The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:Sketchy juliet vote #303000

Are you trying to say I am the only one who changes my votes? And how many times have i done it? i remember twice, counting this change to llama.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
juliets wrote:oh you changed it.
What of yours?

Well, it looks like my vote on Tranq isn't doing much good. It didn't pressure him to come to the thread and talk and now people are dropping off. I thought your theory that Lorab was distancing was pretty good (this is not meant to buddy just to explain why I would change my vote) and so llama has been my other choice anyway so I'll change to him.

a thousand linkis

oh you changed it.

Metalmarsh why did you vote DH?

Who made the case against DH? I want to look at their post. Or if it's easier, whats the case against DH?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Through four days and nights, he posted around 10-15 times.
Actually it was 31 times. My eyeball guessing needs work.

I'm inclined to change my vote but I'm not sure yet to who. Maybe llama but I want to re-read him first.

Did anyone notice MM is not on the poll? I guess at least for the time being I will put a vote on Tranq. We'll see how important this game is to him if a lot of us have a vote on him. The one thing that causes me to believe he may be good is in AWR he was good the first part of the game and barely posted as I recall. Then when he became baddie he posted a lot more.

Ricochet wrote:
FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.

JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.
I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

I never "pushed" a counter wagon for MM. If you think I did please find me the quotes. Also, I did not even vote MM the day I ended up voting JJJ which was the day Lorab and JJJ were the main ones. I voted him the next day. I had voted Tranq before I moved to to JJJ. I explained the rules at the time that I moved and the timing was due to the fact that the posts that struck me to make me think JJJ was bad came late.

Thank you DH and LC. I will think about the potential of a Lorab force and how it impacts my opinion of JJJ. Meanwhile, I have to go back and find where we talked about Duncan Idaho and what his role was in whatever game he is from.

I'm a little confused by what some people are saying about forcing a position. What does it mean to force a position?

wow, another 3-nighter and two of them were civs. I am very sorry to see Ham Boy and Golden go, they contributed a lot. RIP to both of you. And Epi, I hate to say it but we are better off without you.

Did Ham Boy do a rainbow list recently?

voting thelma and louise

HamburgerBoy wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:What does the thread think of Bea and Juliets?
I feel good-ish on both of them. juliets I was suspicious of because earlier I felt she looked like the same juliets I saw during A World Reborn, but more recently she started making pretty directed arguments. In retrospect she did jump on to vote JJJ against LoRab pretty late, so I guess I should heavily re-evaluate my read on her. Bea I thought looked genuine in most of her recent posts and very passionate about the game, but then again, reviewing her vote and in this post where she uses some pretty waffly language especially regarding LoRab, I'd have to bump her down the rainbow as well. So actually I guess I don't feel good about either.

As i said last night i was unsure of Lorab all the way to her lynch. The only thing that hit me as bad was BR's read on her and that wasn't enough to draw my vote. At this point we know that Lorab was bad but we don't know what JJJ, Tranq, or MM would flip (the three people I voted for). I have my opinions of course. But i don't understand why that one vote would move me from good to bad given the circumstances. I'm evidently not the only one who didn't feel there was enough for a Lorab vote or there was more on someone else they voted for.

Congrats to those of you who saw through lorab and voted for her! Another baddie down. I'll be sure to pay extra attention to your suspicions in the future. Lorab, I'll look forward to playing with you in the next game.

I had forgotten that Jimmy's ISO on zebra and metalmarsh reasoned that they were teamates because of the nature of their interactions. It was a good point. I saw a lot of jokey posts from MM, not very much that had any meat to it. I'm going to vote him now and see if anything else comes up during this last hours.

JJJ's response to me this morning felt genuine and therefore I'm not going to vote for him today. I thought about Tranq but my whole reason for voting him yesterday was to get him to the table. He has now spoken and though I don't much like what he had to say I don't see him as bad for that. I will keep my eye on him but am not ready to vote him yet. I'm going to take a look at MM to see if I agree with Golden's read.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
juliets wrote:As i said in the beginning I don't know why you are so quick to call me bad when I feel like I'm giving you every opportunity I can to prove yourself not-bad. Maybe you could explain that to me since I answered your post.
I did "gun to head reads" on every player. All that means is that I made a quick gut judgment -- it's not a condemnation or a call to lynch you. Or a vote for you. I was more perturbed by your vote for me than I was of some others because I didn't expect it. Most of them were not surprising to me, but yours was. I wouldn't have anticipated you'd trust Mac enough to allow his unverified comments about my style as a player to be the deciding factor in your decision. Indeed, his comments were incorrect (the same incorrect comments he made in our last game together).

