The Syndicate

indiglo wrote:Now "Blooper" has voted without posting... so has he also been either seduced or narratored? He hasn't been scrooched, because Llama said that means no posting, no votes, no night power... so it has to be 1 of the 2... or just an honest vote with no post. Which is weird? But maybe not for him?

Blooper is good. I won't be voting for HER.

And I gotta go to bed. Today was bullshit, NBA-wise. How are you a top player and you get no rebounds in the first half? Meh. Must've been off-Center. Genuinely pissed about Brook Lopez and Al Horford.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Haha, okay. I'll see what I can do.

Knock yourself out. You'll only be lynching a civilian if you don't change your mind.

I would recommend you disengage from me and look at other options.

A civilian that you refuse to explain why you think they are a civilian. Right. I'm open to changing my mind, but I can't change my mind on my own. I need help. I asked for yours and you told me to go ahead and lynch her. I'm engaging with you because you're online at the moment and you're talking to me. If you want me to look at other options, what other options would you recommend I look at and why?

All right, that's fair enough.

In case you don't know, I am married to Elohcin. She's not bad. She's fooled me once in three years. The end.

I don't like relying on that, because she has become a better player, but I'll not see her lynched over bullshit. So yeah, I'm sticking my neck out for her. Civilians need to recognize that I'm good, she's good, and I get the impression that someone else know she's good, and I also believe someone else knows I'm not a killer.

Now then. Is my shit together or is my shit together Mr. Peabody?

So she's only fooled you once before so therefore she's good. Fantastic.

What other options would you recommend I look at and why?

Sloonei remains my number one suspect. Read what I wrote, if you didn't.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:She's fooled me once in three years.

I saw Turnip Head with the devil!

No you didn't.

I surely did not.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:She's fooled me once in three years.

I saw Turnip Head with the devil!

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Haha, okay. I'll see what I can do.

Knock yourself out. You'll only be lynching a civilian if you don't change your mind.

I would recommend you disengage from me and look at other options.

A civilian that you refuse to explain why you think they are a civilian. Right. I'm open to changing my mind, but I can't change my mind on my own. I need help. I asked for yours and you told me to go ahead and lynch her. I'm engaging with you because you're online at the moment and you're talking to me. If you want me to look at other options, what other options would you recommend I look at and why?

All right, that's fair enough.

In case you don't know, I am married to Elohcin. She's not bad. She's fooled me once in three years. The end.

I don't like relying on that, because she has become a better player, but I'll not see her lynched over bullshit. So yeah, I'm sticking my neck out for her. Civilians need to recognize that I'm good, she's good, and I get the impression that someone else know she's good, and I also believe someone else knows I'm not a killer.

Now then. Is my shit together or is my shit together Mr. Peabody?

a2thezebra wrote:Haha, okay. I'll see what I can do.

Knock yourself out. You'll only be lynching a civilian if you don't change your mind.

I would recommend you disengage from me and look at other options.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Zebra, I have no intention of going back and forth with you.

If you want Eloh, who I think is good, lynched, keep your vote there. If you don't, bark up a different tree.

Why do you think Eloh is good?

Twirly middle school logic.

What happened to "not going to happen if I can help it?"

I will vote to save Eloh. That's what I mean. Not going to happen if I can help it. If you want to lynch either of us to prove something, then go for it.

Votes aren't everything. If you convince enough people (perhaps myself as well) that she's good, you won't even have to vote to save her. Why wait until you may have no chance when you could make a good case for her being civilian right now and not have to worry about it later? I'll ask again.

Why do you think she is good?

Meh. Go ahead and lynch her.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Zebra, I have no intention of going back and forth with you.

If you want Eloh, who I think is good, lynched, keep your vote there. If you don't, bark up a different tree.

Why do you think Eloh is good?

Twirly middle school logic.

What happened to "not going to happen if I can help it?"

I will vote to save Eloh. That's what I mean. Not going to happen if I can help it. If you want to lynch either of us to prove something, then go for it.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Zebra, I have no intention of going back and forth with you.

If you want Eloh, who I think is good, lynched, keep your vote there. If you don't, bark up a different tree.

Why do you think Eloh is good?

Twirly middle school logic.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote: MP suspects nijuu. I don't. So MP has my vote now.

This is literally "I don't agree with this person so I'm voting for them."

