The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:If I think you're bad, then most definitely

Good, Shinigami.

I'll let you sleep on this. I don't trust you for shit, but this time- this one time, I may need your help.

Turnip Head wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Guys I have a question.

Can we please lynch FZ next?
If I voted for FZ to be lynched next, it would only be because I want to ultimately get to the bottom of this, and because I think this is preventing us from discussing other worthwhile topics, and because Epi's numbers seem convincing, not because I genuinely suspect her. That's a horrible way to rationalize it, but it's true. My only comfort is the fact that if you and Epi are wrong about FZ and she's a detective, she can still win with us from beyond the grave if we can manage to catch some Kiras. But that is very little comfort because I enjoy playing with FZ. I'll have to give it a lot of thought, and of course I'd love to hear from FZ again. I'd also like to hear what FZ thinks about Matahari.

I assume you like playing with me, but you'll vote me out ten times over if you can.

Turnip Head wrote:Okay, so there's a 50% chance that Russ got FZ's role right. In this case, FZ is Kira.

There is a 50% chance that Russ got FZ's role wrong. If this happened, there is a 24% chance that the incorrect result he got was Kira.

But it's still 50-50 as to whether his check was accurate... right?

Correct.

I am really a winner today.

In other words:

There is an 88% chance Russ was right about FZ.

In other words:

There is a 78% chance Russ was right about FZ. being bad.

It was never 50%.

juliets wrote:guys, let me just review my rl while in this game. It's all in the thread but not all in one place. I started out out of town. Then, I got very ill for two weeks, then I had a death in the family. Through it all I have tried to keep up and post regularly but there are bound to be some times when I posted irregularly or not at great length. Still, I managed to stay ahead of other posters but not nearly in line with those who post hundreds of posts. I will never be that player, I just don't post like that. I had 161 posts in GOC where I was a civ and won and that game ended somewhere around night 13. Here I have 144 and its day 8. I'm posting at my normal rate.

You're Yotsuba. No shame in it.

What do you think of those numbers?

My analysis has a couple of reasonable assumptions in place.

First, I will assume that Russ was Mogi.

Second, I will assume that Mogi's incorrect check will yield a result containing all other possible roles (26 total), not just living ones.

++++

There is a 50% chance Russ got FZ.'s role and it came back bad and he voted for her. That's half.

++++

There is a 50% chance Russ got an incorrect role.

There are 26 available roles: 11 detectives, 7 Yotsuba, 7 Kira sympathizers, and Sidoh.

++++

We can rule out some of these, because, even if Russ got a lynched role, it would be obvious to him that it was a false read. So that's 1 detective, 2 Kira sympathizers, and 2 Yotsuba out.

++++

So now there are 21 available roles: 10 detectives, 5 Yotsuba, 5 Kira sympathizers, and Sidoh.

That's 21.

++++

Remember, the question is this: Under what set of circumstances would Russtifinko 180 and vote early for someone?

++++

Now then, if Mogi got a wrong read, then there would be a 48% chance he would get a detective read, a 24% Yotsuba, a 24% Kira sympathizer, and then a 4% chance of Sidoh.

++++

Conclusion: Russtifinko would have had to fail a 50% role check, and THEN he would have to get in that 24% Kira check, in order for him to be wrong about FZ.

My point here is that the people poo-pooing Russ' check as "only 50%" are not being rational. There is a small window that Russ checked FZ., got a wrong answer, and that answer was Kira.

++++

For those in need of a more concrete example:

Step 1: To prove Russ' check wrong, you need to roll one die. If you get 3, 2, of 1, you learn that FZ. is Kira. If you get 4, 5, or 6, go to step 2.

Step 2: Roll a 100 sided die. If you get 24 or lower, then FZ. is Kira. If you get 25 or higher, then FZ. is some other role.

In other words, there is a 12% chance Russ got a false Kira check on FZ.

Someone check my math. It's 50% x 24% which is 12%.

Yes?

My thinking about Russ requires a drink. I will have a bourbon with a twist on the rocks tonight. Something a little different, like my perspective: Not too much of a deviation, but a slight change. Plus we are lousy with lemons. I should have offered you a lemon instead.

Give me a few moments, and I'll post again.

Turnip Head wrote:I agree with the consensus that FZ wouldn't have told us all to fuck off if she was a baddie.

There isn't a consensus. There's a few people who believe that.

Turnip Head wrote:I just don't think it's her style. (I'm sure she will use this against us in the future, though :P )

I don't get this "style" business. With a few exceptions, I have never seen anyone who wasn't an utter noob play according to a style when he or she was bad. That's why that, for me, when people start talking about their style, I question it. Very few people have a consistent style across the board with very few tells.

A bad guy's "style" is to make other people believe he or she shouldn't or can't be lynched.

Turnip Head wrote:She also had a chance to hop onto the Made bandwagon on the day she (FZ) was getting the most heat, yet she resisted. That earned her some more goodwill from me, because I think a baddie would have wanted to shift focus anywhere else she could in that moment, and it's not like it would have been difficult for her or anyone else to fake a suspicion of Made.

