Harry Stephen Keeler [ENDGAME]

#151

fingersplints wrote:I'm a little wary of the name on the will anyways. If it is that directly tied into a role it doesn't really seem fair for that player, and I'm not sure the host would do that

This is a good point. I also don't see that we have any particular reason to believe BF as of yet.

#152

Sounds less like a will and more like a hit contract.

#153

Bullzeye wrote:
fingersplints wrote:I'm a little wary of the name on the will anyways. If it is that directly tied into a role it doesn't really seem fair for that player, and I'm not sure the host would do that
This is a good point. I also don't see that we have any particular reason to believe BF as of yet.

I have to agree. Seems alot like bait to me.

#154

Day 1

Everyone exited the Curio Shop, more or less satisfied with their purchases. A few stragglers grumbled that all the best items had been snapped up before they got there. Casimir Jech counted his money greedily, pleased with how the sale had gone, but somewhat annoyed at the motley assortment of ex-customers now cluttering up his sidewalk.

Some people were eager to show off their items, others preferred to tuck them quickly away in their pockets. Blindfaeth unwisely boasted about a claim to future monies.

Amidst the throng, a lone paperboy stood, trying to conduct his business, but with limited success. Out of all the people standing around, no one seemed interested in the news just then. Frustrated, he decided to remedy the situation.

“EXTRA! EXTRA!” he bellowed as loud as his little voice could manage. “Blond Beast of Bremen sighted in Chicago! London of the West!”

That got everyone’s attention. Someone quickly slipped the kid a nickel, and they all gathered round to read the paper. The dreaded Blond Beast was indeed in the city, and sighted in no less a place than - Casimir Jech’s Antiques and Curios Shop on 22nd St.!

Instantly, affability turned to suspicion, as the shoppers regarded each other with fear and apprehension. Could the Blond Beast be among them?

You have 72 hours to lynch a baddie.

#155

In other news, my item was a dud as well.

#156

Whose ever will it is their game will be ruined, right or not, through no fault of their own. But if BF does not say, he is toast if he's honest about his item.

Once the cats out of the bagitshard to put him back.

Linki, nice Llama

#157

Maybe the name on the will so be compared to the Day 0 poll. Maybe that player picked something that is worth money (silver coins etc) and that's what it means.

#158

Golden wrote:I disagree strongly with bullz statement.

I can't remember a time when the person lynched on day one didn't feel it was unfair, no matter what the reason. Day one lynches always suck.

Whats the difference between it being unfair because someone has a hunch that their item is a role hint, and it being unfair because someone sees some minutiae in the thread? I don't see one.

I don't like that it is being made some kind of moral issue. It's a host setting - either it's ok or it isn't. (and my eye is squarely on bullz for his comment).

My eye was already on Bulls and turnip head. Was this your hunch? More on this later, I'm at work. But it does in my mind seem to coincide well already.

#159

Well, I'm certainly on the edge of my seat...

#160

Can you tell us why, BF, or are you just talking to Golden?

Linki

#161

Dont want to get too meta but...Doing a little reading of Keeler. It seems he was known for this particular style of narrative where everything is eventually revealed to be irrelevant, though seemingly meaningful at the time. I'm thiking the will is just a little too obvious for The theme.

#162

blindfaeth wrote:
Golden wrote:I disagree strongly with bullz statement.

I can't remember a time when the person lynched on day one didn't feel it was unfair, no matter what the reason. Day one lynches always suck.

Whats the difference between it being unfair because someone has a hunch that their item is a role hint, and it being unfair because someone sees some minutiae in the thread? I don't see one.

I don't like that it is being made some kind of moral issue. It's a host setting - either it's ok or it isn't. (and my eye is squarely on bullz for his comment).
My eye was already on Bulls and turnip head. Was this your hunch? More on this later, I'm at work. But it does in my mind seem to coincide well already.

I look forward to your elaboration. I guess this is about my vote. I don't know anything about Bullz. My vote was a simple mistake.

#163

S~V~S wrote:Can you tell us why, BF, or are you just talking to Golden?

Linki

Both. I was just curious if he had the same hunch.

Early on, Turnip Head votes for key. Epignosis points out he hadn't read the rules, because he voted for an item someone already claimed.

Next, Elo points out that someone is going to end up with nothing. And then realizes TH will be one of those people, because he didn't read the rules. Next is the suspicious post.

