[END] The Syndicate's 2013 Game of Champions

[thellama73]

Wow, this is a lot to take in, but great work on the word analysis, Nev. I want to reread Bea, FH and Juliets today in the light of this and I will post any thoughts I have aout them. Right now, though, I could get behind a Bea lynch. I do not like lynch begging at all. I feel like I never see civs do it.

[juliets]

Holy crap, that was a lot of death.

Jack is clearly out now..
Epig was incinerated? Who can do that? The only thing I could think of is a plasmid?

I hate to say it with so many dead folks lying around, but that was a *good* night.

I did some investigation on a new angle that I'm surprised none of us thought of before - Rumplestiltskin.
Kind of a lot of work, but my logic is: APerson was on his team, and didn't post a ton. Probably he *did* however, post the special word during day 2.
So I went through all of his posts on day 2, did the appropriate search and saw who else used each of those words.

here were the searches that turned up a reasonable number of hits:

'specific': bea, Epig, Dom, Aperson, Juliets
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... sf=msgonly

'pretend': boomslang, aperson, bea
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... sf=msgonly

That first list particularly intrigued me. So I followed Bea for a few days doing the same analysis on *her* posts.

On day 3, we get this list for 'supper':
russ, epig, bea - http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... sf=msgonly

Interesting especially because of how bea worked the word in: " You're really supper good at puzzles aren't you?"
When I saw that Epignosis had used the same word I was pretty excited - Juliets didn't hit that word though, so I can't call it a slam dunk against the three of them. (Russ used the word in direct response to Epig using it, so I don't expect that means anything.

On day 5 (bea was insanified day 4), we got 'accidentally' used by juliets and bea (but not epig)

On day 6, 'love' got used by bea, juliets, epig, and me
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... sf=msgonly

My guess is that they intentionally were not *all* using the word every time, because that would make this type of analysis too easy,
but I think these results are *very* strong.

Epignosis just died without a reveal (though I still think I was right about him), and I think it is very *very* likely that bea is Martell -
this is *not* the first time this game she's suggested that someone lynch her and see how wrong they are.
Juliets.. I had no reason to doubt, but now I really think she is almost certainly on that team.
That also tracks with Epig's chatter about the impossibility of using an exaggerator fake kill to take suspicion *off* of somebody (though I agreed with his logic).

linki lots, but nothing overtly relevant.

You went from no reason to doubt to sure I was baddie because i said 'specific', 'accidentally', and 'love'? Those words were not said for any Rumple reason, they are natural parts of my speech especially specific, specifically, and love. There is no way to disprove your thought and I actually applaud your digging deep but I am not A Person's teammate.

[Hedgeowl]

I am not sure how to take bea's wanting to be lynched, since it was a day where she obviously couldn't be if she was off the poll. If people really think she is Martell, then I don't think we should wait to lynch her at all. Every lynch counts, but I need to dig into some of the points DH brought up as well.

[Nevinera]

Wow, this is a lot to take in, but great work on the word analysis, Nev. I want to reread Bea, FH and Juliets today in the light of this and I will post any thoughts I have aout them. Right now, though, I could get behind a Bea lynch. I do not like lynch begging at all. I feel like I never see civs do it.

Day 6: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 467#p54467
Day 5: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 853#p53853
Day 4: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 122#p53122
(not exactly 'begging', but referencing her vindication in the case of her own lynch)
Day 3: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 293#p52293

She has been surprisingly consistent about it.

[Nevinera]

You went from no reason to doubt to sure I was baddie because i said 'specific', 'accidentally', and 'love'? Those words were not said for any Rumple reason, they are natural parts of my speech especially specific, specifically, and love. There is no way to disprove your thought and I actually applaud your digging deep but I am not A Person's teammate.

Yep. You could have said any of those on accident, but the probability of all three in such a tight group is very low.
But it's not 'proof', of course - I think that bea would be a better lynch first, but only if people are willing to trust my assessment of her role afterwards :-)

[juliets]

I'd like to add that I paid specific attention to words that seems a little bit forced, like someone was trying to work them into a sentence instead of just letting them flow out. That's why 'supper' got my attention, but the others also felt a bit unsmooth in places, like

"Now that you mention that specific incident, I do remember that. "
"Hedge is there a specific reason you picked el Wombat over L or A?"
"that's strangely specific" (in reply to 'you may embed only 5 quotes within each other' - it didn't really make sense as a response).
"In what specific way was I trying to dissuade you from lynching The Unmentionable One?"

Notice how it seems sort of grafted on?
Contrast to the only apparently natural use of the word that day, by Dom:
"I have no specific read on Epig yet", which seems to flow properly, like that word belongs there.

Nevin, I don't see any difference between most of the quotes you have above and Dom's quote. Are you saying that the using of the word specific seems forced in those quotes above? I don't think any of them are my quotes, but I have to say the only one that catches my eye as strange is the one that says "that's strangely specific" about the embedded quotes. I don't see how the embedded quotes were specific at all. Otherwise they are talking about specific reasons, a specific incident, and a specific way, all perfectly appropriate uses of the word.

[Mongoose]

Wow, this is a lot to take in, but great work on the word analysis, Nev. I want to reread Bea, FH and Juliets today in the light of this and I will post any thoughts I have aout them. Right now, though, I could get behind a Bea lynch. I do not like lynch begging at all. I feel like I never see civs do it.

Day 6: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 467#p54467
Day 5: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 853#p53853
Day 4: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 122#p53122
(not exactly 'begging', but referencing her vindication in the case of her own lynch)
Day 3: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 293#p52293

She has been surprisingly consistent about it.

Thanks for the links. It's made me a bit leery she's Catherine Martell, but trying to get yourself lynched in such a blatant manner seems a bit brazen. Sure you might get lynched and your role pops up as XYZ, but then if you've made yourself so suspicious in the process, you wouldn't be able to count yourself likely for The Next Rez Cycle. Thus, I'm really torn on that one.

[Mongoose]

DH - I know it's part of your curse/task, and it is in sarcastic orange, and it probably physically hurt you to type that, butt cheers, mate! And our disagreements are in-game only (ifyouknowwhatimean).

I think it's just orange to set aside as poem-type tasl, I don't think it's sarcastic. Like mine (very nice, thank you, btw) didn't sound sarcastic. Just take the compliment and keep on truckin'!

[thellama73]

Just did a re-read of juliets. Here are my thoughts.

A large majority of her posts are questions. "What do you think?" "How does this mechanic work?" "Who are your suspects?" etc.

A realize this is a legitimate style of play, but it's also a good way to look like you're participating without casting suspicion on anyone in particular. Overall, she struck me as the quintessential follower, going along with other people's cases, agreeing with people, asking questions, and never saying or doing anything controversial.

I don't think I'm ready to vote for her yet, and this could all be perfectly innocent. It's been a complex game. But combined with Nev's vote analysis, I will be keeping an eye on her in the future.