Mac is accustomed to a JJJ who plays at a maximum level of effort at all times and under all circumstances. Many others here saw that to a ridiculous extreme in the Talking Heads game. This has led to me being held to a higher standard of contribution than anyone else, and perhaps I deserve that, but it's just not reasonable. I said before the game started that I won't be posting that much. I made it clear early in the game that I'm not as invested in this game as I normally would be. I have to step back and chill out, because my conduct in Talking Heads was over the top and frankly obscene.

I knew people would suspect me, but I didn't anticipate quite this.

Ok, i get that now. I did not play Talking Heads so I don't have that reference point. I do remember you saying you wouldn't be posting that much I just didn't know "that much" mostly reference Talking HEads.

I understand how my vote was a complete surprise to you because you're right, I had stuck with my read throughout the discussions that had taken place before you left the thread. Hopefully, any other info that is going to come up does so today since you will be out of pocket tomorrow.

@JJJ

In this quote JJJ says my vote looks like opportunism but he will wait to condemn me until I've answered. I noticed he published me in his list as bad - so much for waiting for my reply. And what else is there that makes me bad in your eyes Jimmy?

Spoiler: show

This is close to the position I was in yesterday. I am undecided about Lorab and had thought you were a civ up until the time someone else posted something I had not seen before. At that point my vote was on Tranq while everybody else (iirc) had a vote on either you or Lorab.

Spoiler: show

Here is what was said about you last night that got me to change my mind. I had not seen this information before that time.

Spoiler: show

I could not ask you about it because you were no longer in the thread but I had to make a quick decision.

Today I told you that the quotes above made the biggest impact on my vote and asked you to respond. Does that sound like someone who was immediately ready to vote you again? You're around so now I wanted to hear your side of the story which I couldn't hear last night.

As i said in the beginning I don't know why you are so quick to call me bad when I feel like I'm giving you every opportunity I can to prove yourself not-bad. Maybe you could explain that to me since I answered your post.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If I'm a bad guy, all of you are playing into my hands by talking about me and only me. I'm already dead, but the distraction lives on. Huge waste of time.

Here's a face value read that I'll substantiate when time permits: HamburgerBoy is very sincere in his suspicion of me. MacDougall and DharmaHelper are not.

I know you're at work so you probably won't do this until tonight but I'm anxious to hear what you have to say. MacDougall had the strongest impact on my vote because he has played the most with you. And I read DH as being sincere. As it stands right now without this information I would have to vote you again.

Ricochet wrote:
juliets wrote:
motel room wrote:
juliets wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.
Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.
yikes
juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.

juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?
Another person who has more experience playing with JJJ than anyone in the game. If he fooled me, then he fooled me and I learned a lesson about his play. But he sounded genuine and sure to me. I don't know JJJ hardly at all, i've maybe been in a couple of games with him.
How does that answer motel's question?

I am unsure about Lorab. As you may recall, I pulled my vote from her back when people were trying to lynch her and I haven't seen anything since that made me think she was bad. My only niggle is BR saying she is bad, but BR did not come out with the strident tone and certainly that Mac did when it comes to Jimmy. I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong but at least I wasn't afraid to vote my gut after he made that post. And just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, if Jimmy is good it was my bad decision to vote for him not Mac's bad for expressing what he thinks.

linkitis again

motel room wrote:
juliets wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.
Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.
yikes
juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.

juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?

Another person who has more experience playing with JJJ than anyone in the game. If he fooled me, then he fooled me and I learned a lesson about his play. But he sounded genuine and sure to me. I don't know JJJ hardly at all, i've maybe been in a couple of games with him.

Ricochet wrote:
juliets wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
juliets wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.
Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.
JJJ was already leading, why have you focused on "negating" someone's vote?
I was gearing my comment to Ham Boys comment "Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote."
Yeah, but that was when it visibly mattered to correct the wagons, the way HB put it.

A lead of one is nothing. Think of all the vote manip roles we have seen - people's whose votes are worth 3 or have extra votes for some other reason.

many linkies

Ricochet wrote:
juliets wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.
Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.
JJJ was already leading, why have you focused on "negating" someone's vote?

I was gearing my comment to Ham Boys comment "Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote."

HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.

Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.

I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Ricochet wrote:LoRab has received six votes in 30 minutes. Tranq has 0 mentions of her and I'm getting slightly pissy at players telling me I should wait for this guy to "warm up his game".
Tranq had better post right now if he isn't silenced.

I may vote for him. I think he needs some votes so he doesnt just float through this game.

Mac, did you see my question in that rush of votes?

Mac, i notice you voted for Matt. Are you also recommending others vote for him and if so why? I haven't been able to look up your reasons just yet.

First, i agree with FZ. regarding the JJJ voters. I was thinking about who I trusted out of that list when you posted.