Turnip Head wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?

Boomslang? Who is that?

Bullzeye wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?
Or maybe Bullzeye will just laugh at you for not reading the rules. Then laugh at you again for not even reading who beat you to it properly. In conclusion:

Bullzeye knows right away. Not that it's hard to figure out. Starts with B, he voted for your item, etc. Easy to put together, right? But why call him boomslang in the first place?

All I can think of is my very first game on STV mafia. SVS, you were in that game with me. Along with some others, I'm sure. Manu pinpointed a bad guy who wasn't talkative at all for one post, where on the first day, they "accidentally" referred to another player by the incorrect gender. It turns out, they were teammates. The baddie knew their gender, but used it as a subtle distancing tactic.

So this was the setting for my initial suspicion.

Next, I say something about my suspicion and ask Golden if he has noticed anything in thread. Guess who wants to know in on the secret? Sounds nervous to me.

Turnip Head wrote:What do you guys see?

Coincidence? I think not. Then, guess what? I start talking about what I can gather from my will, which I've stressed is in no way info dumping - AND I've been very careful not to mention whose will it is. Which is when Bullzeye starts posting again.

Bullzeye wrote:
blindfaeth wrote:No, not role outing. It's an educated guess. All I know is whose will I have and that I get a lot of money when they die. Lots of money sounds like a millionaire to me.
Well if I were that person - regardless of the accuracy of your guess - I would certainly feel outed/infodumped against/unfairly treated.

Bullzeye wrote:
Golden wrote:I disagree strongly with bullz statement.

I can't remember a time when the person lynched on day one didn't feel it was unfair, no matter what the reason. Day one lynches always suck.

Whats the difference between it being unfair because someone has a hunch that their item is a role hint, and it being unfair because someone sees some minutiae in the thread? I don't see one.

I don't like that it is being made some kind of moral issue. It's a host setting - either it's ok or it isn't. (and my eye is squarely on bullz for his comment).
You are obviously unfamiliar with my attitude towards infodumping. Read the fury in my late posts in the Monty Python game, or the comment I made in the thread about how to handle infodumping. I have a fiery, passionate hatred of info in all its forms. Boogs is one of my all time favourite people to play with, I think he's a brilliant person and a great laugh, but I tore him to shreds for outing me and at the time I was literally that angry. Good or bad, I will never be okay with following info to get someone lynched. It just isn't how I play. I don't care about fighting against it here, it doesn't affect me, but knowing how I would feel in the shoes of whoever BF's will is attached to, I will not be following it and I will not have my disapproval silenced by fear of suspicion. I will happily admit my view of infodumping is very strict but that's just me.

Why is your eye not also on Dom for agreeing with me? It's very rare for he and I to agree on anything actually. I've half a mind to check Hell hasn't frozen over.

Bullzeye wrote:
fingersplints wrote:I'm a little wary of the name on the will anyways. If it is that directly tied into a role it doesn't really seem fair for that player, and I'm not sure the host would do that
This is a good point. I also don't see that we have any particular reason to believe BF as of yet.

That's odd, what brings you here out of the blue? Sure, you're playing the game, but I feel it's awful convenient you show up right after I mention it. He starts pushing an agenda of discrediting me and spreading doubt about my speculation. Is it because he's worried I know the name of his teammate, the millionaire? That's what I think.

#164

I called him Boom because I played recently with Boomslang and I haven't played with Bullzeye in a while, and I got them mixed up. I asked you to elaborate on what you were seeing because I didn't understand why you were being coy about it. You're reading too much into my mistakes. I would not want to intentionally draw suspicion to myself on Day 1 if I was a baddie, because people get lynched on Day 1 for much less than what I did.

My mistakes were made because I was quickly skimming on my phone during a 10 minute break at work when the game started.

#165

Fair enough, but it just seems like too big of a coincidence for me, but don't worry. You're not my target yet, the millionaire is

#166

blindfaeth wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Can you tell us why, BF, or are you just talking to Golden?

Linki
Both. I was just curious if he had the same hunch.

Early on, Turnip Head votes for key. Epignosis points out he hadn't read the rules, because he voted for an item someone already claimed.

Next, Elo points out that someone is going to end up with nothing. And then realizes TH will be one of those people, because he didn't read the rules. Next is the suspicious post.

Turnip Head wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?
Boomslang? Who is that?

