The Donner Party - Day 7

#701

I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .

#702

I'd go for S~V~S if I were you...

#703

Snowman wrote:I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .

If that's the case, do you think LC and Rico are on the Wasatch team? Because, knowing that Epi is Weather, only one person can be his teammate (Hunger), which means both LC and Rico can't be on Epi's team -- making the Epi-Rico connection bogus.

I agree with what you've said, though, and what Llama has said about Rico, but that's the problem I'm having at the moment.

#704

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.
You agreed, as soon as you launched the case against me, that it can be truly circumstancial. Why are you keen to give me 0% BOTD on the whole thing being "truly circumstancial".

You also started by saying you'll do a whole re-read of D1 to search for Hunger, then you simply got stuck at me (along with most, I should add). I already said one should not assume it to be the sole explanation.
All cases in mafia are circumstantial. In order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have to find someone I think is more likely to be bad than you. I have not found such a person. If you have suggestions, I will happily listen to them.

I finished my Day 1 read and you remained my strongest candidate.

I meant my desire not to join others in lynching Epignosis (or what you so call defending him) is now circumstancial, in light of Epignosis flipping bad. Of course I'm the strongest candidate, by Day 1's read. Everything I've written now looks horribly bad, since Epignosis turned out to be bad. I only wish to signal that all this could be err circumstancial. Or, to use a better word, a complete irony.

Then again, you once said you usually go the Occam way in these types of cases, so I can sort of understand your decision. It will prove itself ironic once the lynch is complete.

I'll focus tomorrow on searching myself someone I suspect - as you yourself suggested - but I have little doubt it will be all for naught.

Otherwise, fine by me.

#705

This will only damn me further, by FZ.'s new standards of "defending", but if I were civ in this game, I would not need a chorus of defenders, and if I were bad, I would not need my teammate to defend me (or defend him myself, hint hint). That is all.

#706

Long Con wrote:I'd go for S~V~S if I were you...

No. That would be a mistake

#707

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.
You agreed, as soon as you launched the case against me, that it can be truly circumstancial. Why are you keen to give me 0% BOTD on the whole thing being "truly circumstancial".

You also started by saying you'll do a whole re-read of D1 to search for Hunger, then you simply got stuck at me (along with most, I should add). I already said one should not assume it to be the sole explanation.
All cases in mafia are circumstantial. In order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have to find someone I think is more likely to be bad than you. I have not found such a person. If you have suggestions, I will happily listen to them.

I finished my Day 1 read and you remained my strongest candidate.
I meant my desire not to join others in lynching Epignosis (or what you so call defending him) is now circumstancial, in light of Epignosis flipping bad. Of course I'm the strongest candidate, by Day 1's read. Everything I've written now looks horribly bad, since Epignosis turned out to be bad. I only wish to signal that all this could be err circumstancial. Or, to use a better word, a complete irony.

Then again, you once said you usually go the Occam way in these types of cases, so I can sort of understand your decision. It will prove itself ironic once the lynch is complete.

I'll focus tomorrow on searching myself someone I suspect - as you yourself suggested - but I have little doubt it will be all for naught.

Otherwise, fine by me.

I don't understand the point you're making.

I could be bad but I might not be.

That's literally true of everyone. How is that supposed to convince me not to vote for you?

#708

MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:Okay, thanks for clarifying, Roxy. This means we're back to looking for baddies.

I have three questions:

1. What do people make of the fact that two people "defended" Rico? Do you think it's just their assumptions or does it look like he could be legit? Since they defended him before we knew the roles will be switched at the end of the day, defending someone on your baddie team would be very dangerous. So if their defence seems real, I'd trust that he's a civ. If it just their opinion, then Rico could be Epi's team mate.

2. Any theories on why LC self voted too?

3. Since it's the other team's turn to kill the next night, will it make any change if we lynch one of them in terms of the kill?
1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.

2. I don't understand why anyone self votes, ever. Never have, never will.

3. Both teams kill every night. If Rico is Hunger, as I theorize, then one of the teams will be eliminated, and we will have less to worry about.
Well, I was going to answer the questions, but Llama did such a good job answering them that I will just say:

"This."

#709

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.
You agreed, as soon as you launched the case against me, that it can be truly circumstancial. Why are you keen to give me 0% BOTD on the whole thing being "truly circumstancial".