Second, JJJ I am also willing to put in a Boomslang vote especially since two people I see as leaning good have already voted him. Like Epig though, I would like to see his response before I make a final decision. On the contrary side, like people are saying, this is beginning to look like a rush to Boomslang which makes me uneasy.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Some input on the Golden/llama discussion:

I don't think Golden has said anything unfair or manipulative; I get a strong feeling that he genuine conviction for what he's saying -- particularly his frustration at his points being ignored (as he perceives it). If Golden is guilty of anything, it might be that he is demanding a higher degree of specificity from llama than llama has realized, and I think that has led to this lengthy and continuing exchange in which llama feels like he is repeating himself. I don't get the impression that llama is deliberately avoiding Golden's points, because I do think he has answered to them in ways that make sense within the mindset he is conveying -- even if they don't meet the specificity standard within Golden's mindset.

That disconnect has led to this most recent series of posts, including Golden's list of grievances and llama's response to those grievances. I think the exchange reads genuine on both sides, to a degree enough that it has shaken me from my llama suspicion in general (aided of course by my heightened suspicion of Boomslang). When I look through the llama posts that Golden has brought out, this is the one I think is most important:

thellama73 wrote:The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.
My immediate reaction to this was negative. I understand why Golden might think this looks like a pre-meditated maneuver, particularly considering the fact that Golden knew he was going to be a primary suspect emerging from llama's proposed approach. However, I do have one doubt about this line of thinking: if llama and his team consciously planned to kill Fuzz and then cast suspicion upon the people who were calling him a town read, then this post evidences a very transparent effort by llama to execute that plan. It'd almost be like a person farting in an elevator and then shouting "OH MAN WHO RIPPED ONE" despite already having drawn disgusted looks from at least one other person inside.

JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.

I just re-read llama and did not find places where he didn't answer questions HOWEVER I did not read Golden in tandem with llama so that possibility still exists. Golden are you saying you are going to list the points that llama did not address? That would be very helpful.

@Rico - your question to the non-juliets people about my behavior describes me perfectly. Someone even used the word "indecisive" in AWR and I agreed with that. I like to see lot's of evidence before I decide which is hard in a game of mafia.

I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.

Ricochet wrote:
juliets wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
DH i understand why you are placing a vote on Sorsha but llama has really been pushing the idea that Golden is culpable for Fuzz's death. Why choose Sorsha over llama?
Paraphrasing my own suss, ey, former confirmed baddie?

Sorry. I didn't even realize I was paraphrasing you.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
That's an odd angle. I vote Sorsha for second fiddle in the Golden debate, but can't make "heads or tails" of the main fiddler in that same debate (llama) and don't mention what you make of the debate itself (Golden - llama) at all.
I don't think Golden is guilty of what he's been accused of. I also don't think Llama is bad for having accused him of it. Llama's actions fit with what I'd expect from him. Golden's response makes me just about certain of his innocence (because I've seen this exact scenario before), and Sorsha's attachment to such an accusation doesn't gel with me.

This also answers my question DH.

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.

DH i understand why you are placing a vote on Sorsha but llama has really been pushing the idea that Golden is culpable for Fuzz's death. Why choose Sorsha over llama?

I am similarly not sure about JJJ vs. llama but my good opinion of llama is starting to slide with this seemingly relentless push of Golden. I say seemingly because everyone may not agree with what I'm seeing. I will have to see what the rest of the day will bring.

Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:I don't know why my agreeing to do ISO's at MAc's request should make you suspect me.
It's not normal. Unusual juliets makes me nervous.

There was another game, I can't remember which and you probably didn't play it, where SVS was suspecting me and i asked her what I could do to convince her I was civ. She said I could vote somebody (can't remember who) right then without hesitation. I did so. I was civ.

I will say though that it's not something I do a lot so I can see why you might think it's weird. I just haven't thought about doing it lately but this game I did.

Epignosis wrote:I'll start with this.

a2thezebra wrote:Boomslang
sig
Long Con
MacDougall
Matt
juliets

a2thezebra wrote:In order of most to least suspicious.
Reverse order.

juliets is switching it up, with her "ISO" business to appease MacDougall. That alone is enough to make me suspicious of her. juliets got a soft suspicion from zebra:

a2thezebra wrote:
juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.
Posts like these offer mafia (like zebra) an open door to pivot to a harder suspicion in case a teammate is going down.

++++

zebra didn't have any meaningful interactions with Matt.

++++

MacDougall and zebra went back and forth organically enough for me to believe they're not on the same team.

++++

If Long Con's mix-up in his exchange with zebra was manufactured, then bravo- it's fooled me. I don't think they are on a team. I also feel like his case against 3J is genuine.

++++

sig was good RIP

++++

Boomslang is my top civilian read.

I don't know why my agreeing to do ISO's at MAc's request should make you suspect me. I asked him what it would take for him to consider my civvieness since most of his suspicion against me is tone and style, hardly things I can defend beyond say thats just me, and that's what he suggested. Should I not have asked that question? Should I have refused to start doing ISO's?