Is this why you're anxious for me to call you bad? Because you think that I should suspect you for disagreeing with you and not being afraid to voice my disagreement? Sorry, I'm not like you in that regard.

No it's not literally that.

Presently I don't think you are bad, no, so I'm not anxious at all. Twirly middle-school logic like that might make me less appreciative of you, however.

That "twirly middle-school logic" is the logic I'm seeing in you. You've never seemed appreciative of me (or anyone) anyway, so that's not a major concern.

Okay then.

Zebra, I have no intention of going back and forth with you.

If you want Eloh, who I think is good, lynched, keep your vote there. If you don't, bark up a different tree.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote: MP suspects nijuu. I don't. So MP has my vote now.

This is literally "I don't agree with this person so I'm voting for them."

Is this why you're anxious for me to call you bad? Because you think that I should suspect you for disagreeing with you and not being afraid to voice my disagreement? Sorry, I'm not like you in that regard.

No it's not literally that.

Presently I don't think you are bad, no, so I'm not anxious at all. Twirly middle-school logic like that might make me less appreciative of you, however.

a2thezebra wrote:Also, this idea that I'm a "hot shot" is ignorant. I reflect the attitude of whoever I'm talking to. And I don't do it deliberately, I do it naturally.

I'm polite with Glorfindel, I'm cheerful with bea, I'm stationary with MP, I'm aggressive with Mac, I'm wacky with Matt, I'm a hot shot with you.

Interesting. I'm a hot shot in real life. I called you a hot shot disparagingly. You're not really a hot shot.

Long Con wrote:So we aren't supposed to lynch Eloh, and we aren't supposed to lynch Sloonei.

I'm going to come on out and defend her. I think she's good. If you lynch her, you're just going to look foolish.

I would rather the civilians reevaluate.

As for Sloonei, that was my big suspect. Does Sloonei give up when civilian? When bad? I don't know.

MP suspects nijuu. I don't. So MP has my vote now.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote: She stuck her neck out for me, and I am now inclined to do likewise because I pay attention and know how to read.

If you need lynch me to discover we're not teammates, that's fine. Knock yourselves out. I'll lose the game, but I'll still Gilbert Gottfried the shit out of you.

MP is casting lazy votes and now suspects nijuukyugou. I don't like that. Switching my vote to MP.

Yeah your fantastic reading skills really helped us out yesterday. Also, this is one of the laziest votes I've ever seen.

I still don't hear that accusation that I'm bad. When are you going to make it, hot shot?

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Elohcin's tied with you two. That's where the lynch should go in my opinion.

Where is where the lynch should go?

Take a wild guess.

Not going to happen if I can help it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Here are my thoughts after reading the thread:

- I feel conflicted about RVS, but I have seen it legitimately get rises out of baddies in the past, so I understand zebra's perspective on this. I'm a bit surprised about S~V~S's reaction given I thought she had come around to changeable votes. Sometimes during early stages of d1 RVS is the only real tool you have if people aren't really talking. GTH I read zebra as civilian here, no read on S~V~S. But not much... these are becoming way too common.

- I hated changeable votes at first, but every single game I've played with nonchangeable thereafter I've hated them more and more, and every game I've played with changeable I've liked them more. Now I love them. There is really no reason to make a vote nonchangeable, especially since IMO they lead to people leaving their votes in places unnecessarily or missing the vote altogether, but that's just my opinion.

- Good looks from Sloonei.

- Blooper's first "pressure" vote for BWT causes me to question how much pressure could really be applied. Slight bad look for Blooper there.

- I'm not sure what I think of Elo jumping on zebra's case with what seems like relative confidence.

- Elo, I don't understand why your priority for d1 was saving Epi when: (1) you do not seem to indicate why you think Epi is town, and (2) you seemed to find zebra suspect in her back and forth with S~V~S. Explain please.

- And then Sloonei votes for Elo. Gotta say I'm agreeing with him a lot this game.

- Not sure I'm seeing what the hubbub was about with sig, especially from Epi of all people, who has seen sig get mislynched a ridiculous amount of times.

- I would have voted for Epi over sig regardless, it seems.

- Two players I'm not getting much of a read before despite some posts on d1 are LC and Sorsha.

And now I'm getting really tired and not feeling as well again.

