The Syndicate

Fuck this bullshit.

For f*k's sake!

I see how I could have goofed up now. Oh well. RIP TH! Sorry I was totally wrong about you!

I need to start completely over in terms of how I think about everyone. Because clearly, even when I thought I had something, I wasn't right.

I think with how long it took before you gave up, TH (read: not very), that I have nothing to worry about from the result of this lynch.

Ricochet wrote:
Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:AP was lynched on like Day 1 and sabie hasn't played all game. AP has been following along it seems. Anyone else think the timing of this replacement is strange? Why now?
You have a real knack for these theories.
What does that mean?
Meaning very weird interpretations of events, roles, powers that have already given pause to a few players.

Welcome back, Made!

Like what? I'm confused with Dom. I feel like you just listed reasons why he might not be suspicious vs. reasons he might be.

My vote isn't being forced. I went ahead and made this case entirely on my own.

And if a forced vote role was in play with me, do you really think I would be allowed to make this statement with no repercussions?

Turnip Head wrote:I don't know MM. I'm lost as fuck. I honestly don't mind being lynched today... As a civvie, this game has been a miserable existence. (Not that I haven't enjoyed it immensely Mongoose, because I have!) Being lynched would validate my thoughts on voting records, for one. It would also be a fun exercise in how discovery roles can be healthy for the game because of how easily they can be misinterpreted.

I've been lost for most of this game too. This is the first time I felt like I really had something I could grasp onto. I will admit I do regret voting for you as quickly as I did, and I wish I could have waited for your response. But a done deal is a done deal. I think at the end of Day 6, I will still feel I made a good decision.

I will, however, say this is the first thing you've said that might be sincere. But I'm not sure if you don't mind being lynched because you feel like we'll gain info, or if it's because you feel the need to shrug your shoulders and give up.

Turnip Head wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.
BWT, ALL of our voting records are incriminating. We have all voted for civilians, and none of us have helped lynch baddies. Do you see that that's my point? That you could make any individual's voting record look bad at this point? You yourself have thrown away your vote onto Ricochet every single lynch until today. Couldn't someone make a case that your voting pattern looks bad, like you've done here for mine? Until we lynch baddies, we don't have enough context. The irony is real.

Not really. I've given clear-cut reasons why I've voted for Rico and continued to do so. And I've already stated I felt like you went after certain people because they were easy cases (Made and MP). Maybe I shouldn't say you threw away other votes. Rather, you threw a vote onto someone you knew wouldn't get lynched so you could come back later and say, "Sure. I have a bad voting record. But then again, EVERYONE ELSE DOES! (:P)

birdwithteeth11 wrote:That was way different. In that game, I made a case, but made it incredibly obvious it was based off of info I had gotten in a PM from the host on a previous night. If you feel like it came out of nowhere, it's because I spent almost 6 hours yesterday reading up on you and several other people I've been wondering about. So yeah, re-reading that much in a mafia game might change my mind a bit.
The circumstances might have been different but the end result is the same. You posted your case on me like 5 minutes into the Day phase, voted for me right off the bat in a game where we can't change votes, didn't wait to hear my response or anything, after having NEVER brought up my name before this... in a game where your role is outted thread info... my mind immediately went to certain conclusions as to what you could be doing. I'm sure the baddies' did as well. That's why this is so brilliant. All the baddies can hop on this bandwagon guilt-free. I wonder why no one's defending me?

The circumstances dictate everything. After my re-reading and then seeing how the night post went down, you were the first person I looked to. How you think I have certain info is beyond me however. But if you actually ARE curious, you have had chances to ask the host questions about my role and have not...

No one is defending you because I have a fairly solid (albeit not air-tight) case on you. And your baddie teammates are probably prepared to vote for you depending on if there is not a chance to save you.

Turnip Head wrote:Anyways this reminds me of the infodump post that BWT made (as a sock account) against k4j in the X-men game, so I'm pretty sure he thinks he knows something about my role (because this comes out of nowhere)... but he would be wrong to think it.

That was way different. In that game, I made a case, but made it incredibly obvious it was based off of info I had gotten in a PM from the host on a previous night. If you feel like it came out of nowhere, it's because I spent almost 6 hours yesterday reading up on you and several other people I've been wondering about. So yeah, re-reading that much in a mafia game might change my mind a bit.

As to how you think I have info on you, you're going to have to explain to me how that one works. Because I'm lost.