HamburgerBoy wrote:So, re-reading llama's post history, particularly the day 3 stuff, the biggest issue I have isn't what he's saying as much as how he's staying on this one "target painting" issue, not to mention focusing just on golden rather than considering that many people were leaning town on Fuzz after the early day 0 stuff. llama is at least consistent though; he pressed the same suspicion of golden day 1 so it's not like he came up with this view only just now. I still find Dom's day 0 intention to vote for llama among the most suspicious things against the latter. I don't trust Dom in this game, and that early stuff looked like transparent distancing/soft-bussing to me. The other thing would be the word of Syndicate players that know what town llama looks like; FZ and golden both look fairly sure, I'm not too suspicious of either of them, and I also trust both quite a bit when it comes to their meta-game. llama isn't my top pick, but I feel keeping my vote here for now isn't a bad idea.

Ham Boy who is your top pick and why wouldn't you put your vote on them?

I just finished my read of LC and I do not see him as bad. He had the correct insight about sig which many of us missed the boat on. He also posted some things about JJJ which make me back up a little bit on my read of JJJ. I'm going to have to read Jimmy's posts again and see where I come out when I read him in total. I don't think I've seen a bad Jimmy (at least I don't remember it) so that may be part of why I have such a civ read on him.

thellama73 wrote:
juliets wrote:I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.
I already responded to that, but I'm happy to do so again. First, I didn't say calling someone a civ means buddying up. He didn't just say Fuzz was a civ. He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

Sorry I had to make you explain it again and yes I can see how those two things are not the same.

I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.

Golden wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?
It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.
3. The way he was lying in wait to pounce on anyone who made the argument I made (seems pretty contrived)
4. The way he has been misrepresenting me since then (saying I went after JJ when I never did).

He's got it in for me, and I'm not sure why, but I do not interpret his actions as those of a civ at this time.
I don't have it in for you, as such. I feel LC is a more compelling lynch.

But - if you want to know why I suspect llama, here is the answer in a handy dandy response to Llamas 4 points:

1. Llama claims calling someone civ is buddying. You can judge for yourself whether you think calling someone civ is buddying. Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.
2. Unless llama killed Fuzz, he has no idea why Fuzz was killed. He is trying to push an angle on that.
3. Fuzz dies, and then llama says he was 'obviously' killed for having been called a top town read, and that the people who CALLED him their top town reads were therefore suspicious. Which, as I've pointed out, is full of logical fallacy (its chicken and egg. If Fuzz was killed for being a top town read, then why would he be killed for being apparently unlynchable by the people calling him a top town read? If the mafia were the ones calling him a civ, then they wouldn't be worried about the fact he had people calling him civ) but, to me, also sits with a common mafia strategy... make a kill with a plan on how you can pin that kill on others afterwards, and then execute the plan. And llama has admitted the logical fallacy, but continued to say I'm probably bad for it anyway.
4. Llama was having disagreements with JJ in the thread. They looked to me like he was reading JJ as bad. He clarified since that he wasn't, and I accepted that. This is hardly 'misrepresenting him since then'... its being incorrect once and admitting it.

And I also have another point to make on point number 2, but I'll do it in a separate post.

FZ. wrote:Juliets, can you please just come on and share your thoughts on the things that are happening now instead of putting so much focus on the ISO's?

I just caught up. FZ, I'm isoing first BR and now Lorab because Mac asked me to in order to help find baddies. Now you are asking me to abandon that task and weigh in on more current things. I will stop on Lorab for awhile and address what you want me to address.

I do not think Jimmy is bad. My read on him, the vibe, is that he is good. Nothing that has been said about him makes me change my mind.

As for LC and llama, I have no read on LC though i will read his posts in isolation after I finish this post, and llama I'm leaning good on but want to read his posts too. These two have not been in the front of my mind. I'll come back when I have read them.

Is there anyone or anything else you particularly want my read on?

Here is my ISO of Lorab. Note that I fully admit i don't have a good read on Lorab's meta except she uses the twirly whether good or bad.

This is the first post that indicates Lorab looks bad:

Spoiler: show

And here is the first post Mac was talking about:

Spoiler: show

I don't see Mac's point on this particular issue. Her first post seemed normal to me.

Another assertion by Mac that Lorab is bad but I don't see her vote for Ezekiel as reason to call her bad:

Spoiler: show

In this post Jimmy records that Lorab's posts seem too well thought out and he tends to see that as a baddie trait. This is Lorab's response:

Spoiler: show

Here is an instance where Mac doesn't call her bad but infers that something is baddie regarding her question:

Spoiler: show

There are several points in this next long post:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?
Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.
I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.
I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.
As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ricochet wrote:Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.
It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.

MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?
Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.

The underlined portion of this quote shows Lorab being snippy about how she writes things. I though Mac and Rico had a good point but does this make her bad? It might show us a little about her mood, but not necessarily that she is bad.