Boomslang is another mafia player who is sometimes around. I don't think I know him at all and as far as I'm aware we aren't similar people so I have no idea why TH confused me for him, but given that he hadn't even read the rules properly I'm not all that surprised he didn't know who took the key before him.

blindfaeth wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Oh wait...maybe not since TH didn't read the rules. I guess he will get nothing.

Maybe Boomslang will want to trade his key for my nothing?
Or maybe Bullzeye will just laugh at you for not reading the rules. Then laugh at you again for not even reading who beat you to it properly. In conclusion:
Bullzeye knows right away. Not that it's hard to figure out. Starts with B, he voted for your item, etc. Easy to put together, right? But why call him boomslang in the first place?

I knew what straight away? You'd have to ask TH why he thought I was Boomslang.

blindfaeth wrote:All I can think of is my very first game on STV mafia. SVS, you were in that game with me. Along with some others, I'm sure. Manu pinpointed a bad guy who wasn't talkative at all for one post, where on the first day, they "accidentally" referred to another player by the incorrect gender. It turns out, they were teammates. The baddie knew their gender, but used it as a subtle distancing tactic.

Nope. None of that is happening. Why would someone even bother to do that? It's so subtle it's basically not there at all. If someone were to propose that to me as a tactic I'd say Nah, no point. Nobody will ever notice.

Next, I say something about my suspicion and ask Golden if he has noticed anything in thread. Guess who wants to know in on the secret? Sounds nervous to me.

Turnip Head wrote:What do you guys see?

In all fairness, you were totally fishing for someone to do just that.

blindfaeth wrote:Coincidence? I think not. Then, guess what? I start talking about what I can gather from my will, which I've stressed is in no way info dumping - AND I've been very careful not to mention whose will it is. Which is when Bullzeye starts posting again.

-snip-

That's odd, what brings you here out of the blue? Sure, you're playing the game, but I feel it's awful convenient you show up right after I mention it. He starts pushing an agenda of discrediting me and spreading doubt about my speculation. Is it because he's worried I know the name of his teammate, the millionaire? That's what I think.

I finished lectures at 5pm. Went to the library for 20 minutes, had a quick dinner, sent some emails, then decided to catch up on mafia. Didn't have much to say about anything else - nothing had really happened. Saw your post, debated a response. I knew that speaking against info would get me heat. I discussed this in my post in the infodumping thread - that nobody dares speak out against infodumps for fear of being seen as bad. Decided I didn't care and would say that I felt it would be unfair regardless of whether or not you're correct. I don't have an agenda against you and I don't care about your credit. I just personally disapprove of your idea and don't care if people decide to label me as bad because of it. My points are true though, there's no reason to believe you're telling the truth or even that you're right, and if you deny that then I will find it odd. I don't think you're bad. I don't have any idea of your alignment. At this point I'm not planning to vote for you today or indeed ever. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're bad.

#167

Speaking of reading the rules. It's a shame more of you didn't vote for "Nothing."

thellama73 wrote: Only the first person to vote for each item will receive it.

#168

Ah, but I was fishing for you or TH to do just that, not just anyone, you see.

Also, I don't care that you personally disagree with my idea. It is the fact that you are pushing the agenda of "this is info dumping!!!!" that has me worried.

Again, I don't know how much more clear I can be. My will is someone else's. It does not tell me their role, only their player name. It tells me that I get a large sum of money upon their death. I put 2 and 2 together with logic. I am not info dumping, because I don't know if this person is that role for sure. But the fact that you're arguing against it makes me think you're scared that I have them pegged correctly.

Linki with the almighty llama.

#169

That person can also be Oliver Oliver right?

#170

S~V~S wrote:That person can also be Oliver Oliver right?

I suppose so. BR also made a good point, it could be someone who picked one of the "valuable" items. It could be completely random. I'm just following my gut, and my gut smells something fishy

#171

I took the coin but I didn't get any money for it or anything. I don't think it did anything

#172

blindfaeth wrote:Ah, but I was fishing for you or TH to do just that, not just anyone, you see.

Also, I don't care that you personally disagree with my idea. It is the fact that you are pushing the agenda of "this is info dumping!!!!" that has me worried.

Again, I don't know how much more clear I can be. My will is someone else's. It does not tell me their role, only their player name. It tells me that I get a large sum of money upon their death. I put 2 and 2 together with logic. I am not info dumping, because I don't know if this person is that role for sure. But the fact that you're arguing against it makes me think you're scared that I have them pegged correctly.

