The Syndicate

No Snake Mountain?

The host should be destroyed for this.

Long Con wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 pm Still though... Olympus Mons is over twenty-one kilometres high! (That's like 13 miles for those of you still waiting to join the metric world). I can't even imagine such height.

Still ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:26 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:29 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 pm Still though... Olympus Mons is over twenty-one kilometres high! (That's like 13 miles for those of you still waiting to join the metric world). I can't even imagine such height.

Still ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

In fact, it's cold as hell.

This bob won't be getting my vote Day 1.

Marmot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:13 pm

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:52 pm According to wikipedia Olympus Mons isn't even the tallest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheasilvia

Who'd have thunk. There's an asteroid out there that is literally a mountain.

I hear the peak is breathtaking.

Are you prepared?

Please note that if you vote, your vote will be visible.
You may select 1 option

Yes, I read the safety protocol.
12
71%


Voters: Long Con, Epignosis, Dragon D. Luffy, Kylemii, speedchuck, Sloonei, MovingPictures07, colonialbob, nutella, Elohcin, sprityo, DrWilgy

No, I don't care about rules or regulations.
3
18%


Voters: Jackofhearts2005, sig, Quin

I'm an expert. (Host/Facilitator/Non-player option)
2
12%


Voters: Marmot, JaggedJimmyJay


Total votes: 17

So far.

Long Con wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:26 am

Mesk514 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:22 am check? hi? hello? is this thing on?

It sure is, sistah! Are you a little mountain or a big one?

Mesk514 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:22 am no clue, i know nothing about dirt

Our new friend Mesk is a civilian.

As of right now, I'm not voting colonialbob or Mesk.

Mesk514 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:16 pm is a civilian good here? I'm pretty sure someone told me a civilian is scum... I am good, fear me!

Who told you a civilian is "scum?"

And even if someone did, why would you believe it?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:34 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:16 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:50 pm ima vote epignosis whenever and i'd like someone to tell me why that is

He's making friends right off the bat.

what are your thoughts on that?

It's a decent enough reason to cast a Day 1 vote.

What friends am I making and why is that a good enough reason for Day 1?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:00 am

Epignosis wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:52 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:34 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:16 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:50 pm ima vote epignosis whenever and i'd like someone to tell me why that is

He's making friends right off the bat.

what are your thoughts on that?

It's a decent enough reason to cast a Day 1 vote.

What friends am I making and why is that a good enough reason for Day 1?

You named two town reads, or at least two players not to vote for on Day 1. That's a good enough reason for Day 1 because I will accept any reason on Day 1.

I don't believe you will accept any reason to vote for someone on Day 1. If that is the measure with which you judge Day 1 votes, then you just got my Day 1 vote.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:21 am
How many times have you seen me cast a single vote on Day 1 and leave it there?

Was I supposed to be paying attention to you all this time? I'm sorry.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 am

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:22 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:21 am
How many times have you seen me cast a single vote on Day 1 and leave it there?

Was I supposed to be paying attention to you all this time? I'm sorry.

I'm saying I throw my votes around willynilly on every Day 1 that I ever play in. You're usually pretty on the ball about what goes on in game threads, but you've seldom been skeptical of me for doing this in the past.

Throwing your vote around isn't the same thing as accepting "any reason on Day 1."

Your words.

Quin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:34 am

Long Con wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:58 pm

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:40 pmI'm better at being scum than that Sloonei.

Can you provide proof of this?

idk but this is a perfect opportunity to reaffirm that I'm a better mafia than Epignosis.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:11 am He's buddying them, and then intimidating you out of an adversarial position. He's setting up a long game. That's not what Civ Epignosis cares to do.

This again, about what a "civilian Epignosis" cares to do. You really should write a book about me, since you're such an expert.

Saying I won't vote someone Day 1 for catching my Elton John reference is not "setting up a long game."

Finding a reason to believe Mesk is civilian and in the next hour reevaluating that reason is, again, not "setting up a long game."

Intimidating Sloonei (if that's what you want to call it, since I don't believe Sloonei can be intimidated in Mafia, and even if he could, what would I have to gain by intimidating him if I could just kill him Night 1?) is not "setting up a long game."

You are implying that "setting up a long game" is something I, as mafia, would do on Day 1. That is mistaken. The fact is I don't bother with long term planning Day 1 when I am bad. It's antithetical to success in most cases, because to be good at being bad, one must be flexible and able to dance. And I am a fine dancer.