Also in this post is Epi's accusation that Lorab is too comfortable. Lorab says she doesn't know what he means and I have to say I am not sure either. This may get explained further down the road. Also, Epi calls for someone to put pressure on Lorab so we can see if she cracks which he says would be indicative of baddie Lorab. I don't question his logic here I'm just not sure that she cracks when Epi puts pressure on in the future. (we'll get to that I hope)

I am going ahead and posting this part of the iso so I don't end up posting a gigantic document. I'm working on the rest of the iso now.

Black Rock ISO con't. part 1

Here are BR's Lorab posts:

Spoiler: show

When I was doing this last night it wasn't as apparent to me how few posts there were about Lorab before BR voted her. I now understand why Ham Boy in his post said it appeared she was basing her decision on Epi's case. If that is true, which it appears to be, I don't understand why she just didn't say so which is what I did. There is one compelling point though and thats that BR says "her posts reek of her mafia self". BR has played with Lorab since time began and I tend to trust her read here. When I iso Lorab I'll see if there is anything comparable in what Lorab says.

More Lorab:

Spoiler: show

Black Rock wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.
She is building the case herself. As far as I'm concerned she is making excuses and avoiding answering anyone's questions or concerns. That sounds like baddie LoRab to me.

Although I enjoyed your twirlaholic funs, LoRab. I'm not impressed that you didn't address anything last night. It's been a long time since I have had such strong baddie vibes from you.

[quote="Black Rock]Now I see you have posted. I have run out of time to give your posts my full attention. When I get home I will read them all.[/quote]

Black Rock wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I read your response LoRab (not quoting because it is so huge) you always have a way of making things seem so rational and I usually can be swayed to see things how you see them. I'm going to stick with my gut for today though and vote for you.

I've not had enough time (and won't before poll closes) to catch up over the past few pages but I'll be able to over the weekend and hopefully have some stronger suspicions then.

votes LoRab

That's how I feel. Her responses are so clear and convincing. I have myself questioning my gut. I have been fooled by this LoRab before. I am leaving my vote where it is for right now while I finish my catch up.

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I still don't get why you're voting LoRab over me, if I have wasted your precious day of baddie hunting. Has she?
I should explain why I am voting LoRab over you. I think she is bad. I do not think you are. Zebra might be right about you but I still think you are more likely neutral and having fun with it. I find you a distraction but I still like you and if you are good you should be in the game.

Black Rock wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:AAAAAHHHHH WHOOOOO DEEEEEEEEEY
Now I feel bad for voting you.

Actually no I don't.
I just voted for LoRab... because she is bad. I see you have switched your vote to yourself. I hope in my future reads I see a damn good reason.

Black Rock wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I'm still on Lorab. I said she cracked under pressure. I applied pressure. She disappeared. When she came back, she was sweet as sugar. I think her twirly behind got the jitters when I called her out so early.
*thumbs up*

Black Rock wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:If you have a problem with people showing up at the last minute, voting, and then fucking off somewhere else, you have a problem with the people showing up at the last minute, voting, and then fucking off somewhere else.
Yes, I do.

Considering LoRab was hardly even around for day 2, and that most of the case against her seems based on day 0 tone stuff, I think there are more interesting avenues to explore.
Do you have a stake in LoRabs survival? Are you absolutely sure she won't flip bad? I'm not, in fact I think she will flip mafia. I am interested in other avenues though, like JJJ and Tranq. What avenues do you want us to explore?

linki: We did! *high five*

As i said before I don't see anyplace where BR addressed Hamburger's points about her. She didn't add anything to the Lorab case but remained steadfast in her opinion that Lorab is bad. This does not make her bad, in fact to my way of thinking she remains consistent. She does have some other people she is looking into so I don't think she's tunneling. The only thing I question is does she have enough to base a "Lorab is bad" case. Her assertion that Lorab "reeks of her mafia self" is the strongest point BR makes about Lorab but is this good or bad? It makes me want to look at Lorab more closely. BR, it might be beneficial for you to address Hamburgers points about you to close that loop and let us know what your reaction is.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Black Rock wrote:Do you have a stake in LoRabs survival? Are you absolutely sure she won't flip bad? I'm not, in fact I think she will flip mafia. I am interested in other avenues though, like JJJ and Tranq. What avenues do you want us to explore?

linki: We did! *high five*
Definitely not certain, but I just don't find the case on her compelling. I think Epignosis has been the most thorough and to me looks the most genuine in his case on her, but it's still for tone/wording (sorry Epi in this case they're interchangeable to me ) reasons. Saying "seem" to neutralize an accusation somewhat, and an accusation against someone that flipped town, doesn't ping me super heavy. In the sense that it could show a scum distancing from an inevitable town flip, maybe, but then you could much more easily accuse me of worse, being that I actually defended Rico's early posts and said they looked useful to me. If people stay on LoRab for this, we may as well just do a tally of every player and the number of times they tried to soften an accusation.

