The Syndicate

12 hour work day. Just finished catching up. Although my brain is somewhat mush, so I'm not sure how much I actually comprehended.

I continue to suspect Rico, but have had neither physical or mental energy, or time, to go through back posts and explain my thoughts again.

And I also continue to suspect TH, even if I haven't mentioned it as much. But, yes, JJJ, I agree with you on him.

Responding to the vote on me:

Boomslang wrote:Looked over the Lorab-Rico thing myself, just because it seems to have been a dominant aspect of the past day. It's important to note that Lorab started it, rather abruptly and with little previous reference to Rico; I feel like she was looking to pick a fight after her previous work against TH didn't go much of anywhere. Rico's defense against the initial attack seems rather annoyed, but not dismissive, and he makes good counterarguments. What strikes me is how quickly the conversation devolves into mutual attacks on playstyle. To me, this suggests Lorab recognizes a good defense but doesn't want to let up, and that Rico doesn't really suspect Lorab but wants to stick up for himself.

On the whole, I think Lorab comes out worse from this argument, and I get generally good vibes from Rico.

I didn't refer to him before that because I didn't really suspect him until then. And yes, I started it--I suspected him so I pointed it out. He came back at me and said that all of my points were ridiculous and impossible, and it went from there. And I read it as dismissive--annoyed, also, yes. But annoyed that someone would even make the points I was making. I also recognize now that he truly did not understand the point I was trying to make. I still need to figure out how to explain it diffrently.

And yes, he gave a good defense--baddies frequently do that, oftentimes even more than civies. A defense, to me, often tells me how well someone defends themselves, regardless of what side they are on. The tone of defense and the style of it, to me, say far more.

Not at all sure how any of that makes me suspicious, but that is my side of the actions.

Boomslang wrote:Out of class/work, need to cook/go to band practice. I'm not jumping on the Bubbles bandwagon because I haven't studied the case, so I'm putting in a protest vote for Lorab based on my previous analysis of the Rico/Lorab shooting match.

Eye me all you want. Twirl, twirl. Etc.

Turnip Head wrote:With all due respect doctor, considering all we've lynched so far are neutrals, that list looks absolutely useless :P What do you make of it?

#ahospitalwhatisit

nutella wrote:I'm not really following the Rico/Lorab ping-pong match. They've had this same back-and-forth going just between the two of them for a couple days now but it appears that everyone else is pretty much ignoring it I'm going to stay out of it until further notice/unless something sways me to one side or the other.

I'm pretty comfortable with a Bubbles vote today. I was hesitant at first because of her meta/history of being lynched as a civ, but the lynch switch would fit with being on a baddie team (both Ubzargan's and Azura's Position 2 abilities could have caused the result) -- there are other possible explanations for sure, but combining that reason with her unsatisfactory posts, I'm inclined to think she's likely bad. Placing my vote on Bubbles.

I'd also be down to lynch DP or Devin. And I'm still suspicious of DH, but he said he had a big case brewing and I am VERY much looking forward to seeing that.

I love that you call it ping-pong, lol. Because suspiciometer, pings, mafia, yeah. I amuse me, so hey.

I had a really long day at work and a few things come up that prevented me from getting other things done that literally must be done by tomorrow. So, I need to do some work tonight. And I'm exhausted. So I will not be able to do a pong post, so to speak, this evening.

I will say that yes, I'm frustrated that Rico doesn't seem to be willing to think beyond his own thoughts to understand what I'm trying to say and is not seeing an accurate picture of it at all. And I need to figure out how to be more clear. So I think a step back from the whole thing is probably a good thing.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote: I actually misread your earlier post. this is what happens when I mafia before coffee. I apologize.

However, my suspicion stands. And yes, my reasons for suspecting you have evolved. I often find people more or less suspicious based on their response to being called suspish.
Fine.

LoRab wrote:And I have answered all of your questions. Your factual rebuttals either don't explain away your suspicion and/or I think you're lying, especially about your intentions.
No you didn't answer all of my question. You did not answer my point-by-point rebuttal on your initial suspicions, you skipped them twice in fact. You did answer now for the first time, but you didn't before. It's all on record.

