Cards Against Humanity [GAME OVER]

[FZ.]

I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Who are you going to vote for?

I don't know yet. I'm leaning towards John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt. He has only posted once and it was to announce a self-vote. Those types of players always make me nervous. I still have nine hours to decide, though.

Who are YOU going to vote ofr?

At the moment, it's between Dom and you...sorry

No apology necessary. I look forward to proving you wrong.

I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

[thellama73]

I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

I voet for the person I think most likely to be bad. While I don't like people who don't participate and think it can be good cover for baddies, if I have a better suspicion I will place my vote there instead. Right now, John is my best guess, but that's not to say it couldn't change, and my vote will go to the person I think deserves it at the time of voting.

Regarding me being calm, I lost my temper during the Shawshank game and I have been chastising myself ever since. I am trying to not get so emotionally involved this time, so I suspect that is what you're picking up on.

[FZ.]

I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

I voet for the person I think most likely to be bad. While I don't like people who don't participate and think it can be good cover for baddies, if I have a better suspicion I will place my vote there instead. Right now, John is my best guess, but that's not to say it couldn't change, and my vote will go to the person I think deserves it at the time of voting.

Regarding me being calm, I lost my temper during the Shawshank game and I have been chastising myself ever since. I am trying to not get so emotionally involved this time, so I suspect that is what you're picking up on.

Good to know you have an answer for everything. Didn't expect anything less.
I don't want to lose you if you're a civ, because at least you're here and doing something. But if I have managed to slightly get a feel of you after last game, I kind of expect more from you (even though it's very early in the game), and I can't say you're delivering. There's always the possibility that I don't get you at all. We'll see.

[Marmot]

So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?

I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Not that I don't believe you, but that's quite convenient to have someone there to vouch for you.

[thellama73]

So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?

I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Not that I don't believe you, but that's quite convenient to have someone there to vouch for you.

Yes, it is convenient. Maybe we're on a team!

[insertnamehere]

FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

[S~V~S]

How am I being aggressive? Maybe you are thinking of the other game?

[thellama73]

I haven't noticed anything unusual from SVS this game either. I thought that was a bit odd.

[S~V~S]

And it does mean a lot if you are making up your reason for making it, INH.

[thellama73]

Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

[FZ.]

FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

[FZ.]

And I definitely agree with those saying there was nothing aggressive about SVS so far. So either you're fabricating reasons, or you're just confused.

[S~V~S]

Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

Wasn't that in the other game?

[birdwithteeth11]

What is it about Dom that makes you want to give him a vote?

One time, he answered my question regarding SVS with an answer that pinged me, and the way he questioned someone defending someone else, made me think it was something too easy to accuse people of. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the most I've got on someone at the moment.
With llama, it's his nonchalant answers that are making me question his sincerity,since last game he felt less... *looks for a word*... calm.

The thing I've noticed with llama is he likes to change up aspects of his playing style from game to game. So while it can make him a bit harder to read, it usually becomes a bit easier to understand his motivations (at least IMO) after a few in-game days.

That being said, he definitely seems much more relaxed than what I've seen from him recently. But I think it's due more to him having lynched many civvies incorrectly, and wanting to not be the person in the driver's seat.

[thellama73]

Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

Wasn't that in the other game?

Yes, goshdarnit, these two games with the same player list and roughly the same vote times are confusing. I apologize.

[thellama73]

FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

I completely agree with this reasoning, which is why I have always opposed random and self-voting.

[birdwithteeth11]

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

To be fair, your day periods generally last 4-5 IRL days, so it lends itself to more discussion and, in turn, makes you more likely to nab a baddie on Day 1. Most of us are used to 48 hours at most, so generally we'll feel a bit differently about it than K-Siters will.

I agree on the voting randomly part though. I try to go for the person who I feel strongest about based on what happens in the thread on Day 1. I feel that's much
better than trying to roll the dice and hope you get lucky.

Linki: I'm not sure if INH got the 2 games mixed up or if it's something else. But I would like to hear more from him on it if possible.

Linki2: Tl;dr version of what I said.

[Bass_the_Clever]

I have a question when we send our white card in do we always send it to boo ?

[insertnamehere]

Well, shit. I'm sorry S~V~S. This is why I don't play 2 games at a time.

[birdwithteeth11]

I have a question when we send our white card in do we always send it to boo ?

Yes, you PM which white card you want to send in to boo.

[Dom]

Shoot! I forgot this was a speed game and I thought we had until Wednesday to make a decision. I probably will not be able to participate much if at all before deadline, I have assignments due. I'm currently posting on my phone.
BWT caught my eye, saying he has been more fluffy but he wasn't imo because there is plenty of time. Plenty of time?? Where is this time and where can I get some? Especially if you haven't truly started yet. IGMEOY
Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

Llama is flopping between this game and Game of Champs so take that into consideration.

Is there a reason why you just gave Llama an excuse?

Is there an easier way to throw suspicion on someone than to question them on something like that? Baddies would usually not be so stupid as to stick up for a fellow baddie so blatantly. I could see him defending him to get on his good side though, but I could also see you just using that little thing to make him look bad. This is the second time in this game where I feel you are trying to make someone look bad.