Well, I'll start my rebuttal thusly:

If you lynch Eloh, you're an ignoramoose. Or bad.

So don't do it.

She stuck her neck out for me, and I am now inclined to do likewise because I pay attention and know how to read.

If you need lynch me to discover we're not teammates, that's fine. Knock yourselves out. I'll lose the game, but I'll still Gilbert Gottfried the shit out of you.

MP is casting lazy votes and now suspects nijuukyugou. I don't like that. Switching my vote to MP.

a2thezebra wrote:Elohcin's tied with you two. That's where the lynch should go in my opinion.

Where is where the lynch should go?

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Epi, are you gonna save ME this time?

So he owes you a favor, eh?

Yeah, I do. I'll be voting to save Eloh if it comes to it. I don't think she's bad.

But if you did think that she's bad, would you still owe that favor?

No. What a ludicrous question to ask.

Then why say that you owe her a favor? If you don't think she's bad, you wouldn't vote for her anyway. So the favor is irrelevant.

Because it sounds cool to fulfill one's interpersonal obligations with "Yeah I do," rather than say, "well, if I didn't think she was bad, I wouldn't vote for her anyway."

I'm like Wolverine. Rocky and Bullwinkle should've had Wolverine on the show.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Epi, are you gonna save ME this time?

So he owes you a favor, eh?

Yeah, I do. I'll be voting to save Eloh if it comes to it. I don't think she's bad.

But if you did think that she's bad, would you still owe that favor?

No. What a ludicrous question to ask.

a2thezebra wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Epi, are you gonna save ME this time?

So he owes you a favor, eh?

Yeah, I do. I'll be voting to save Eloh if it comes to it. I don't think she's bad.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Since I'm feeling a bit better at the moment, I'm here and going to start reading the thread now... or try to.

Dude you're dead.

Wait, what?

Just thought that would be hilarious to say.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Since I'm feeling a bit better at the moment, I'm here and going to start reading the thread now... or try to.

Dude you're dead.

Elohcin wrote:Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

I have to admit that this is nagging at me. The first two sentences indicate you read my whole Sloonei write-up, but the third sentence seems like a swift redirection to a couple of people I barely mentioned in a quick reactionary observation regarding a previous llama experience.

When you have had a chance to think about my analysis of Sloonei, can you comment on it?

Thanks.

On the other hand, I do owe MP one.

Elohcin wrote:Epi, are you gonna save ME this time?

Thinking in those terms is premature at this stage. I think others need to weigh in properly first. More importantly, putting people in positions where someone has to vote to save someone / someone has to vote to save oneself almost always benefits Mafia, never civilians. The false dilemma is the greatest tool Mafia has, because civilians usually set it up themselves.

My preferred lynch is Sloonei right now.

Elohcin wrote:So Epi - if it was just an observation that came to mind, are you saying you don;t think MP or SVS are responsible for the kill? Or are you just thinking, "eh? It's possible"?

I'm saying it's the first thing that came to mind when I saw the kill. Of course it's possible. I'm sure why I have to make a decision about someone's guilt or innocence based on a single piece of circumstantial evidence.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

sig wrote:I'm here and ready to vote and just for the hell of it I'm going to make this a three way. I'll be voting for indiglo. I'd rather vote for Zebra at this point, but I want to make it a three way tie so I won't. I should have more activity tomorrow unless someone night kills me then I won't have more activity.

linki: Ignore what I just said entirely I changed my mind, I don't like this last minute save of Epi, and the fact everyone is voting for a player who hasn't even made a post yet. I don't like this at all. I'll be voting for Epi. However, I'll be willing to switch to someone else I just very much disagree with voting for a player who hasn't even posted yet or apparently logged on.

Look at the roles. If I am bad, how many people are on my team?

Correct me if I'm wrong Epi, but does this post I'm quoting here pretty much sum up your entire reasoning behind voting sig and persuading others to do so as well?

No. That's not correct. Sloonei apparently thought the same thing, and I corrected him.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Do you know who likes dead active players? Mafia.