Can you explain how my rebuttals don't explain away the suspicions? I'm especially curious how me proving I did not offer inaccurate info about something doesn't explain away the suspicion that I have offered inaccurate info.

Lying is a convenient new suspicion to throw at me, it has nothing to do with any suspicions you've had before. You sound desperate.

LoRab wrote:And I'll be blunt. I think you tried to kill me last night, I think you tried to kill MP, I think you killed Typh night 1, and I think your role is dangerous to everyone, and I don't think that you're playing on behalf of the civ cause.

*votes rico*
Nope.

Can you explain these claims in any logical way?

But don't worry, I was 100% you'll park your vote on me instead of attempting to do anything more serious than that in this game, on this Day. It's so convenient, after all.

The idea that you were lying was kind of implied throughout. I don't think your rebuttals were honest. When I said you were intentionally misleading, that is a synonym of lying. Not sure how that is a new aspect of my suspicion at all. I'll attempt to be clear--you posted mistaken/misleading information. I think you did it intentionally. You said you did not, and that it was just a mistake. And that I was implying information that you didn't say--my whole point is that I think you posted in a way that was purposefully misleading.

will it make you feel better if I take each of your posts in the exchange and do a point by point response to them? I can do that tonight, if it will help. But it won't say anything that I haven't already said.

I would answer gut as to why I think you tried to kill me, but that wouldn't be logical. I wanted to put it out there for others to see, though--who might understand where I'm coming from in my suspicion of you. But was planning on going back through your posts to find evidence, so I will post that tonight.

And not serious? I am suspicious of you and I'm voting for you. Not sure how that is convenient or frivolous?

Ricochet wrote:Also, yes, that is the classic definition of a NO U that I am neither accustomed, nor comfortable with. It is a good weapon when your opponent just throws suspicions or baddie calling back at you, with no reasoning or as an emotional fit, but it turns into an, imho, appalling weapon when the opponent comes with argumented, justified redirected suspicions or baddie calling and the first player just writes it off as a NO U, simply because it technically is a NO U. That's just yuck, for a person like me who endorses debating.

I have always heard/used the term, or switcheroo (the term I actually prefer), not as a write off, but as an accusation (because it can be such a weapon). Whether it is accurate assessment of baddie behavior or not is another question.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
I was going to do a point by point response but I really think there is only one relevant thing you said. That you don't understand or like the way I play.
"I don't understand or like the way I play."

You say I said that.

You think I said that.

Congratulations, you've earned 200 eye rolls. I counted these ones properly, fear not.

Your error invalidates mostly everything else you said, so I have nothing to reply to that. Except maybe to the following, equally contrived logic.

LoRab wrote:I find you suspicious. That you don't understand my suspicions, I can't do anything to do about it."
I understood your suspicions, except when I didn't and promptly asked you to clarify them. That it has proven so hard to get clarifications out of you, and instead being called dismissive and insulting, is all on the way you chose to handle this.

You have not one, but two previous replies from me already in which I offer factual rebuttal to all your suspicions. Based on my standards, the rebuttal points that your suspicions are either erroneous (because of they're based on stuff I did not actually say or stuff I was not innacurate) or subjective (because they're based on your style of interpreting and seeing things for more that they are).

You keep evading such argumentation altogether. You were saying something about dismissiveness and insult?

I actually misread your earlier post. this is what happens when I mafia before coffee. I apologize.

However, my suspicion stands. And yes, my reasons for suspecting you have evolved. I often find people more or less suspicious based on their response to being called suspish.

And I have answered all of your questions. Your factual rebuttals either don't explain away your suspicion and/or I think you're lying, especially about your intentions.

And I'll be blunt. I think you tried to kill me last night, I think you tried to kill MP, I think you killed Typh night 1, and I think your role is dangerous to everyone, and I don't think that you're playing on behalf of the civ cause.

*votes rico*

*shakes fist at brutal exwcutioner*

@rico:

I was going to do a point by point response but I really think there is only one relevant thing you said. That you don't understand or like the way I play.

And it is clear that you don't understand because I've responded and explained to everything but you don't understand my responses. Not sure how to reword them differently.

And I can handle sarcasm just fine.

