The Syndicate

hey, y'all! Excited for the game. So you all know, I'm in the middle of a 2 week intensive for a graduate program I'm starting--the program is mostly online, but we're in the midst of our first in person seminar--I will not be able to be playing a whole lot. But after that i'm all good. So, I'll be around when I can, but my days and nights are both a bit insane right now.

Are votes changable?

insertnamehere wrote: LoRab -3 doesn't have a muppet avatar anymore

Beware the meeping angels is both muppet and Who, so I'm still muppety--only better.

Voted memo, at least for now. Don't want to not get a chance to vote tomorrow.

Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

Voted customer service.

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

No, he did not.

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

He was pretty clear about it in this post. Maybe you missed it--or did you just forget?

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

I am getting further questions via PM, so let me clarify further.

If someone frames something as a theory, it is NOT checkable. The context matters.

If someone claims something, that is checkable.

That is not how LD roles work. And I clarified with the host that it doesn't work that way in this game.

If you post a theory, that is not checkable, because it is not a matter of telling the truth or a lie. If you post a claim, it is either truth or a lie. The LD is not a fact checker--it is exactly what it says it is, a lie detector.

@Drumbeats: That is not what the host told me when I asked, or what he said in his follow up post. Again, it is not fact checking it is LIE detecting.

@Dom: Please clarify in thread.

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

DrumBeats wrote:So basically I was right. Cool.

New rule: We should all present everything as fact. Get rid of any "I think" or "Maybe" statements in order to allow everything we say to be checked by Pam.


@ linki Quin - you've given me worse reasons to push you than that, but INH is my current vote. You're a close second though, and LoRab is working his way up to third

@ linki LoRab - What are your thoughts on the following people? :

INH
3J
Scotty
Matt
Indiglo
birdwithteeth11

No, you were not right. You were presenting conjecture. That is not a claim. That is not checkable. You apparently missed the "context" part of Dom's explanation.

And, as I said, I have barely had time to spend reading this game. I do not have opinions on most things or players at this point. I like to think about things and come to some conclusions before I form suspicions. I don't often give opinions by request.

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

What is your perspective on me now knowing what you now know?

Dom has confirmed what I said, so my opinion has not changed.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

He earlier called me out for feigning ignorance as to the LD's limitations, and right now I'm kind of seeing the same thing here in that he's pretending not to realise he's wrong in the hopes he can latch onto the possibility of voting me later. Or maybe he's misinterpreting what Dom said. But I think it's the former.

Dom was clear. You are not understanding what Dom has said. I believe that you are feigning ignorance. I am not wrong--you are.

Having played in many, many games with LD's, I cannot even begin to comprehend why what you are claiming would begin to make sense. If I thought you were being accurate, I would probably quit the game because it wouldn't make sense in terms of game set up--but I trust that Dom hasn't changed the idea of an LD so much as to make it an entirely different role (which would be an interesting role, but isn't what an LD does or should be able to do).

Does anyone else who has ever played with an LD think that an LD can determine if a conjecture is correct or not, especially when posted in a list of conjectures listed for the explicit purpose of being checked?

Also, I'm female.