I think this is your second, maybe third, game with me, yes?
I always question. I generally post in questions. This is very typical of me. Civ or baddie.


Anyways, my point was, did you notice that no one answered your questions for me?
I wanted to know why DH felt the need to answer for Llama. This is actually exactly what I thought you'd want to see out of a player right now: someone asking questions and such.

And if my answer about SVS bothered you, then I'm sorry, but I find SVS to be literal at times, but I've also seen her have lots of not so literal fun in threads. Everything I've seen out of her in this game is par for the course. I don't really know what you wanted out of an answer.

[DharmaHelper]

Shoot! I forgot this was a speed game and I thought we had until Wednesday to make a decision. I probably will not be able to participate much if at all before deadline, I have assignments due. I'm currently posting on my phone.
BWT caught my eye, saying he has been more fluffy but he wasn't imo because there is plenty of time. Plenty of time?? Where is this time and where can I get some? Especially if you haven't truly started yet. IGMEOY
Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

Llama is flopping between this game and Game of Champs so take that into consideration.

Is there a reason why you just gave Llama an excuse?

Is there an easier way to throw suspicion on someone than to question them on something like that? Baddies would usually not be so stupid as to stick up for a fellow baddie so blatantly. I could see him defending him to get on his good side though, but I could also see you just using that little thing to make him look bad. This is the second time in this game where I feel you are trying to make someone look bad.

I think this is your second, maybe third, game with me, yes?
I always question. I generally post in questions. This is very typical of me. Civ or baddie.


Anyways, my point was, did you notice that no one answered your questions for me?
I wanted to know why DH felt the need to answer for Llama. This is actually exactly what I thought you'd want to see out of a player right now: someone asking questions and such.

And if my answer about SVS bothered you, then I'm sorry, but I find SVS to be literal at times, but I've also seen her have lots of not so literal fun in threads. Everything I've seen out of her in this game is par for the course. I don't really know what you wanted out of an answer.

Felt the need to offer my insight on llama because if I were in his situation (and I pretty much am) I wouldn't want to be left out in the cold.

[birdwithteeth11]

I have to leave for work soon, and won't have time to check in before the deadline. I'm not very sure about anyone quite yet, and the only thing that's stuck out is John's self-vote. Instead, I'm going to try something I normally hate people doing because I feel like it: randomizing!

I did a 1-18 generator (in order of everyone's name in the lynch poll), and got #5, so Bass. Sorry man!

[Hedgeowl]

Well, shit. I'm sorry S~V~S. This is why I don't play 2 games at a time.

I completely understand getting confused, but this makes no sense to me based on your baddie analysis program you are using in the other game. How could you "get confused" ?

This makes me suspect you more here, because that's sounds like made up reason. Granted civs do that too sometimes, but hmmm.

[thellama73]

Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

[insertnamehere]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

[Mister Rearranger]

Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

After how long he lasted doing similar things in Shawshank, I am not adverse to this.

[FZ.]

Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act. And I think you know it too. Plus, there are plenty of players, if I'm not wrong, that haven't really done anything, like Epi, or MP.
I'm going to vote you. If you're a civ, I'm really sorry. I'm going to wait before I go to bed to vote, just in case something changes my mind.

@linki: I think he did a lot better than that last game MR, so if anything, I'm thinking he's a civ for now.

[thellama73]

We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act.

To my memory, this is pretty similar to how he played in Shawshank, actually.

[DharmaHelper]

John who?

[Dom]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

[FZ.]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

[Dom]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

My understanding of how there are cultural differences between the community I came from and the community you came from is that there are a lot of them. One of those, I've seen is that you all rely on metagaming far more than we do. I'm surprised you're questioning this in this way.
You have gotten yourself into a circular argument here. The wine-in-front-of-me (WIFOM) argument. "That's what he WANTS you to think!"

[FZ.]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

My understanding of how there are cultural differences between the community I came from and the community you came from is that there are a lot of them. One of those, I've seen is that you all rely on metagaming far more than we do. I'm surprised you're questioning this in this way.
You have gotten yourself into a circular argument here. The wine-in-front-of-me (WIFOM) argument. "That's what he WANTS you to think!"

Lol, Roxy used the WIFOM accusation on us when she started playing with us.
I don't think that's the case though. I didn't even remember him doing the same thing until you both said it. I think we should just wait and see how he acts in the future. I don't think it's enough to vote for him, when others have neither voted nor said anything. By the way, last game he voted for llama without explanation. This time, he voted for himself and explained why. Llama on the other hand, voted for him last game for voting him, and now, for voting himself. So he's not voting for him because he's acting like last game

[thellama73]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

It seems like you've fallen prey to confirmation bias. You think I am bad, so you are bending all the evidence to fit that theory rather than taking the evidence as it comes and evaluating it objectively. I see no reason to second guess JJ. He behaved this way last game and was bad, he is behaving the same way this game, so I think he might be bad here too. Add to that the fact that I always like to vote for low posers and self-voters, and I feel very good about my vote. Your pursuit of me is starting to seem a little forced.