Turnip Head wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 1 Part 2: Votes MP. Says it's because of his "maximum frustration", but suggests "something really feels off about you here". Mentions AP and Vomps as well as potential vote-getters.
I never mentioned considering a vote for Vomps or AP. That's just not true. It's even in one of the quotes you put in your post:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:TH: You still around? Who are you voting for?
I'm thinking MP but I'm not feeling 100% about it. But I don't think the cases on Vomp or AP are very strong.
Okay. I'll give you that one. I mis-read it as that you were also considering Vomps or AP. The part that doesn't change for me is how the entire sequence with MP is you going after him for a behavior I feel he exhibits in every game he plays. Which paints an easy, lazy target on him.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 2 Vote: Votes Made. Says he wants "the real story" for his Day 1 part 2 vote. I won't pull all the quotes (feel free to go back and examine them yourselves), but it really feels like a good opportunity to throw away one's vote here.
I voted for Made because, after mulling over an MP vote all day, he came into the thread with a really genuine sounding defense that made me not want to vote him. I wasn't trying to throw away my vote like you claim. I explicitly tried to start a counterbandwagon because I suddenly found myself not wanting MP lynched. Nobody joined my vote, so I guess looking only at voting records makes it look like a "throwaway vote" eh? But my explanation here is all stuff I said in the thread, so I don't know why you're ignore those relevant quotes.

I was tired last night and didn't feel like pulling huge pyramid quotes at the time. You may have felt MP's defense was genuine, but you moved your vote to Made because of his crazy, zany reasoning? Seems like a fairly similar reason you went after MP.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 4 Vote: Votes Roxy. But wait. I thought you said the whole Roxy vs. llama thing was civ vs. civ?
Yes, I said her argument with Llama sounded like civ vs civ to me. But as it came down to the end of the lynch I ended up being the only one left to vote and there were three people tied with the lead in votes: MM, Bloops, and Roxy. Upon rereading I really wasn't feeling an MM or Blooper vote, and I saw a few small things in some of Roy's posts that reminded me of her baddie game, and so out of the three of them I chose Roxy.

Fair enough. But it seems like a big swing to me to go from "I think Roxy vs. llama is a civ" to voting for Roxy in that period of time.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:But this here is the real nail in the coffin for me:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Timmer hope your hand feels better.

MM, we cannot look at voting patterns, we cannot look at who voted for civvies, because we haven't lynched a baddie yet. So none of those data points have enough context. That is why it's so important we get a baddie, like RIGHT NOW. Otherwise we will be flailing around aimlessly all game until one by one we're all put out of our misery.
With everything I've gone back and read, this translates IMO to: We can't look at voting patterns. Because it will reveal that I have a not-so-good one. Including 2 obvious throw-away votes.
Translate it however you want BWT, but I stand by my philosophy that voting records are useless without lynched baddies, I've said it before in other games. You can design a narrative around practically any vote at this point. You made up your own narrative of my votes, so that definitely proves my theory

I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.

Turnip Head wrote:I can respond more thoroughly when I get home.

And I look forward to your response. So I can destroy it with evidence.

S~V~S wrote:He seemed to have some context; where did he go wrong?

I can't remember if you've re-read TH yet or not. But I would encourage you to do so. Regardless of the quality of his response.

Alright. A big part of the reason I haven't really posted much of anything is because I've been spending my available time today going through and re-reading all the posts from a few people in this game. And one person stands out to me big time.

Rather than drudge through all the quotes I could pull, I think this boils down to voting patterns mostly. So for said individual, let's look at how they've voted in every lynch so far.

Day 1 Vote: Against me.
Falling in line with the rest of the crowd. Attempting to blend in here.

Turnip Head wrote:The vote is hella spread out so far. The only thing I agree with so far was SVS's analysis of Birdy's vote for LC. Seemed like BWT was intent on voting for Con regardless of Con's response. DFaraday just did something similar as a baddie on Day 1 in the Champions game, so my vote will likely go to BWT for what feels like a drummed up vote.

I'll cast my vote now, but I'll be around til deadline to see what happens with the remaining votes, because I don't like how spread out it is.

*votes Birdo*

Day 1 Part 2: Votes MP. Says it's because of his "maximum frustration", but suggests "something really feels off about you here". Mentions AP and Vomps as well as potential vote-getters.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm still looking at you, MP. Your more recent posts suggest maximum frustration, which is a trait I have encountered in both the civvie and baddie flavors of MP, so that doesn't help... but something really feels off about you here, and I wish I could place my finger on what exactly it is.

