llama recruited her manually prior in time.
This being said, your post might also influence me to re-read Llama.
----
14) Timmer went full jump in on Spacedaisy's Llama.
I still don't trust him much, so this post doesn't stick out well to me. Does no one else have an issue with how he alternates between "le analysis man" to "le following others man"?
----
15) WIll probably focus on / re-read Bullzeye, Llama, Wilgy, maybe TH, for now.
Personally I think Lorab, Devin, and Reywas are bad and I will be looking into them more intensively for the next day. Along with BWT -- I liked Rico's case and could definitely see BWT being Ubzimbabwe.