Maybe you could update your case on her? I don't think you responded to my points about your case here, only the parts about Jimmy's suggestion of a connection between you and Zebra. Just from general experience, it never seems to be good when the popular early-game candidates just keep getting mentioned over and over, and landslide lynches are almost impossible to get meaningful information from unless it's against scum.

HB are you talking to me? I did respond to the points you made in my BR iso.

oh no I was linkied with the night results. RIP Fuzz, timmer, and bcornett. Three civs down, too many for one night. I look forward to playing with you three again.

voted nuclear fallout from war

OK, I finally got re-started though I'm disheartened on the BR iso. I'm doing the backhalf first because I just can't do that first half over again right now.

Here are the things BR said about Ricochet early in the game. Note these posts were interspersed with the posts about Lorab:

Spoiler: show

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
timmer wrote:Oh, and I picked Xander Crews. I hope if that role is in the game that whoever has it finds more luck than I did with it. I never found a single xticle or whatever the hell they were.
The only Xander voter so far. Either there's a reward for the top choice(s) and Timmer's trying to stay away from it, perhaps distance himself from teammates, or there's something to gain from every option and he's trying to get his share. Confirmed baddie.
Cute.

I was just thinking how I wasn't going to vote for you day one because of the banner you're sporting, I may have changed my mind.

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Ricochet
DharmaHelper
MacDougall
thellama73

DharmaHelper

a2thezebra
bcornett24
Bass_the_Clever
Black Rock
Boomslang
dfaraday
DharmaHelper
Dom
Dr. Wilgy
Draconus
Elohcin
Epignosis
Golden
Hamburger Boy
JaggedJimmyJay
Juliets
Long Con
LoRab
Matt
Metalmarsh
nijuukyugou
RadicalFuzz
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
Timmer
Tranq
How can you have one of these already? Can you explain your reasonings for rainbow list placements?
The nose knows.
By your list the game must be off balance.

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:A current update of my rainbow list, hopefully less bloated and arbitrary this time.

Ricochet

DharmaHelper

MacDougall

thellama73

DharmaHelper

JaggedJimmyJay

Epignosis

a2thezebra

Hamburger Boy

Bass_the_Clever

Boomslang

bcornett24

Spacedaisy

Draconus

dfaraday

LoRab

Sorsha

nijuukyugou

Metalmarsh

Juliets

RadicalFuzz

Dom

sig

Matt

Tranq

Dr. Wilgy

Golden

Timmer

Elohcin

Black Rock

Long Con

DharmaHelper
Cute

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.

By me, the great Papryco.

Oh my, what is a girl to do.

That can be read in monotone.

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Golden wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.
Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.
You can't understand where everyone is coming from? Maybe my opinion is shaded by knowing what alignment my role is, but it seems like you're just randomly accusing people and sometimes making statements that seem jokey and based on nothing. I don't see where you are catching baddies to the best of your ability, I see most (not all) of your posts more of a distraction. If you aren't a baddie you just made yourself an easy vote target that baddies can hide behind. In that case you just wasted a whole day of baddie hunting.

[quote="Back Rock]Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.

Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.

I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.

My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.

He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it? [/quote]

Black Rock wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I'm voting for you because you're using your post count to control the direction of the thread, and you're using your attitude as an excuse for any suspicious things you might happen to say. Your wrap-up post above seems like a genuine effort, but in the greater context of your ISO it can't be trusted as genuine. And your gimmick seems to have even fooled some of the players. Black Rock for instance made the point that as a baddie you wouldn't have a decent reason to call so much attention to yourself. I know the reason. To get as many people as possible to think just that, that you wouldn't be so "reckless" as a baddie to perform the way you have. I'm not perfect but I like to think I'm pretty decent at being able to tell the difference between civ WIFOM and mafia WIFOM, and you reek of the latter.

I was trying to stay out of the WIFOM of it all, your point is valid and maybe I shouldn't just chalk it up to crap non-baddie behaviour. He does make me want to vote him for his crap posts.

I'll stop here for a minute just to say it appears BR didn't take Ricochet seriously from the beginning. She didn't change her opinion of him and didn't vote him (she voted Lorab of course). Her reactions to him appear normal to me. This section does not include all her responses to Rico but is a good sampling.

Here BR expresses what I would call a ping against Sorsha. I don't know what to think of this - I include it in case anyone else sees it as important:

Spoiler: show

I believe BR was the first to sniff that something was up with zebra's talk of cursers:

Spoiler: show

It is true that I can't find a time when BR went back and addressed Lorab's answers. I haven't compared BR's case to Epi and Sorsha - maybe BR could tell us whether she was bouncing off of their cases. True BR's comments about people have been mostly limited to Lorab and Rico though she did at least make comments about others (Tranq, zebra, JJJ though I'm not sure she asked questions of them prior to HB's list). To me the most compelling of these items is she didn't address Lorab's responses so that gives me another ping.