Is that why you voted for me earlier? It was only when you took your vote off that I stopped posting for a bit. :P

This is why I voted sig. I don't know why anyone would want to lynch an active contributor Day 1 over someone who hasn't even shown up and likely won't. I am someone who is firmly in the camp that lynching non-participants Day 1 is a legitimate route; I have hosted enough to have seen my share of Mafia either never show up or drop of the face of the earth without ever being replaced. You will note that I was comfortable lynching bwt to save myself, but when sig called lynching me a better plan than lynching a no-show, I wasn't having any of that. My experience has been that Mafia will keep no-shows or vote-missers around because they are not threats. This is a different flavor of mafia, one I have only witnessed before in Frisky Dingo.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:sig said the most suspicious things I've ever seen for a Day 1, tried to save an absentee and lynch an active civilian. I cannot believe I am tied with him. My voters should be ashamed of themselves and their half-baked votes.

This can't be genuine. There's no way you actually think that a simple logical error is anywhere near the most suspicious things you've ever seen for a Day 1.

What logical error was that?

Look at the underlined. Now look at the comma that follows the underlined. Now look at the dependent clause that follows the comma.

Don't make me go syntax on your ass.

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.

TRUTH.

Congratulations on being the fifth person out of the gate to recognize that Eloh voted to save me, fourth if you don't count Eloh herself.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Damn.

Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.

Got screwed by his own role Day 1.

I'm sorry sig.

Okay, I try not to be pinged by this type of thing but this post came ONE MINUTE after sig's flip. That's pretty fast, Epi.

So what does that mean?

Are you suggesting I knew sig's role before his flip, such that I could craft that post in advance? Or am I just a good typist who had the front page open for a quick reference, copy, and paste?

If you're going to make an observation, say why you're making it. Don't just post stuff and make it sound all significant by capitalizing letters.

DrWilgy wrote:Also, Epignosis is as bad as I was when my mom first found porn on my internet search history

How did she react to you seeing her work?

Elohcin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

I am not. Your initial thought process was the right one

Well, Epi brought up basically two scenarios. Either the baddies killed BWT to be classy (like LC said) and let the participating players keep playing (which I can see you doing). OR they killed BWT so that If Epi is suspected, there is no go to person to vote for to save Epi. I can see MP doing that. This is why I asked for more clarification from Epi on his thoughts about you and MP being bad.

It was just an observation from a previous outing- something that came to mind.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

Maybe you killed bwt so you could point the finger at me for pointing the finger at S~V~S and MP. Isn't this fun?

And you fell for it, hook, line, and index finger!

Nah, I never pointed the finger at S~V~S or MP. I only posted what first came to my mind when I saw the kill.

Long Con wrote:Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

Maybe you killed bwt so you could point the finger at me for pointing the finger at S~V~S and MP. Isn't this fun?

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I do not presently have an opinion on Scotty one way or the other.

What do you have an opinion on?

I have an opinion on your vote for me. You cast it and then came up with an explanation for it later. And since you are quick to remind viewers that you said more than announcing your vote, it's worth looking at what you said.

The only preface you made before voting me was this:

Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

I want people to keep the context in mind here:

-sig claimed that I was being saved and therefore must be bad
-I asked how many of my teammates would know to save me if I were bad (the implied answer being "one")
-sig then claimed that Fearless Leader would know who his teammates were
-I argued that there is no evidence supporting that claim, and that if Fearless Leader knew who his teammates were, his role ability would be superfluous, and he might as well have just had standard BTSC.
-sig did not agree with me

Irony notwithstanding, this comment...

Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

...oversimplifies what sig and I were debating, gives a vague reason to vote sig or me ("either way"), and does not elaborate on why discussing the roles as they are written on the front page makes someone bad.

Now here is what you posted after you voted for me:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I feel pretty good about Epi, and fairly neutral about sig.

Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

But since you voted for Epi, you feel it is LESS suspicious when sig mentions it, even though he brought it up first?

I am moving my vote to sig, this vote of Slooneis feels save-ish.

I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.

But you said that to make a point about it either way strikes you as suspicious; not that one is more suspicious than the other. And you did not mention this aspect of your thoughts at all when you voted for Epi. I still think this was a save vote. Although there is a lot of civ BTS here, I don't think you would have waited so long to put in a save for a civ.

It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.

So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

I already commented on the initial post, so now I want to dissect the responses to S~V~S:

Sloonei wrote:I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.

Here, you are answering for sig with soft language ("it's more likely he simply failed..."). What exactly did sig fail to notice? And if he failed to notice something, how could I be wrong about it?

What claim did I stake? I made no claim. sig did. I refuted the claim by arguing that, if I were bad, I could not be getting saved by a bevy of teammates, because only one person would know to do so.

