The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.

I feel his behavior in this game is contrary to his non-baddie meta as I know it.

Do you better understand it put like that?

To be precise, i feel he is behaving contrary to the non-baddie standard he sets for HIMSELF. I did not set him this standard; he did, and he knows I am right is saying so.

I disagree that I'm behaving contrary to my own non-baddie standard, and I've tried to explain why. I don't think epi was civ. There are plenty of times I've ignored what everyone else thinks because I think someone is not civ. Aces in Roger Rabbit comes to mind as a prime example.

I DO agree that I have done something I've never done before, that looks very different. I've tried to compare it to past big moves I've made like in King Arthur. You've said you could understand the civ motivation there but not here. I get it, that you do not see it as the same thing, and I think your view on that is genuine. I just don't know what more I could do to explain myself.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.

I feel his behavior in this game is contrary to his non-baddie meta as I know it.

Do you better understand it put like that?

I feel like Golden is playing similar to how he started out in HSK actually, sparring with Epignosis and all. He just took it... a little further this time. I've only seen Golden bad in one game, when he subbed back into Economics, and he played nothing like he is here. He was calm and collected and attracted no attention.

I never said he is playing like a baddie. I said he is not playing like civ-centric Golden. What if he decides I am incompatible with him? Or you? I am flabbergasted that anyone is actually defending this.

I believe that he killed Epi and is going for the WIFOM. And if Bass does not flip bad, I will wonder about the hard push for him at this point.

SVS, if later in this game I'm civ and decide I think you are bad, then I am deciding you are incompatible with me, but I'm doing so in a civ/baddie context. What is the difference for epi?

BTW this would be me going for the wifom...

"If I had killed epi, I would have just said 'looks like someone is trying to set me up' and left it at that. The fact I was open about my day one motivations should be the hint you need to realise the kill was not me."

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

Public beheading, lol. More or less accurate.

Canucklehead wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

So, Golden gives svs chills and Bubbles goosebumps

, . . . .


What a cool guy!
* rimshot *

Wakka Wakka !

I like your joke, canuck!

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

This type of attitude is a big reason why I don't trust you, Golden. You admittedly make this big, bold move to Epignosis killed on Day 1, and then you act like everyone is being unfair to you by not trusting your intentions. Do you really see the scrutiny on you as unfair?

Scrutiny? No.

But, rey, I will repeat to you - you find me suspicious for things like saying 'I feel guilty about it'. What is the baddie motive in that statement?

I do not think all of my votes are the outcome of scrutiny. I actually think some of the votes (especially yours) come from a place of a lack of scrutiny.

I will say to you again, you are the one who claimed that motivations are where you should be looking. Why, then, do you continue to ignore me every time I ask you why my statements are indicative of a baddie mindset, and just fall back on telling me off for claiming honesty etc

I don't even remember voting position 3 but I just looked at the poll and apparently I did. so I'm voting position 3.

Rico, I like your find in nutella's posts.

@JJ - although you did not make the point about me, the italicised last 13 words of your posts I find myself relating to a lot in this game because it expresses very simply why I find it difficult to understand that some people are so convinced I'm behind epi's death.

S~V~S wrote:Speaking of Golden's meta, I find it intriguing that the three people playing this game that have known him and his game the longest ALL voted for him.

Thats interesting. The four players here who have known me the longest (ie played my first ever game) are you, Roxy, Bea, and unfurl. None of the others voted for me.

http://spoilertv.co.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... cc7cb9650b (mom is roxy, beatrixkiddo is bea)

Roxy and bea have, in fact, not yet said anything that I have read to be an active suspicion of me. Neither have said they still trust me recently but what they have said has indicated that they read me as genuine. Unfurl, I'm not sure she has mentioned me at all.

S~V~S wrote: I considered that as well, but with Epi alive and focused on Golden, why waste their kill? The end result would be Golden dead and Epi marginalized. The only way it makes sense for me is if Golden was on the team that killed Epi.

So you think the focus on me yesterday would have been greater if epi is still alive?

I don't think so. The only reason I took so much focus is because epi was dead.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

This type of attitude is a big reason why I don't trust you, Golden. You admittedly make this big, bold move to Epignosis killed on Day 1, and then you act like everyone is being unfair to you by not trusting your intentions. Do you really see the scrutiny on you as unfair?