And before anyone points it out, I realize a lot of these same points could be made against me. I feel like quite the hypocrite this game.

I have a lunch appointment, but I will read Bea and Flyin' High when I get back.

[juliets]

My responses in blue:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848 - This post here pings me a bit. Goose comes to JC's rescue and JC uses that to help explain her inquiry into FH's analysis. Goose btw, is an awesome person and player and every time I've interacted with her it has been a pleasant experience. She has a lovely manner about her and I admire her skill as a player.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 124#p51124 - This post here actually makes me think JC might not be on AP's team. Prior to him being Modkilled she expresses a desire to vote for him. This of course could be a ploy, and it could be JC being irritated at her teammate and trying to nudge him back in line, but IDK. Something to consider, guys.

I can't speak for why Mongoose spoke up but it would have been dumb to respond like that to a teammate.

If I had wanted to nudge someone who was a teammate I would do it in a chat. Do you really think a baddie would do that in the thread?

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848 And then this confuses me:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 418#p51418 - here JC advocates steering away from focusing on Media. Up to this point, (maybe I'm wrong) but the majority of her focus was on Media/Zodac related discussion and not on actual baddie finding.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 470#p51470 - Here she agrees with Nevin's Notion to lynch INH again. Complete 180.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 486#p51486 - her vote for INH
Now the only reason I can think of JC saying she'd like to steer off Indie/Media talk and then flipping 180 would be to make it look like she was actual-mafia hunting then sneak up in there with the easy target vote. Dunno. Again, something to consider guys.

Like others, I did consider waiting until day 3 to try and lynch inh again, thinking that Zodac would have picked inh for day 2. But as the day went on I changed my mind about that and decided to vote inh after all. I don't see anything odd about this, just like I didn't see anything odd about others changing their mind. If the only reason you can think of that I would do that is to seem like I was mafia hunting and then sneak in there with the target vote then you must think the same about FH who also thought waiting til day 3 was a decent idea and then changed her mind. She talked about that right here in the thread.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 789#p51789 - See's beas game as civvie
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 806#p51806 - votes to give bea the shield
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 934#p52934 JC's response to Kate's death. Seems to think she was a civ. Hmmm.

I did see bea's game as civv at that point and I was not the only one. I also voted to give bea the shield and I was not the only one there either. All I said about kate was that i was going to look back at her posts and see if I could figure out why she was killed - how is that a 'bad' thing?

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 944#p52944 JC investigates Kates killing. Vested interest?
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 049#p53049 - brings up the bwt susp. but says its not enough to vote on (note bwt also voted to rezz Kate.) Bwt by the way is a pretty neat dude. Very cool to talk to and so on. He's got a great style of play that I always enjoy. My experience of playing with him tells me he's a dangerous baddie and an invaluable civvie.

I did read through kates posts as I had promised and I even said I hoped someone else looked at them to make sure I didnt miss something. Hows does that show I am a baddie? I don't know what the point is of the last quote. I said more than once in the thread that I did not have enough to vote for bwt. I even layed out what had been brought up as reasons for him being bad and said it was not enough. How does that make me a baddie?

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848
Thats all I've got for now, as it is mondo late and I am mondo tired. From this analysis however I am not really comfortable with JC's civvieness. She has certainly moved up in my suspicion list, and I am interested in others thoughts about here. The most interesting thing I can see is that she seems to be very focused/understanding of some of the indie roles and then very distracted/confused regarding the mafia roles.

It seems like what you have done here is to throw out my name a bunch of times, the illusion being that you have some slam dunk baddie evidence here. The more you say someone's name the more people focus on it and it makes them seem bad even if there is not good evidence to support being bad. I don't know what you're even talking about with your conclusion - that i have been focused on indies and confused about baddies. INH was to me obviously Media. I don't think I've even mentioned Sander Cohen or Delbert Grady, have mentioned some but not much about Bob and Zodac. So how is that focusing on the indies? I mentioned A Person as a suspect before he was modkilled and I've indicated I was undecided on bwt and Epi.

I welcome everyone re-reading me and seeing what they think about me.

linki llama - yes my playstyle is one of asking a lot of questions because i try to look at each case or important point from a variety of angles. Those who play regularly with me know I use these questions to assess information and I am usually slow and deliberate in coming to a decision. I don't normally make a lot of cases but if I do, its as the game gets into later stages. I understand you wanting to keep an eye out.

[S~V~S]

The odds are good I am going to vote Llama this round. I am going to reread the Day 5 lynch, where he survived. I don't feel very good about him, tbh.

[DharmaHelper]

Before I jump back into my fact-finding I want to take the time to respond to some people. Lizzy and JC in particular. lizzy first.

Intéressant. Not sure what to make of Gleam, but I never trust Epi and Russti. RIP though.

DH - I know it's part of your curse/task, and it is in sarcastic orange, and it probably physically hurt you to type that, butt cheers, mate! And our disagreements are in-game only (ifyouknowwhatimean).

Now back to business.

How are these two quotes you pulled (from D1) relevant to the last 4-5 days of discussion?

1. easy target;
2. contradiction;
3. things have evolved from there in case you haven't noticed. I was too lazy to reiterate the rest last time, since it has already been posted. Yeah, that is my fault for not going through my posts to lay it all before you again.
For someone who's doing extremely thorough analyses and has an eye for detail, you sure do miss elementary stuff and jump to rushed conclusions in blink of an eye:

1. there's the classic 'of course Lizzy saved Vomps because they're besties she doesn't care if he's mafia'
2. now you're blaming Percy for accepting the butler's offer. There is no offer because Jack has been found. He kinda killed Russti. Penny could've found MacGyver and Percy borrowed his NK, but it failed because BWT is in fact civ. That is one other possibility.

I've said this before, if the Moriarty thing works like 50% accurate - 50% dead player's role, then, when I was revealed as Jack the only dead player at the time was SVS, with INH and Rey killed on the same night I was revealed. SVS has been rezzed, and with that logic it would have been easy for the Butler for find Jack. Again, a mere possibility.

To your First point:

1. Easy Target - Well, it was a day 1 vote. I was looking for anything at all that pinged me (even considered JC,) You handing your vote over to INH on a whim was mondo suspicious and deserved a vote IMO..
2. Contradiction - How so? Handing your vote over was something pingy and unchampionlike in my opinion. Are you saying me saying I didn't want to go back and read through the mounds of INH discussion I'd already sloshed through was contradicting my stance of participation? If so you're confused. I didn't want to go back and repeat myself over the INH stuff, but I found OTHER WAYS to participate.
3. Things have evolved from there - Vague as this is, I agree with you. For example, I have evolved into not voting for you :P

as to your second set of points

1. I maintain that you'd do this. It doesn't seem to far out of mental processing to me to think that You, Vomps, A Person, etc, would 100% defend and protect each other regardless of affiliation. In fact I've witnessed you guys do that in a few games. Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm not the only one who holds that view and I'm certainly not making it up :P

2. Admittedly I hadn't considered that Percy stole a Night kill. I saw that a civvie had killed someone and jumped to my conclusion, I apologize.