You also started by saying you'll do a whole re-read of D1 to search for Hunger, then you simply got stuck at me (along with most, I should add). I already said one should not assume it to be the sole explanation.
All cases in mafia are circumstantial. In order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have to find someone I think is more likely to be bad than you. I have not found such a person. If you have suggestions, I will happily listen to them.

I finished my Day 1 read and you remained my strongest candidate.
I meant my desire not to join others in lynching Epignosis (or what you so call defending him) is now circumstancial, in light of Epignosis flipping bad. Of course I'm the strongest candidate, by Day 1's read. Everything I've written now looks horribly bad, since Epignosis turned out to be bad. I only wish to signal that all this could be err circumstancial. Or, to use a better word, a complete irony.

Then again, you once said you usually go the Occam way in these types of cases, so I can sort of understand your decision. It will prove itself ironic once the lynch is complete.

I'll focus tomorrow on searching myself someone I suspect - as you yourself suggested - but I have little doubt it will be all for naught.

Otherwise, fine by me.
I don't understand the point you're making.

I could be bad but I might not be.

That's literally true of everyone. How is that supposed to convince me not to vote for you?

I don't understand what you understood from what I wrote. Like, at all.

#710

Snowman wrote:I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .

Agreed. Also, no one has defended him, either day. And he keeps pointing the finger without any real reason. I'm just not sold on his innocence. I really want to lunch LC. You're off the hook in my book Rico - for now

*switch vote from Rico to Long Con*

#711

TySlayer wrote:Hmmmmmm..... I'm not totally sure who to vote for. Honestly, there are very few bad guys in this game, and if I vote now I'm not sure I'll hit that small window. I suppose I'm open to suggestions, if anyone has any.

There are several suggestions out there. If you read back a couple of pages and look at the vote results you will see what we all think.

#712

Ricochet wrote: I don't understand what you understood from what I wrote. Like, at all.

You admitted that the evidence against you looks bad, but cautioned that it might turn out that you are innocent. I responded that such reasoning is always the case in mafia. Anyone who looks bad might be good, but the observation is meaningless, because any of us could use the same defense.

This is why I objected so much, in the recent game of Champions, to the idea that Made was forced to tell a lie that he was caught in by a secret role mechanic. Anyone can use that defense. "I know my actions look bad, but maybe I was forced to do it, even though there is no mechanism in the rules for that."

A defense that can be equally used by anyone regardless of circumstance is not a defense.

#713

Zomberella12 wrote:
Snowman wrote:I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .
Agreed. Also, no one has defended him, either day. And he keeps pointing the finger without any real reason. I'm just not sold on his innocence. I really want to lunch LC. You're off the hook in my book Rico - for now *switch vote from Rico to Long Con*

There are a couple of people that could defend me right now, but they don't have to. In fact, if they did now, it might be considered infodumping. And as I recall, one of them DID defend me. You just don't want to see it, I think.

#714

I did not caution that, but I probably just can't make myself clear on that, so I'll drop it altogether. By the way you put it, both the situation and your judgment on it, I am truly stuck in what I did on D1 and I can't properly get out of it.

I will however now quote for the third time what I do in fact caution:

Ricochet wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Anyway, if looking for defenders is your tactic of choice, there are plenty who didn't join the lynch train and have said it so. But I also suggest you don't ignore the chance that, since Epignosis lynched him so nonchalantly, knowing (and openly teasing everyone) that nothing will happen to him, perhaps Hunger wasn't far behind, pushing for the same lynch that would not affect them.
My point being:

Do not assume my posts looking blatantly bad is the only explanation.
Do not assume others who "defended" Epig (ie didn't board his lynch train, with reasons or without) are worth less investigating than me.
Do not assume Hunger didn't actually join the lynch train, given how laid-back both he and Epig must have been, if it's true they knew Epig can't get lynched.

Prior to that, I also made the following invitation, which so far has received no response. I'll see what tomorrow can still hold, in that regard.

Ricochet wrote:Bottom line, if anyone wishes to point out what constitutes me defending Epig in my D1 writings, even in the quote llama brought up, I'm looking forward to hear the specifics. What I said there was that I'm not joining the lynch train just on grounds of Epig bantz (especially in light of having my own suspicions and preferring to follow them). That is not the same thing.