Linki with the almighty llama.

I admit I have a strict definition of what constitutes infodumping but if you'd had the experiences I've had with it perhaps you'd understand why. I've made like 5 posts on the matter though and will say no more, so I hardly call that pushing an agenda. All I wanted to do was put my opinion across and explain why I would be playing no part in the matter. I don't actually care if you're correct or not, it's irrelevant to my opinion. Again, my saying we have no reason to believe you're telling the truth is simply an accurate statement. We don't. That doesn't make you bad and it doesn't mean I'm saying you are. There is no reason to believe me either, and no reason to believe Dom or Golden, or anybody else. It's day one. Nobody has earned any trust from anyone yet as far as I can see.

#173

Bullzeye wrote:You are obviously unfamiliar with my attitude towards infodumping. Read the fury in my late posts in the Monty Python game, or the comment I made in the thread about how to handle infodumping. I have a fiery, passionate hatred of info in all its forms. Boogs is one of my all time favourite people to play with, I think he's a brilliant person and a great laugh, but I tore him to shreds for outing me and at the time I was literally that angry. Good or bad, I will never be okay with following info to get someone lynched. It just isn't how I play. I don't care about fighting against it here, it doesn't affect me, but knowing how I would feel in the shoes of whoever BF's will is attached to, I will not be following it and I will not have my disapproval silenced by fear of suspicion. I will happily admit my view of infodumping is very strict but that's just me.

Why is your eye not also on Dom for agreeing with me? It's very rare for he and I to agree on anything actually. I've half a mind to check Hell hasn't frozen over.

Fair enough and I'll check out the evidence before pursuing any suspicion.

Didn't pursue Dom because I was running to work and had no time to read linkis.

All I will say further on this (and I haven't read what else has been said in the thread since, yet)... as a host, I hate info dumping. As an example, when I hosted West Wing, I told bf and juliet (civs with bttsc) that they would be in big trouble if they hinted at their btsc... which was quite extreme on RM where use of info was common. But my primary view is - its up to the host. I have also often built into my games false info as an inherent way of making people stop and think before they put info in the thread. If a host has designed the games balance around the possibility or probability of info (and if you read the roles, you will see quite a bit of that going on) I think the host should decide what is within the rules and was is not in the rules.

I don't think being hung because of bf's 'info' is any more unfair than any other reason for being hung so early. Honestly, we all feel its unfair when we get hung on day one.

#174

It kinda is unfair IMO if it something you cantvdefend against. Like info gained from an item.

#175

Yes but my point is, the two people I think are suspicious PRIOR to my item are acting in a way I would expect them to if they were worried about me being correct, namely, that I know the identity of their teammate. Bullz and TH can certainly defend against this, don't you agree?

#176

In fact, they already have. Not that it makes me feel any better :P

#177

thellama73 wrote:Speaking of reading the rules. It's a shame more of you didn't vote for "Nothing."

thellama73 wrote: Only the first person to vote for each item will receive it.

Oh, that is so very llama

#178

Golden wrote: I don't think being hung because of bf's 'info' is any more unfair than any other reason for being hung so early. Honestly, we all feel its unfair when we get hung on day one.

To be honest, a big problem I have with it is that BF could have completely the wrong end of the stick. It's an easy conclusion to come to and I would probably have thought the same but I think he majorly jumped the gun by throwing it out there so readily without considering other possibilities. You throw potential info into a thread and many players will follow it mindlessly. The person the will is tied to could really be any role as far as we know, but given the potential for them to be bad has been raised now if BF names them they will probably be lynched regardless of what they have to say for themselves.

Linki - I certainly can defend against the things you're saying. I find it very easy to do so.

#179

So why are you so worried about it then? Day one is almost always a civ lynch. Is this not any worse than random?

#180

blindfaeth wrote:So why are you so worried about it then? Day one is almost always a civ lynch. Is this not any worse than random?

Am I worried? News to me. You're the one making a big deal out of my opinions. I'm happy to drop this any time, but I always respond to posts directed at me while I'm online. I feel like I'm being rude if I don't.

#181

Bullzeye wrote:Nobody has earned any trust from anyone yet as far as I can see.

I agree with this.