Scrutiny? No.

But, rey, I will repeat to you - you find me suspicious for things like saying 'I feel guilty about it'. What is the baddie motive in that statement?

I do not think all of my votes are the outcome of scrutiny. I actually think some of the votes (especially yours) come from a place of a lack of scrutiny.

I will say to you again, you are the one who claimed that motivations are where you should be looking. Why, then, do you continue to ignore me every time I ask you why my statements are indicative of a baddie mindset, and just fall back on telling me off for claiming honesty etc

I apologize for the lack of clarity. When I say "your motivation", I am not saying what is the baddie or civvie motivation for Golden to react that way? I'm saying "What is Golden's motivation for saying the things he does?" Is it coming from a position of honesty or is he being fundamentally dishonest in his ideas. Do you see the difference?

I know what you mean.

But what is the motivation for being dishonest?

It's pointless to say 'I think you are dishonest'. You can just think I'm dishonest, I can't stop you. But the question you should be asking is "If that is dishonesty, why would he say that lie? How would it possible ever further a baddie game?" And the reality is, it wouldn't, the things you are accusing me of being dishonest about it wouldb e stupid and meaningless to lie about no matter what my affiliation and I NEVER would.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

I disagree 100%, have you been reading the same thread as me? Golden and I have been in hot seats for almost the entire game, and Golden barely made it out of the last lynch alive.

Meanwhile, we have TinyBubbles, timmer, and DisgruntledPorcupine, who are recently receiving a bit of heat, but have not come under near as much fire as those who have put their words on the line and posted much more.

I think your post here trying to further the divide, making this a hardcore v. non-hardcore fest, is troubling greatly. I think players with post counts of all sizes should be eyeballed with equal fervor, not lopsided, and it's entirely why I've been defending Golden because his posts have read completely reasonable as a neutral-aligned Golden. The only accusations against him legitimately fall into two categories: (1) fear mongering and (2) belief that neutral Golden would play like a civilian.

HE SAID HE WOULD

When did I ever say I would play "Like my civilian meta" - if anything, I've said the exact opposite - that I am neutral and don't know what team I'm on and am one of the few people overtly being clear that I am playing like that. I have literally never said I'm playing 'like a civilian'.

I am, however, saying that I do not believe epi was a civ, and I would not have made my move if I thought he was a civilian. I'm not playing anti-civilian.

reywaS wrote:"Out of reywaS' 124 posts, I'd reckon 60% of them are about Golden (I'm guesstimating). I would expect it very easy and safe to tunnel into one person for a time"

A response to this particular snippet from Scotty's earlier post. You are right. I have been focusing on Golden a lot. I tend to get tunnel vision in mafia games when someone's posts get stuck in my head. In the past it can be a flaw of my game play style. But, I'm not always wrong when I get fixated on someone. A particular RM game comes to mind...Reality TV Mafia. I remember having a particularly over the top case of tunnel vision in that game, but I did sniff out DharmaHelper and Golden as 2 of the 4 mafiosos in the game...but for every time that I am correct in that case, there are a few instances where I was just flat out wrong. I realize this. This is why I tempered my suspicion of Golden in between Days 1 and 2, but he reignited my suspicion with the things he said in the 2nd half of Day 2. Right or wrong that is the only way I know how to play when I am not on a baddie team. I tend to have a lot more trouble when I am because in my head everything I think to write just sounds forced. A handful of people in this game know this about me. Golden is one of those people, which is why the 2 "no u's" he's flung at me in this game don't ring true to me. In Zany Dex's Superman game on RM, this dynamic was on display where I was Clark Kent and Golden was independent and eventually merged with the mafia team (and won). I got tunnel vision in that game too. I think I was wrong in that case, but regardless I got a lot of flack in that game for it.

I can confirm rey does get tunnel vision as a civ. It's why I can't find him bad solely for continuing to chase me.

I do, however, think that particularly his suspicion on me for saying 'I feel guilty about it' does not ring true, and sounded like he was trying to manufacture a reason to vote for me.