She voted bea to tie it with herself once Made had 6 votes.

Another thing I don't get: The "I think a baddie would XXXX." I have hosted far too many games to be able to tell you what Mafioso would do in a given situation. What I can tell you is that it differs from player to player, and that it differs from situation to situation. Speculating exactly what a bad guy would do in a given situation, to me, is not helpful (especially if you tell everybody in the thread what it is you THINK a bad guy would do in a given situation).

Turnip Head wrote:I do think there's a chance she is Yotsuba, based on her reactions to both BWT's death and Made's team-claim. But if that's the case, I think she's working toward a detective victory as long as it doesn't interfere with her other goals. Her Kira-hunting seems genuine to me.

I think I demonstrated that she is not non-Kira Yotsuba. Further evidence backing up my view is that Russ didn't check her as Yotsuba. He came out strongly and swiftly against her the day he died. What do you make of that? I've been doing some math, but I've been hesitant to present it.

Turnip Head wrote:While you made some good points about her inconsistencies and contradictions, it wasn't enough to sway me into thinking she was bad. I admit I could be getting completely fooled. But that's where I'm at right now.

Thank you. And again I'm sorry Mr. Shinigami. If I have to vote for you again sometime soon, no hard feelings, right?

Turnip Head wrote:linki: You rang?

I am interested in your present thoughts on FZ. I'll respond to anything you ask henceforth. I am sorry for ignoring you. Apple? I myself prefer the prunes.

I do hereby summon Turnip Head, the foe of the living, to this realm for conversation and apples.

zeek, why didn't you vote for FZ.?

*whoever

Imma go lie down.

*too

God almighty.

I would really like to lynch FZ. However, if a Matahari lynch is in the cards, I will support that.

There are two people I am sure are detectives. If either one of them would dissuade me from either course, I will listen.

"BEA: I've got a message for you from Master Kira himself! YOU'RE NEXT, FZ!"

Horse shit. That's an amateur trying to hard (no offense to whomever wrote it).

FZ. wrote:First of all, why isn't anyone concerned that Epi said he thinks MM is a shinigami after the vote was closed? If he thought it was a waste of vote, shouldn't he have tried to tell us not to vote there? Yeah, he said vote me, but he didn't say he thought MM was a waste of time. It seems very reasonable to conclude that he doesn't care if we waste lynches. In his eyes, either we waste a lynch, or lynch a detective (me).

Ah, yes, because people have been doing a stellar job listening to me.

FZ. wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I'm not sure why, but it's clear he doesn't think I'm Kira, which makes me think he knows who is.
I get you. But he's supposed to play like he doesn't. Are you saying it was a slip?
Yes, it seems like a slip to me.

Maybe someone else can ask Epi my question :P
I think you can just dismiss Epi altogether. Obviously, he has no idea what he's doing...either that, or he's bad

I realize you may have meant this in a playful way (as your subsequent post indicated), but I want to highlight the false dichotomy here: Either I don't know what I'm doing, or I'm bad. I'm either a screw up or an evildoer, in other words.

Well now let's see.

Thus far, I've been right about the non-Kira Yotsuba win condition, right about the detective objective, right about Russ' silence being role related (wrong about the alignment though), right about Snowman being bad, right about MM not dying, and right about a couple of things I will keep to myself as of this moment.

No, I'd say I very much know what I'm doing. Therefore, I must be bad.

Anyway, being right this much is its own reward.

But, oh boy, does it make me wonder what else I am right about.

And another lynch burned.

This is the second time Matahari voted for a rising vote-getter instead of FZ. for a less than satisfying reason.

Only three people so far are putting any faith in Russ' final breath. Makes me think there aren't very many detectives alive at all.

Nobody asked me, but I think MM is a Shinigami.

That's correct.

Matahari wrote:Reading ppl's defenses have struck me oddly. FZ is defending hard, but somehow, I don't think a civ would go that hard. Made has brought up accusations but its too little, too late. And the part about Russ is making me He has had plenty of time to talk about Bass before now too, I think my vote is going to the greater of 2 evils. voting Made

Fascinating to me that Matahari paid lip service to the FZ. suspicion on Day 6, but voted Made. Once again, Matahari has mentioned FZ. but is backing out of it because I'm going hard after her and (somehow) that's a "traditional baddie tactic."

Something to keep in mind, I think.

boo wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Voted for Black Rock.
I'm also getting to a point where I could vote for anyone pulling shit like this.

The people doing it are all people I know like to engage in discussion, but they aren't actually waiting for discussion to take place, they're just deciding they're right and doing stuff, or they don't care if they're right because they aren't a detective.

THIS is what I was talking about when I defended Snowman. Why are people voting way before they need to, when discussion is still on going? Is this some new thing people are doing? Is it a reaction to a game where you can't change your vote? It's tripping me up, whatever each reason each person has for doing it, because it makes me think you're all looking to hide things and avoid real accountability. We often talk about accountability for a vote, but 1 vote is 1 vote. Accountability for the actual discussion is far more important. It's how we actually form suspicions. It's how we actual decide who is making a real civvie effort to be helpful and baddie hunt, and who is just feigning it.