To end the day on a slightly off-topic remark: Hunger - and probably Epignosis too - must be laughing their asses off at what's happening in here.

#715

Long Con wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
Snowman wrote:I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .
Agreed. Also, no one has defended him, either day. And he keeps pointing the finger without any real reason. I'm just not sold on his innocence. I really want to lunch LC. You're off the hook in my book Rico - for now *switch vote from Rico to Long Con*
There are a couple of people that could defend me right now, but they don't have to. In fact, if they did now, it might be considered infodumping. And as I recall, one of them DID defend me. You just don't want to see it, I think.

Page reference?

#716

Zomberella12 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
Snowman wrote:I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .
Agreed. Also, no one has defended him, either day. And he keeps pointing the finger without any real reason. I'm just not sold on his innocence. I really want to lunch LC. You're off the hook in my book Rico - for now *switch vote from Rico to Long Con*
There are a couple of people that could defend me right now, but they don't have to. In fact, if they did now, it might be considered infodumping. And as I recall, one of them DID defend me. You just don't want to see it, I think.
Page reference?

Ha ha no, not going to happen.

#717

LOL, even though you are trying to kill me

#718

S~V~S wrote:LOL, even though you are trying to kill me

Ha ha yeah, I guess that's a little bit funny.

#719

Ricochet wrote:The only shortcoming I see to Alex's BTSC mechanism is that it's a civ tool that could be very much manipulated by the baddies. Regardless if shuffles of roles will be partial or full, a civ might change to a baddie, be aware of his past team's mechanism and instruct his team how to evade it. Or worse, civs from different camps could change and form the baddie team and thus be aware of multiple "mechanisms" and how to evade them. Does this make sense, Alex?

(Or perhaps the game design is a bit flawed, but I wouldn't want to insinuate that, because the Host might turn me into a swedish buffet. )

Anyway, I'll wait to see Russ's reply, otherwise I would also consider inviting him to dinner.

Here is a civvie-like post from Rico back on Day 1. Starting to wonder....

#720

Long Con wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
Snowman wrote:I feel like LC is working altogether too hard to be obnoxious. I think he's trying to take the heat off someone else. I also think that LC must feel confident that ha can't be killed. He's trying to take the bullet (for Rico, perhaps) .
Agreed. Also, no one has defended him, either day. And he keeps pointing the finger without any real reason. I'm just not sold on his innocence. I really want to lunch LC. You're off the hook in my book Rico - for now *switch vote from Rico to Long Con*
There are a couple of people that could defend me right now, but they don't have to. In fact, if they did now, it might be considered infodumping. And as I recall, one of them DID defend me. You just don't want to see it, I think.
Page reference?
Ha ha no, not going to happen.

So weird - and so bad!

#721

Russtifinko wrote:However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Here is Russ saying that we should lynch our own teammates civ or not. Still looking for LC's supposed support....

#722

Did you major in irony?

#723

Dom wrote:I read Russ as poking holes in MP's argument-- not actually recommending lynching civilians.

Here is Dom misinterpreting (possibly on purpose) Russ's posts about how it's totally fine to just lynch whoever, civ or not. Does this cast suspicion onto Fingersplints?

#724

Damn, I'm low on time! Placeholder vote on MP while I try to catch up.

#725

Russtifinko wrote:I voted Epi. Was low on time, so no post before. Not even really because I particularly want him gone, but his posting makes me curious what'll happen if he gets lunched, he seems cool with it, and he's not me.

I think this post makes Russ look really guilty of being non-civilian.

#726

Why? Epi WAS bad. So not sure why that post makes Russ look bad, tbh.

What is your stand on Russ? The prior post you said Dom was suspish for misinterpreting Russ.

#727

Ricochet wrote:To end the day on a slightly off-topic remark: Hunger - and probably Epignosis too - must be laughing their asses off at what's happening in here.

I agree, but that's always the case with such games. It's the Alex Trebec phenomenon--it's easy to feel smug and all-knowing when you're the only one who has been given all of the information.

If anyone were willing to vouch for you, or if you were to suggest a more viable target, that might be something. Otherwise, civvies gotta eat!

#728

Snowman wrote:Otherwise, civvies gotta eat!

In your case, a terrifying snowman.

I wouldn't want to be eaten by that thing.