Timmer (And Bullz) are both very cool guys. Bullz was probably my favorite BTSC partner ever when I had him in Sherlock. Timmer is consistently brilliant, and probably one of the only players I genuinely fear whenever he's mafia and I'm a civ or something similar. Dude is scary good. They're both class act guys and I really think they deserve to be in a game of Champions.

[insertnamehere]

Timmer (And Bullz) are both very cool guys. Bullz was probably my favorite BTSC partner ever when I had him in Sherlock. Timmer is consistently brilliant, and probably one of the only players I genuinely fear whenever he's mafia and I'm a civ or something similar. Dude is scary good. They're both class act guys and I really think they deserve to be in a game of Champions.

Nice use of sarc orange DH.

[DharmaHelper]

JC Next: To make it easier to read I took out the NP blue.. (I don't think you understand the concept or reason behind "My responses in X" lol)

My responses in blue:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848 - This post here pings me a bit. Goose comes to JC's rescue and JC uses that to help explain her inquiry into FH's analysis. Goose btw, is an awesome person and player and every time I've interacted with her it has been a pleasant experience. She has a lovely manner about her and I admire her skill as a player.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 124#p51124 - This post here actually makes me think JC might not be on AP's team. Prior to him being Modkilled she expresses a desire to vote for him. This of course could be a ploy, and it could be JC being irritated at her teammate and trying to nudge him back in line, but IDK. Something to consider, guys.

I can't speak for why Mongoose spoke up but it would have been dumb to respond like that to a teammate.

If I had wanted to nudge someone who was a teammate I would do it in a chat. Do you really think a baddie would do that in the thread? - Yes, and also WIFOM.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848 And then this confuses me:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 418#p51418 - here JC advocates steering away from focusing on Media. Up to this point, (maybe I'm wrong) but the majority of her focus was on Media/Zodac related discussion and not on actual baddie finding.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 470#p51470 - Here she agrees with Nevin's Notion to lynch INH again. Complete 180.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 486#p51486 - her vote for INH
Now the only reason I can think of JC saying she'd like to steer off Indie/Media talk and then flipping 180 would be to make it look like she was actual-mafia hunting then sneak up in there with the easy target vote. Dunno. Again, something to consider guys.

Like others, I did consider waiting until day 3 to try and lynch inh again, thinking that Zodac would have picked inh for day 2. But as the day went on I changed my mind about that and decided to vote inh after all. I don't see anything odd about this, just like I didn't see anything odd about others changing their mind. If the only reason you can think of that I would do that is to seem like I was mafia hunting and then sneak in there with the target vote then you must think the same about FH who also thought waiting til day 3 was a decent idea and then changed her mind. She talked about that right here in the thread. - I didn't mention anyone else doing this because this analysis is in regards to you. Deflecting onto other players (Particularly FH, in this case) is not something that I think makes me feel better about my suspicion.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 789#p51789 - See's beas game as civvie
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 806#p51806 - votes to give bea the shield
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 934#p52934 JC's response to Kate's death. Seems to think she was a civ. Hmmm.

I did see bea's game as civv at that point and I was not the only one. I also voted to give bea the shield and I was not the only one there either. All I said about kate was that i was going to look back at her posts and see if I could figure out why she was killed - how is that a 'bad' thing? - You said repeatedly that you saw Kates "civ" game and you thought she was a civ taken too soon and so on. To me this seems like something you would say about a NK'd teammate, particularly given that you voted for her to be rezzed and such

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 944#p52944 JC investigates Kates killing. Vested interest?
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 049#p53049 - brings up the bwt susp. but says its not enough to vote on (note bwt also voted to rezz Kate.) Bwt by the way is a pretty neat dude. Very cool to talk to and so on. He's got a great style of play that I always enjoy. My experience of playing with him tells me he's a dangerous baddie and an invaluable civvie.

I did read through kates posts as I had promised and I even said I hoped someone else looked at them to make sure I didnt miss something. Hows does that show I am a baddie? I don't know what the point is of the last quote. I said more than once in the thread that I did not have enough to vote for bwt. I even layed out what had been brought up as reasons for him being bad and said it was not enough. How does that make me a baddie? - Your interest in Kates death is indicative to me of something I've observed mafia do (and I've actually done as well) in the past. Sometimes mafia get hung up on the death of their team, or put something in the thread like "Oh I wonder why X was killed" when in fact they themselves carried out the kill. Your inquisitiveness makes it look like you were cluelessly uninvolved in the proccess, when in fact you might have been.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848
Thats all I've got for now, as it is mondo late and I am mondo tired. From this analysis however I am not really comfortable with JC's civvieness. She has certainly moved up in my suspicion list, and I am interested in others thoughts about here. The most interesting thing I can see is that she seems to be very focused/understanding of some of the indie roles and then very distracted/confused regarding the mafia roles.

It seems like what you have done here is to throw out my name a bunch of times, the illusion being that you have some slam dunk baddie evidence here. The more you say someone's name the more people focus on it and it makes them seem bad even if there is not good evidence to support being bad. I don't know what you're even talking about with your conclusion - that i have been focused on indies and confused about baddies. INH was to me obviously Media. I don't think I've even mentioned Sander Cohen or Delbert Grady, have mentioned some but not much about Bob and Zodac. So how is that focusing on the indies? I mentioned A Person as a suspect before he was modkilled and I've indicated I was undecided on bwt and Epi. - This to me reads like shades of LT being pissed that I flushed her out or Dom being dismissive of my analysis in AG. Turning fact finding analysis into "oh you're just throwing stuff out to see what sticks?" is silly. You've pointed out Zodac, Bob, Media, but not once have you dug into any mafia. That constitutes to me a focus on indies.

I welcome everyone re-reading me and seeing what they think about me.

linki llama - yes my playstyle is one of asking a lot of questions because i try to look at each case or important point from a variety of angles. Those who play regularly with me know I use these questions to assess information and I am usually slow and deliberate in coming to a decision. I don't normally make a lot of cases but if I do, its as the game gets into later stages. I understand you wanting to keep an eye out.

[DharmaHelper]

For the record if this theory of Nev's turns out to be true I realize that JC can't be on Kates team and AP's team at the same time. But from what evidence I've gathered on her the odds look pretty solid that she is on one of those teams. And even though I am doing a lot of analyzing and big ol posties, I'm still taking in everyones view and response so my vote is far from limited to the people I've discussed thus far. Boomslang and Blindfaeth are two people that I really have not interacted with that much, but the interactions I have had with them are pretty awesome. They both seem like pleasant and friendly people and that to me says alot. I look forward to future games with both of them and hope they do the same

[insertnamehere]

I'm just loving DH's use of sarcastic orange.

[juliets]

I can't continue with the quotes within quotes so I'll just take your responses DH and respond to them. My responses are in blue.