linkitis: I will link momentarily.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Could you please show me the conjectures you're referring to? Much of the context here is lost on me, because it looked like he was promoting a concrete statement be checked.

~~~

Separate note: I don't care about the bloody lie detector role and I encourage Pam to just do her thing.

Here you go:

Here is where Quin first brings up the idea:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

She even says that they are hypotheses (which is the same thing as conjecture or theories). Then, when given an answer, she posts a list of theories, posted for the sole purpose of Pam checking them, as opposed to making claims.

And it is clear that Quin knows what a claim is, as she made one regarding her role.

Quin wrote:I made sure to get up super dooper early this morning to catch up, even if it is freezing cold.

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

So, let's come up with some hypotheses for our good pal Pam.

There are items in this game.
We will eventually receive a complete role list.
Voting for either of the three options on Day 0 would have had had a different effect on the game.

Add your own.

linkitis: @drumbeats: I happen to be online now. And I'm arguing because I'm cranky and because I strongly believe that I am correct and that this is indicative of Quin being bad. I'm less convinced aobut you. But because you are posting those lists for the purpose of them being checked--not because you are making a claim, I do not think that they are checkable. And I disagree that there is no harm in Pam submitting a statement that cannot be checked. In general, if a statement cannot be checked, then the LD is not able to submit a follow up statement, at least in my experience (as player and host). So it wastes the role for that night. That is why I think Quin's intentions are not good. And why I hope Pam has the sense to use her brain to check actual pieces of posts for truth/lies.

linkitis: @Quin: That doesn't make sense. What you posted, and encouraged others to post, was not presented as fact/claim--it was presented as theory and hypothesis.

I can appreciate that.

My program has ended, so I'm here for real now. I am way too tired to fully process anything right now. So, need to reread the past couple of RL days and ponder to form opinions. But wanted to let y'all know I'm around and I'll be able to play for real now.

S~V~S wrote:German.

Who needs a better theme?

I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.

Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

bea wrote:I don't work that way DB. I work backwards.

tbh, I usually need a few days on SVS and you see I keep finding scenarios where she could still be bad, but honestly, if I use Occum, she reads and feels more civ to me than most.

I'm sad Wilgy died now that I know he was the tracker. Go back and look at my answer and ask yourself, would I have been talking about anyone but SVS? Or maybe Wabbit and Epi?

I felt good about JJ before he claimed/notclaimed indi. JJ - the students of Lorab are watching you. I currently see no reason to not keep him around. But I will flip a bitch as fast as you if make me think you are not working with the civs. As long as he's helpful he's ok. There will - if he lives - a long enough time where his survivial won't be ok. I reserve the right to lynch him when it's time for the potential indy to go. I think deep in his heart he is a civ leaning indy. I'm ok with letting him prove me right or wrong.

I trust a few others. Reading my posts will help you figure out who.

I'd like to hear more from indi and lorab and splintsy just cuz it's all us!! And come on -this is a fun time!!!

sig's still playing right? And he's the low poster I *remember* is playing. I"d like to hear from anyone who has less posts than sig.

linki - what the fucking fuck. Ok - more backtracking.

Other than the fact that "students of LoRab" made me guffaw, I'm confused by this post. You speak as if JJJ is still alive, even though this came after the night post (and I know you post as you catch up, so that's fine), but then you talk about the fact that he might not make. And i don't think you ever went back to correct yourself on him not surviving the night. This almost reads as if you knew he was going to die.

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

That's... oddly specific. And I'm not sure I agree that it would be any more strategic.

It was what I thought when I read through that section. Why announce that you're voting if you're trying to be sneaky and end the lynch? Maybe I'm wrong that it would be any more strategic. I still don't think it's a scenario that SVS would play out either way.

DrumBeats wrote:
Noted about timmer. The one I suspect most is Lorab. One mechanics-based suspicion on Quin, who happened to be the person who the mafia benefitted from lynching. I also don't like Lorab's thoughts on SVS because they seem forced regardless of how SVS flips. Acknowledges how SVS is capable of a gambit like this, but then says probably not because SVS announced the vote rather than silently voting (which would be a terrible move for ScumVS).

Sorry you don't like how I play. I can't really do anything about that. I get caught up in mechanics that I think are important--more importantly, when I think another player seems to be bad based on those mechanics, I go after them. As for SVS, I was (probably poorly) expressing why I didn't think she was bad--and I still don't. I know how she plays--I've been playing with her for a long time. The way things played out, specifically how she played them, doesn't feel to me how she'd play out that scenario--at all.