#729

Hmm! Looks like Zombie suspects me. Not are it's anything I can really respond to, though...

Ricochet wrote:Fine, vote for me then. I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because I did not respond to Epig's agressive and rousy banter and gameplay and such. Llama's points are indeed excellent for an easy hunt and lynch. They'll also highly circumstantial and blinding.

Why didn't I post what before?
What exactly pinged you about my interpretations of the vote result? What are you own interpretations?

I did not imply E. Donner had any real info. I did not imply we should go back and hunt from there on. I simply asked what others think, in new context. Same question for E. Donner's new message.

I think early and late are both bad timings, in general. I've seen the effects of both, so far, in the two games I've played so far. The early started lynch train for Epignosis now circumstancially seems like a great action, because he ended up flipping bad. You will have the opportunity to witness the opposite outcome, if you lynch me in the same manner. But you seem fine with wrapping up my trial as quick as Snowman urged it himself, so by all means.

This post strikes me as unusually astute for a new player. Epi almost always starts games trying to get a rise out of people and then lynching them, and Rico was smart enough to avoid it.

I don't support a Rico lynch today, and I regret supporting Epi's lunch yesterday. I was reading him as actually not concerned/not caring about being lunched, and it now seems apparent to me that he was angry about the info dump. So yes, Rico could be bad, but I think using info to get him if he is would be unfair of us, especially with a rotation likely impending and likely to render the dump moot.

I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.

#730

I am, however, around for further discussion if, for example, someone wants to find a baddie on the other team, or suggest lynching one of my BTSC mates

.

#731

MovingPictures07 wrote:Linki w/ Zomb: I personally do not right now, no. I don't really have a read on him one way or the other but I believe he read genuine to me. But you interpreted him as suspicious earlier, hence my question.

@ LC - is this what you were referring to?! I totally saw this and I MP just says that you seem genuine. That's not really a ringing endorsement. I say to MP, "Yeah, genuinely suspicions.." I get that some of the civs don't have teammates and we have to watch out for info dumping, but your apparent lack of supporters is not the main reason I want to eat you. I think your posts and votes are against the civs.

#732

Russtifinko wrote:Hmm! Looks like Zombie suspects me. Not are it's anything I can really respond to, though...

Ricochet wrote:Fine, vote for me then. I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because I did not respond to Epig's agressive and rousy banter and gameplay and such. Llama's points are indeed excellent for an easy hunt and lynch. They'll also highly circumstantial and blinding.

Why didn't I post what before?
What exactly pinged you about my interpretations of the vote result? What are you own interpretations?

I did not imply E. Donner had any real info. I did not imply we should go back and hunt from there on. I simply asked what others think, in new context. Same question for E. Donner's new message.

I think early and late are both bad timings, in general. I've seen the effects of both, so far, in the two games I've played so far. The early started lynch train for Epignosis now circumstancially seems like a great action, because he ended up flipping bad. You will have the opportunity to witness the opposite outcome, if you lynch me in the same manner. But you seem fine with wrapping up my trial as quick as Snowman urged it himself, so by all means.
This post strikes me as unusually astute for a new player. Epi almost always starts games trying to get a rise out of people and then lynching them, and Rico was smart enough to avoid it.

I don't support a Rico lynch today, and I regret supporting Epi's lunch yesterday. I was reading him as actually not concerned/not caring about being lunched, and it now seems apparent to me that he was angry about the info dump. So yes, Rico could be bad, but I think using info to get him if he is would be unfair of us, especially with a rotation likely impending and likely to render the dump moot.

I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.

Seriously?

How does any info affect Rico's alignment?

#733

Russtifinko wrote:I am, however, around for further discussion if, for example, someone wants to find a baddie on the other team, or suggest lynching one of my BTSC mates .

I am not one of your BTSC mates, so i can't help you out. Good luck with that, though

#734

S~V~S wrote:Why? Epi WAS bad. So not sure why that post makes Russ look bad, tbh.

Yeah, but unless he was bad he didn't know it. He seems bad because he's cool with lunching whoever, doesn't care if they are good or not. That's all.

S~V~S wrote:What is your stand on Russ? The prior post you said Dom was suspish for misinterpreting Russ.

I think Russ is likely bad (per above) and I was just wondering about Dom. Maybe baddies on different teams? I couldn't find anything else bad about him...