DH: "You said repeatedly that you saw Kates "civ" game and you thought she was a civ taken too soon and so on. To me this seems like something you would say about a NK'd teammate, particularly given that you voted for her to be rezzed and such "

I mentioned kate's name 3 times: once to say I was going to look at her posts, two to say I had looked at her posts, and three to say I was voting for her. In a fourth instance I reminded someone who had left vomps of the list that vomps had voted kate. So three times I was actually talking about kate. Can you quote for me my repeated posts that I saw Kate's civ game? I can't even find one time where I said that.

DH: "This to me reads like shades of LT being pissed that I flushed her out or Dom being dismissive of my analysis in AG. Turning fact finding analysis into "oh you're just throwing stuff out to see what sticks?" is silly. You've pointed out Zodac, Bob, Media, but not once have you dug into any mafia. That constitutes to me a focus on indies."

First, that is a clever strategy you have of mentioning times in other games where people overreacted, times that I'm sure others haven't forgotten because they were so egregious, to try and compare my response to them. My response was not of the same level as the two that you meantion.

I don't know what you mean I have not dug into any mafia. How do you know that? I've asked questions of people or mentioned or voted for suspicions of people who we don't know their alignment - they could very well be mafia. I specifically talked about AP who was indeed mafia. I am not pissed, but everyone knows if you throw someone's name out a lot it can cause people to have negative opinions even if the original evidence is not that good. I'm not saying everyone, I'm saying some.

DH: "Your interest in Kates death is indicative to me of something I've observed mafia do (and I've actually done as well) in the past. Sometimes mafia get hung up on the death of their team, or put something in the thread like "Oh I wonder why X was killed" when in fact they themselves carried out the kill. Your inquisitiveness makes it look like you were cluelessly uninvolved in the proccess, when in fact you might have been. "

I was interested in one thing about Kate's death - what had she said in the thread, what suspicions did she hold that might make someone kill her out of fear. I wasn't hung up on her death. Also, your sentence talks about mafia getting hung up on the death of a teammember and then segues into someone carrying out the kill on the person. Are you saying I'm her teammember or i killed her? Then you say my inquisitiveness makes it seem like I was cluelessly uninvolved when i might have been. so it seems like you're saying i killed her. So why would I vote for her rezz?

DH: " I didn't mention anyone else doing this because this analysis is in regards to you. Deflecting onto other players (Particularly FH, in this case) is not something that I think makes me feel better about my suspicion."

I like the way you use the inflammatory word "deflecting" here. I was not "deflecting", I was simply stating as fact that others had done the very same thing as i did - FH was not the only one she's just the one i remember because she talked about it in the thread. I don't know how you can call something i thought or did suspicions but not think it is suspicious in others. Further, as I pointed out before, changing ones mind is not indicative of alignment. As others have pointed out, as new information comes in minds change.

[DharmaHelper]

Next I'd like to look at bea. Again I'll start with her voting order and some analysis of that order. Again I'll try and highlight votes in which she voted with other possible Kate teammates. I will try to be concise and make as much sense as possible, but hey, we're talking about me here, right? Bea, if I may say so, is an absolute delight. I cannot think of a single instance in which bea has been anything less than supremely awesome. I'm so happy for her and diggz and wish them both the best.

D1
Nope

D2
insertnamehere
18
Mongoose (2), Kate (4), DharmaHelper (5), Flyin' High (6), Bullzeye (7), thellama73 (8), birdwithteeth11 (9), blindfaeth (12), Spacedaisy (14),
Nevinera (15), Elohcin (16), AceofSpaces (18), juliets (19), reywaS (22), DisgruntledPorcupine (24), bea (25), DFaraday (28), Dom (29) 60%

N2 (Shield Poll)

Kate
3
reywaS (11), Kate (16), bea (26) 11%

D3
Lizzy
9
AceofSpaces (2), Epignosis (9), Elohcin (10), Boomslang (12), Hedgeowl (13), Bullzeye (14), bea (19), Kate (22), birdwithteeth11 (25) 36%

N3
agleaminranks (8 posts, missed N2, D3 votes)
1
bea (22) 4%

D4
Bullzeye
1
bea (24) 4%


D5
bea
1
bea (17) 4%
N5
AceofSpaces (23 posts, missed no votes)
9
Lizzy (7), Devin the Omniscient (8), Nevinera (16), juliets (17), Mongoose (18), bea (19), birdwithteeth11 (21), Flyin' High (22), Russtifinko (23) 39%

D6
birdwithteeth11
3
Russtifinko (3), bea (6), Devin the Omniscient (7) 13%

_________

Alright so what can we take away from the "just the math" portion of the bea read-back? In just about every vote, bea and Kate picked the same option. Bea also voted the same as juliets, bwt, Bullz, a number of times. On day 6 she voted bwt alongside Devin and Russ, On D4 she cast the sole vote for Bullz (to rule him out as the recruit I think?) Interesting that the same couple of names keep popping up when I go back and look through things. At this stage of reading through bea, I could see her as possibly being on Kates team solely because they voted together almost every time. I haven't even gotten to the bea-freak-out yet. If bea and Kate were on a team, I doubt that bwt was on that team with them, just by virtue of the latest vote. I don't think bea would vote for a teammate given that scenario.

Speaking of Devin, another guy I really don't know that well but that seems like a pretty solid dude. I've certainly not got anything negative to say about him, and I look forward to future games with him

Linki - I'll get to that in a second I guess.

[Mongoose]

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 848#p49848 - This post here pings me a bit. Goose comes to JC's rescue and JC uses that to help explain her inquiry into FH's analysis. Goose btw, is an awesome person and player and every time I've interacted with her it has been a pleasant experience. She has a lovely manner about her and I admire her skill as a player.

It just seemed like players were (either willfully or inadvertently, I'm not sure and would be loathe to guess) misinterpreting Juliet's words as to something I personally found cut-and-dry.

[DharmaHelper]

I can't continue with the quotes within quotes so I'll just take your responses DH and respond to them. My responses are in blue.

I mentioned kate's name 3 times: once to say I was going to look at her posts, two to say I had looked at her posts, and three to say I was voting for her. In a fourth instance I reminded someone who had left vomps of the list that vomps had voted kate. So three times I was actually talking about kate. Can you quote for me my repeated posts that I saw Kate's civ game? I can't even find one time where I said that.

You said "RIPIYWG Kate and I have no reason to believe you weren't" Then you went on to say how you thought she was a good player, etc, and when you voted you said she was a champion taken too soon. You were talking her up IMO.


First, that is a clever strategy you have of mentioning times in other games where people overreacted, times that I'm sure others haven't forgotten because they were so egregious, to try and compare my response to them. My response was not of the same level as the two that you meantion.