That I disagree with you does not mean that I'm bad. Simply that I think about games differently than you do.

Sorsha wrote: I'll read their posts and let you know where I am with those three, I'm leaning bad on LoRab so far though. The whole "not having time to give reads but having time to argue about the LD" is my basis.

I've barely had time to play. When I did have time, that happened to be the topic that struck me. I often find one thing to latch onto and stubbornly argue about that one piece. And I did form suspicions based on that--Quin (whom I was wrong about) and Drumbeats, who I'm still unsure about and is still pinging my suspiciometer. The way you are describing my play, as someone who has played many games with me, and knows how i play, seems disingenuous, tbh.

Voting Matt. Was unsure of him based on what other said about him, but that he hasn't really defended makes me suspicious of him.

Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Serge wrote:

LoRab wrote:Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Yeah, should we reveal no more roles doesn't roll off the tongue like should we reveal the remaining roles :P

Exactly. If the question is: Should we reveal no more roles, I think the answer is no. Given we don't know the question, I felt a tie was a good choice.

DrumBeats wrote:

Enrique wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:Did you read my LoRab ISO?

... no sorry. been busy.

Either way, CFDs are lame. Especially on players who haven't been around at all.

LoRab has been lurking a lot though. I keep seeing her online browsing this. Plus the sketchy Quin push and weird stance on SVS that felt forced.

Yeah, that happens when one is silenced. Seriously folks, online all the time. Posting in other threads. That's kind of clear code for: people, I've been silenced.

Classy move to y'all for trying to lynch me while I wasn't able to post, though.

i'll respond later when I'm not actively pissed off at not being able to defend when people are voting for me out of nowhere.

Scotty wrote:To y'all that have votes in the non-changeable poll already:
You realize that by voting yourself you could be setting yourself up for the opposite of a benefit?

I'm just saying, in Office Space, that stapler dude got his own office. In the basement. In isolation.

Office Space was the first DVD I owned and played on my first DVD player. Which I remember because there was a false error screen which was part of the home screen on the DVD. I totally panicked when I put it in and thought I had a defective unit. Then I figured it out.

Quin wrote:INTERESTING

Dead people shouldn't post on topic.

DrumBeats wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:INTERESTING

Dead people shouldn't post on topic.

LoRabs should post on topic please

People shouldn't vote for people who are clearly silenced and can't defend when their names are brought up. And people shouldn't post 5 or 6 times about lynching a player who has been silenced. It's bad form.

I'm guessing you want me to step away for a day before I post more on topic.

I don't know if anyone mentioned it earlier, but I'm guesssing if we look back a posting patterns, there were players that were silenced. It just wasn't necessarily relevant enough to mention.

Turnip Head wrote:If I thought you were silenced LoRab I wouldn't have tried any funny business. It just didn't occur to me.

I really, really want to believe you. But you also posted this:

Turnip Head wrote:LoRab hasn't posted at all this phase, so that's unsettling. Whatchyu thinking, LoRab?

And you've played with me enough over the years to know that even when I'm relatively not around, I post at least once a round. And you could see that I've been present because I never hide myself. And you could see that I posted elsewhere. So, it's hard for me to fully believe you there.

And it was even mentioned that I was lurking after this post, and you didn't think to yourself that it was totally out of character to lurk and not post even once in an entire lynch phase?

I don't suspect you for this. But I'm not sure how in a game where we don't know all of the roles and powers, that it didn't dawn on you that I couldn't post. I mean, that's just not how I play.

voted myself and Bea. Because, despite a blip of eyebrow raising, I have a strong civ read on her. And her explanation of my ping made sense to me. And myself because I'm awesome.

Catching up. Still need to look at Splints and INH, who seem to both be suspects under discussion. But I did read DF (I happened to go back to his posts first) in catching up after a long day of being AFK. I could see him being bad. He almost always has the same general posting rate within games, but when he's civ, he tends to be much more targeted in his focus and shares more ideas. When he is bad, he tends to be more blendy and comment on ideas more than have original insights. I'm seeing more of the latter DF here. Looking at others now.

INH: I don't find him particularly suspicious, reading back on his posts. Perhaps it is partly because drumbeats is one of his main accusers, and I don't trust drumbeats at all (in part because I still harbor suspicion of him and also because I think he is entirely wrong about SVS, so I don't trust his judgement).

And what is the case on Splints? I don't read her particularly well, but she is feeling civ to me, reading through her posts. What's been the case there?

And I wanted to respond to this (posted when I was silenced):

DrumBeats wrote:This one I had to split up the types of mechanical discussion and different types of it.

LoRab ISO