Spoiler: show

In this quote BR indicates that she agrees with Long Con about zebra cursing a member of her own team JJJ.

Spoiler: show

Black Rock wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:I think you are on zebra's team.
I think you're a crackpot.

Long Con wrote:I think, especially in a Champions Game, a baddie curser role on the first night would not target someone who they want to silence.
Why does it matter at all that this is a champions game? That's irrelevant.

Long Con wrote:I believe that zebra targeted her teammate JJJ with the curse, because they saw an opportunity to frame Llama.
That makes no sense. First of all, if that's the strategy then the person being emoji'd has no viable method to pursue that framejob. I couldn't bloody talk! Second, Zebra made no effort herself to pursue that end, and she even pooh-poohed the notion that llama was responsible. Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words. People did end up voting for llama, but many of them didn't actually give a reason why. They just did it.

Long Con wrote:JJJ was very sure that Llama was the one that cursed him.
I absolutely was not "very sure" llama was the one that cursed me. You've made that up. I literally said something else when Zebra herself asked me post-curse:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.
Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?
I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.

Long Con wrote:I believe they would try to pull a frame-up job.

Long Con wrote:Has he even considered that it might be an attempt to frame Llama?
Sure I have. It's not a theory I've viewed as the best theory because llama was so difficult to engage with at all -- multiple long phases of complete ignorance of everything I posted (text or emoji). It's a possibility. So is the idea that llama is on Zebra's team and she used her ability against someone threatening him. That's not at all farfetched.

It's also possible that Zebra cursed me because she could tell I didn't feel like dealing with Mafia and it'd be a fun break from the norm. If that's the case, thanks Zebra. It was fun.
I thought LC's opinion was interesting. This response just made me think he was right.

I don't agree with this opinion of LC's which gives me a slight ping about BR but I also know two civs can disagree with each other on someones guilt.

This is the next quote on the subject. I believe she is talking to JJJ:

Spoiler: show

And then:

Spoiler: show

I personally have not seen BR defending her husband that I can remember. I tend to think she is genuine in believing his point about JJJ.

BR's thoughts on Tranq: "Tranqs behaviour is starting to give me uncomfortable tingles. When Tranq plays a game he invests himself. If he's not investing in the thread it makes me think he's invested in BTSC." From playing with Tranq i know this is true and I too am having some doubts about him.

BR Question to Hamburger Boy: "Do you have a stake in LoRabs survival? Are you absolutely sure she won't flip bad? I'm not, in fact I think she will flip mafia. I am interested in other avenues though, like JJJ and Tranq. What avenues do you want us to explore?" Just shows how she is thinking recently.

Thats the back half of BR's Iso. Though I had two pings one was small and I don't feel like there is enough there for me to vote for her. I could not include every quote but i don't think I left out anything significant. Her latest suspicions I agree with one (Tranq) but disagree with the other (JJJ). I decided back before the first vote that Lorab sounded sincere to me when she answered the questions asked of her so I don't agree with BR there either. After a short rest I will do the front half of this iso that includes all the Lorab stuff.

After hours working on it (the issue is getting to those quotes, posting them and getting back to where I was), I just tried to post the first half of my iso on BR. Unfortunately, when I tried to post I got that nasty round circle over and over again until it finally quit and said my document had expired. I tried everything I knew how to do to get it back but no luck. I will tell you that the majority of the iso was about BR's suspicion of Lorab, how she worded it, how she decided not to vote Rico and ultimately voted Lorab. Though I didn't agree with her on the Lorab vote (I believed Lorab was the right vote but then changed to Rico) I didn't find anything in her reasoning that seemed false or disingenuous.

I will start over on this tomorrow. I may do the back half of BR first since i didn't find anything suspicious in the first half, and when I finish with her I will got on to Lorab.

MacDougall wrote:
juliets wrote:Ok, I read everything posted while I was writing my post and there is nothing to change my mind, and in fact more to confirm my suspicion. So I'm going ahead and voting sig.
You gonna ISO Black Rock and Lorab?

Yes, I didn't realize you had answered me. I will start tonight but just a warning, my school is playing tonight in the national championship and I have to take time out and watch it. Roll Tide.

Ok, I read everything posted while I was writing my post and there is nothing to change my mind, and in fact more to confirm my suspicion. So I'm going ahead and voting sig.

FZ. wrote:
Golden wrote:
FZ. wrote:No idea who to vote for. Can I get a pass on my first day? I want to sleep.
For me, the most damning part of the case on LoRab is that people who are relatively good at reading her well have called her out and haven't let up. Sorry, I'm not the best to describe it, I know you've been looking for something in that direction.
Thanks. Since no one answered, I read a few of her recent posts. Didn't see anything that screamed bad. Mostly saying how she isn't bad and that she would want a case presented so she could defend herself. I didn't have time to go further back. The thing that might have made me vote there is that at the moment, BR seems legit, and so does Epi, though there's not much to go on today. Yet I don't want to be responsible for a lynch I don't really see what the case is about. So as cowardly as this may sound, I'll vote somewhere else. I'm going with Juliets because her recent post just didn't feel genuine to me.