Fearless Leader does not start out knowing who his teammates are for four reasons:
1. The front page doesn't say he does.
2. He doesn't have BTSC with the rest of his team.
3. There are no *Secrets* next to his description.
4. His knowing his teammates would render his first ability redundant.

Why do you find discussion of the above inherently suspicious then? Isn't it in the civilians' best interest to discuss the roles? Isn't there a remarkably different dynamic in trying to catch a mafia team with full BTSC than there is when one member is in the dark?

I cannot fathom why you would find such discussion inherently suspicious, when the context of my argument was defending myself from sig's baseless accusation.

Sloonei wrote:It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.

In this response, you are articulating what everyone had already admitted. Some people were voting to save me. But what does it mean? Does it mean I have civilian BTSC? Is a save vote inherently suspicious when civilian BTSC outnumbers Mafia BTSC three to one? Which people attempting the save are my teammates, and why do you think this?

Your post doesn't provide any answers to those questions, and instead repeats what some of sig's voters openly admitted.

In the second sentence, you claim you don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing. But I don't think you even understood the case against sig.

Sloonei wrote:No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

The outrageous part of this is that you let sig slide for not noticing the configuration of the mafia (again, you're speaking for him with soft language), even though I told him to go look at the roles.

You then claim I built a case on one side of the debate being true. That's demonstrably false. sig accused me first. The argument about the roles was the basis of my defense, not my case against sig. Here is what I said against sig:

Epignosis wrote:Furthermore, sig is suggesting that a dead, active player is less valuable than a player who hasn't visited the site since the 16th, and may not ever show.

Do you know who likes dead active players? Mafia.

I'm like yeast man. Active, fast-acting, and on the rise to being cooked.

Notice that my reason for voting sig had nothing to do with the configuration of the Mafia team. His reason for voting me was rooted in the configuration of the Mafia team.

Sloonei wrote:

indiglo wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

Reading the roles though, I read Fearless Leader the exact same way Epi did.

Fearless Leader - Can send one message to Boris and Natasha each night. Survives his first death.

He doesn't have BTSC with them, and likely will only learn their identities by some code he tells them to use to identify themselves in the thread. (Well, that's what I would do.) He will probably identify himself to them tonight in his message (assuming he's present) and then Day 2 Boris & Natasha will identify themselves to him in the thread somehow. I don't see why it's odd to use explained game mechanics as a defense. It's actually (maybe?) one of the few defenses that is solid and makes sense. (Not saying Epi is civ, just that that defense doesn't ping me a bit. Not sure it's one I would use, because my brain works differently, but the defense itself isn't pingy to me.)

I didn't find that part suspicious at all. I think Epi is likely one of those players who analyzes the roles right away to try to see where things fit. Not all players play that way, and clearly sig is one who didn't in this game.

I simply would not draw the conclusion that FL is unaware of their teammates' identities. Not having BTSC =/= not knowing who they are. All that we can see is that the scum team has a member that is excluded from the regular BTSC. I do not see this as a strong indictment on Epi, but I found it more suspicious that he was accusing a player of being suspicious for either being unaware of the setup or making an assumption about it, when at the very best he (Epi) was making the reciprocal of that exact same assumption. I also think, since he was emphasizing this point in his vote against sig, that he was stating it with much more conviction, which can be taken to mean either he studied the roles and came a strong conclusion, or he is privy to such information, meaning he's one of those bad guys.
This does not mean Epi is my strongest scum read, but voting anyone other than him or sig would have accomplished nothing, so I made my choice.

I'm either bad or I studied the roles and came to a strong conclusion.

Gracious me, it can't possibly mean that I possess above-average reading comprehension skills and refrain from adding phrases to the role descriptions that aren't there that would render the Fearless Leader role ability itself superfluous!

Sloonei wrote:This does not mean Epi is my strongest scum read, but voting anyone other than him or sig would have accomplished nothing, so I made my choice.

Uh-uh. Not buying this honey child.

You had a "strongest scum read" and did not advocate lynching that person all day? You thought a better way to spend Day 1 was to vote everybody with two legs? After that exercise, you excused yourself by saying voting anybody other than me or sig would have accomplished nothing, even though before you voted me, I had a grand total of two votes, and several others had one or two at the time you voted?