I don't know what you mean I have not dug into any mafia. How do you know that? I've asked questions of people or mentioned or voted for suspicions of people who we don't know their alignment - they could very well be mafia. I specifically talked about AP who was indeed mafia. I am not pissed, but everyone knows if you throw someone's name out a lot it can cause people to have negative opinions even if the original evidence is not that good. I'm not saying everyone, I'm saying some.

Yeah it's not on the same level, which is why I said "shades of". It's still dismissive and deflective, though, which I am not comfortable with. Also, I know you've not brought up mafia hunting because of all those posts I combed through where you mention indies like Zodac, Media, Bob, but you for the most part steer clear of mafia talk.



I was interested in one thing about Kate's death - what had she said in the thread, what suspicions did she hold that might make someone kill her out of fear. I wasn't hung up on her death. Also, your sentence talks about mafia getting hung up on the death of a teammember and then segues into someone carrying out the kill on the person. Are you saying I'm her teammember or i killed her? Then you say my inquisitiveness makes it seem like I was cluelessly uninvolved when i might have been. so it seems like you're saying i killed her. So why would I vote for her rezz?

You said Involved meaning you could be on her team and miffed that you're down a teammate or you could be the one responsible for killing her. "Involved" covers both angles.



I like the way you use the inflammatory word "deflecting" here. I was not "deflecting", I was simply stating as fact that others had done the very same thing as i did - FH was not the only one she's just the one i remember because she talked about it in the thread. I don't know how you can call something i thought or did suspicions but not think it is suspicious in others. Further, as I pointed out before, changing ones mind is not indicative of alignment. As others have pointed out, as new information comes in minds change.

Again at the time I was just reading you, not FH or anyone else, so I pointed out what *you* did that I found pingy.

[timmer]

just a quick note, I'm getting there in my catch-up, but this is a seriously dense game, and things like day-long group curses and hosts speaking in codes make some of it a tough slog.

[DharmaHelper]

Re reading Bea:

A lot (and I mean a lot) of her posts pre-meltdown are very fluffy in nature. What I mean by that is they repeat themselves a lot so that the post is longer but without a good deal more content. Example:

I think that X is bad, you know? Maybe? Just what I'm thinking. That X could be bad. Or he couldn't. Yes? No? I think? Kinda?

that sort of 'dragging the point out' style seems like its to hide something, to me. And I'm not really digging the whole "maybe lets be friends with bob" thing either. And then of course the meltdown and the whole "VOTE ME PLZ" campaign. Also reading her posts seem to back up my thought that I don't think BWT and her are on a team. As early as here:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 357#p51357

Bea sees BWT as being "blendy". Not something I think a teammate would draw attention to.

Eloh and SpaceDaisy are both awesome. They are a challenge to play against and a joy to play with. Outside of mafia they are also very kind hearted people. Eloh has a really sick, twisted dark side though.

[Draconus]

What's with all that sarcastic orange, DH? Feeling snippy today, are we?

Devins poems were in orange, too.

This. I think there's some Friendly Competition going on with DH. Keep an eye out for a second.

Catching up again.

[Boomslang]

What are people's thoughts on Bea's behavior yesterday? Typically, when people seem so desperate to be lynched, I am n favor of granting their wish.

I'm on board with this. As I said previously, that desperate post was such an about-face from before that I figure something has to be up. Also, this amount of death is scary. I'm very curious how BWT escaped the bloodbath...

[Draconus]

What are people's thoughts on Bea's behavior yesterday? Typically, when people seem so desperate to be lynched, I am n favor of granting their wish.

Yeah. I've done this. The first time I was Coach Z (a civ in Homestar Runner Mafia).

[S~V~S]

What's with all that sarcastic orange, DH? Feeling snippy today, are we?

Devins poems were in orange, too.

This. I think there's some Friendly Competition going on with DH. Keep an eye out for a second.

Catching up again.

Llama said he was required to post poetry, but not in orange. I thought that was odd.

[Draconus]

Is that so? Well, maybe Devin can clear that one up. I don't see him posting sarcastic poetry for shits and giggles, you know?

Yes, I was told to post in sarcastic orange.

llama, you were copied on the same PM as I received...

[Draconus]

Very odd now, isn't it?

[Lizzy]

To your First point:

1. Easy Target - Well, it was a day 1 vote. I was looking for anything at all that pinged me (even considered JC,) You handing your vote over to INH on a whim was mondo suspicious and deserved a vote IMO..
2. Contradiction - How so? Handing your vote over was something pingy and unchampionlike in my opinion. Are you saying me saying I didn't want to go back and read through the mounds of INH discussion I'd already sloshed through was contradicting my stance of participation? If so you're confused. I didn't want to go back and repeat myself over the INH stuff, but I found OTHER WAYS to participate.
3. Things have evolved from there - Vague as this is, I agree with you. For example, I have evolved into not voting for you :P

as to your second set of points

1. I maintain that you'd do this. It doesn't seem to far out of mental processing to me to think that You, Vomps, A Person, etc, would 100% defend and protect each other regardless of affiliation. In fact I've witnessed you guys do that in a few games. Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm not the only one who holds that view and I'm certainly not making it up :P

2. Admittedly I hadn't considered that Percy stole a Night kill. I saw that a civvie had killed someone and jumped to my conclusion, I apologize.

I like this reply. It is more rational and well thought-out. I almost want to back off, but that would be dangerous. You know how the best baddies make the best civs? Why shouldn't this be the case?

1. Whenever the three of us defended and protected each other, we were all civs. I never thought I'd live see Matt (AP) as a baddie tbh. But his behaviour does seem interesting now after he got modkilled. What people don't know or take for granted, is that if you put the three of us together in a BTSC we're one of the most disciplined bunch you've ever seen, Happened in Sherlock. It went smoothly. So in the right hands, AP and Vomps can be very dangerous weapons. That is why I don't think Bea is a Manipulator, because she would have known how to handle Matt and he would have complied, even actively participated. Looking back, I don't think his BTSC partners were that organised. As for Vomps, his game thus far has been interesting. Flying under the radar more than usual. This tells me that he has a role that implies some sort of responsibility, which can also mean listening to what one or more team mates are telling him to do. I have no idea what it is yet k.

2. Jack is no longer a civ.

[DharmaHelper]

To your First point:

1. Easy Target - Well, it was a day 1 vote. I was looking for anything at all that pinged me (even considered JC,) You handing your vote over to INH on a whim was mondo suspicious and deserved a vote IMO..
2. Contradiction - How so? Handing your vote over was something pingy and unchampionlike in my opinion. Are you saying me saying I didn't want to go back and read through the mounds of INH discussion I'd already sloshed through was contradicting my stance of participation? If so you're confused. I didn't want to go back and repeat myself over the INH stuff, but I found OTHER WAYS to participate.
3. Things have evolved from there - Vague as this is, I agree with you. For example, I have evolved into not voting for you :P

as to your second set of points

1. I maintain that you'd do this. It doesn't seem to far out of mental processing to me to think that You, Vomps, A Person, etc, would 100% defend and protect each other regardless of affiliation. In fact I've witnessed you guys do that in a few games. Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm not the only one who holds that view and I'm certainly not making it up :P

2. Admittedly I hadn't considered that Percy stole a Night kill. I saw that a civvie had killed someone and jumped to my conclusion, I apologize.

