S~V~S, just to give you another opinion: I am seeing a civvie zeek here. It definitely isn't DW zeek, and since Zelda is still wrapping up I won't say anything more than the fact that I called him out in Zelda in a similar fashion to you doing so here. I'm not sure the lower volume of posting indicates anything other than being busy and less interest in the theme (and it wasn't his first game out of retirement, as he said). I also am not getting the vibes you have been from his posts. That's just my assessment.
And keys, I wouldn't sweat it. You play the game how you want. I respect your viewpoints on the matter. I do appreciate your input, so I look forward to hearing what you think re: suspects and such.
Long Con wrote:Well, that was a big post, MP, that didn't really say anything new, just being excessively wordy about "Llama trusts LC for some reason. I think they would be obvious about it in a WIFOM attempt to trick people into thinking they're not partners."
It doesn't matter how strongly you claim to feel about it, no amount of feelings are going to make it true , or even sensible. Something is off about you this game, between you pushing as hard as you can on a very weak case, and you accusing people and then taking it back... And so many random questions, "hey A, what do you think of B?" "Who are your suspicions, C?" ... It's like, look how pro-Civvie I am being!
It does matter because I'm not letting it go, and it IS sensible. There's nothing wrong with my assumptions. You can denounce it if you wish, and I'd understand why you would, but it still is less "weak" than what most of the rest of players have been voting based off of.
The fact that you list all of those things as "off" tells me that you're either trying to manufacture suspicion on me or you just don't know my civvie playstyle because I've frequently been guilty of all of those things (except I don't think this current case of mine is "very weak", but I have already recognized that it's not based on amazing evidence). Do you not recall how I posted in DW?
No one has given me a better explanation for why Llama did a complete 180 on LC other than the fact that he: 1) gained BTSC with him and 2) thought he could get away with it. Which he totally is.
I think Occam's Razor applies here. I'm still totally convinced that LC and Llama are bad news, and I will continue to try to get them lynched.
Turnip Head wrote:I have my eye on him because his suspicions don't seem as organic as they usually are when Llama's a civvie. You're usually able to glimpse into his thought process, see who he's suspecting and why. This game, I feel like he's holding back a lot of his thoughts, or perhaps his thoughts aren't fully formed because he's a baddie. I'm far from trusting him but don't have much reason to vote for him.
This is exactly why I have not been convinced by Llama's explanation or by his behavior that he's a civvie Llama.
I also don't like how untransparent he's being in general. He said he told me juliets was bad but he hasn't elaborated at all. Then he switched to Boogs. Earlier he said he'd be OK lynching MM. And now he says he'd be OK lynching BWT. But he's not being completely transparent like he is when he's civvie.
It only convinces me further that it's likely the exact scenario I described has happened.
juliets wrote:I just noticed that BWT, even though he said he didn't have time to defend himself, had time to go sign up for the Disney game. Why not use the time he spent telling us why he couldn't respond and the time signing up for the Disney game to defend himself. I don't like that at all.
voting birdwithteeth
It takes two seconds to sign up for a game, no?
I understand you have a valid point, and I agree that I'd like to see a defense from him, but I'm not sure that's totally a fair comparison.