Turnip Head wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:TH: You still around? Who are you voting for?
I'm thinking MP but I'm not feeling 100% about it. But I don't think the cases on Vomp or AP are very strong.

Turnip Head wrote:BUT if I vote MP and one of the other two is lynched and flips bad, my vote will (quite reasonably) be deemed opportunistic, so I have to consider that risk when casting my vote as well...

Turnip Head wrote:Okay, I'm voting for MP. He is my strongest suspicion so far.

Day 2 Vote: Votes Made. Says he wants "the real story" for his Day 1 part 2 vote. I won't pull all the quotes (feel free to go back and examine them yourselves), but it really feels like a good opportunity to throw away one's vote here.

Day 3 Vote: Missed vote.

Day 4 Vote: Votes Roxy. But wait. I thought you said the whole Roxy vs. llama thing was civ vs. civ?

Turnip Head wrote:Roxy vs Llama felt like civ vs civ to me. The words BR used to describe Llama - "aggressive", "flippant" - are traits I associate with Llama's civvie game. And if I were civ Llama, I would feel like my suspicions were being abused by the baddies, too. I think Roxy and llama have different ideals that cause them to butt heads a bit.

I'm curious what Roxy thinks about MM's insistence that we vote for her though.

Day 5: Missed Vote

But this here is the real nail in the coffin for me:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Timmer hope your hand feels better.

MM, we cannot look at voting patterns, we cannot look at who voted for civvies, because we haven't lynched a baddie yet. So none of those data points have enough context. That is why it's so important we get a baddie, like RIGHT NOW. Otherwise we will be flailing around aimlessly all game until one by one we're all put out of our misery.

With everything I've gone back and read, this translates IMO to: We can't look at voting patterns. Because it will reveal that I have a not-so-good one. Including 2 obvious throw-away votes.

I encourage others to do a read-through on TH. I still think there's a chance Rico is bad, but after all my reading today, I think the biggest thing I've learned is that TH is bad. And he shall be the first baddie we lynch.

Votes TH

Oh, and plot twist: It isn't Ricochet.

RIP llama! I still thought you were likely a civ btw.

I know who I'm voting for in this lynch now. Give me a bit here.

Can't remember if I mentioned it, but RIP Made!

thellama73 wrote:Don't be sorry. What do you think of Long Con? His last couple of posts have me firmly distrusting him.

What brought this on?

Ricochet wrote:Have to go back to writing and dinner and such, but while BWT is still here:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Unfortunately, I haven't seen enough to dissuade me from voting Rico for this lynch. So my vote is going there still.

As for Made, I'm not seeing it. I just think he's being really, really, REALLY strange. I still need time to properly re-read MM too.

Votes Rico
Can I contest any of this or should I just abstain and take it in, each day, given that you have infinite civ cred?

You are more than welcome to. I don't know if you can convince me to not vote you, but you might convince others to not vote you. If you really are a civ, I would hope you would fight to the bitter end.

Canucklehead wrote:Wait, SD unlocked the thread?? I don't think that's kosher...I assmed the baddies used their ability. I don't think these posts an votes should be happening right now. :s

Yeah. If that's the case, then I think Daisy might have goofed up the baddies' plans. :/

Yeah. I'm curious as to why the thread was locked so long. Especially given how close we are to the poll deadline.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen enough to dissuade me from voting Rico for this lynch. So my vote is going there still.

As for Made, I'm not seeing it. I just think he's being really, really, REALLY strange. I still need time to properly re-read MM too.

Votes Rico

thellama73 wrote:Guys, should I vote for Rico out of spite?

No. Only if you have a good reason for thinking he's bad.

I'm still of a mind to lynch Rico. I also don't like the fact that discussion for him seemed to just drop off the face of the Earth. So unless a better option pops up, I'm going in that direction today.

Alright. I'm going with my gut. I go with my head so often in mafia and am wrong with that. So hopefully this is the right decision.

Votes Ricochet

Ugh. My gut is telling me to go with Rico, but my head is telling me to go with Ninja. And I can't decide which one to listen to.

Long Con wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:I guess this is my main question about MM then: Has he actually contributed his thoughts on all the players he keeps asking others about, or is he simply asking others how they feel about the players on his list?

I'd prefer to see an answer supported by quotes.
I don't have quotes, but I did just read through a bunch of his posts... he has a weak case on me that talks about "jumps in logic" on the AP case from earlier, he suggested that I set up a wild goose chase with the Vompatti game references, he said my AP vote was "slightly damning", he said my posts are "detached and narrativeish"...