Scotty wrote:As for Golden, I feel like if he were to stop responding to every little thing said about him his heat would die down a bit, but he has kept going, much to people's chagrin, and people are finding that even more suspicious. I feel that he's probably gonna have that monkey on his back all game until we can get a better picture of who actually killed Epi (we may never).
I have no reason to believe he is anything more than neutral right now.

I do not agree that the heat would die down if I ignored things. I think I survived the lynch primarily through fighting hard, and if I didn't respond people would call it another sign I'm off-meta.

linki @scotty - I don't have the slightest clue.

Roxy wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Speaking of Golden's meta, I find it intriguing that the three people playing this game that have known him and his game the longest ALL voted for him.

Thats interesting. The four players here who have known me the longest (ie played my first ever game) are you, Roxy, Bea, and unfurl. None of the others voted for me.

http://spoilertv.co.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... cc7cb9650b (mom is roxy, beatrixkiddo is bea)

Roxy and bea have, in fact, not yet said anything that I have read to be an active suspicion of me. Neither have said they still trust me recently but what they have said has indicated that they read me as genuine. Unfurl, I'm not sure she has mentioned me at all.

BeatrixKiddo is Mata's daughter NOT Bea.

Really? OK, well scratch bea and leave it at unfurl roxy and SVS. Still point remains. Bea is next as she played in superhero (my second game). And I see beatrixkiddo was kiddo on that game. Somehow I have forgotten her

Roxy I can understand why I might look clique-y. My bass vote was mostly because he is a very successful baddie and if I was bad, I would want to recruit him. The fact I was also voting to save MP is because he looked like he was having a bit of an emotional time and feeling like perhaps quitting the game, and I wanted to give him tangible reasons he didn't need to quit the game and to know that there were people (or at least one) reading his posts and who didn't think he was bad. But there was no intentional clique.

I also don't feel like I agree with unfurl saying the game will necessarily become for elite hard core players. I think I've shown that the targets are not all on the quieter players. But I think there are solid logical reasons to target quieter players, so I can see why it could go down that road.

S~V~S wrote:I meant Rey and DH who were both on staff with you at ZRM, Golden.

OK, but you were wrong, yeah?

Rey and DH know me well, but so do all the others I listed. It's wrong to imply that those who know me best think I'm bad.

(Plus, I don't even think DH thinks I'm bad. I think he merely thinks I am a threat to his game. He is playing the game in a way I would describe as truly neutral. But he can correct me if I'm wrong)

thellama73 wrote:All right, I'm back.

Does anyone remember the awesome summaries/recaps I do from time to time when people ask me? Somebody do me a solid and make one of those. I'm going to go back and read a lot as well, but a bird's eye view narrative would be helpful.

I would usually do this, but my perspective is highly skewed. I think I may be able to summarise why each person who got votes, got votes. Others might want to argue my interpretation though. Is that sufficient?

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:All right, I'm back.

Does anyone remember the awesome summaries/recaps I do from time to time when people ask me? Somebody do me a solid and make one of those. I'm going to go back and read a lot as well, but a bird's eye view narrative would be helpful.

I would usually do this, but my perspective is highly skewed. I think I may be able to summarise why each person who got votes, got votes. Others might want to argue my interpretation though. Is that sufficient?

Yes.

Bass - some people thought he was being deliberately limited in his posting content, and felt he read bad. Others felt he was not contributing enough. Others felt he was a good target for baddie recruit.
BWT - seemed to be primarily a reaction to his 'go civs' post, some people found it not genuine or his posting not genuine generally, and also that it is blendy.
DP - for being DP, and because he voted himself.
G-Man - I can't recall why Rico voted G-Man, I think it was to do with G-Man's posts about TH or his posts about me.
Golden - I'll give another post to my perception of why each person voted for me and what I think of it.
MP - you were here for that. He got no more votes after.
Scotty - self voted for not being around much
Timmer - self voted for not being around much
bubbles - for being blendy and jumping on votes without explanation
TH - because the speaker of serenity said so. Some people also found TH's posting about how we should perceive this game odd (he took a very neutralist view of it) but they ultimately voted elsewhere.
Unfurl - No idea why bwt voted unfurl.

Others can add or subtract if they think I've been unfair.

Golden voters.