Epignosis
4
indiglo (7), sig (12), Sloonei (17), MovingPictures07 (19) 21%

No. You didn't have a biggest suspect. You didn't have to vote me or sig to accomplish something. You pushed a false dilemma. You voted me for a reason you didn't understand at best, and a phony reason at worst.

++++

This all leads me to another, perhaps more sinister reason birdwithteeth11 took the kill: When crunch time came, people were setting up a save of me by voting him, but after I decided I wanted to get sig lynched, I voted him, and others came alongside me. Now that sig was lynched, I look worse, and recency bias gives people the subconscious notion that the other option was the better choice. Killing birdwithteeth11 removes a second shot at saving myself if it came down to it.

Finally, if I am bad, does it make sense to go out of my way to get sig lynched when I could have rallied the troops to vote out bwt and then save my night kill for someone more troublesome?

Sloonei wrote:Would you at least have anything to say to the votes against you?

Okay. I'll see what I can do.

I do not presently have an opinion on Scotty one way or the other.

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

You forgot one:

Sloonei wrote:Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.

funny, i remember saying a lot more about it than this.

I wasn't making the claim that you didn't.

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

You forgot one:

Sloonei wrote:Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.

Upon seeing the kill, I was transported back to another llamagame, Frisky Dingo, in which the Mafia consciously took out people who were not participating or were not participating much.

The mafia team there consisted of Cookie, S~V~S, Russtifinko, Movingpictures07, and ika.

Only two of those are present here. You'd have to ask yourself if either of them would employ the same rationale for kills as before.

thellama73 wrote:

indiglo wrote: @ llama - Were there any missing PMs?

Yes, there were.

Probably bwt.

Sloonei wrote:Is there precedent for a role like that on the Syndicate?

Yep. Dune.

Epignosis wrote:I wonder if sig will vote bwt to save himself.

In retrospect, this comment is terribly cruel.

Damn.

Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.

Got screwed by his own role Day 1.

I'm sorry sig.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:That's annoying MP. If you can't devote the time to it, don't play. It's not fair to the rest of us.

I don't really need a lecture about not being able to play. I mainly signed up to help Llama fill the game, and it looked fun. I have time to play, but woke up later than I thought I would.

Why are you so concerned that Epi might be lynched?

So someone who isn't informed and hasn't read the thread casts a deciding vote for someone who has been keeping up and wants to participate. Thanks. I'll remember that.

I keep trying to post but the site keeps logging me out.

You haven't died yet.

If you do, and you are civilian, then that sucks and I'm sorry I cast the deciding vote. But I had to vote for someone.

Like I said, I'll remember this.

No need to make it personal. It isn't.

When did anything get personal?

sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.

Someone trying to save someone is more likely to be a civilian than Mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:That's annoying MP. If you can't devote the time to it, don't play. It's not fair to the rest of us.

I don't really need a lecture about not being able to play. I mainly signed up to help Llama fill the game, and it looked fun. I have time to play, but woke up later than I thought I would.

Why are you so concerned that Epi might be lynched?

So someone who isn't informed and hasn't read the thread casts a deciding vote for someone who has been keeping up and wants to participate. Thanks. I'll remember that.

I keep trying to post but the site keeps logging me out.

You haven't died yet.

If you do, and you are civilian, then that sucks and I'm sorry I cast the deciding vote. But I had to vote for someone.

Like I said, I'll remember this.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:That's annoying MP. If you can't devote the time to it, don't play. It's not fair to the rest of us.

I don't really need a lecture about not being able to play. I mainly signed up to help Llama fill the game, and it looked fun. I have time to play, but woke up later than I thought I would.

Why are you so concerned that Epi might be lynched?

So someone who isn't informed and hasn't read the thread casts a deciding vote for someone who has been keeping up and wants to participate. Thanks. I'll remember that.

I keep trying to post but the site keeps logging me out.

sig said the most suspicious things I've ever seen for a Day 1, tried to save an absentee and lynch an active civilian. I cannot believe I am tied with him. My voters should be ashamed of themselves and their half-baked votes.

MP, you were better off just missing the vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Won't be able to digest this in time... what to do...

Digest. Just vote sig, then ketchup.

If I get lynched, note well that sig tried to save somebody who hasn't been on the site since the 16th. If sig is bad, so is bwt.