So, he does have original thoughts, at least about me.

Alright. Thanks.

Yeah, after reading over those, I'm still not seeing a case on MM.

I guess this is my main question about MM then: Has he actually contributed his thoughts on all the players he keeps asking others about, or is he simply asking others how they feel about the players on his list?

I'd prefer to see an answer supported by quotes.

Turnip Head wrote:What do you think about Made, BWT?

Seems like his crazy, zany self. The way he latched so easily onto Vomps' case is a bit unnerving. But I need more than that to vote for him.

EBWOP: I hit submit and forgot to add in my last part.

I might be voting for Blooper today if I don't feel strong enough about Rico and can't figure out any other good ideas.

Linki: Yeah. That's hitting the nail on the head.

I dunno. I think the whole Roxy vs. llama thing is civ on civ. Mostly because they push each others' buttons so easily without even trying to. And I feel like that's the case here.

The only way I see that not being the case is if llama is trying to provoke a reaction. But it doesn't feel that way to me...

Linki: I think it's due to her being inactive, but active enough to latch onto easy suspicions that are common in-thread and kind of let her off the hook.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm voting Roxy, and you all should too.

Peace.

Why?

Alright. So here is where I stand on anyone I have a read on:

Rico: Starting to waffle a bit on him. His post about feeling frustrated/upset/whatever it was from stating what he claims are his reasons and actions and people thinking what they will on their own terms read as fairly genuine to me. And the more I think about it, my entire reasoning on him might be based on supposed BTSC and a lack of knowing someone's gender. There might be something to the first, but the second by itself is a terrible reason to vote someone.

Canuck: Civ. I think there was some misunderstanding on how a certain role works, and now that that's been clarified, I think it's fairly obvious she is good.

MM: No read yet, other than he seems a bit more aggressive this game.

SVS/Roxy/llama: I grouped all 3 together because I tend to read them all the same way in every game. Roxy comes off to me as strongly emotional from the get-go, SVS takes a bit to get there, and llama always starts off as civvie for me, and then after a few days, I start to question how I feel about him. I'm at that point with him now. But I'm also not sure how I feel about potential cases on any of them.

I have tonight to read through and figure out who I want to vote for. So I shall see what develops and read back on a few ideas and suspicions I have currently.

S~V~S wrote:What does your 4th tentacle do? Do i even want to know? o.O

I do. Visual demonstration pls.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
S~V~S wrote:And why is that? What did you think I could have meant that was bad? It sincerely felt to me like you were intentionally pulling the thread away from discussing potential baddie reactions to BWTs survival. That, to me, is relevant discussion fodder for a lynch. So you coming in here and trying to squash that topic pinged the crap out of me, I must say. It felt like you were swooping in and rescuing people, tbh. Look, up in the sky! A flying Turnip!!
You sure extrapolated a lot of meaning from my simple desire to talk about things other than lynching a twice rezzed confirmed civ who can't be lynched

That's okay because I read a lot of meaning into your post as well:

S~V~S wrote:We only discuss people on the poll, TH?

Linki, do you think he should be on the poll?
So when I read this, I think to myself, "Okay, what is SVS really trying to ask me?" It seemed like maybe you misunderstood what I meant, but your next post makes it clear you understood me.

S~V~S wrote:Gotcha, TH.

But no calling me a baddie when I pop in here in the middle of a discussion you are having and tell you to stop talking about whatever it is you are discussing., k?
When I read this post it seemed to me to come from a baddie mindset. You're not actually accusing me in this post, but your whole line of "no calling me a baddie when " really struck me. Why are you laying groundwork to come in here at some point in the future and stop discussion, and then on top of that state that I can't call you a baddie when that time comes?

It seems like you agree with me that BWT is not worth discussing for today's vote. So why do you find it suspicious that I would want to nip that in the bud before it ate up all of today's discussion? Do you really think I intentionally wanted people to stop talking about lynching BWT in order to protect the baddies from speaking their minds? That's just... I don't know SVS. Do you really believe that? Why wouldn't I just say something in BTSC if that were the case?

You and SVS are forcing this topic a little too much. Unless you're trying to build something on SVS, let's move on.

Who's stifling discussion now?

Long Con wrote:I still hold Metalmarsh as my main suspicion, but I'm almost afraid to say that I'm starting to suspect Llama as well. I have to go back and read to see what I am thinking here, something he was saying earlier set off my Spidey-sense.