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:hey, y'all! Excited for the game. So you all know, I'm in the middle of a 2 week intensive for a graduate program I'm starting--the program is mostly online, but we're in the midst of our first in person seminar--I will not be able to be playing a whole lot. But after that i'm all good. So, I'll be around when I can, but my days and nights are both a bit insane right now.

Day 0 Fluff - prefacing that she might be inactive due to a graduate program which is definitely a good thing to do. Not alignment indicative at all imo.

LoRab wrote:Are votes changable?

insertnamehere wrote: LoRab -3 doesn't have a muppet avatar anymore

Beware the meeping angels is both muppet and Who, so I'm still muppety--only better.

Day 0 Mechanics and fluff. I'll categorize it as mechanics due to the vote question.

LoRab wrote:Voted memo, at least for now. Don't want to not get a chance to vote tomorrow.

Night-vote.

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Missed all of day one. Points out that Creed was civ and apologizes for missing the vote. Then begins her mechanical suspicion of Quin, which was a popular opinion at the time.

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

Mechanical clarification with Dom

LoRab wrote:Voted customer service.

Night-vote.

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Suspicion on Quin based upon how she perceives the lie detector to work.

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

No, he did not.

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

More suspicion into Quin based upon LoRab's opinion on how Pam works.

LoRab wrote:He was pretty clear about it in this post. Maybe you missed it--or did you just forget?

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

I am getting further questions via PM, so let me clarify further.

If someone frames something as a theory, it is NOT checkable. The context matters.

If someone claims something, that is checkable.

Quoting Dom's statement about the lie detects, claiming that it supports her theory when it really could go either way imo.

LoRab wrote:That is not how LD roles work. And I clarified with the host that it doesn't work that way in this game.

If you post a theory, that is not checkable, because it is not a matter of telling the truth or a lie. If you post a claim, it is either truth or a lie. The LD is not a fact checker--it is exactly what it says it is, a lie detector.

@Drumbeats: That is not what the host told me when I asked, or what he said in his follow up post. Again, it is not fact checking it is LIE detecting.

@Dom: Please clarify in thread.

Further pushing that her idea about Pam is right.

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

Claims that suspicion on Quin is not mechanics related. This post however is the only one so far where the push on Quin seems like it could be more than just mechanics, so I'll give LoRab this one for content.

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:So basically I was right. Cool.

New rule: We should all present everything as fact. Get rid of any "I think" or "Maybe" statements in order to allow everything we say to be checked by Pam.


@ linki Quin - you've given me worse reasons to push you than that, but INH is my current vote. You're a close second though, and LoRab is working his way up to third

@ linki LoRab - What are your thoughts on the following people? :

INH
3J
Scotty
Matt
Indiglo
birdwithteeth11

No, you were not right. You were presenting conjecture. That is not a claim. That is not checkable. You apparently missed the "context" part of Dom's explanation.

And, as I said, I have barely had time to spend reading this game. I do not have opinions on most things or players at this point. I like to think about things and come to some conclusions before I form suspicions. I don't often give opinions by request.

Very adamant that she is right about Pam. Also refuses to provide any other reads.

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

What is your perspective on me now knowing what you now know?

Dom has confirmed what I said, so my opinion has not changed.

Adamant about the Quin suspicion and that Dom has confirmed what she believes.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Still pushing that Quin is wrong and bad and she is right. Nothing new either, just restating the same suspicion.

LoRab wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

He earlier called me out for feigning ignorance as to the LD's limitations, and right now I'm kind of seeing the same thing here in that he's pretending not to realise he's wrong in the hopes he can latch onto the possibility of voting me later. Or maybe he's misinterpreting what Dom said. But I think it's the former.

Dom was clear. You are not understanding what Dom has said. I believe that you are feigning ignorance. I am not wrong--you are.

Having played in many, many games with LD's, I cannot even begin to comprehend why what you are claiming would begin to make sense. If I thought you were being accurate, I would probably quit the game because it wouldn't make sense in terms of game set up--but I trust that Dom hasn't changed the idea of an LD so much as to make it an entirely different role (which would be an interesting role, but isn't what an LD does or should be able to do).

Does anyone else who has ever played with an LD think that an LD can determine if a conjecture is correct or not, especially when posted in a list of conjectures listed for the explicit purpose of being checked?

Also, I'm female.

linkitis: I will link momentarily.

Yawn. Still pushing it along with the Quin suspicion. Asking for other opinions at least.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Could you please show me the conjectures you're referring to? Much of the context here is lost on me, because it looked like he was promoting a concrete statement be checked.