I like this reply. It is more rational and well thought-out. I almost want to back off, but that would be dangerous. You know how the best baddies make the best civs? Why shouldn't this be the case?

1. Whenever the three of us defended and protected each other, we were all civs. I never thought I'd live see Matt (AP) as a baddie tbh. But his behaviour does seem interesting now after he got modkilled. What people don't know or take for granted, is that if you put the three of us together in a BTSC we're one of the most disciplined bunch you've ever seen, Happened in Sherlock. It went smoothly. So in the right hands, AP and Vomps can be very dangerous weapons. That is why I don't think Bea is a Manipulator, because she would have known how to handle Matt and he would have complied, even actively participated. Looking back, I don't think his BTSC partners were that organised. As for Vomps, his game thus far has been interesting. Flying under the radar more than usual. This tells me that he has a role that implies some sort of responsibility, which can also mean listening to what one or more team mates are telling him to do. I have no idea what it is yet k.

2. Jack is no longer a civ.

You think Percy stole and used Jack's kill? Could have been from Man-E-Faces. Someone else who has Many Faces: Hedgeowl. All of them of course lovely. Hedge is super cool to get along with and to play with in games. Could have also stolen Penny/MacGyver's civ ninja kill. Speaking of Penny, penny for your thoughts, I value the thoughts of BigDamnHero. He is again someone I haven't seen a lot of previously but someone I am enjoying getting to know over the course of this game. Am I incorrect in thinking it didn't have to be Jack's kill that Percy borrowed?

[DharmaHelper]

To your First point:

1. Easy Target - Well, it was a day 1 vote. I was looking for anything at all that pinged me (even considered JC,) You handing your vote over to INH on a whim was mondo suspicious and deserved a vote IMO..
2. Contradiction - How so? Handing your vote over was something pingy and unchampionlike in my opinion. Are you saying me saying I didn't want to go back and read through the mounds of INH discussion I'd already sloshed through was contradicting my stance of participation? If so you're confused. I didn't want to go back and repeat myself over the INH stuff, but I found OTHER WAYS to participate.
3. Things have evolved from there - Vague as this is, I agree with you. For example, I have evolved into not voting for you :P

as to your second set of points

1. I maintain that you'd do this. It doesn't seem to far out of mental processing to me to think that You, Vomps, A Person, etc, would 100% defend and protect each other regardless of affiliation. In fact I've witnessed you guys do that in a few games. Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm not the only one who holds that view and I'm certainly not making it up :P

2. Admittedly I hadn't considered that Percy stole a Night kill. I saw that a civvie had killed someone and jumped to my conclusion, I apologize.

I like this reply. It is more rational and well thought-out. I almost want to back off, but that would be dangerous. You know how the best baddies make the best civs? Why shouldn't this be the case?

1. Whenever the three of us defended and protected each other, we were all civs. I never thought I'd live see Matt (AP) as a baddie tbh. But his behaviour does seem interesting now after he got modkilled. What people don't know or take for granted, is that if you put the three of us together in a BTSC we're one of the most disciplined bunch you've ever seen, Happened in Sherlock. It went smoothly. So in the right hands, AP and Vomps can be very dangerous weapons. That is why I don't think Bea is a Manipulator, because she would have known how to handle Matt and he would have complied, even actively participated. Looking back, I don't think his BTSC partners were that organised. As for Vomps, his game thus far has been interesting. Flying under the radar more than usual. This tells me that he has a role that implies some sort of responsibility, which can also mean listening to what one or more team mates are telling him to do. I have no idea what it is yet k.

2. Jack is no longer a civ.

You think Percy stole and used Jack's kill? Could have been from Man-E-Faces. Someone else who has Many Faces: Hedgeowl. All of them of course lovely. Hedge is super cool to get along with and to play with in games. Could have also stolen Penny/MacGyver's civ ninja kill. Speaking of Penny, penny for your thoughts, I value the thoughts of BigDamnHero. He is again someone I haven't seen a lot of previously but someone I am enjoying getting to know over the course of this game. Am I incorrect in thinking it didn't have to be Jack's kill that Percy borrowed?

EBWOP: Oh I see the confusion. I meant to say that I saw Percy had "Attempted" a kill. Right. Ok, NVM.

[Nevinera]

I'd like to add that I paid specific attention to words that seems a little bit forced, like someone was trying to work them into a sentence instead of just letting them flow out. That's why 'supper' got my attention, but the others also felt a bit unsmooth in places, like

"Now that you mention that specific incident, I do remember that. "
"Hedge is there a specific reason you picked el Wombat over L or A?"
"that's strangely specific" (in reply to 'you may embed only 5 quotes within each other' - it didn't really make sense as a response).
"In what specific way was I trying to dissuade you from lynching The Unmentionable One?"

Notice how it seems sort of grafted on?
Contrast to the only apparently natural use of the word that day, by Dom:
"I have no specific read on Epig yet", which seems to flow properly, like that word belongs there.

Nevin, I don't see any difference between most of the quotes you have above and Dom's quote. Are you saying that the using of the word specific seems forced in those quotes above? I don't think any of them are my quotes, but I have to say the only one that catches my eye as strange is the one that says "that's strangely specific" about the embedded quotes. I don't see how the embedded quotes were specific at all. Otherwise they are talking about specific reasons, a specific incident, and a specific way, all perfectly appropriate uses of the word.

In "that specific incident", 'specific' is extraneous - "Now that you mention that incident" both suffices and is more natural sounding.
In "Hedge is there a specific reason you picked", 'specific' was clearly added after-the-fact - most people would phrase that as "is there *some* specific reason". That one was you, by the way.
The third one (APerson, as you are certainly aware), was only weird because the whole phrase was a very strange response to the quoted post.
The fourth one could have been phrased as either "In specifically what way" or "In what way", and either would have sounded less strained.

Indeed, if you had only been in one or even *two* of those groups, I would be much less confident about you.
But I performed this analysis on *hundreds* of words total (seriously, it took more than two hours),
and your team was the only repeating group I found.
I was able to find dozens of other words that had a group of two to four people (several each day),
but there was never sufficient overlap among the sets
to suggest a team.

You would *have* to choose words that you might use incidentally anyway, or it would be too obvious what was going on, but you'd also need to choose words that wouldn't be used too much by anyone else, or you wouldn't get much advantage out of the power. That meant that the bulk of the special words would need to be extraneous to the intent of the passage (so that people replying to you wouldn't use them in response) or had to be in aside messages (green text, or text not central to your argument or the point of your post).

And this set of special words produced a *lot* of usages matching those constraints.