BWT, way to be immortal!

Llama hasn't set my Spidey-senses off yet at all. So I look forward to seeing what you dig up.

I'm trying. I think the other civvies could learn something from me.

Also, I'm still leaning strongest on Rico. I will probably be voting him unless someone can convince me of a better case against someone else.

Dom, to answer your questions:

1) I asked because I've seen a similar thing happen before due to a host's error. So I wanted to know if it was that or if I had been rezzed.

2) I never got that impression. I was NKed, and then a few posts later, the hostess says I was rezzed. I have absolutely no idea what happened. My best guess is that someone rezzed me.

Linki: SVS, who do you think had a lack of reaction to my death?

Mongoose wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'll settle this debate then. Mostly because I'm just as curious as all of you as to how I came back.

@Hostess: Was me dying on Night 3 an hosting error on your part, or was I actually rezzed?
No known hosting error(s) has/have been committed at this time.

Well there we go then. All I can figure is someone won a rezz as a prize and rezzed me.

Black Rock wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'll settle this debate then. Mostly because I'm just as curious as all of you as to how I came back.

@Hostess: Was me dying on Night 3 an hosting error on your part, or was I actually rezzed?
I'd be surprised if it was a hosting error if you truly don't know.

I would be as well. But I've seen hosting errors occur this way, so I want to make sure.

a hosting error*

I'll settle this debate then. Mostly because I'm just as curious as all of you as to how I came back.

@Hostess: Was me dying on Night 3 an hosting error on your part, or was I actually rezzed?

Dammit. RIP me.

....I mean, early April Fools joke!

No, but seriously. I have no idea what happened there.

thellama73 wrote:
Mongoose wrote:Last hour for PMS!

Thank goodness! These cramps are killing me.

I heard chocolate and Pamprin helps with that.

Canucklehead wrote:I think we should go back to my original plan of lynching TH.

And I wasn't cursed, I just really do want to hear more from te radiant creature that is Nincompoopajumbo.

An bwt just said "titties" :giggle:

I can't remember the case on TH honestly. I feel like either you or someone else (SVS???) had another reason besides that odd cast-off Day 2 vote but I can't remember what it was.

Well I do like them, I won't lie.

But probably not in the context of mafia lol.

2 of the 3 TITLES not titties. I must be thinking of something else. <_<

ANYWAY MOVING ON NOW...

thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I don't know that I think he is bad, but I would not be surprised to find that some of those who followed in his footsteps are.

I a looking forward to hearing Llama take on things after he rethinks things.
I'm still in the process of rethinking, but this is what I have so far:

We know that the Day 2 lynch was between two civs, with almost everyone piling on one bandwagon or another. The only way to avoid being tied to a civ lynch in that case, would be to cast a symbolic vote for a third party. Four people did that: DFaraday, Bass, TH, and Black Rock. I think they bear watching, although my gut tells me that DFaraday is on the level.

Also on my radar are Ricochet and Blooper, who went along with me and voted for Vomps. Ricochet took some convincing, but as someone else pointed out, his final reasoning left something to be desired. Blooper piled on from the beginning without giving too much of an explanation as to why. Those six players will all be getting rereads from me before the next vote.

Why DFaraday? Is it just because of his Day 2 vote, or is there another reason you would put him in that category as well?

RIP Vomps! Sorry I was wrong about you.

I voted for my 3. Apparently, birds and mongooses agree on 2 of the 3 titties.

I honestly have no idea what is going on with Roxy now. I'm not sure if it's because I'm reading her responses as overdefensive and emotional (which I will admit I do tend to read Roxy as that a lot), or because I just don't see the cases on Made or MM. Granted, I haven't really spent a lot of time looking at MM or Made because I feel far more confident about Vomps and Ricochet.

While I feel more strongly about Ricochet, I am perfectly fine with a Vomps lynch too. I think one of the two of them needs to go for me to start to expand my horizons on how I feel about other players in the game.

Votes Vomps

Ricochet wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that MP (essentially) rezzed BWT for the second game in a row. Cars before this one.
Major bromance forming there for sure.
They let it transpire from real life too much. I remember them on PA often sharing the same pov's, taste in music and such, but when you'd bring this to their attention, they'd go wtf no we have very different opinions.

But I knew better.

Seriously, outside any sort of game speculation, I would have surprised if MP and BWT wouldn't have been linked somehow. Although I'm not sure if Mongoose would have been aware enough to distribute the roles as such...

I remember those days. Good times.