~~~

Separate note: I don't care about the bloody lie detector role and I encourage Pam to just do her thing.

Here you go:

Here is where Quin first brings up the idea:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

She even says that they are hypotheses (which is the same thing as conjecture or theories). Then, when given an answer, she posts a list of theories, posted for the sole purpose of Pam checking them, as opposed to making claims.

And it is clear that Quin knows what a claim is, as she made one regarding her role.

Quin wrote:I made sure to get up super dooper early this morning to catch up, even if it is freezing cold.

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

So, let's come up with some hypotheses for our good pal Pam.

There are items in this game.
We will eventually receive a complete role list.
Voting for either of the three options on Day 0 would have had had a different effect on the game.

Add your own.

linkitis: @drumbeats: I happen to be online now. And I'm arguing because I'm cranky and because I strongly believe that I am correct and that this is indicative of Quin being bad. I'm less convinced aobut you. But because you are posting those lists for the purpose of them being checked--not because you are making a claim, I do not think that they are checkable. And I disagree that there is no harm in Pam submitting a statement that cannot be checked. In general, if a statement cannot be checked, then the LD is not able to submit a follow up statement, at least in my experience (as player and host). So it wastes the role for that night. That is why I think Quin's intentions are not good. And why I hope Pam has the sense to use her brain to check actual pieces of posts for truth/lies.

linkitis: @Quin: That doesn't make sense. What you posted, and encouraged others to post, was not presented as fact/claim--it was presented as theory and hypothesis.

Mentions arguing it so hard due to being cranky, which is definitely a possibility. The certainty expressed in that if Pam checks something that isnt checkable Dom will not let her resubmit feels like it might be an attempt to scare Pam away from asking Dom if she could check any of the statements I provided. Keeps pushing Quin.

LoRab wrote:I can appreciate that.

Can appreciate 3J's theory that they are both wrong. We will see if this changes anything later.

LoRab wrote:My program has ended, so I'm here for real now. I am way too tired to fully process anything right now. So, need to reread the past couple of RL days and ponder to form opinions. But wanted to let y'all know I'm around and I'll be able to play for real now.

Disappears for a while after that. First post is fluff and promise of future activity. Normal enough but not alignment indicative. Currently has not mentioned Quin's civ flip, but we will see.

LoRab wrote:

S~V~S wrote:German.

Who needs a better theme?

I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.

Night-vote

LoRab wrote:Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

Takes a civilian stance on SVS but acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Still yet to mention Quin. Reasoning for SVS civ read feels very forced to me because it makes no sense imo since we can just go back and look at the polls.

LoRab wrote:

bea wrote:I don't work that way DB. I work backwards.

tbh, I usually need a few days on SVS and you see I keep finding scenarios where she could still be bad, but honestly, if I use Occum, she reads and feels more civ to me than most.

I'm sad Wilgy died now that I know he was the tracker. Go back and look at my answer and ask yourself, would I have been talking about anyone but SVS? Or maybe Wabbit and Epi?

I felt good about JJ before he claimed/notclaimed indi. JJ - the students of Lorab are watching you. I currently see no reason to not keep him around. But I will flip a bitch as fast as you if make me think you are not working with the civs. As long as he's helpful he's ok. There will - if he lives - a long enough time where his survivial won't be ok. I reserve the right to lynch him when it's time for the potential indy to go. I think deep in his heart he is a civ leaning indy. I'm ok with letting him prove me right or wrong.

I trust a few others. Reading my posts will help you figure out who.

I'd like to hear more from indi and lorab and splintsy just cuz it's all us!! And come on -this is a fun time!!!

sig's still playing right? And he's the low poster I *remember* is playing. I"d like to hear from anyone who has less posts than sig.

linki - what the fucking fuck. Ok - more backtracking.

Other than the fact that "students of LoRab" made me guffaw, I'm confused by this post. You speak as if JJJ is still alive, even though this came after the night post (and I know you post as you catch up, so that's fine), but then you talk about the fact that he might not make. And i don't think you ever went back to correct yourself on him not surviving the night. This almost reads as if you knew he was going to die.