[DFaraday]

I had been suspicious of Gleam before, but seeing as he's dead now, I want to go back and see how I feel about BWT. I felt his earlier encounter with DH was pingy, but that was awhile ago. I also want to hear what Bea is up to today.

[DharmaHelper]

I had been suspicious of Gleam before, but seeing as he's dead now, I want to go back and see how I feel about BWT. I felt his earlier encounter with DH was pingy, but that was awhile ago. I also want to hear what Bea is up to today.

BWT and I had an Encounter?

Also I should note that I will come back and complete my rereads of people probably tomorrow, as today is Super Bowl day so not a great deal of time to bear down and focus. Aside from that, I should mention that I think very highly of you DF as a person and a player so I'm glad you are taking some time to get your thoughts together. I will be interested in seeing what you come up with when you're ready.

[juliets]

I'd like to add that I paid specific attention to words that seems a little bit forced, like someone was trying to work them into a sentence instead of just letting them flow out. That's why 'supper' got my attention, but the others also felt a bit unsmooth in places, like

"Now that you mention that specific incident, I do remember that. "
"Hedge is there a specific reason you picked el Wombat over L or A?"
"that's strangely specific" (in reply to 'you may embed only 5 quotes within each other' - it didn't really make sense as a response).
"In what specific way was I trying to dissuade you from lynching The Unmentionable One?"

Notice how it seems sort of grafted on?
Contrast to the only apparently natural use of the word that day, by Dom:
"I have no specific read on Epig yet", which seems to flow properly, like that word belongs there.

Nevin, I don't see any difference between most of the quotes you have above and Dom's quote. Are you saying that the using of the word specific seems forced in those quotes above? I don't think any of them are my quotes, but I have to say the only one that catches my eye as strange is the one that says "that's strangely specific" about the embedded quotes. I don't see how the embedded quotes were specific at all. Otherwise they are talking about specific reasons, a specific incident, and a specific way, all perfectly appropriate uses of the word.

In "that specific incident", 'specific' is extraneous - "Now that you mention that incident" both suffices and is more natural sounding.
In "Hedge is there a specific reason you picked", 'specific' was clearly added after-the-fact - most people would phrase that as "is there *some* specific reason". That one was you, by the way.
The third one (APerson, as you are certainly aware), was only weird because the whole phrase was a very strange response to the quoted post.
The fourth one could have been phrased as either "In specifically what way" or "In what way", and either would have sounded less strained.

Nevin, don't you mean to say in your above examples that IN YOUR OPINION 'specific' is extraneous, and IN YOUR OPINION 'specific' was added after the fact (which it most certainly was not, that is the way I talk and write) and IN YOUR OPINION the fourth one could have been phrased differently? I can't speak to whether the people other than me used the word specific intentionally but I can clearly see that all this is your opinion but you are treating it like fact. In my case, as I said, it is perfectly normal for me to talk about specific reasons.

Indeed, if you had only been in one or even *two* of those groups, I would be much less confident about you.
But I performed this analysis on *hundreds* of words total (seriously, it took more than two hours),
and your team was the only repeating group I found.

I am not on a "team".

I was able to find dozens of other words that had a group of two to four people (several each day),
but there was never sufficient overlap among the sets
to suggest a team.

You would *have* to choose words that you might use incidentally anyway, or it would be too obvious what was going on, but you'd also need to choose words that wouldn't be used too much by anyone else, or you wouldn't get much advantage out of the power. That meant that the bulk of the special words would need to be extraneous to the intent of the passage (so that people replying to you wouldn't use them in response) or had to be in aside messages (green text, or text not central to your argument or the point of your post).

And this set of special words produced a *lot* of usages matching those constraints.

I am not arguing that your research is not good, I am taking exception to your conclusions. I have not intentionally used any word in this whole game, and my phrasing throughout has been my own.

[birdwithteeth11]

First off, RIPIYWG to everyone who died. That was a lot of death. As to anyone wondering how I survived, I don't know. I thought it had to do with my role, but according to MP, I was indeed saved by someone. So I appreciate whoever did so.

I would be okay with a Vomps, juliets, or bea vote today. I could see all of them being bad, but I think going for juliets first will give us the most information. Mostly because I think it will confirm whether or not bea is indeed one of her teammates. I would pick her over the other two because if bea is who we think she is, then we wouldn't gather much from her death except having her gone. And Vomps is a bit more "avant-garde" with his playstyle.

So in order, I am most willing to vote for:

1. juliets
2. bea
3. Vomps

Also, to whoever said that DH and I had an "encounter", could you point out where? Because that's news to me.

[juliets]

First off, RIPIYWG to everyone who died. That was a lot of death. As to anyone wondering how I survived, I don't know. I thought it had to do with my role, but according to MP, I was indeed saved by someone. So I appreciate whoever did so.

I would be okay with a Vomps, juliets, or bea vote today. I could see all of them being bad, but I think going for juliets first will give us the most information. Mostly because I think it will confirm whether or not bea is indeed one of her teammates. I would pick her over the other two because if bea is who we think she is, then we wouldn't gather much from her death except having her gone. And Vomps is a bit more "avant-garde" with his playstyle.

So in order, I am most willing to vote for:

1. juliets
2. bea
3. Vomps

Also, to whoever said that DH and I had an "encounter", could you point out where? Because that's news to me.

Could you just list your reason or reasons for thinking I am bad bwt?

[S~V~S]

I reread Llama, i reread the case against him from several days ago (remember? He had 10 votes and did not die?) and find it solid, and in light of Devin saying he had the same PM as Llama where orange WAS required, and Llama said that he had not been required to use orange, right after trying to impugn DH for use of the orange, I think he was faking his insanity to put more distance between himself and his failed lynch~

Out of sight, out of mind.

In any case, i cannot see another reason for that lie about the sarc orange. I have had reason to lie as a civ, and i have seen others lie as a civ when hosting them. But I can see no reason for that lie, and according to Devin, it IS a lie. And Devin & I may spar, but I believe him.

I am voting Llama.

[Mongoose]

I reread Llama, i reread the case against him from several days ago (remember? He had 10 votes and did not die?) and find it solid, and in light of Devin saying he had the same PM as Llama where orange WAS required, and Llama said that he had not been required to use orange, right after trying to impugn DH for use of the orange, I think he was faking his insanity to put more distance between himself and his failed lynch~

Out of sight, out of mind.

In any case, i cannot see another reason for that lie about the sarc orange. I have had reason to lie as a civ, and i have seen others lie as a civ when hosting them. But I can see no reason for that lie, and according to Devin, it IS a lie. And Devin & I may spar, but I believe him.

I am voting Llama.

I likely will too; I never found his explanations to my & others' concerns remotely satisfying, and I think he has had several days to reconcile those concerns, but instead he has laserbeamed in on DH, who is bustin' his asp to analyze several several players.

And continuing on what SVS said above - if Logan faked insanity, it would almost guarantee we wouldn't vote him that day. Further, many of those that were campaigning against him
(me, for instance) have a staunch and well-known view on voting out insanified players, and he could sail to victory.