And I, for one, am sick of it.

(Sorry DH, this isn't directed at you specifically, and I hope that was clear. But there are a bunch of people doing it, and they have been all game, and it isn't working for me)

I voted because my person didn't get lynched last time and you voted Made for a bunch of stupid reasons. I see you probably won't be voting for FZ. this time either. Looking forward to the nonsense you use to vote the next victim.

FZ. wrote:I'm going to bed.
For those of you who vote early, if you're really interested in taking Kiras down, voting for me will not achieve that.

What evidence is there to support that? Like it or not, Mafia is a game of evidence. When it becomes a game of "gut" is the day it comes a game of chance.

FZ. wrote:I have no idea what Epi's role is and whether it's deliberate or not, but I do know he's wrong. I am not a baddie.

Yeah, everybody says that. Suppose you are bad. Would you say, "Hey, I don't know Epi's role, but I am a baddie!"

FZ. wrote:Since I'm sick of defending myself, I will likely stop doing it. If you have any specific question, I'll answer. If not, I'm just going to ignore posts asking you to lynch me or saying how this is something that has to be done, because it's a lie

I called you out Day 1 as bad. Do you remember why?

++++

I can't be assed to format this, so I'm going to respond 1 2 3.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:Don't forget that if he did role check me out of everyone (why not do Made if he was relatively trusting me?), he had 50% chance of getting something else, so this "facts" you seem to be using to make me look bad, are rubbish.
"Rubbish" eh?

I anticipated this reply from you, but not such strong terminology. Let me ask you this: If you were Mogi, and you checked someone, would you dismiss it as "rubbish" because it was a 50% check? Would you refrain from using your ability and effectively be a vanilla civilian instead?I would use it, but I would be very hesitant in drawing conclusions that could lead to very bad actions. And my terminology is harsh, because I'm sick of defending myself. There's just so much fun a person can have in the game, when all they do is defend themselves. Don't worry,it's what you're supposed to do if you think I'm bad, but since I'm not, I don't have to like it.

FZ. wrote:And if your gut tells you something, you should obviously ignore it, because god forbid we use facts. You're such and incredible baddie hunter that you don't need facts. You've got the whole game pinned down
Yeah, about things we have pinned down...

FZ. wrote:Honestly, I'm not even sure llama and Epi are really working for the good side. I think they're not even trying to look at things from all sides. When I'm a baddie, I often stick to my suspicions to not look like I'm flip flopping and to not get called out for "contradicting" back-pedalling" and all that.
I read your Star Trek game. You were a fish on hot pier. See? Here is how you "use" facts. You ignore the word "often" and then twist it so it fits your theory. You have to remember that on K-site, people are a lot more familiar with me in both alignments, so I have to get out of my comfort zone and try and switch it and do things that people don't recognize as my baddie behaviour. The game you read is my last game as a baddie there. But of course, whatever fits your "facts"

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:The first thing that popped out at me was that you are too easily dissuaded, which matches your behavior here, I think.

You also threw out a lot of names early on, which is what you also did here. Again, did you compare this to my civvie game? Do I not throw a lot of names out there?

Was Laura bad??? Was she my team mate? Sure, I go after civvies, and I back off. These are things I do both when a civ and a baddie. It's how we all play the game, isn't it?
You don't even have your story pinned down about your game as a villain, so it discredits your commentary regarding it. I think we already established that what people believe about themselves is not always what they really do. But won't you enlighten me here. Do you have your game as a villain pinned down?

A fish on a hot pier, yes sir.

And like a fish on a hot pier, you are slippery, don't smell right, and should be filleted.
At least I'm not taking the whole civvies down, which is what you're doing by keeping twisting things the way you're doing. I'd rather be inconsistent, contradictory and what not instead of being narrow minded, and wrong

1. I would use it, but I would be very hesitant in drawing conclusions that could lead to very bad actions. And my terminology is harsh, because I'm sick of defending myself. There's just so much fun a person can have in the game, when all they do is defend themselves. Don't worry,it's what you're supposed to do if you think I'm bad, but since I'm not, I don't have to like it.

This is why I know you aren't a detective. You know why I know that? You drew conclusions about Snowman. He was bad, and you defended him hard. Yet given a role that could inform you of someone's role, you cite caution. This is important- you weren't wishy-washy about Snowman. You were adamant. According to your answer above, you would be hesitant (not adamant) trusting your role power, but when Snowman was up for lynch, you were adamant he was good.

By the way, everyone watching: If you are a detective and given a 50% chance of knowing someone's role, you should initially assume that information is true and act accordingly. I'm serious. Read the Monty Hall Paradox if you don't believe me on this. It's not the same problem, but it's the same principle. And hell, even if your info is bad, you will generate more info in the form of reactions, so there's even more of an incentive.