#735

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Snowman wrote:Otherwise, civvies gotta eat!
In your case, a terrifying snowman.

I wouldn't want to be eaten by that thing.

#736

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Russtifinko wrote:Hmm! Looks like Zombie suspects me. Not are it's anything I can really respond to, though...

Ricochet wrote:Fine, vote for me then. I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because I did not respond to Epig's agressive and rousy banter and gameplay and such. Llama's points are indeed excellent for an easy hunt and lynch. They'll also highly circumstantial and blinding.

Why didn't I post what before?
What exactly pinged you about my interpretations of the vote result? What are you own interpretations?

I did not imply E. Donner had any real info. I did not imply we should go back and hunt from there on. I simply asked what others think, in new context. Same question for E. Donner's new message.

I think early and late are both bad timings, in general. I've seen the effects of both, so far, in the two games I've played so far. The early started lynch train for Epignosis now circumstancially seems like a great action, because he ended up flipping bad. You will have the opportunity to witness the opposite outcome, if you lynch me in the same manner. But you seem fine with wrapping up my trial as quick as Snowman urged it himself, so by all means.
This post strikes me as unusually astute for a new player. Epi almost always starts games trying to get a rise out of people and then lynching them, and Rico was smart enough to avoid it.

I don't support a Rico lynch today, and I regret supporting Epi's lunch yesterday. I was reading him as actually not concerned/not caring about being lunched, and it now seems apparent to me that he was angry about the info dump. So yes, Rico could be bad, but I think using info to get him if he is would be unfair of us, especially with a rotation likely impending and likely to render the dump moot.

I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.
Seriously?

How does any info affect Rico's alignment?

I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.

#737

Russtifinko wrote:I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.

Really? No ideas on baddies. I think I might have hit a nerve. You can't lunch me if I lunch you first.

#738

Russtifinko wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Russtifinko wrote:Hmm! Looks like Zombie suspects me. Not are it's anything I can really respond to, though...

Ricochet wrote:Fine, vote for me then. I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because I did not respond to Epig's agressive and rousy banter and gameplay and such. Llama's points are indeed excellent for an easy hunt and lynch. They'll also highly circumstantial and blinding.

Why didn't I post what before?
What exactly pinged you about my interpretations of the vote result? What are you own interpretations?

I did not imply E. Donner had any real info. I did not imply we should go back and hunt from there on. I simply asked what others think, in new context. Same question for E. Donner's new message.

I think early and late are both bad timings, in general. I've seen the effects of both, so far, in the two games I've played so far. The early started lynch train for Epignosis now circumstancially seems like a great action, because he ended up flipping bad. You will have the opportunity to witness the opposite outcome, if you lynch me in the same manner. But you seem fine with wrapping up my trial as quick as Snowman urged it himself, so by all means.
This post strikes me as unusually astute for a new player. Epi almost always starts games trying to get a rise out of people and then lynching them, and Rico was smart enough to avoid it.

I don't support a Rico lynch today, and I regret supporting Epi's lunch yesterday. I was reading him as actually not concerned/not caring about being lunched, and it now seems apparent to me that he was angry about the info dump. So yes, Rico could be bad, but I think using info to get him if he is would be unfair of us, especially with a rotation likely impending and likely to render the dump moot.

I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.
Seriously?

How does any info affect Rico's alignment?
I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.

I know you are, but I'm just confused. I understand why perhaps some process of elimination (though it's possible FZ. or LC was lying; and there's also Elizabeth Donner) helped narrow Epi down, but I don't understand how it narrows Rico down.

#739

Zomberella12 wrote:
Russtifinko wrote:I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.
Really? No ideas on baddies. I think I might have hit a nerve. You can't lunch me if I lunch you first.

While I don't trust Russ for one second this game, just because someone doesn't have any ideas on baddies, especially in a game as complicated as this, does not imply they are bad. It could, especially taken in with other factors (which is how I feel about Russ, but nonetheless I wouldn't gun against him right now, I just have a few things I wonder about).

To play devil's advocate:

Do you believe Tyler to be bad? No one appears to have defended him yet, and he has issued similar statements to the one above from Russ.

#740

EBWOP

By Tyler I mean TySlayer, but I'm sure that could be surmised.

#741

Russ wrote:I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.