I think he's more acting alone (Zodac) rather than on a team, but is extremely speculative and is only based upon the feel and tone, rather than anything concrete.

[Tangrowth]

Just a blanket last reminder:

Deadies, PLEASE do not post on-topic. Or anything that could even be considered such even by anyone in their wildest imagination. Believe it or not, I can actually punish deadies in this game, so don't push me.

[S~V~S]

I reread Llama, i reread the case against him from several days ago (remember? He had 10 votes and did not die?) and find it solid, and in light of Devin saying he had the same PM as Llama where orange WAS required, and Llama said that he had not been required to use orange, right after trying to impugn DH for use of the orange, I think he was faking his insanity to put more distance between himself and his failed lynch~

Out of sight, out of mind.

In any case, i cannot see another reason for that lie about the sarc orange. I have had reason to lie as a civ, and i have seen others lie as a civ when hosting them. But I can see no reason for that lie, and according to Devin, it IS a lie. And Devin & I may spar, but I believe him.

I am voting Llama.

I likely will too; I never found his explanations to my & others' concerns remotely satisfying, and I think he has had several days to reconcile those concerns, but instead he has laserbeamed in on DH, who is bustin' his asp to analyze several several players.

And continuing on what SVS said above - if Logan faked insanity, it would almost guarantee we wouldn't vote him that day. Further, many of those that were campaigning against him
(me, for instance) have a staunch and well-known view on voting out insanified players, and he could sail to victory.

I think he's more acting alone (Zodac) rather than on a team, but is extremely speculative and is only based upon the feel and tone, rather than anything concrete.

i think he's a baddie, not Zodac~ Zodac has been acting civvie-ish. Llama is being squirrely & deceptive, which I don't see Zodac needing to do. I think Zodac is someone in the middle of the pack, and that is where Zodac should be, IMO.

[Nevinera]

Nevin, don't you mean to say in your above examples that IN YOUR OPINION 'specific' is extraneous, and IN YOUR OPINION 'specific' was added after the fact (which it most certainly was not, that is the way I talk and write) and IN YOUR OPINION the fourth one could have been phrased differently? I can't speak to whether the people other than me used the word specific intentionally but I can clearly see that all this is your opinion but you are treating it like fact. In my case, as I said, it is perfectly normal for me to talk about specific reasons.

No, the fact that it's my opinion is implied by the fact that I'm saying it.
I don't think anyone needed it to be pointed out that I'm not the arbiter of the nature of English grammar.
But you asked me to describe why I found those usages to be less than smoothly natural, so I did.

Indeed, if you had only been in one or even *two* of those groups, I would be much less confident about you.
But I performed this analysis on *hundreds* of words total (seriously, it took more than two hours),
and your team was the only repeating group I found.

I am not on a "team".

I apologize, the *specific group of players which I am asserting to be your team* was the only such group of players that showed up in numerous (or indeed more than one) day. Has that been rephrased sufficiently? I can also add some 'allegedly's in there if you want.

I am not arguing that your research is not good, I am taking exception to your conclusions. I have not intentionally used any word in this whole game, and my phrasing throughout has been my own.

I'm sure you would have to say that either way, so forgive me if I don't take you at your word.
If you are indeed some innocent civ who has gotten *incredibly* unlucky, then I apologize for getting you lynched.
But I truly doubt it.

[Nevinera]

I reread Llama, i reread the case against him from several days ago (remember? He had 10 votes and did not die?) and find it solid, and in light of Devin saying he had the same PM as Llama where orange WAS required, and Llama said that he had not been required to use orange, right after trying to impugn DH for use of the orange, I think he was faking his insanity to put more distance between himself and his failed lynch~

Out of sight, out of mind.

In any case, i cannot see another reason for that lie about the sarc orange. I have had reason to lie as a civ, and i have seen others lie as a civ when hosting them. But I can see no reason for that lie, and according to Devin, it IS a lie. And Devin & I may spar, but I believe him.

I am voting Llama.

I don't follow this logic.

If dev said Llama got cc'd on the same message, which told him that he needed to post in orange, then *llama did get such a message*.
He can't be lying about getting the message unless Dev is also lying about the CC, aye?

It seems to me that the most likely event is llama not noticing that he was supposed to post in orange.
Am I missing something here?

[S~V~S]

So....has everybody forgotten about Llama? This was the list of people who voted for him 2 days ago:

DharmaHelper (8), Nevinera (10), Devin the Omniscient (11), Flyin' High (12), Mongoose (13), juliets (16), Elohcin (19), Bullzeye (21), Epignosis (22), DFaraday (24) 37%

Those of you still alive, still considering a vote for Llama?

[S~V~S]

I reread Llama, i reread the case against him from several days ago (remember? He had 10 votes and did not die?) and find it solid, and in light of Devin saying he had the same PM as Llama where orange WAS required, and Llama said that he had not been required to use orange, right after trying to impugn DH for use of the orange, I think he was faking his insanity to put more distance between himself and his failed lynch~

Out of sight, out of mind.

In any case, i cannot see another reason for that lie about the sarc orange. I have had reason to lie as a civ, and i have seen others lie as a civ when hosting them. But I can see no reason for that lie, and according to Devin, it IS a lie. And Devin & I may spar, but I believe him.

I am voting Llama.

I don't follow this logic.

If dev said Llama got cc'd on the same message, which told him that he needed to post in orange, then *llama did get such a message*.
He can't be lying about getting the message unless Dev is also lying about the CC, aye?

It seems to me that the most likely event is llama not noticing that he was supposed to post in orange.
Am I missing something here?

When you are multiple targeted, you do not notice this? The first several posts of the day Llama made, were not in poetry form. The ones he made later WERE in that form, but not orange.

Seems to me that someone was trying hard to be insanified. He lied. Why?

[S~V~S]

Llama is bad, and he is lying.

[Nevinera]

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather see a llama lynch than most other players at this point.
But I really feel we should follow the bea/juliets thing up first.
We *know* that lynching llama will not immediately accomplish anything - either he's immune to lynches, or he has at least one lynch save left.
And if he has a lynch save, he's either delbert or sander - killing either of those gets us *nothing* immediately,
because Jack has the kill (not delbert), and sander has no game impact.

linki svs:

I think he was lying, but I don't think that means he's our best lynch.
I really think he's cohen, who can't really hurt us much.

[Nevinera]

Again, I ask you - If he lied about receiving that pm, *how did dev see that he was CC'd on it?*.

[S~V~S]

Okey dokey, point noted.

Linki~ the PM was sent to 2 people. Not sure what you are asking?

Rather invested in lynching the "other team". eh?

[S~V~S]

Llama & Devin recieved a PM saying "post in poetry, post in orange". When you get a PM sent to more than one person, you see that. So... if one says they were told about that one thing, and the other adamantly says he wasn't , someone is lying. I don't think it is Devin.