2. See? Here is how you "use" facts. You ignore the word "often" and then twist it so it fits your theory. You have to remember that on K-site, people are a lot more familiar with me in both alignments, so I have to get out of my comfort zone and try and switch it and do things that people don't recognize as my baddie behaviour. The game you read is my last game as a baddie there. But of course, whatever fits your "facts"

Hahaha. Want to know something funny? I thought about omitting the word "often" just to see what you would say. So no, I didn't ignore it. I thought long and hard about it. In the end, I chose to be straightforward. What you are doing is telling us this: "I am X Y Z when I am bad" and also saying "I am not X Y Z when I am bad." That's duplicity. You want us to believe you regarding one set of facts, but you want us to ignore the other set of facts.

"Often" doesn't mean anything to me when you say it. It's an out. It's politician speak. It's how you get away with lying without actually lying. It's a fucking adverb.

3. I think we already established that what people believe about themselves is not always what they really do. But won't you enlighten me here. Do you have your game as a villain pinned down?

Yes. It's called "Win." And when I am bad, I rock at it. Look at my signature. Those are just wins here, and all of them save one are evil wins. So yes, I know what I do as a villain. But nobody else will know what that is. Do you want to know why? It's because when I am bad, I don't know what I will do. I do what has to be done to win.

That's why people who come in here yakking about "play style" this and "baddie game" that gain no trust from me. Those things are phantoms. If everybody had a civilian game and a bad game, everything would be obvious. But it ain't obvious, is it?

In your case, I actually read an entire game you were bad in. You know what you said now? Look at #2. You said this:

" You have to remember that on K-site, people are a lot more familiar with me in both alignments, so I have to get out of my comfort zone and try and switch it and do things that people don't recognize as my baddie behaviour. The game you read is my last game as a baddie there. But of course, whatever fits your "facts""

Now my read of you on your evil game isn't valid because I have to remember this and that about K-Site? What do you mean "remember?" I've never been on K-Site to play. You are creating excuses. I did exactly what you said to do. Go to K-Site and look at your "baddie game." I did it. And now there's stipulations?

You, madam, are evil, vile, and some other anagram of those letters, and worthy of a lynch.

FZ. wrote:Don't forget that if he did role check me out of everyone (why not do Made if he was relatively trusting me?), he had 50% chance of getting something else, so this "facts" you seem to be using to make me look bad, are rubbish.

"Rubbish" eh?

I anticipated this reply from you, but not such strong terminology. Let me ask you this: If you were Mogi, and you checked someone, would you dismiss it as "rubbish" because it was a 50% check? Would you refrain from using your ability and effectively be a vanilla civilian instead?

FZ. wrote:And if your gut tells you something, you should obviously ignore it, because god forbid we use facts. You're such and incredible baddie hunter that you don't need facts. You've got the whole game pinned down

Yeah, about things we have pinned down...

FZ. wrote:Honestly, I'm not even sure llama and Epi are really working for the good side. I think they're not even trying to look at things from all sides. When I'm a baddie, I often stick to my suspicions to not look like I'm flip flopping and to not get called out for "contradicting" back-pedalling" and all that.

I read your Star Trek game. You were a fish on hot pier.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:The first thing that popped out at me was that you are too easily dissuaded, which matches your behavior here, I think.

You also threw out a lot of names early on, which is what you also did here.

Was Laura bad??? Was she my team mate? Sure, I go after civvies, and I back off. These are things I do both when a civ and a baddie. It's how we all play the game, isn't it?

You don't even have your story pinned down about your game as a villain, so it discredits your commentary regarding it.

A fish on a hot pier, yes sir.

And like a fish on a hot pier, you are slippery, don't smell right, and should be filleted.

I just reread all of Russtifinko's posts. Twice.

This was Night 2:

Russtifinko wrote:I have good feels about FZ. so far, and though I don't have a strong read on Snowman I think the case on him was super weak, and that some people are being too hard on him.

Russ' last living post on Day 6:

Russtifinko wrote:Shocked as I am to say it, I think Epi is right here. FZ. keeps saying "look at me in a baddie game", and I damn sure didn't plan on doing that. It's plausible to think she figured no one would. In every game I've seen her be civ, she goes HARD after people she thinks are bad. I haven't seen that here.

Voting FZ.

Bass, how's that readthrough going, out of curiosity?

Oh! And major kudos to Epi for reading 69 pages of content to build a case. That rivals the hustle on your DH case earlier.

That's a 180 from Russ, and he never once expressed suspicion of FZ. prior to this. It was ONLY after 50 hours of silence that he came in and posted this, and then, understandably, elected not to post again.

Except for Eloh after L's message, Russ has never voted early, but on Day 6, he was the first to vote FZ. That he did so instead of voting for Made (the ONLY person Russ built a real case on) I believe is telling.

I also want to highlight that FZ. has downplayed evidence multiple times. If you are a detective, isn't evidence kind of important? She mentions that reads are basically gut, and claims that evidence, such as people's words, can be manipulated. You know what else can be manipulated? Your gut, and if you defended Snowman, your gut wasn't very good to start with, was it?