This is my favorite post by LoRab so far. Calls suspicion to bea for unique reasons. I'm not sure I agree on the suspicion but it feels more genuine than the mechanical tunnelvision on Quin.

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

That's... oddly specific. And I'm not sure I agree that it would be any more strategic.

It was what I thought when I read through that section. Why announce that you're voting if you're trying to be sneaky and end the lynch? Maybe I'm wrong that it would be any more strategic. I still don't think it's a scenario that SVS would play out either way.

More SVS defense on the same logic that I don't get. Now says that she doesn't think SVS would do it either way, despite previously saying that she thought SVS was capable of it. Odd imo.

LoRab wrote:

DrumBeats wrote:
Noted about timmer. The one I suspect most is Lorab. One mechanics-based suspicion on Quin, who happened to be the person who the mafia benefitted from lynching. I also don't like Lorab's thoughts on SVS because they seem forced regardless of how SVS flips. Acknowledges how SVS is capable of a gambit like this, but then says probably not because SVS announced the vote rather than silently voting (which would be a terrible move for ScumVS).

Sorry you don't like how I play. I can't really do anything about that. I get caught up in mechanics that I think are important--more importantly, when I think another player seems to be bad based on those mechanics, I go after them. As for SVS, I was (probably poorly) expressing why I didn't think she was bad--and I still don't. I know how she plays--I've been playing with her for a long time. The way things played out, specifically how she played them, doesn't feel to me how she'd play out that scenario--at all.

That I disagree with you does not mean that I'm bad. Simply that I think about games differently than you do.

Sorsha wrote: I'll read their posts and let you know where I am with those three, I'm leaning bad on LoRab so far though. The whole "not having time to give reads but having time to argue about the LD" is my basis.

I've barely had time to play. When I did have time, that happened to be the topic that struck me. I often find one thing to latch onto and stubbornly argue about that one piece. And I did form suspicions based on that--Quin (whom I was wrong about) and Drumbeats, who I'm still unsure about and is still pinging my suspiciometer. The way you are describing my play, as someone who has played many games with me, and knows how i play, seems disingenuous, tbh.

Self-defense based mostly on meta. Says that I'm pinging her, but doesn't say why or when, and NO U's Sorsha. Finally mentions Quin and acknowledges being wrong about him.

LoRab wrote:Voting Matt. Was unsure of him based on what other said about him, but that he hasn't really defended makes me suspicious of him.

Vote on Matt with no specific reasoning other than that he is not defending himself.

LoRab wrote:Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Night-vote.

LoRab wrote:

Serge wrote:

LoRab wrote:Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Yeah, should we reveal no more roles doesn't roll off the tongue like should we reveal the remaining roles :P

Exactly. If the question is: Should we reveal no more roles, I think the answer is no. Given we don't know the question, I felt a tie was a good choice.

Defends the night-vote.

Day 0:
Fluff: 1
Mechanics: 1
Night-vote: 1

After:
Mechanic Speculation with suspicion based upon it: 7
Mechanical Clarification: 1
Night-vote: 4
Mechanical Speculation without suspicion based upon it: 3
Content: 5
Fluff: 1
Defense: 1
Day vote: 1

I feel just about as I expected about LoRab. I could be a bit biased, since both of the only real stances LoRab has taken I disagree with, but I just find the content ratios so out of whack for LoRab. LoRab was way too invested in the Pam case and was VERY confident she was right about her opinion. That certainty + interest is something I read two ways, which is that LoRab could have been mafia who interrogated Dom to know how to word her own posts. Or the other option I see is that LoRab is Pam, which would also explain her interest and level and certainty of knowledge. My only thing that makes me feel otherwise is that LoRab has not taken many hard stances that I would suspect from a lie detector. LoRab has provided very few reads outside of the Quin push, the vote on Matt felt off when the only other suspicions that LoRab mentioned were of Sorsha and myself. I'm getting a scum read on LoRab, the only thing that is giving me pause is that I can see a situation in which LoRab is Pam.