If Long Con is a civilian, then is most likely means he is genuine in his suspicion of me.

If his suspicion is genuine, then his accusation that I am being deliberate and calculating in my dealings thus far should be one that he can logically explain.

In other words, if I know what I'm doing (i.e., being deliberate in "setting up a long game"), and Long Con is calling me out on that, then he should be able to explain how my actions in the thread so far will benefit my team and me down the road. What is the long game and how am I expecting it to play out?

If he can't answer that, then his suspicion isn't genuine, and he's trying to get a quick and easy Day 1 lynch out of the way.

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:25 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:52 am

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:43 am I'm with Sloonei (and LC, wow, what a surprise, it's el clásico again and everything is predictable and nothing hurts)

Are you more inclined toward my hesitance or LC's confidence?

The former, I guess. Mostly I agree with the sentiments you've expressed about why Quin's reasoning is fine for day 1, and probably enough to join Quin and LC in an epi vote if I don't get anything better for a day 1 reason

What is Quin's reasoning?

Here is everything Quin has said about me:

Quin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:36 am

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:05 am

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:50 pm ima vote epignosis whenever and i'd like someone to tell me why that is

what does this sentence mean?

do you want other people to tell you why you are going to vote for mr gnosis?

i'd like that very much thank you

Quin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:34 am

Long Con wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:58 pm

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:40 pmI'm better at being scum than that Sloonei.

Can you provide proof of this?

idk but this is a perfect opportunity to reaffirm that I'm a better mafia than Epignosis.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:22 am

colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:41 am And now, the game is really afoothill!

*crickets*

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:40 am I might be persuaded to go with Epi today, but as of right now I'd not be willing to put a definitive vote on him.

How's the fence treating you?

*vote sloons*

We need an eye rolling emoji that I can post here.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:48 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:25 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:52 am

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:43 am I'm with Sloonei (and LC, wow, what a surprise, it's el clásico again and everything is predictable and nothing hurts)

Are you more inclined toward my hesitance or LC's confidence?

The former, I guess. Mostly I agree with the sentiments you've expressed about why Quin's reasoning is fine for day 1, and probably enough to join Quin and LC in an epi vote if I don't get anything better for a day 1 reason

*votes Nutella*

My reaction also was to vote nutella. My perspective after giving it some thought, however, is to question if nutella would be so careless and flippant if she were mafia, knowing that being careless and flippant would likely draw votes. I need to hear more.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:53 pm
Uh, you pick two Civs and buddy them so they trust you and don't lynch you. Long game benefit: survival, and more likely to lynch Civs along the way. You intimidate Sloonei out of coming after you. Benefit: One less Civ coming after you; survival; more likely to lynch a Civ along the way.

"Buddying" two civilians on Day 1 is not going to stop my lynch if that is what the majority wishes (not that I agree I have "buddied" anybody).

Sloonei is not going to be intimidated by me to the extent that he won't vote for me if he feels he should (not that I agree I have intimidated Sloonei).

You are, as usual, starting with the conclusion that Epignosis is bad and making everything I do fit that conclusion. Of course, you have no response to this:

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:53 am You are implying that "setting up a long game" is something I, as mafia, would do on Day 1. That is mistaken. The fact is I don't bother with long term planning Day 1 when I am bad. It's antithetical to success in most cases, because to be good at being bad, one must be flexible and able to dance. And I am a fine dancer.

Can anyone who has ever been bad with me point to a time when I set up a long term plan Day 1?

If not, why would I start now?

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:53 pm
Uh, you pick two Civs and buddy them so they trust you and don't lynch you. Long game benefit: survival, and more likely to lynch Civs along the way. You intimidate Sloonei out of coming after you. Benefit: One less Civ coming after you; survival; more likely to lynch a Civ along the way.

Wait a minute.

How does Long Con know Mesk, coolonialbob, and Sloonei are civilians?

Long Con

Your accusation against me only works if all three of Mesk, colonialbob, and Sloonei are civilians. There is no way to know this if you are a civilian. The irony of you accusing me of "buddying" two of three is noted, because by labeling all three as civilians, one could argue that you are "buddying" three people.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:32 pm
Classic. "If you can't do a ton of research and find that I acted the exact same way previously, then your accusation can't be right." Do people still buy that forced-meta crap?