FZ. wrote:Back to the puzzle, it's really important that we solve it

You could just solve it using your gut.

My gut tells me that evildoers want us to believe that evidence is inherently to be distrusted because it can be manipulated.

My gut tells me that FZ. wanted to make Russtifinko sing and dance.

My gut tells me that Russtifinko needs her dead to win.

Russtifinko wrote:I know I've been after Epi for a few days now, and I still don't believe he's a True Blue detective, but I also don't think he's out to take us down. If he were the evil Epi I know, he'd be making vague threats and hinting that he's unlynchable by this point. I also think that despite his defeatism, we might be able to get him back in the game if we give him a little breathing room. So I won't be voting there today.

Russ, if you're reading, I formally apologize for Morton girling you. I will try to get you that W.

Okay then.

Spacedaisy wrote:Epi, oh how I go back and forth regarding Epi. He sounds like he is making such sense. His logic seems sound, but then there are things here and there that just don't make sense for a detective. I can't get over the fact he drew attention to thinking SVS and boo were Ray and Naomi.

I see no harm in stating what I once thought was true but no longer believed. It could be construed as anti-detective if I had blurted out my opinion of them at the time that I held it, but that isn't that happened: Once I found evidence to contradict that perspective, only then did I mention it.

Spacedaisy wrote:Transparency, he said. Why? Since when is Epi concerned with transparency?

Now, now- that's framing things out of context. I was asked what you just mentioned above: Why in the world would I state my belief that S~V~S and boo were Ray and Naomi? My "transparency" comment was to reveal why my position had flipped. I staved off suspicion because I thought S~V~S was (to me) defending boo without thread reasons, but then things happened that went against that view. So the "transparency" was in making it clear why I changed my mind at the time.

Spacedaisy wrote:Then he drew attention to Elohcin's suggestions for who L is. Again, why would you draw attention to this?

Because it's evidence that formed part of a larger case. I don't see why drawing attention to what a Kira sympathizer said in the thread as her swan song is naughty. Did Eloh have info on L? No. Were her suggestions about L phrased in a clandestine manner? No. Were her suggestions consistent in thought? No.

Spacedaisy wrote:He started the ball rolling on that topic. It really has me questioning if he was trying to give suggestions to the active Kira.

Ha, no. Telegraphing your kill suggestions through the thread like that would be sloppy. Of course, sloppy doesn't mean people aren't doing it: I think they are.

Spacedaisy wrote:He has made it clear that he is yotsuba, but is he Higuchi?

I have done no such thing.

DharmaHelper wrote:DISMISSIVE! STIFFLING DISCUSSION! ACCOUNTABILITY!

That's goddamn right.

Epignosis wrote:Kira controlled Russ at the time of death and made him sing Weird Al and made him confess and use the FEB face and blah blah blah yawn.

Lynch FZ. It was Russ' final wish.

Kira controlled Russ at the time of death and made him sing Weird Al and made him confess and use the FEB face and blah blah blah yawn.

Lynch FZ. It was Russ' final wish.

Please lynch FZ. and stop messing around.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Please, tell us what you think of FZ. and her posts besides, "Well, she wouldn't swear at us."
Anything I say you will contort and warp as you've been doing, for God only knows what reason. You're not willing to take my input seriously at all, so why should I give it to you? Anyone whose idea of a "case" is quoting every single post I've made and placing a completely false commentary over all of it is not worth my effort.

I don't think FZ. would fake being so offended (going so far as to say Fuck You to all of us) if she were bad. I just don't feel like thats the case, and if it is, then I'm embarrassed because I've fallen for it and disapointed that she'd employ such a tactic.
That's avoiding accountability. Instead of answering the question, DH anticipates what I will do with that he says and preemptively turns them around on me. Notice that he never states what he thinks of FZ.'s posts.

Also notice that he never actually showed that my 8-post case against him was "false commentary." He states it as though it is accepted fact.
It is accepted fact. The vast majority of people who read your "Case" agreed that it was overzealous trash.

Nah.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Please, tell us what you think of FZ. and her posts besides, "Well, she wouldn't swear at us."
Anything I say you will contort and warp as you've been doing, for God only knows what reason. You're not willing to take my input seriously at all, so why should I give it to you? Anyone whose idea of a "case" is quoting every single post I've made and placing a completely false commentary over all of it is not worth my effort.

I don't think FZ. would fake being so offended (going so far as to say Fuck You to all of us) if she were bad. I just don't feel like thats the case, and if it is, then I'm embarrassed because I've fallen for it and disapointed that she'd employ such a tactic.
That's avoiding accountability. Instead of answering the question, DH anticipates what I will do with that he says and preemptively turns them around on me. Notice that he never states what he thinks of FZ.'s posts.