Anyway, bf, you didn't quite see what I saw, but it could be linked. My idea is that the baddies were knowingly after specific items. For instance - the key + safe - and my two that I already had eyes on were bullz and epi. I didn't want to say it in particular because I wanted to see if either of them voted for the other first and then pushed a case to lynch them. But given we are already going down this route, I may as well just say that I would consider any vote by bullz or epi against the other suspicious.

But also they could be a team and already be happy to have both items.

In that sense, I could see TH being on that team as well - although I'm not sure that a baddie team would be very happy to see that much attention drawn to an agenda if they had one. I did notice the 'Boomslang' thing as well because I remember the STV slip, which I think was the game before I first started playing. I'll think about it.

On that note, another thing the key might be able to help with is the baddie's vault, and they might have also been after papers to stick in the vault...

linki - bullzeye - I agree that the info could well be wrong. Ultimately I think this is simply a matter of playstyle. Bf and I play similar games as we have influenced each others mafia game a lot. BF just did exactly what I would do, so I find it easy to come from his perspective on this one. I'm not saying it's without risk... and honestly it would suck for the person lynched good or bad. But it's gonna suck to be the person lynched on day one anyway, is all I'm saying.

#182

Well I know the discredit routine and you're doing it. But fortunately, what you say about me majorly jumping the gun is not true. I did consider other options. This why I have not named the person in question. And why I was asking for input /opinion on the idea. You can try to sell that you aren't worried but I'm not being fooled personally. Good luck with tricking everyone else. Gone for a while, cya!

#183

Golden wrote: linki - bullzeye - I agree that the info could well be wrong. Ultimately I think this is simply a matter of playstyle. Bf and I play similar games as we have influenced each others mafia game a lot. BF just did exactly what I would do, so I find it easy to come from his perspective on this one. I'm not saying it's without risk... and honestly it would suck for the person lynched good or bad. But it's gonna suck to be the person lynched on day one anyway, is all I'm saying.

That's fine, but all I'm saying is in my opinion 'it sucks regardless' doesn't justify voting for someone based on potential info that might indicate that maybe they are bad but also maybe they aren't.

blindfaeth wrote:Well I know the discredit routine and you're doing it. But fortunately, what you say about me majorly jumping the gun is not true. I did consider other options. This why I have not named the person in question. And why I was asking for input /opinion on the idea. You can try to sell that you aren't worried but I'm not being fooled personally. Good luck with tricking everyone else. Gone for a while, cya!

Seriously not discrediting you. You would need to have credit to begin with for that and as I've already said, in my opinion nobody (including me) has any yet because it's the very beginning of the game. I gave my input. You just don't like that I disagree with you and am not willing to change my point of view. I don't care if you think I'm worried, I don't care if you think I'm trying to trick people. You've tried to make me out to be bad and I've defended myself against that. That isn't me being worried that's me playing this game. I think you jumped the gun in the sense that I think you'd have been wiser to keep your theory to yourself for a day or two and see how things play out. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter of the info because I genuinely do not care. Well... I do, I care that a civ might get lynched. But if that does happen it won't be on my hands.

#184

I can see now what I saw on Day 0 was not the same as BF. What I saw was this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey folks! Just popping in, haven't read anything yet, and very likely won't have the chance until tomorrow evening after my microeconomic theory seminar midterm, between studying for that and dealing with Death Note.

Yay game! See you soon!

Not at all suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks, you too, Zomba!

Guess I better pick an item while I'm here. I would have picked the stock certificate, but it seems my fellow accountant beat me to that option. I'll go with the clock.

Now will be back tomorrow to read posts and such!

Until this. For someone who hasn't read anything yet looks like he knew to comeback, pick an item, and be the first to vote on that item. Did his BTSC let him know?

That's what I saw on Day 0.

#185

Bullzeye wrote:That's fine, but all I'm saying is in my opinion 'it sucks regardless' doesn't justify voting for someone based on potential info that might indicate that maybe they are bad but also maybe they aren't.

Fair enough. I do think we need a fairly clear majority in favour and who agree to vote the way bf says before he should reveal the name anyway. At this stage, it doesn't look like that will happen, so bf is probably safest to keep the info to himself.

#186

rabbit8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Well, I was going to try to post using quotes, but all the profanity has now tripped my work's "Adult Material" filter. So now I can't read anything further on page 3. I am only able to post this from the quick reply feature on another page of the thread. Thanks rabbit!