What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy? I voted for Epi because I felt like he acted guilty, plain and simple. I honestly didn't notice any specific info regarding his guilt, and I wasn't 100% sure about him, but he seemed the most likely candidate. Everything that's said on the forums is info, and in a social deduction game, all you have to base your decisions on are...the social interactions!

...or, you could spend forever trying to eliminate every alternative based on first-hand experience from BTSC and revealed roles post-lynch like...but that seems dumb and boring, like a middle-school logic puzzle.

#742

Sorry for not being as active - I've been reading throughout the day while nursing a slight hangover (yay early bday shenanigans! Boo feeling terrible

). I see many have chosen to vote early to avoid last-minute weirdness? I say the weirdness happens regardless, but hey, I can see it both ways. Anyway, looked at Rico, of course, since he seems to be the top contender, and what's being said about him. A couple of things stood out to me that seemed to stand out to others. One, the poll posting comment (that it wasn't "his responsibility" and responding to Zomba with "yes" without a poll). I agree that seems rather un-Civ like, seeing as we're in this together. Two, he challenges anyone to see his comment about not voting for Epi as defending him, as he claims that it is not. But...it is defending him, in a way. Not strongly, but still stating "yeah, he could be Wasatch and know something, but I won't follow along." I see what Rico is saying (that he's not directly defending him, but stating his reasons for not following the train), but I also see it as a defense, nonetheless. I hope that made sense. Anyway, he is certainly a candidate for a vote for me, but I'd like to see if he has a case besides his own.

Um, this also got my attention in a bad way:

Russtifinko wrote:Hmm! Looks like Zombie suspects me. Not are it's anything I can really respond to, though...

Ricochet wrote:Fine, vote for me then. I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because I did not respond to Epig's agressive and rousy banter and gameplay and such. Llama's points are indeed excellent for an easy hunt and lynch. They'll also highly circumstantial and blinding.

Why didn't I post what before?
What exactly pinged you about my interpretations of the vote result? What are you own interpretations?

I did not imply E. Donner had any real info. I did not imply we should go back and hunt from there on. I simply asked what others think, in new context. Same question for E. Donner's new message.

I think early and late are both bad timings, in general. I've seen the effects of both, so far, in the two games I've played so far. The early started lynch train for Epignosis now circumstancially seems like a great action, because he ended up flipping bad. You will have the opportunity to witness the opposite outcome, if you lynch me in the same manner. But you seem fine with wrapping up my trial as quick as Snowman urged it himself, so by all means.
This post strikes me as unusually astute for a new player. Epi almost always starts games trying to get a rise out of people and then lynching them, and Rico was smart enough to avoid it.

I don't support a Rico lynch today, and I regret supporting Epi's lunch yesterday. I was reading him as actually not concerned/not caring about being lunched, and it now seems apparent to me that he was angry about the info dump. So yes, Rico could be bad, but I think using info to get him if he is would be unfair of us, especially with a rotation likely impending and likely to render the dump moot.

I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.

I'll get to what pinged me in a moment, but Rico's been called out for this "astuteness" in both games I've played with him. I don't know if he's bad in Film (I was lynched before I could find out partially because I made the same observation), so it'll be interesting to see if people are right about whether or not some of this "astuteness" comes from baddie BTSC (not all of it, though - you're still playing awesomely, Rico!) or just from pure newbie awesomeness.

What pinged me is Russ' jumping in to have a "placeholder" vote on MP (presumably because he thought the poll ended today?), then voting Zomba for suspecting him. Russ is usually quite specific and more...detail-oriented with his votes, so this seems extremely out of character. What's the deal?

My computer is pissing me off with its sudden slowness, and I have papers to grade. I'll check back periodically if it lets me actually check the site in a timely manner

Linki forever and ever

#743

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:
Russtifinko wrote:I don't have any ideas on baddies we could possibly lunch before day's end who we didn't get info on, so I'll vote Zombie for suspecting me.
Really? No ideas on baddies. I think I might have hit a nerve. You can't lunch me if I lunch you first.
While I don't trust Russ for one second this game, just because someone doesn't have any ideas on baddies, especially in a game as complicated as this, does not imply they are bad. It could, especially taken in with other factors (which is how I feel about Russ, but nonetheless I wouldn't gun against him right now, I just have a few things I wonder about).