Also notice that he never actually showed that my 8-post case against him was "false commentary." He states it as though it is accepted fact.
Using something like my reaction to draw conclusions is exactly what I mean when I say gut feeling. People use it, I used it on day 1 or 2 when people were going after you. Your frustration seemed genuine so I backed off. Accept it

Nah.

Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...Dismi...dismi...

DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Please, tell us what you think of FZ. and her posts besides, "Well, she wouldn't swear at us."
Anything I say you will contort and warp as you've been doing, for God only knows what reason. You're not willing to take my input seriously at all, so why should I give it to you? Anyone whose idea of a "case" is quoting every single post I've made and placing a completely false commentary over all of it is not worth my effort.

I don't think FZ. would fake being so offended (going so far as to say Fuck You to all of us) if she were bad. I just don't feel like thats the case, and if it is, then I'm embarrassed because I've fallen for it and disapointed that she'd employ such a tactic.

That's avoiding accountability. Instead of answering the question, DH anticipates what I will do with that he says and preemptively turns them around on me. Notice that he never states what he thinks of FZ.'s posts.

Also notice that he never actually showed that my 8-post case against him was "false commentary." He states it as though it is accepted fact.

I wonder what FZ. will say about all this.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:You are aware there are several Kiras, correct?
Dismissive patronizing.
Teach me oh sensei

You won't like my method, but it's cheap. A tall tree and a short piece of rope. All it takes.

Please, tell us what you think of FZ. and her posts besides, "Well, she wouldn't swear at us."

DharmaHelper wrote:You are aware there are several Kiras, correct?

Dismissive patronizing. Try again dude.

That there are four Kira is not a reason to suspect four people.

I learned that I was wrong about someone on Day 1. Not wrong about the role element, but wrong about the alignment. Judging from what I read, I wasn't the only one. Now, without calling attention to the obvious, which has already been stated, but what the fuck?

Made instead of FZ.?

Kira will always have at least 3 votes at their disposal in the BEST case scenario. That is an ugly endgame premise. Stop burning lynches on Yotsuba. Stop picking easy targets. If you are a detective and you think Yotsuba are okay to lynch, you will lose. At endgame you will have at least 3 votes against you.

And stop falling for bullshit. Bullshit isn't hard to spot. I can offer training if anybody wants (except I won't offer it because I don't tell my secrets). But as an exhibition:

Look at this post:

DharmaHelper wrote:What is interesting to me is the shift in attention away from Made.

Made was Yotsuba, and the LEAST interesting one of their group. Why is a shift in attention away from Made interesting?

++++

DH defended FZ. Yes, folks, he did. How?

DharmaHelper wrote:
juliets wrote:why is it a win for you DH?
Assuming FZ gets lynched, if she's bad thats awesome. If she's good, Epi and Llama will have an incredible amount of egg on their faces.

THAT, folks, is a subtle defense. It doesn't say FZ. is good, but it implies it, and it gives DH a pass if FZ. is bad. There is no stand taken. It's also fucking manipulative. Think on this: How many of you would LIKE to see Epignosis AND thellama73 look stupid at the same time?

I see hands belonging to people who aren't even playing this game. Shut up you.

It is a post that lets DH straddle a fence. And so many of you are letting his crotch get splinters.

++++

I waited to post all of this until I heard back from DH about FZ., who had the audacity to provide three more names:

DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:That's fair enough.

How about FZ. now. Hmm?
I''m more interested in looking at Black Rock, Bass, and DP. I maintain that the current Kira was not paying enough attention to the thread.

I also don't think FZ would tell us all to fuck off if she were bad.

Make that four:

DharmaHelper wrote:Add Spacedaisy to that list, as her only post today was her vote for Made.

Do you really buy this shit? Four people to look at instead of FZ.? FZ. wouldn't tell us all to fuck off if she were bad? This is apologetics.

Look at who DH wants to "look at" now, and compare it to what he said to S~V~S:

DharmaHelper wrote:So, from this wellspring of discussion and suspicion and theories and back and forths, you come away wanting to vote for a low poster?

Lynch FZ. immediately.

And stop dismissing DH vs Epi as dick games. Start learning to smell bullshit when it begins wafting into the air.

That's fair enough.

How about FZ. now. Hmm?

Hey guys, I'm in a bind. Eloh has two cakes to bake for this weekend and we're out of eggs. I have to run out in this nasty weather and-

Oh wait, I found plenty.

Thanks man.

I could be wrong, but I can't think of a single time I voted for anyone because of a gut feeling.

bea wrote:It is a well developed falsehood.

Really? Looked more like a Vidalia to me.

bea wrote:You shouldn't lynch me because despite boo's onion, I am a civ.

You have to admit though that there are a lot of layers to it.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:
juliets wrote:What do you guys think about FZ.'s defense? Maybe I'm just naive but it seemed to make sense to me and she seemed genuine. I was all convinced she was bad when I read the case without her response.
That's because building cases on civvies is a lot easier than building cases on baddies. It's the simple truth. I've seen it happen over and over again.
In the context of this game, this statement is demonstrably false. I don't see why it's any easier to build a case on a civilian than it is to build a case on a bad guy.