If you can't back up your accusations with, you know, facts, you should reconsider your accusations (if they are indeed genuine). I wasn't asking anybody to do any research. You can't do any such research unless you have access to old BTSC. I asked if anybody could point to a time I made some elaborate endgame-in-mind scheme on Day 1. Memory is all anybody needs for that.

But I can go ahead and say the answer to that is no, because it isn't how I operate. You can keep claiming I'm operating in a way I never have before if it's convenient for you.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:39 pm
Combined with suspicious nonlynchcandidate declarations, I think this is worthy of a vote.

I retracted my good opinion of Mesk after she posted something that didn't align with my initial perspective. I'm still thinking her over.

What is suspicious of saying who I won't vote for? I have to come to a decision somehow, and eliminating people from my pool is one way to accomplish that.

Why don't you share your opinions on colonialbob and Mesk, if my takes are suspicious to you?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:48 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:46 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:32 pm
Classic. "If you can't do a ton of research and find that I acted the exact same way previously, then your accusation can't be right." Do people still buy that forced-meta crap?

If you can't back up your accusations with, you know, facts, you should reconsider your accusations (if they are indeed genuine). I wasn't asking anybody to do any research. You can't do any such research unless you have access to old BTSC. I asked if anybody could point to a time I made some elaborate endgame-in-mind scheme on Day 1. Memory is all anybody needs for that.

But I can go ahead and say the answer to that is no, because it isn't how I operate. You can keep claiming I'm operating in a way I never have before if it's convenient for you.

why did you say you won't be voting for cbob or mesk today?

I said I wouldn't vote for colonialbob today because he got my Elton John reference. I appreciated that.

I said I wouldn't vote for Mesk because of how she responded to the question about being big or little. She said she didn't know. That gave me the impression that she isn't aware that the mafia faction are little mountains, as she said she didn't know much about dirt. Without having any other experience with Mesk, I found that to be a guileless response.

My good opinion of Mesk went south when she said, "I'm pretty sure someone told me a civilian is scum" because that does look like trying too hard to be ignorant (no offense intended).

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:02 pm

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:57 pm @Sloonei
@colonialbob

What do you think of Epi's vote for LC?

I'm not loving this version of Epignosis. He seems to be working harder at discrediting the accusations against him than actually figuring out the players making the accusations. This doesn't look like the crafty town Epignosis who will get under people's skin for the sake of reading them without any fear or regard for his own appearance. Instead he looks like he's trying to fight his way out of a corner.

This is the version of Epignosis that is tired of Long Con making shit up about him.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:08 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:04 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:02 pm

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:57 pm @Sloonei
@colonialbob

What do you think of Epi's vote for LC?

I'm not loving this version of Epignosis. He seems to be working harder at discrediting the accusations against him than actually figuring out the players making the accusations. This doesn't look like the crafty town Epignosis who will get under people's skin for the sake of reading them without any fear or regard for his own appearance. Instead he looks like he's trying to fight his way out of a corner.

This is the version of Epignosis that is tired of Long Con making shit up about him.

I'll grant you that this is not the first time I've seen this show. But Long Con is not the only player who's said things about you.

If you could draw our attention to another player who's been off the radar so far, who would it be?

nutella, but I expressed doubt on that front. My problem with nutella is that I think I have been wrong on her every single time. Hell, last time I defended her Henry Fonda style, and she still turned out being bad.

At face value, I don't see how her comments about Quin's reasons for voting me or agreeing with you and LC make any sense. She said she'd vote for me if she didn't get anything better. That's weak, and sounds like she was just getting in an early comment about me so she could more comfortably vote against me later in the day. I have a hard time believing she was genuine there.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:18 pm Nutella is supatown as town and not when she's bad. She killed it as a Phenon civvy I had this whole fake suspicion on her for her not being aggressive enough when we were scum together in ME that was of course a legit line of questioning I never got around to pushing cause I didn't want her dead.

What's the problem, Epi?

I explained the problem. See above.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:32 pm Nutella hasn't always been super consistent as a townie in my experience with her. She'll speak her mind without regard for whether or not it all fits neatly together, and I've got no issue with that. I don't think I would vote for her based solely on her posts so far.

That's why I said I would need to hear more from her. nutella is very good at faking anything.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:37 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:32 pm

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:14 pm You leave Kyle alone.

why?

I'm just filling the silence. I don't have a strong opinion on Kyle. Like I half think you're distracting from Epi but I don't wanna get tunnel visioned. You do whatever.

Distracting from me is a good thing.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:40 pm Epi, do you agree with kyle's assessment that you were attacking LC with hyperbole and strawmen?