Well, if I was basing it on just that, then you would be right. Also, what are the things you wonder about. You seem interested in all our opinions and very tight lipped about your own. Tell us some of your theories.

#744

I think what Russ is saying is that, since some people voted for Epi based on FZ and LC's claims that he was not on their team, we shouldn't have lynched Epi, and that therefore we shouldn't use the fact that Epi flipped bad to make deductions about Rico for his alleged connection.

I think find this argument a little convoluted and unconvincing however. Not everyone voted Epi for those reasons, and now that we know he is bad, it seams silly not to look for his teammate.

#745

Snowman wrote:
Russ wrote:I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.
What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy? I voted for Epi because I felt like he acted guilty, plain and simple. I honestly didn't notice any specific info regarding his guilt, and I wasn't 100% sure about him, but he seemed the most likely candidate. Everything that's said on the forums is info, and in a social deduction game, all you have to base your decisions on are...the social interactions!

...or, you could spend forever trying to eliminate every alternative based on first-hand experience from BTSC and revealed roles post-lynch like...but that seems dumb and boring, like a middle-school logic puzzle.

Oh snap!

#746

MovingPictures07 wrote:EBWOP

By Tyler I mean TySlayer, but I'm sure that could be surmised.

No comment.

#747

Snowman wrote:
Russ wrote:I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.
What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy? I voted for Epi because I felt like he acted guilty, plain and simple. I honestly didn't notice any specific info regarding his guilt, and I wasn't 100% sure about him, but he seemed the most likely candidate. Everything that's said on the forums is info, and in a social deduction game, all you have to base your decisions on are...the social interactions!

...or, you could spend forever trying to eliminate every alternative based on first-hand experience from BTSC and revealed roles post-lynch like...but that seems dumb and boring, like a middle-school logic puzzle.

There's building cases, instead of revealing things you're told by the host or outing alignments based on who has BTSC with whom. That's the distinction between mafia and a middle-school logic puzzle: in mafia you say things you think, and for the most part you're supposed to keep the ones you know to yourself.

#748

Russtifinko wrote: There's building cases, instead of revealing things you're told by the host or outing alignments based on who has BTSC with whom. That's the distinction between mafia and a middle-school logic puzzle: in mafia you say things you think, and for the most part you're supposed to keep the ones you know to yourself.

#749

thellama73 wrote:I think what Russ is saying is that, since some people voted for Epi based on FZ and LC's claims that he was not on their team, we shouldn't have lynched Epi, and that therefore we shouldn't use the fact that Epi flipped bad to make deductions about Rico for his alleged connection.

I think find this argument a little convoluted and unconvincing however. Not everyone voted Epi for those reasons, and now that we know he is bad, it seams silly not to look for his teammate.

This is spot-on. Eli was lunched because of unfair info (someone from every alignment saying he wasn't in their BTSC), and Rico is now on a lunch train for his connection to that. It was unfair to Epi, but I thought he was actually cool with it. Not everyone voted Epi solely because of info, but enough people voted him at least partially based on info that the info caused his death. It's also unfair to Rico, whether he's on Epi's team or not, to be lunched because of an info dump. So I'm not going to participate in that.

It may be a step or two removed from a straight anti-info dumping thought, but the connection is very straightforward.

Linki: It's not beating a dead horse if people keep saying I'm wrong.

And also ty to whoever (Ninja Blooper?) pointed out that the poll actually ends tomorrow.

I'm glad I have more time to think about it.

#750

Russtifinko wrote:
Snowman wrote:
Russ wrote:I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.
What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy? I voted for Epi because I felt like he acted guilty, plain and simple. I honestly didn't notice any specific info regarding his guilt, and I wasn't 100% sure about him, but he seemed the most likely candidate. Everything that's said on the forums is info, and in a social deduction game, all you have to base your decisions on are...the social interactions!

...or, you could spend forever trying to eliminate every alternative based on first-hand experience from BTSC and revealed roles post-lynch like...but that seems dumb and boring, like a middle-school logic puzzle.
There's building cases, instead of revealing things you're told by the host or outing alignments based on who has BTSC with whom. That's the distinction between mafia and a middle-school logic puzzle: in mafia you say things you think, and for the most part you're supposed to keep the ones you know to yourself.

Ok, I totally agree with this.

We have been here before