Dom: I feel is probably genuine, although I don't entirely understand why he suspects me. But it's been consistent and felt real. I'd like to understand what specific things I've done that have him suspecting me.

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

SVS: I also think is genuine. Mostly she has gone about comparing me to past games and her comparisons have not been unfair. I think she is not taking on board some of the points I've made and I think I'm playing much more like the golden she knows than she realises. But I also have satisfying reasons in mind for why SVS has stepped up her insistence that I am bad, even though she is wrong. If I was to be lynched tomorrow, I would go down declaring that you should not hold it against SVS.

Rey: I've made my feelings here pretty clear. Rey voted for me on day one because I said that 'certainly epi wouldn't end up on my team' and didn't say to his satisfaction that I recognised this was not true (even though I did say it multiple times). He then voted me on day two for saying I felt guilty about the approach I took to epi. He himself said motivations were more important than actions, but I don't feel as though rey has demonstrated that he has thought about what my motivations would be at all. I acknowledge that rey is a tunneler even when he is civ but I feel like even rey civ would have taken a step back and listened to some of the things I've said but he doesn't really seem to be listening. I have trouble seeing this as genuine. If I was to be lynched tomorrow, particularly if it was done on the back of a vocal rey, I would go down declaring you should strongly consider lynching him the day after.

Boomslang: Bandwagony but consistent. No reason to see it as not genuine, although it feels more the view of a neutral-aligned than anything.

Tinybubbles: Probably the most suspicious since she expressed that I normally take suspicion just for being loud and tended to be a target but said she'd vote for me anyway without ever really explaining why. I felt as though this vote might have been intentionally to avoid heat she was taking from being on TH bandwagon. Hard to say if this is bad or just the sign of a survivalist, though.

thellama73 wrote:Observation 5: re: Golden. His whole "I got Epi killed" thing is super shady, and seems like just the kind of thing he could pull off. If true, I would hate to see him get away with it, if only for the precedent it sets.

Could you explain this a bit better? Particularly, what does 'getting away with it' look like and what is the 'bad precedent it sets'.

I have always had big schemes. Sometimes they work and sometimes they backfire. This one might have done both (King Arthur did both too).

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Observation 5: re: Golden. His whole "I got Epi killed" thing is super shady, and seems like just the kind of thing he could pull off. If true, I would hate to see him get away with it, if only for the precedent it sets.

Could you explain this a bit better? Particularly, what does 'getting away with it' look like and what is the 'bad precedent it sets'.

I have always had big schemes. Sometimes they work and sometimes they backfire. This one might have done both (King Arthur did both too).

I think it's fairly self-explanatory. If in fact you killed Epi, and then came into the thread and said "I got Epi killed" and nobody lynched you for it, that would be upsetting to me. It would be an invitation for others to try the same trick in the future. Bad medicine.

I agree. Sorry, it wasn't self-explanatory to me, because I wasn't sure if you meant that (SVS view of what she thinks I did) or if you meant what I actually did do, which does not include actually killing epi.

@rey - the ultimate reason you said you voted for me was that you found me not to be genuine, I understand that and yes I found that to make sense at that time. But after day two where you found a similarly obscure reason to come back to suspecting me, my perspective on your behaviour both days has changed.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.

There are lots of things you coul have asked Bass. I don't think demanding reads on random people was productive at all. It just seemed mean.

I certainly didn't intend to be mean. I intended to generate meaningful information to further my own understanding of Bass. Bass, if you found my behavior distasteful then I apologize for that.

Did anyone else feel that way? I ask because if this perspective is a trend then I'll need to reassess my approach. I don't want to baddie hunt so hard that I become a jerk.

I disagree with the idea that it was mean entirely.

Can I see that it could be reasonably perceived as uniquely targeted and so a manipulative move from a baddie? Yes. (I don't think it was, but I can understand that perspective). But that doesn't make it mean to do it.

Also, RIP G-Man, I'm sorry to lose you, even though I know you need to focus on baby.

DharmaHelper wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.

What is the difference between seeing you as a threat and being afraid of you leading to my death? Do you think I am threatened that you might hug me too hard?

I'm getting to this, I really don't think you need to post it twice within a short period of time. Reminds me of LC who accused me of being bad in BoB because I didn't respond to him within 19 minutes.