I voted.
Good for you

It's easier because in any game, civvies watch what they say significantly less than baddies, so they say things that can later be interpreted however you want it to go. That's why even if someone says things that are "contradictory" or things that are suspicious, I find those people most of the times a lot less suspicious than those who allegedly do all the right things to be considered a civ
If that's true in any game, then why not just build cases on the people doing all the right things?

Simple.

FZ. wrote:BWT, on the other hand, has just made a claasic baddie move, by voting for the most obvious choice, one that has no consequences because he never encouraged anyone to follow, nor is he here to debate it. He gave Russ a bate he knew Russ had to take, and Russ "took" it because he had no choice, making it easy for BWT to vote him.
Huh. So you're suspicious of people doing all the right things AND suspicious of people making the obvious "classic baddie moves."
It's nice that you enjoy reading me so much. Glad to see I'm such an inspiration :P
But this is totally different. Notice that when I thought it was a classic baddie move, I actually said what he did that was flawed. What are you doing? Bringing up my contradictions. Who said contradictions mean baddie. Wasn't it in this game that someone, I believe you, just showed how llama isn't playing the way he said he believed should be played? Seems like you are very good at finding people's contradictions. While I'm sure contradictions are not an automatic sign of being bad, I'm not sure any more what this means about your actions, Epi

llama contradicts himself often. He is eccentric. You are not.

Seriously, let me ask you this: What *could* you have done that I could find suspicious and call you out for? Apparently it isn't leading a bandwagon on a non-bad guy. It isn't defending a bad guy. It isn't you considering non-Kira Yotsuba a good lynch. It isn't you contradicting yourself. It isn't the similarities of how you play a Mafia role to how you are playing now. It isn't your lack of hunting in the early phases. It isn't the fact that you oversimplified my case against you to just highlighting contradictions. Am I supposed to give you a pass for all these things because a civilian could have done them all?

Addendum: What zeek said.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:
juliets wrote:What do you guys think about FZ.'s defense? Maybe I'm just naive but it seemed to make sense to me and she seemed genuine. I was all convinced she was bad when I read the case without her response.
That's because building cases on civvies is a lot easier than building cases on baddies. It's the simple truth. I've seen it happen over and over again.
In the context of this game, this statement is demonstrably false. I don't see why it's any easier to build a case on a civilian than it is to build a case on a bad guy.

I voted.
Good for you

It's easier because in any game, civvies watch what they say significantly less than baddies, so they say things that can later be interpreted however you want it to go. That's why even if someone says things that are "contradictory" or things that are suspicious, I find those people most of the times a lot less suspicious than those who allegedly do all the right things to be considered a civ

If that's true in any game, then why not just build cases on the people doing all the right things?

Simple.

FZ. wrote:BWT, on the other hand, has just made a claasic baddie move, by voting for the most obvious choice, one that has no consequences because he never encouraged anyone to follow, nor is he here to debate it. He gave Russ a bate he knew Russ had to take, and Russ "took" it because he had no choice, making it easy for BWT to vote him.

Huh. So you're suspicious of people doing all the right things AND suspicious of people making the obvious "classic baddie moves."

FZ. wrote:
juliets wrote:What do you guys think about FZ.'s defense? Maybe I'm just naive but it seemed to make sense to me and she seemed genuine. I was all convinced she was bad when I read the case without her response.
That's because building cases on civvies is a lot easier than building cases on baddies. It's the simple truth. I've seen it happen over and over again.

In the context of this game, this statement is demonstrably false. I don't see why it's any easier to build a case on a civilian than it is to build a case on a bad guy.

I voted.

FZ. wrote:I never implied I have a civvie game and a baddie game.

Eh?

FZ. wrote:I'll just say that I wish you all knew how I play a baddie. I never defend someone who is on my side. Sadly, I'm more like MP in that sense. But I get you won't take my word for it (you can always go on K-site and look at my baddie games).

I read through FZ. on Day 2. She encouraged people to vote bwt instead of Snowman, as you may recall.

FZ. wrote:Anyone who hasn't voted, please consider a vote for BWT

linki: llama, show me later, but right now, it doesn't matter much, does it?

FZ. wrote:I just went back and read Snowman's posts. I don't like the votes for him. Stop it

When I refused to vote for one of the "alternatives," I believe I touched a nerve:

FZ. wrote:Let me tell you Epi, you're looking worse by the minute. I didn't ask you to vote Snowman. If anything, I asked you not to. I just asked you not to waste a vote, and you're giving me this shitty speech about how you're going to vote whoever you damn well please. Bravo

The testiness aside, I want to highlight the underlined. All of a sudden on Day 2, FZ. is concerned about me not wasting a vote (i.e., having to vote someone with a reasonable chance of getting lynched).

Read the underlined, and then compare it with what she said about me Night 1:

FZ. wrote:I don't know what to think about Epi and DH either. At least Dh is following his suspicions. Epi just talked forever about lynching Russ, and argued endlessly with DH, but ended up voting for me. Not sure exactly why.