Dom, I used the verb tense I did because it made the most sense. Why do you find it odd that there are fewer Day 0 choices than people?

S~V~S isn't an acronym unless you pronounce it "Svvvsss."

llama, I like moving things along.

I would blame the prudeness of your work environment. I could never work for someone who edits my language. Maybe that's why I work for myself? I don't know? Tell the to screw off......Nubs are nubs. Like a little foul language is going to hurt anyone? You need me to filter my self for your cause?

Not likely to happen. But I could try......................Is there no filter for this site?

How do you host games, considering in I'm in Roger Rabbit?

I would argue that there is more profanity heard in my profession on a given day than in any other.

#187

Golden wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:That's fine, but all I'm saying is in my opinion 'it sucks regardless' doesn't justify voting for someone based on potential info that might indicate that maybe they are bad but also maybe they aren't.
Fair enough. I do think we need a fairly clear majority in favour and who agree to vote the way bf says before he should reveal the name anyway. At this stage, it doesn't look like that will happen, so bf is probably safest to keep the info to himself.

The funny thing is, the person whose name BF has might be fully in favour of lynching this hypothetical baddie until BF says it's him. I would laugh so hard if that were the case. I'm not going to talk about it any more anyway, I'm tired of the topic tbh.

#188

Idk BR. If it was anyone other than MP I might think you were on to something, but he is so detail oriented I'm not really shocked he would have read the rules. Even I noticed that you can't have two people vote the same option and I am pretty notorious for not reading things like that carefully.
worth considering though

so bf - the TH/Bullz things are seperate from the will thing? I'm trying to get what you are saying here

#189

I'm less suspicious of MP in that:

1) I would do that (say I don't have time to check in, but find a way to make time if possible); and
2) I really think if he had time to be in BTSC he had time to check in on a couple of things on site - like Roger Rabbit - that he hasn't.

On the flip side, you could argue that the fact he hasn't made time to check on anything else does negate the first point a little.

I wouldn't be in a rush to vote for MP, though, for something I would do when civ.

#190

Golden wrote:I'm less suspicious of MP in that:

1) I would do that (say I don't have time to check in, but find a way to make time if possible); and
2) I really think if he had time to be in BTSC he had time to check in on a couple of things on site - like Roger Rabbit - that he hasn't.

On the flip side, you could argue that the fact he hasn't made time to check on anything else does negate the first point a little.

I wouldn't be in a rush to vote for MP, though, for something I would do when civ.

I guess i don't understand your comment Golden in light of BR's comment. From what I got she was saying it's the fact he checked in, didn't pick an item, checked out, then came back a few minutes later to pick an item. It looked like someone told him "hey you gotta get an item". At least that's what I saw and I thought that's what she was saying. However I don't expect to vote for MP based on my speculation on such a small thing that could have been innocent.

#191

I didn't look back at the timing JC. All I was really trying to say is that when I am civ without btsc, I often say something like 'this is definitely my last post, I'm going now'... and then I come back and post again shortly afterwards, because I'm a bit mafia-hyper like that. MP strikes me also as the kind of guy who checks in as much as he can.

I don't think BR's point is completely without merit, I just could see the behaviour being civ, is my point I guess.

#192

Golden wrote:I didn't look back at the timing JC. All I was really trying to say is that when I am civ without btsc, I often say something like 'this is definitely my last post, I'm going now'... and then I come back and post again shortly afterwards, because I'm a bit mafia-hyper like that. MP strikes me also as the kind of guy who checks in as much as he can.

I don't think BR's point is completely without merit, I just could see the behaviour being civ, is my point I guess.

Oh! I see what you mean. Yes, that could have very well been true and the behavior legitimately civ.

#193

blindfaeth wrote:Yes but my point is, the two people I think are suspicious PRIOR to my item are acting in a way I would expect them to if they were worried about me being correct, namely, that I know the identity of their teammate. Bullz and TH can certainly defend against this, don't you agree?

I'm not worried about you being correct. I asked the "What do you guys see?" Question after BR said she saw something too. I don't get why you wouldn't just talk about it and dance around your suspicions. I'm interested I'm discussion. I had no idea that what you saw was related to me, but it's not like I'm worried, I know that my vote was an innocent mistake.