It was though. Mac only knows the bad me and it's hard to just keep saying "but I am genuine" so I'm willing to do anything legit to help him see the error of his ways. That's all that last paragraph was about.

JJJ I suspected MM earlier in the game and though he explained himself in a way that i thought was good I still have a niggle in the back of my mind. I don't know that I would vote for him today though but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about him at some point.

I don't want to be verbose so I'll just say I will probably vote for sig at this point because he seems different from his civ game, the seemer argument felt off, and it doesn't make logical sense to clear JJJ based on zebras flip as bad. There are a few other things but I'm trying to keep this short.

linki: I see there has been a lot of conversation about sig since I've been writing this. I'm going to post then read it all thoroughly.

Mac I broke up your long posts into the chunks that are relevant for me to comment on.

juliets wrote:JJJ how ironic that while you were reading mine and Zebra's interactions I was reading your posts to get a better handle on your suspicion of llama. I saw your case from Day 0 and then of course I saw all your references to him being bad during your curse where you couldn't articulate reasons, but the reasons I see for you to think he is bad don't seem as strong as your assertations that he is bad. Does that make sense? Consequently, I think I've missed some of your reasoning somehow and it would be helpful to me and maybe others if you just did a quick bullet point post on why you are convinced he is bad. Thanks in advance.

Oh and I don't see anything you want me to comment on regarding your comments about mine and zebra's relationship but I will say I think you read me better than Mac and what you think might be bias is just an understanding of a particular style. If you would like me to answer any questions I am glad to do so.

MacDougal wrote:How can you say that he reads you better than me when:

1. You say you play the same way as scum and as civ. So you would be unreadable.

2. I have had the opportunity to read you in one game, and correctly read you as bad?

Would a more accurate comment be that he reads you as a civilian by default whereas I seem to read you bad by default? Ergo his reading of you is generally happier days for you?

I recognise buddying in this post.

juliets wrote:I apologize that I cannot quote the post I am answering. It would not let me embed another post within the long string of posts. This is directed at Mac re: his last post about me:

Your evidence is I don't sound sincere or genuine - that I am verbose. Zebra made accusations against me but other than that I don't know what evidence you are talking about. Is it all about my sincerity? I still maintain you just don't understand how I communicate and thats why you question my sincerity and think I'm verbose. It happens, (the sincerity part, never has anyone called me verbose it's usually just the opposite) especially with people who haven't played with me much. But, we are just going to go around and around about that and I do not have any belief that I will change your mind. You could though point me toward this other "evidence" of my baddieness.

MacDougal wrote:My suspicions of you are based on reading a non genuine tone, and yes it is probably because of your robotic way of replying and yes I expect you post the same way as a civilian so I am quite possible tone reading you wrong, and the way Zebra behaved in your interactions not you. So that sucks for you.

You could change my mind. You aren't suspicious enough to me to be of immediate concern. Right now I am far more convinced that sig is bad. Help me find the big bads.

Sig is primary candidate for Zebra teammate! Let's lynch him.

Now for me to go listen to Bowie and cry.

In your first comment you indicate it's possible that JJJ reads me good by default whereas you read me bad by default and might that not be the reason I think he reads me better. I think he reads me better than you in that he recognizes my style alone does not make me bad. That's not the same thing as reading me good by default. You on the other hand seem to be willing to convict me on style alone. I do recognize however that you just saw me as bad using the same style and think you caught me out as bad because on my style. JJJ's read - that i am not necessarily bad which is the truth - naturally feels better to me, I don't deny that at all. And I don't know what about that post makes you think I'm buddying.

I will be happy to help you catch the big bads. At this point in time we agree on something which may be a first: sig is bad and unless something else happens that is compelling I will vote for him today. My personal opinion is the best way to catch the baddies is to go through their posts and do an ISO (or maybe it's that other thing you guys talk about the GT something). I had thought I was going to do one on DH because his name is coming up a lot and I'm not seeing the case. But, he's not on the poll today. I tell you what, to show my good faith in trying to help if you tell me who you would like to see done I will do them, and I don't mean just one person. I'm not as good at this as Jimmy so expect me to be a bit slower.

Epignosis	a2thezebra	Hamburger Boy	Bass_the_Clever
Boomslang	bcornett24	Spacedaisy	Draconus
dfaraday	LoRab	Sorsha	nijuukyugou
Metalmarsh	Juliets	RadicalFuzz	Dom
sig	Matt	Tranq	Dr. Wilgy
Golden	Timmer	Elohcin

Search found 240 matches