No.

LC explicitly called cb, Mesk, and Sloonei civilians. There was no consideration given that I could be "buddying" a teammate, as JoH suggested (however the hell one does that).

He also has taken anything I have said or done and says I am "setting up a long game" even though I have never before in my four years of playing Mafia done that Day 1. Instead of considering angles in which my words and actions indicate a civilian, he presses on with his unfounded, circular nonsense.

There is no strawman fallacy or hyperbole, and even if there is, so what?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:57 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:40 pm Epi, do you agree with kyle's assessment that you were attacking LC with hyperbole and strawmen?

Kyle, have you had a chance to dig into anyone else yet?

I didn't say he was attacking LC with hyperbole and strawmen I said he was defending himself by turning LC into a strawman.

LC's speculation is that I am "buddying" two civilians and intimidating one civilian so that I won't ever get lynched.

Did I get any of that wrong?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:03 pm Maybe strawman is the wrong word, but I think focusing on the "long game planning aspect" of the argument allows you to ignore the part of the argument where it's actually just really weird to make a positive declaration towards anyone one day 0, or 1 without any kind og motivation behind it.

I don't know what "og motivation" means, but there is nothing weird about saying I'm not voting for this person or that person. Would it be better if I said nothing at all? I can surely keep it to myself that I'm not voting for someone. No one would know. I'm not going to defend my decision to refrain from voting someone Day 1. There are four mafia members. I cannot lynch them all Day 1. And if I'm right not to vote for the people I won't vote for, it narrows my pool down to people I should be voting.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:09 pm trusting people without factual backup is unnatural. it's an aberration. mafia play with facts from the start so it's easier

let's put LC's case aside for a sec, why Cbob? why Mesk?

I didn't say I trusted them.

I already talked about colonialbob and Mesk.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:19 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:12 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:09 pm trusting people without factual backup is unnatural. it's an aberration. mafia play with facts from the start so it's easier

let's put LC's case aside for a sec, why Cbob? why Mesk?

I didn't say I trusted them.

I already talked about colonialbob and Mesk.

So you don't think they're good necessarily... you just said you didn't think you'd vote for them.

In that post you did imply you trusted Mesk at least a little bit more because she hadn't apparently read the roles, do you have anything to add to that?

Correct.

As I said, Mesk's response to being big or little looked guileless, as though she didn't get a PM saying anything about little mountains. It's a point in her favor- that's all.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:43 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:54 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:40 pm Epi, do you agree with kyle's assessment that you were attacking LC with hyperbole and strawmen?

No.

LC explicitly called cb, Mesk, and Sloonei civilians. There was no consideration given that I could be "buddying" a teammate, as JoH suggested (however the hell one does that).

He also has taken anything I have said or done and says I am "setting up a long game" even though I have never before in my four years of playing Mafia done that Day 1. Instead of considering angles in which my words and actions indicate a civilian, he presses on with his unfounded, circular nonsense.

There is no strawman fallacy or hyperbole, and even if there is, so what?

I'm going to explain a thing you're pretending to not understand one time out of the goodness of my heart. I won't continue to do so because it is tiring.

LC posts that you are bad and you are buddying Bob and Mesk. The implication is that since scum doesn't buddy teammates, if LC is correct in his suspicions, Bob and Mesk would by definition be town.

LC is not claiming to have figured out Mesk or Bob's alignments outside of this, which is obvious.

I am not claiming that scum buddying a teammate is a thing, which is also obvious.

No more straw men. Townies don't gain anything from willfully pretending not to understand accusations.

Nope, sorry, but I'm sure LC appreciates you helping him out with the explanation.

Regardless of who "buddies" whom, the argument is entirely circular.

Furthermore, he called Sloonei a civilian in the same post, as he said I was intimidating a civilian. You believe LC identified three civilians Day 1 based solely on "empty filler" (his word) directed at two of them and that I was intimidating a third one?

If you believe that, I've got a mountain to sell you in Rhode Island.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:07 pm

WHY do you make me DO THIS? I wasn't "identifying" them as Civilians. It's an obvious and necessary assumption in order to be able to accuse you as I have.

Ah. An assumption. Three of them, actually. Glad to hear you admit it.

You have to assume three people are civilians to arrive at the conclusion that I am bad. Let that sink in.