My rating:

3/10

Questions:

How do you feel about Quin's flip?
What is pinging you about me? Point out where please.
Why do you suspect Sorsha?
What was your reasoning for voting Matt in your own words?
Who are your top three suspects and why?

(I'm low on time right now, so I'm going to skip over Serge since he has a lot of posts and hit someone with less to read before I go. I want to hit Sorsha and timmer at least by EoD since they are the other two top votes. I currently want a LoRab lynch though)

I tend to base much of my game on mechanics, so yes, I posted a bunch about mechanics. It was also a discussion that was directly relevant at the time that I was able to be online, so I was able to take part in it. When others responded, I got caught up in the conversation. I tend to get caught up like that, for better or for worse. In this case, I thought, and still think, that it was an important point. I think that Quin, although it would now seem inadvertantly, was encouraging players to post statements that would be uncheckable to the role checker (I still have the same belief about Pam's ability)--and note that you were a player that followed suit, making long lists of posts that I do not believe Pam would be able to check. This would effectively make the lie detector inoperable, if she were to follow suit. So, yes, I thought it important that a civ role was being encouraged to waste her power. It also led to my Quin suspicion--which I was wrong about. It also has given me an ongoing, low level suspicion of you. And yes, re: Quin, I do tunnel--it's a bad habit. You and I haven't played much together, but many players here can tell you that I tend to get stubborn with suspicions.

And, yes, I got caught up in the Pam mechanics. And I did PM Dom for further clarification. I like to understand the rules and roles--it's how I get my brain around the game. To me, Dom's ruling on the role is and was clear--and completely counter to what Quin (and you) seem/ed to think it was. So, yes, I wanted to clarify. I'm not sure why you're so bothered by my wanting to understand if the lie detector was being encouraged to waste her role or not. And I'm not Pam--if I were, I'd not actually been as worried about how the role was going to be interpreted, because I never would have attempted to check those statements. I was more concerned with a civ wasting their power.

And my thoughts on SVS stand. I do not think she is bad. I do not think she would have played out that scenario in the way that it happened if she were bad and if she were trying to play a con. It's not her style. I stand by that belief.

As to your questions:

How do you feel about Quin's flip?

I thought she was bad, so I was surprised. Although it seems as if she simply misunderstood the role. It actually made me suspect you a bit more, because it seems unlikely that 2 different players would misunderstand the nature of a role that exists in many games.

What is pinging you about me? Point out where please.

Mainly that you were posting lists of non-checkable statements for the purpose of Pam checking them. I actually asked Dom specifically about that and he confirmed that statements made for the purpose of being checked would not be checkable, so it seemed like misdirecting a civ power.

Why do you suspect Sorsha?

Her suspicion of me didn't ring true--it didn't make sense for someone who knows my game well to suspect me for the reasons she gave. Also, given her role reveal, it seems as if she wasn't civ, and was probably evil/indy. So in retrospect, I stand behind my blip of eyeballing her.

What was your reasoning for voting Matt in your own words?

Re: Voting Matt: I thought I was pretty clear in my post when I voted. He didn't defend himself. That made me doubt his civ-ness. I feel that civs typically defend themselves when they are being falsely lynched. Therefore, I suspected and voted for him.

Who are your top three suspects and why?

DF and you, probably. I don't have solid suspicions of others at this moment. I tend to focus on 1 or 2 players at a time with my suspicion.

Given that the top poster hasn't posted this cycle, I'm going to go with his probably having been silenced.

DrumBeats wrote:(On mobile and don't want to backspace for long enough to quote it)

@LoRab - Your post about me still pinging your suspiciometer was way after I made those lists, and you previously were not suspicious of them. Additionally, the use of the word "still" there implies that more recent activity. Was there anything else that pinged you, and what made your thoughts about the lists change?

Actually, I mentioned it originally with this post:

LoRab wrote:

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

And in our entire back and forth about the nature of wasting a civ's power and the nature of lie detectors, I thought it was kind of implied.

When it turned out that Quin was civ, it didn't change that I thought your posting those lists was anti-civ behavior.

You haven't done anything particularly suspicious to me since then, but you haven't done anything to make me change my mind.