I'm not saying I'm incapable of making mistakes as a baddie, but the scenario that you're painting has me INTENTIONALLY making these mistakes, and that's something I would not do. As a baddie I know better than to draw attention to myself on Day 1. Anything out of the ordinary is usually enough to get lynched when there's nothing else to go on. The move you're saying I made is something I personally would never do.

#194

Other than blindfaeth, I don't think anyone got anything valuable.

...right?

I mean, no one is going to come in here saying "Wowee, I got a magic crystal that shows me who the bad guys are!"

...right?

I mean, no one wants to be killed for their shit.

...right?

So I'm astonished at the risk blindfaeth has chosen to take. What astonishes me more is that he thinks he has three of five pegged on Day 1 due to a tenuous assumption on his part: That the owner of the will is the millionaire anarchist (would an anarchist even have a will? I don't know). This has been called "info" and "potential info." It is neither. It's an assumption. Knowing how much llama loves loves loves assumptions, it's naive to believe the owner of the will is most likely evil and that you can peg that person's teammates on Day 1.

And if you are right, blindfaeth, you squandered your opportunity. You should have gone hard after the owner of the will and observed what happened.

#195

Epignosis wrote:And if you are right, blindfaeth, you squandered your opportunity. You should have gone hard after the owner of the will and observed what happened.

I don't agree with this. To have gone hard without discussing it with the town would have risked a failed lynch and giving the individual a lot of power, if bf's hunch was correct.

Epignosis wrote:This has been called "info" and "potential info." It is neither. It's an assumption.

Disagree with this too. BF does have info - he knows whose will it is.

Also not sure of the value of coming at bf so hard.

#196

Epignosis wrote:Other than blindfaeth, I don't think anyone got anything valuable.

...right?

I mean, no one is going to come in here saying "Wowee, I got a magic crystal that shows me who the bad guys are!"

...right?

I mean, no one wants to be killed for their shit.

...right?

So I'm astonished at the risk blindfaeth has chosen to take. What astonishes me more is that he thinks he has three of five pegged on Day 1 due to a tenuous assumption on his part: That the owner of the will is the millionaire anarchist (would an anarchist even have a will? I don't know). This has been called "info" and "potential info." It is neither. It's an assumption. Knowing how much llama loves loves loves assumptions, it's naive to believe the owner of the will is most likely evil and that you can peg that person's teammates on Day 1.

And if you are right, blindfaeth, you squandered your opportunity. You should have gone hard after the owner of the will and observed what happened.

Well, I don't know about y'all, but I got a beautiful amber necklace. And it looks great on me

For serious though, I agree with Epi here. However, I cannot blame BF for sharing about his item b/c I for one find it very difficult to keep information to myself. But, I cannot believe that BF's item would give him such concrete information this early in the game. I would imagine he is reading into it quite a lot.

#197

Oh and welcome Sheep...nice to have you along for the ride

#198

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:And if you are right, blindfaeth, you squandered your opportunity. You should have gone hard after the owner of the will and observed what happened.
I don't agree with this. To have gone hard without discussing it with the town would have risked a failed lynch and giving the individual a lot of power, if bf's hunch was correct.

Mmm, no. Discussing it with the town means discussing it with the Mafia. blindfaeth showed his hand, and Mafia can behave accordingly. Lost opportunity if he's right.

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:This has been called "info" and "potential info." It is neither. It's an assumption.
Disagree with this too. BF does have info - he knows whose will it is.

Also not sure of the value of coming at bf so hard.

I have my ways. I also learned something because blindfaeth spilled the beans. But I'm not as forthcoming. Sorry.

"I'd rather trust a man who doesn't shout what he's found."

#199

@epi - I don't really like that I'm drawn into defending bf so much, because he could be right, but...

I, for one, am not surprised this site has such a major bias towards mafia wins if this: "I'd rather trust a man who doesn't shout what he's found." is the prevailing attitude.

Mafia have enough of an advantage as it is. While staying within the rules, I'm a big believer in the civilians taking any advantage they have got. And I know bf is too. That's because we've both used this method on a few occasions to the benefit of the civs in the past. RM probably leant towards civ wins a little. And I think it was because we shared what little we could and be damned if the mafia could see it as well. They already had an advantage, we were just levelling it a bit.

Anyway, I don't know llama as a host or this site's rules. All I know is that I've always been one to shout what I've found. It's why I die early a lot. But I never mind if the town wins.

#200

EBWOP Sorry, I mean I don't like being drawn into defending bf because you could be right.

Who iced Dom?