Yet I can't say I'm not going to vote a guy because of Elton John or that I raised an opinion regarding Mesk's response to being big or little. Too bad you didn't quote the next line to "Rocket Man." Because then I would have been buddying you.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:31 pm Tbf to Epi, he pretends not to understand stuff when he discusses politics, too.

Can we not? This is the third time I've had to ask that people leave political jabs out of Mafia.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:46 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:40 pmYou have to assume three people are civilians to arrive at the conclusion that I am bad. Let that sink in.

Epi I have a huge problem with this line of logic because determining people's relationships to each other while also keeping in mind the uncertainty of other people's motivations is *literally* the entire point of this game.

So if I assume three people you've interacted with are good to conclude that you are mafia, how'd that be?

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:55 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:47 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:46 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:40 pmYou have to assume three people are civilians to arrive at the conclusion that I am bad. Let that sink in.

Epi I have a huge problem with this line of logic because determining people's relationships to each other while also keeping in mind the uncertainty of other people's motivations is *literally* the entire point of this game.

So if I assume three people you've interacted with are good to conclude that you are mafia, how'd that be?

Epi... why are you not getting it?

You are the one exhibiting the behaviour I find suspicious.

The assumption in play is that you, as a baddie, chose three players who are Civvies.

The assumption is not that they are Civvies and therefore you are bad.

You are too smart to not understand that. You are being deceptive to try to change peoples' minds about what exactly I'm accusing you of. I don't understand why you do this.

I chose three players who are civilians? You can't even get your case right.

I didn't choose who quoted "Rocket Man." I also didn't choose who answered a question in a way I found innocent. No other people did those two things. I didn't choose anybody.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:57 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:47 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:46 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:40 pmYou have to assume three people are civilians to arrive at the conclusion that I am bad. Let that sink in.

Epi I have a huge problem with this line of logic because determining people's relationships to each other while also keeping in mind the uncertainty of other people's motivations is *literally* the entire point of this game.

So if I assume three people you've interacted with are good to conclude that you are mafia, how'd that be?

if you're mafia for the prescribed reasons then it also stands to reason that the 3 people you interacted with would be more likely to be civ.

Interacting the way you did with any of them would be unusual if you were both wolves would be unusual.

Damn, being mafia must be easy if all you have to do to win is something unusual.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:10 pm Epi who do you suspect?

My head says Long Con and nutella, but I'm aware of my biases there.

Long Con has done nothing but provoke me, and he knows it, which means I am less likely to do anything productive this Day phase because he knows I'll argue with him, and I know when I do argue with him, he's going to continue making things up (like I somehow magically chose who was going to quote Elton John) and whenever I challenge anything he has to say about me, he will give glib, unhelpful responses ("Indeed." "Keep dancing," etc.), which shows he isn't interested in figuring me out. He's interested in getting me out regardless of my alignment. It almost feels personal.

nutella is someone I always get wrong, but her participation here strikes me as phony. It was like she didn't understand what was going on in the thread but somehow agreed with Quin, Sloonei, and LC when they had three rather different things to say about me (or in Quin's case, nothing at all).

I haven't given anybody else much thought. If I had to lynch someone based on other factors right now, DDL because a chunk of his posts are defending me. I appreciate that on one level, but I caution myself about people doing that, especially this early when it's easy to do.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:10 pm Who do you think is good?

Mesk, still, I suppose.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:34 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:24 pmLong Con has done nothing but provoke me, and he knows it, which means I am less likely to do anything productive this Day phase because he knows I'll argue with him, and I know when I do argue with him, he's going to continue making things up (like I somehow magically chose who was going to quote Elton John) and whenever I challenge anything he has to say about me, he will give glib, unhelpful responses ("Indeed." "Keep dancing," etc.), which shows he isn't interested in figuring me out. He's interested in getting me out regardless of my alignment. It almost feels personal.

I swear that my suspicion of you is genuine, not personal.

When you take my two "glib" posts, and ignore all my other ones, to make the point that I'm not interested in figuring you out, it's deceptive. This makes you look suspicious.

When you try to twist my clear points into "magically chose - Elton John" crap, it's deceptive. This makes you look suspicious.

Just stop pretending you don't understand, and it will be a start for you looking less suspicious. Why do you DO this???

By saying I'm pretending not to understand, you are effectively calling me "stupid," because I don't understand.

How the fuck did I choose who would quote Elton John? I'm not psychic.