Voting now, before I head out to meet friends for dinner--may be able to pop on here and there, but not sure, and no idea what time I'll be home, and don't want to miss the vote. Voting DF, for reasons stated above.

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I voted the player I suspected most. I stand behind my vote. I don't have a baddie vibe from Splints, so I didn't vote there, although she seems to have the clear majority.

Why would disagreeingon suspicion make someone your top suspect?

DFaraday wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I actually think TH feels sincere, if misguided. LR's vote and reasoning came off half-hearted to me.

EBWOP: Timmer, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

Neither my reasoning (which, did I miss where you responded to it?) nor my vote, based on that suspicion, which I didn't see disputed by you or anyone else, were half hearted. Sorry if they seemed that way.

insertnamehere wrote:

LoRab wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I voted the player I suspected most. I stand behind my vote. I don't have a baddie vibe from Splints, so I didn't vote there, although she seems to have the clear majority.

Why would disagreeingon suspicion make someone your top suspect?

If somebody helps to lynch a civilian for what seems to me like weak reasoning, I see that as cause to suspect them.

So if Splints flips civ, will you suspect everyone who voted for her?

Been AFK pretty much all day. My thoughts haven't really changed since the last lynch. I also need to sleep before I actually think about anything.

Sleeping a bit and rereading a bit, my suspicion of DF remains. With Splints flipping civ, I can't help but think that her lynch was a bandwagon that got going to save DF, who seems to me to have been the next most likely person to have been lynched. Which further firms my own suspicion of him, and makes me eye those who voted Splints. INH's post actively throwing doubt on those of us who had voted DF, fairly early on in the lynch, before Splints' lynch got steam, makes me throw an eyeball that way.

@INH: In light of Splints' flipping civ and there being a pile up of votes on her (which, to me, says bandwagon--which means not all baddies, but certainly some). Does that change your view of DF?

insertnamehere wrote:

LoRab wrote:@INH: In light of Splints' flipping civ and there being a pile up of votes on her (which, to me, says bandwagon--which means not all baddies, but certainly some). Does that change your view of DF?

If anything, it just reinforces my view of him as civ, okay?

OK. But can you explain how that logic works? A player had 2 votes. A slew of votes pile up on another player. That other player is civ. I would really like to know your logic on how that makes it more likely that the original player is civ.

Seriously--please explain your logic. Even in questions.

That sounds like the civ DF I expect. So, he's moved down my list, as well.

Daisy, on the other hand:

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm having internet issues apparently. Anyway, I have seen my name tossed around a lot today and that's cool, I can't blame you all because I have been shit this game. Vote me if you like but I can tell you it is guaranteed to be a complete waste of your time and a lynch no matter who you are. If you put my gameplay all together with what I've said recently I'm sure you can figure out why. But do what you like.

It seems as if you're hinting at Erin. Because no other role would be a complete waste of time and a lynch no matter who you are. And Erin was lynched day 2. So...am I missing something?

And I think, if you were implying BWT was a seemer, that you'd have said something or implied something when he flipped as your role.

So, in short, I'm not sure I believe you.

Also, I feel bad suspecting Daisy in this game in particular, since The Office game back in the day (before I was LoRab, even) on LP was Daisy's first game, I believe, and we had wonderfully lovely civ BTSC with all of the Warehouse Workers (TH was there, too, of other players in this game)--until fucking evil bastard (FEB) DD frigging killed me. Ah, memories. But, really, it was a fun game, and I feel bad suspecting you in a game of the same theme--does that make any sense?

My opinion on trusting neutrals is well documented. In short: I don't. So, whether SD is telling the truth and really is neutral (I realized what I was missing from my earlier post). Or if she is mafia and lying. Either way, I don't really trust her.

It seems like the best bet at this point. *votes Daisy*

DrumBeats wrote:I hate that wagon inflation. If Daisy flips anything, but scum, I'm looking into the other votes there (LoRab on)

I actually find that bandwagons are usually started by baddies (whether they vote the person or not), and that it's mostly civies who jump on. That said, given the current numbers, I think it's likely true that some of the later voters are bad. I would not include myself in that group. Also having posted about Daisy earlier in the day, I don't think you can really say that I inflated the votes. But eye me all you want. (sorry, old habits)