I honestly think we've only had BTSC in one game ever (Masters of the Universe). Otherwise, we've never really been able to play as teammates in mafia.

Long Con wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that MP (essentially) rezzed BWT for the second game in a row. Cars before this one.
Major bromance forming there for sure.

Oh it's beyond a bromance. More like...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Roxy wrote:Llama - yes I understand my votes look bad but you are wrong when you say MP was not on my radar when in fact I said I thought Canuck had made some decent points - but - the top 3 vote getters last round were MP, Vomps and MM I had not read back on MP and bc I was unsure of my vote rather than use someone else's opinions/suspicions for my vote reasoning I like to use my own. Out of the 3 MP's game stood out the most bc this game he was very back track-y but in the beginning of Dr Who he was laser focused and unbending in his suspicions so I went with MP.
i am sorry but I have to play my own way. I can tel you in the 100's of games I have played I have never tried to save a teamie mostly I am one of the first to vote a teamie or even make the case myself - in other words I have never once voted to save a teamie nor have I ever defended one ofc this is all wifom but it is checkable. if Vomps was my teammate I would have been the first to make the case or held onto your coattails of suspicion.

Wow Timmer has done a swift back stroke there.

I am voting for my own suspicion today Made but I have time.
My mind has changed on Made. He's no longer on my radar.

Also, per the bolded part. I don't think a civvie would say that.

^This. So much this.

Ricochet wrote:Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.

But he very well COULD have been lynched in both of those lynches. Regardless of if he is a civvie or baddie, he's going to vote in his own self-interest if his neck is on the line.

I feel like you're reaching for a reason to vote for Voopy, when there are plenty of other, better reasons to consider voting for him. Just sayin'.

Also, I missed yesterday's vote because of RL reasons. Like, having to go into work and not getting a chance to vote before the lynch ended.

Also, RIP FZ!

Ricochet wrote:In reply to BWT's post:

I find your read on what happened interesting, but I can't figure out where you draw the line between me making rookie mistakes and slipping as a baddie. I also don't see how all the issues are connected, the way you put it.

You say you agree SVS was quite "reaction-y" (as Blooper put it) and that it looked like she was baiting me with the "chatroom" idea, but at the same time you still feel like I did "pull up a chatroom topic". Frankly, I don't know how else to comment to this accusation anymore. The conversation was in the thread. It happened throughout a full phase. All I said was I'll catchup/look more into it. SVS happened to be there when I said it and it made her jumpy. From there on, (mis)interpretation galore.

I didn't feel like she was "reaction-y". I felt like she was trying to elicit a response, and the way you responded was what made her jumpy. Did the same to me too.

Re: referencing / backing up, I'll say this again. On Day 1, when I snipped a post of hers to address only a part of it, she was kind to advise me not to do that, because it'll look bad. Now that I, just as ill-advisedly, delayed backing my post up and/or referenced pages instead of quoting, oh that won't do. It's understandable, given the circumstance, that her reaction wasn't as nice and it looked bad to her, but I don't see why that should make other players see more than a mistake in this.

I didn't have a problem with you snipping posts. I've done it before, especially when I'm trying to deal with multi-quoted posts. But I do it to the extent of deleting certain entire posts in there because they aren't relevant to what I am posting. I don't change or edit anything within the post(s) I need, and keep them whole. I think her issue was with you removing part of someone's post. You might not have had nefarious intentions, but it makes it look to some people like you're trying to re-write history so to speak.

The most stunning accusation for me is still regarding my correction re: Canuck's gender. It was literally an EBWOP. I screwed up her gender the whole time, in that discussion with Llama and MM, before realizing. When several people were "he/she" about me during the first day, I politely addressed the issue. When I screwed up a player's gender that I didn't know well (i.e. I didn't know at all outside Mafia, as is the case with about half of the players in this game), I politely corrected myself. If I wouldn't have noticed and, say, Canuck would have later corrected me, perhaps everything would have been fine. But since I did (and on the spot, too!), I'm suspicious for it - or better yet, I received "tips". Again, I don't have much else to say about this, other than how slightly disquieted I am with players picking on trivial stuff like this.

Okay. I can at least understand this. I will rethink how I feel about this part of my case against you.

---

This will probably be my only entry for tonight, since my girl will soon come home and we'll watch Birdman, which I'm dying to see and, again, the end of the phase will be too late for me to stay up for.

BTW, you said you missed voting yesterday. Was that purely because of RL or because of a certain civ's powers?

Search found 72 matches