I think you are playing a neutral game and you don't have any problem with getting rid of me because you know I will also play the game hard, and the epi death stuff is a convenient example of how I will do this. I don't think you felt any imminent threat to your life in the game.

Imagine this scenario - you are unable to be nightkilled or lynched but you die and lose if the rest of your team dies. You might perceive me as a threat to your chances of winning, despite knowing I wasn't going to be able to kill you.

If you are claiming that you legitimately think I might have been about to kill you, even though I had expressed hardly any suspicion on you and wasn't interested in you at all, on the basis of my epi stuff - well, I would find that to be incredibly disingenuous and my opinion of your vote for me would change considerably.

DharmaHelper wrote:You didn't even answer my question.

Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:You didn't even answer my question.

Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

Doesn't address the discrepancy in those quotes I mentioned.

I think it does. I don't think I understand what else you want me to say.

I do not think you thought I was about to kill you (ie 'were scared'). I think you just voted for me because you thought it was in your interests as a neutral player (ie 'I was a threat').

DharmaHelper wrote:Why would you be a threat if you weren't eventually going to kill me?

Instead of you asking me the same question again and again and me getting increasingly frustrated with your answers, why don't you answer this simple question.

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Is the day actually ending in only 24 hours?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Were you legitimately scared that if you didn't put the hit out on Epi he would have A) Not ended up on your team eventually and B) Killed you.

A - yes. B - no (why would you NK someone you think you can lynch), but he would have been a threat to me, because he would have been pursuing my lynch.

Now answer mine.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:Now answer mine.

If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?

OK, so you were scared of me on the offchance that I would pull the same ploy a second time and on the offchance it would work twice (note, even after I had stated I don't think I would possibly be able to replicate it) and on the offchance that if I tried it again I would choose you as the target...

What has 'in good faith' got to do with it?

What I see in your answer to my question is exactly the same as what I thought of your suspicion all along.... you are not particularly scared of me killing you, you just see me, generically, as a threat.

And no, I did not think I could lynch epi (at least not before he lynched me). As I said, when epi has done what he did in this game in the past, it has not worked out well for me. Everything I did to epi was specifically about epi, and the impact he has on games, and I don't think anyone who claims they legitimately think I might do the same to them without any reason to think it is being genuine.

Oh, btw, you didn't actually directly answer my question. I thought I should point that out, since it seemed you had a problem with that when I did it. You've actually been avoiding it all afternoon.

Were you legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Aha, DH brings out honest talk which he has so far very carefully avoided saying.

Being unrecruitable is not a problem. I do think my actions would make it less likely for a baddie to intentionally recruit me. You think I see that as a downside? It gives me more control over my destiny. Also, if I am unrecruitable, I am by definition not a threat. For me it serves two very good purposes off the bat.

I don't think it makes me unrecruitable for the civs, but in any event as long as their are civ contests I will enter them and they might get me anyway. And if they don't get me, I still only have to survive to win. Again, where is the downside?

I did the whole thing in part because I suspected epi was bad AND that he wanted to recruit me, after having thrown sufficient shade at me that it would make the other of us look good should one of us be lynched. (And before anyone goes saying this is new information and why didn't I say it before, when people asked what epi's baddie motivation was for going after me, I already gave that answer, ages ago).

You could have gone in another direction entirely, though, because I did create a much bigger problem for myself - namely, the number of people who want to lynch me.

I honestly have trouble perceiving why anyone would think I was legitimately bad (or at least, legitimately on the team that killed epi). It's like a rinse and repeat of watchmen, where I got lynched essentially for doing something which would have been an obvious thing for a baddie to do. Newsflash - not one of my baddie games has EVER been characterised by that kind of play. I'm amazed at how many people have focussed on my civ-meta (which, as I consistently say, I think I am actually playing to INCLUDING the move on epi) and ignoring entirely my baddie-meta.

So which do I think is more likely? Obviously, I know which is true and my answer is biased. I am neutral and I have no problem staying that way, especially over being recruited bad. I still have to play smart while neutral, because despite best intentions I may be recruited bad. But I think that anyone who knows me should also objectively recognise the second as being more likely, and for that matter anyone who thinks that I actually know how to play the game and wouldn't be stupid enough to do whats its claimed I did - kill epi, and then play some massive wifom when there would have been literally no reason for me to do it.