[Dom]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

My understanding of how there are cultural differences between the community I came from and the community you came from is that there are a lot of them. One of those, I've seen is that you all rely on metagaming far more than we do. I'm surprised you're questioning this in this way.
You have gotten yourself into a circular argument here. The wine-in-front-of-me (WIFOM) argument. "That's what he WANTS you to think!"

Lol, Roxy used the WIFOM accusation on us when she started playing with us.
I don't think that's the case though. I didn't even remember him doing the same thing until you both said it. I think we should just wait and see how he acts in the future. I don't think it's enough to vote for him, when others have neither voted nor said anything. By the way, last game he voted for llama without explanation. This time, he voted for himself and explained why. Llama on the other hand, voted for him last game for voting him, and now, for voting himself. So he's not voting for him because he's acting like last game

I never said I am pursuing him.

[Epignosis]

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

To be fair, your day periods generally last 4-5 IRL days, so it lends itself to more discussion and, in turn, makes you more likely to nab a baddie on Day 1. Most of us are used to 48 hours at most, so generally we'll feel a bit differently about it than K-Siters will.

I agree on the voting randomly part though. I try to go for the person who I feel strongest about based on what happens in the thread on Day 1. I feel that's much
better than trying to roll the dice and hope you get lucky.

I have to leave for work soon, and won't have time to check in before the deadline. I'm not very sure about anyone quite yet, and the only thing that's stuck out is John's self-vote. Instead, I'm going to try something I normally hate people doing because I feel like it: randomizing!

I did a 1-18 generator (in order of everyone's name in the lynch poll), and got #5, so Bass. Sorry man!

wut

[thellama73]

Vote for me if you think I'm bad, FZ, but ask yourself whether there was any vote I could have cast that you would not have pounced on as suspicious. I suspect the answer is no.

[FZ.]

I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

It seems like you've fallen prey to confirmation bias. You think I am bad, so you are bending all the evidence to fit that theory rather than taking the evidence as it comes and evaluating it objectively. I see no reason to second guess JJ. He behaved this way last game and was bad, he is behaving the same way this game, so I think he might be bad here too. Add to that the fact that I always like to vote for low posers and self-voters, and I feel very good about my vote. Your pursuit of me is starting to seem a little forced.

Maybe you're right. I have no idea. I just feel that your reasoning is the one forced, but I could be wrong. And falling prey to confirmation bias is something that has definitely happened to me. I'm still going to vote for you, because at this point, you're the one pinging me the most, but I guess people are not going to follow me, so you have nothing to worry about.

@linki: Lol Epi

@linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

[thellama73]

@linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

Thank you. I don't know how I feel about you yet, but I may well decide you're bad in the future, in which case I promise I will vote for you.

[DharmaHelper]

Oh his username is actually John..

[johns2jj]

We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act.

To my memory, this is pretty similar to how he played in Shawshank, actually.

Looks like I'm going to have to switch my vote to someone who does not have a vote yet and do not want to Lynch someone without at least something to go on, even though it appears most votes you can only go on a gut feeling unless someone makes a major slip up. I read all the posts but I still do not know how to approach what to talk about in the threads if I do not get a ping or have to address something someone else has has said. You have to remember I am living in Saudi Arabia now so my time zone is more than a little off the normal.

[FZ.]

@linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

Thank you. I don't know how I feel about you yet, but I may well decide you're bad in the future, in which case I promise I will vote for you.

Good to know

[johns2jj]

Oh his username is actually John..

Yeah it's from my university email. It's part of my last name, Johnson. The person who got me interested in this, Russtifinko, was in the same masters program with me.

[FZ.]

Epi, what are your thoughts?

[Dom]

i have no idea who to vote for tbh

[FZ.]

i have no idea who to vote for tbh

randomize

[Dom]

I've played probably over 100 games, and I think I've only done that a handful of times. I'd rather not. :/

[kneel4justice]

Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

I saw your suspicion and in general I like to respond to suspicions when I think the person makes a reasonable point. I don't understand, however, what me referring to my record has to do with anything. I have objectively been terrible at catching baddies in the last few games I have played, so I'm mixing it up a little here to try to do better.

linki: I am also neck deep in a really time consuming and tedious project, so I haven't had the chance to really build any detailed cases yet. I hope that will change soon once I have more data.

lots more linki

I think my suspicion is reasonable. What I was trying to say was that I think that the previous track record is often used as an excuse so that when a player is noticeably different they have an excuse to argue against the idea that their different behavior comes down to alignment. I'm hear your reasoning but I am not sure if that's the true intention or not.

I also saw you voted JJ. That is weird to me, I haven't read everything yet but I saw you are suspicious of him for coming in and voting for himself!? Definitely not something that makes me think he is a civ, but after just one game I am thinking doing that is done by civs and baddies alike, so how that determines your vote is beyond me.

[thellama73]

Oh well, it won't be the first time I'm lynched on Day 1 and it probably won't be the last