I'm out for the night.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:40 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:37 pm

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:34 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:24 pmLong Con has done nothing but provoke me, and he knows it, which means I am less likely to do anything productive this Day phase because he knows I'll argue with him, and I know when I do argue with him, he's going to continue making things up (like I somehow magically chose who was going to quote Elton John) and whenever I challenge anything he has to say about me, he will give glib, unhelpful responses ("Indeed." "Keep dancing," etc.), which shows he isn't interested in figuring me out. He's interested in getting me out regardless of my alignment. It almost feels personal.

I swear that my suspicion of you is genuine, not personal.

When you take my two "glib" posts, and ignore all my other ones, to make the point that I'm not interested in figuring you out, it's deceptive. This makes you look suspicious.

When you try to twist my clear points into "magically chose - Elton John" crap, it's deceptive. This makes you look suspicious.

Just stop pretending you don't understand, and it will be a start for you looking less suspicious. Why do you DO this???

By saying I'm pretending not to understand, you are effectively calling me "stupid," because I don't understand.

How the fuck did I choose who would quote Elton John? I'm not psychic.

I'm out for the night.

I never said you chose who would quote Elton John. You chose him because he responded to you. He gave you the buddying opportunity you were looking for, and you chose that Civ because of it.

So, according to you, I must have been sitting in BTSC, rubbing my hands together going, "Oh boy, I just posted an Elton John song lyric. Let's see if a civilian responds to it so I can buddy up to him! This is going to be great! Just watch me cruise to victory by telling this unwitting participant in my clever charade that I won't be voting for him Day 1, and then BOOM, we win and he'll never know what him him! "

I can't believe you actually think this.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:38 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:07 pm

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:00 pmI think she's more likely bad if Epi is bad and Epi is more likely to be bad if just one of them is.

Can you expand on this link?

Sure. A few good townies voting for Epi, who is probably bad.

Nutella hamdwaves this, votes for me and leave.

Assume Epi is bad. Nutella is likely trying to discredit the Epi train, hoping his dancing skills allow him to survive and making an excuse not to vote for him. So Nutella is likely bad. Or
Maybe wrong. If I suddenly have a kill I have to use right after Epi is lynched, I shoot Nutella.

Assume Epi is good. Nutella isn't defending her scumbuddy Epi because Epi isn't scum. The case on Nutella half evaporates. If I suddenly have a kill, I don't shoot Nutella.



Let's reverse this.

Assume Nutella is bad. Oh, she's probably covering for scumbuddy Epi but maybe she thinks Epi going to get lynched and is just letting him. I'm willing to use my hypothetical kill to shoot Epi at any rate.

Assume Nutella is good. She's probably just wrong. I still trust my reasoning over hers. I still shoot Epi.



So lynching Epi is more likely to catch scum and allows me to correct a mistake if I'm making one.

They're probably both bad. Probably doesn't matter. Epi should still go first.

Or you just don't know what the word "likely" means.

There is time left in the phase, and I am home. I had a long rehearsal for a Christmas concert. It gave me some distance. I want to move my vote off Long Con, but I don't yet know where to. I don't know why LC comes up with the stuff he does against me, because it never makes sense and he's never right, and I always see him as bad for it.

The way the pendulum swung though doesn't feel like a civilian-driven turnaround. While I don't agree that I am a better lynch than Long Con or nutella, it is bizarre to me that people are voting the two individuals I named as my top suspects early on.

My understanding is that the lynch ends in just over two hours. I want to take a fresh look.

I will say that I don't get why nutella spent so much time putting together a directory of time zones instead of discussing the upcoming lynch.

I still like Mesk's response, and that's the best reason I have to think anybody is good at this stage. I do wish Mesk would bless us with some commentary though.

Glorfindel hasn't posted yet, which isn't a good sign.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:03 am Epi, I would be super happy if you would sing for us again. Sorry about the politics thing earlier. That was rude of me.

It's cool man. No time to sing lately because of work and now rehearsals. Someday though.

Quin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:59 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:52 pm I will say that I don't get why nutella spent so much time putting together a directory of time zones instead of discussing the upcoming lynch.

I'd like to know your thoughts on Jack if you feel like it.

For me, Jack is Long Con Jr.

I can never follow his thought process and I instinctively believe he is lying about his conclusions (especially when they concern me). In this particular instance, I won't be voting Jack today, because at this stage I'd rather lynch someone less active than someone who is at least moving things along (even if its moving against me).

And I just noticed LC AND nutella voted Jack. So I'm definitely not going there today.