DharmaHelper wrote:It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list.

Well I disagree with SVS view that rainbow lists make the slightest bit of difference as to who baddies kill anyway.

I do not perceive any of Scotty's posts as suspicious this game.

Dom wrote:I don't understand your change in tone from Day 0 and wanting to find baddies to literally manipulating the thread to kill someone because you didn't want them going after you and you didn't think you'd be not he same team (with extremely flawed logic).

OK, and fair enough. I think I have gotten tangled in trying to explain what I mean by being neutral in the context of playing a game that I think is the same as my civvie-meta, and I can't complain if you feel I've been inconsistent.

As for the first mindset shift, I can say that I absolutely did have a mindset shift, from 'lets find baddies', to 'Gucking hell I can't believe this bullsuit'.



The mindset shift was not because I was suddenly recruited mid-day. In fact, I think that if you read back you will find that the mindset shift happened before anyone was recruited at all.

And the epi stuff did make me rethink my entire approach to the game. Before that point, I hadn't thought through the implications of being neutral yet and what my best move would be.

As I said, this is my first game like this, I've never played anything like it before. If you expect me to have figure the ins and outs of what it might mean for how I have to play before I even started playing, well... I just can't live up to that standard.

@scotty, the simple reality is, sometimes all you have time for is to play D. I ought to be posting less. What I am actually going to be doing in this next day is travelling to Australia, so I'm pretty much going to be absent from the thread for the second half of the day period, possibly all the way up until the lynch. There is at least a decent chance that there is really literally nothing I can do to defend myself on this day, so in the time I have left I think it is a really wise thing to do to get my thoughts out there on other stuff.

I have been getting a little bit out, especially around people who I DON'T think seem bad. Maybe I actually should do a rainbow list (I'd put DH at the top for good measure!) But when I'm such a massive topic of focus, often it takes all my attention to those who are interacting with me a lot and I have very little to say on a number of people who aren't (Tranq, Aapje, Lorab, DF for example)

As for who is bad, I'd say rey and bubbles. I don't really know how I would distinguish between recruiter and recruitee, other than how long they have seemed bad I guess.

Here is the thing about the baddie recruiter that killed epi. Their move can play both ways. It could put heat on me, or it might not. It's no skin off their nose either way. But getting me out of the way couldn't hurt. Right now, I'd have rey as my most likely candidate for being the baddie recruiter on that team, for his push for me, then back off, then sudden push again towards the end of the second day when there was actually a legitimate chance of getting me lynched - felt very very off to me. Rey was not over me at all that day, UNTIL I was suddenly within lynchable range, and then he cast the vote that drew me level with bass at that time and was all over me. It felt incredibly disingenuous.

Bubbles - I never can quite tell with her, but I'm beginning to think llama may have been on to something. Her back and forth on who to vote yesterday did not come across as sincere to me. It felt like she wanted to sound civilian and do what she would do if civilian, but she had no compelling reason to actually vote me or bass, and she ended up voting for me despite the fact that she was acknowledging I often take heat early when good for more or less the same reasons. Adding that to the context that bubbles has never been bad before (hence why she might seem a little stilted, it's a new experience being on that side of the fence), and that she flies under the radar, she fits the profile of a recruit.

linki - and I will also vote rey, noting the possibility of a thread lock.

DrWilgy wrote:torturing my little brother...

Add wilgy to the list of baddies! No civilian team could recruit this maniac!

I just realised I could have played that scavenger contest. Just found the devil in one of the posts. I had assumed the previous leader names were simply incorporated into the posts, in which case I thought I had no hope! Never mind (this is what happens when you do focus your time on defense).

Lorab, I present for you, day 1!

Golden wrote:As for mafia motives, can think of two possibilities. One, he was thinking of recruiting me given we worked well together in Guess Who and creating distance first was a tactic to achieve it. Two, he was not thinking of recruiting me and so why not cast suspicion on me.

Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

PPPS Rico - welcome to why I say you will end up with a better record than me. You are a better player than me, dude (and I mean that).