I had four suspects Day 1 (not "just" Russ), and I didn't "just" argue with DH. That "just" can be a naughty word. It can make people think only A happened when A, B, C, D, and E happened. Ah well. My point, linked to the underlined, is that FZ. pressured me to vote someone who already had votes, but couldn't figure out why I voted her instead of Russ (even though I posted my suspicion of FZ. the morning of the Day 1 lynch).

After bwt flipped, FZ. said this:

FZ. wrote:I'd love to say that this is a good lynch, and it's definitely better than the last lynch, but I would have much preferred if it was a known baddie. At this point, I'll say that I guess third parties alignments might depend on the person playing it. I know I, as an indie would most probably choose the civvie side, while others would choose the baddie. I hope BWT is the kind that would choose the latter. It would make me feel a lot better for pushing for that lynch.

I still don't think llama is bad, but not ruling out one of the non detective roles. Same goes for Snowman. I liked Russ' analysis as well. Thought it was very helpful.

This post alone rules out FZ. as Yotsuba if one were to assume that Eiichi Takahashi's win condition is the same as the other non-Kira Yotsuba, which I do, having watched almost all of the show and given the role powers regarding the meeting and the phone call.

FZ. wrote:(you can always go on K-site and look at my baddie games).

Not as simple an invitation for those of us who do not visit K-Site and wouldn't know that you're not FZ. there. In addition, someone's "game" here cannot reasonably be compared to a forum in which Day phases last a week, votes are changeable, a poll is not readily available, roles are revealed in NKs, you can't post but once at Night, and there has to be a majority (or half) for a lynch to happen at all. Feel free to disagree with that. Finally, why would we be trying to look at your "baddie game" in order to see if you are bad here? Are you that transparent when you are bad? I don't think you would be.

FZ. wrote:For me, I get suspicious, I attack, I read what the other person says. If I still think it's fishy, I attack again, and read their answer again. If I'm eased, I lay off for the time being and look for a new "victim". I do this until I decide either to vote for a person or not.

And sometimes I just go with my gut on a whim. I'm a complicated person. I don't always do the exact same thing.

So which is it? Can we go look at your "baddie game" on K-Site and decide, or are you a "complicated person" who doesn't always do the same thing?

But very well. I took the time to find a game in which you were bad (Star Trek) and I read through the thread. All 69 pages.

++++

What follows is my read of that game. If you are not interested in accepting FZ.'s invitation to read one of her "baddie games" on K-Site, you can safely ignore what follows.

The first thing that popped out at me was that you are too easily dissuaded, which matches your behavior here, I think.

Another thing that caught my attention was this post, in which you said the following: "The last time I remember calling out someone for saying something pointless in his first post in the game, it was TH in a game I just played with him on TS (are you being served), and he was scum. No one wanted to vote for him for almost the entire game, and I was right. It doesn't make me right this time, but that's how I play. You don't have to follow. I'll still call out what I find scummy." The importance here is you are justifying backing off of a suspicion (in this case, baking off of Laura) by showing how you were right one time at The Syndicate.

Here, FZ. wants to remove the focus off of her by getting others to talk about other people.

Again, you excuse your accusation of Laura by saying that it wasn't really much of a suspicion. Later, your teammate (k4j) would support you in backpedaling, even going so far as to say "I'm not trying to take heat of FZ."

You also threw out a lot of names early on, which is what you also did here.

Like k4j, you don't shy away from defending teammates.

This post implied an irritation at fingersplints only saying "No, I am not scum."

Also, you don't have a problem correcting a teammate in the thread, and you did so in this case in under 25 minutes.

You talk about teammates when others bring them up and then make excuses for them based on past experiences.

Knowing that Laura (the emo cop) checked FZ. Night 0, I found this interesting because FZ. is declaring what somebody else (who was dead, incidentally) would do as a defense of herself. In the former post, FZ. demonstrates an ability to turn suspicion around against a civilian. I'm taking note of the phrase, "If you really are a townie..."

Defending a teammate and suspecting him at the same time. Again, offering her teammate an out ("Either...")

Again, FZ. finds a way to weasel out of her suspicion by citing past games AND cites the actions of other people piling on him as evidence that she could be wrong about him. So an interesting point: FZ. is okay with her suspect if she's the only one voting that person by the end of the Day, but if others agree and vote earlier, then she starts feeling that she could be wrong. Bear in mind that, in this context, she is bad.

FZ.'s reaction to a civilian lynch she led is that she should be lynched next, but she is ready to point fingers again in post 666.

And at this point, bea replaces FZ. due to harrowing real life events.

++++

That's the end of that reading scenario.

In summary, FZ. invites us to accept comparing her playing here with her playing elsewhere. I think she said that because she didn't actually believe anybody would do it, and I further believe the invitation was a ruse to make us think she has a "civilian game" and a "baddie game," when in fact she implied that she doesn't:

FZ. wrote:I'm a complicated person. I don't always do the exact same thing.

Search found 675 matches