And yeah. That's not what a no-u means in any mafia game I've played. The definition is when someone accuses another player of being bad and they then come back and say no you're bad. Which is not what I did. What you describe as mimicking your style, yes, that's exactly what I did. And gave about as much commentary/response as you had given.

I find you suspicious. That you don't understand my suspicions, I can't do anything about. I've tried to explain them and clarify. But you haven't understood my responses either.

As for not liking how I play, well, I can't really do anything about that. I've developed a way to play over the past 8 years and I'm not about to change it because you don't like it.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote: I am not switcherooing you. I am reading your posts, thinking about them in context, and offering my thoughts on them, as one does in mafia.
Generalizing. I only mean your previous post, in reply to my post previous to it (which you quoted, albeit snipping it). Your no u is literally in there

LoRab wrote:So, to interpret your response in your own style
You're doing only that and addressing nothing else, really, about my previous post (except maybe that I may seek to delegitimize, which you imply in your paraphrases).

LoRab wrote: And, really, my posts are not about my play, but about your posts.
Great Scot, generalizing again. Also I don't know what this means. I didn't say your posts are about your play. I said your defenses are often (or often include) deflections about how your play is viewed.

LoRab wrote:
If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.
I have made one statement about how I found that something you said doesn't make sense. If you don't clarify what you meant by it and I have to ask again for you to clarify it, then yes, I also have to remind the fact that it did not make sense to me. Saying "My posts" is plural, generalizing and untrue of what I did. Keeping being evasive, though.

LoRab wrote:And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.
See my earlier reply to SVS, pretty much same answer as there. You can't take "I may not reply further if I don't see the point in replying on this matter" and make it "I'm not talking to you any more". And you're further misconstruing by implying my motivation was "unworthiness in thought process" when it was "futility in debating this way". So you keep twisting things in the same sentence you deny twisting things.

----

LoRaB wrote: And I will attempt to explain, yet again, what I was saying. Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.
By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down For 1), you are correct, I was inaccurate by one regarding a baddie team's componence. You found it to mean something significant, I dismissed it as me being bad at math (and, I'll add, properly scanning the Host posts). Was I full of sarc in that dismissal? Yeah, probably, because that's how I reacted on the spot to my being bad at counting being regarded as significant evidence.

Not to mention that I mentioned later about how I actually blew it just as much by counting the civ teams as 4, before the Hosts confirmed the new recruitings. If my mistake about Azura's team would mean I want to make things seem "more dire than in reality", my mistakes about the civ teams should technically mean I want to make things seem "more optimistic than in reality", no? Entirely silly thought process, of course, but since you're keen on this angle, then my mistakes should neutralize themselves and point out to what I've been saying the whole time: that I'm simply bloody bad at counting and can sometime get stats inaccurate, with no bearing to any intent of mislead.

As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.

Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.

So where's the "non-accurate information" here?

LoRab wrote:The first time, it made the situation seem more dire than reality.
Providing stats can be infered as making a statement to influence people's perception of the situation only if you choose to infer it that way. It does not mean that I did anything except providing stats for the current count of the teams. The post would have served a statistical purpose even if my figures would have been accurate.

LoRab wrote:The second time, you seemed to imply that all of the day/night end shenanigans were the result of one player--perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the way it read to me--and I believe that you purposefully posted in that way, so as to make things seem the way you want them to seem, and not the way reality is.
Well I made no such implication, indeed, so you are growing the nefarious purpose that I'd be intentionally doing such an implication (to distort reality) from reading it the wrong way. It's not coming from me.

Re:

No U: Please, quote the post where you are saying I did that. Or maybe we understand the term differently? Because I'm not seeing where I did that.

Not addressing your previous post: What have I not addressed?

My play: Not generalizing. But my own defenses, when they literally describe how I always play, are basically just describing how I always play. As I am still relatively new to this site (or at least to many of its players), it is generally relevant to the accusations against me. It is not, to me, the same as saying that someone's points have no validity and are out of no where. It is reframing motivation for actions. To me, there is a difference. YMMV

One statement about my posts: ?

Ricochet wrote:if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

Ricochet wrote: Ah, the good old feeling of talking to the moon when trying to discuss anything with you is returning.

...***post truncated for length to relevant lines***...

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

Oh, also, "entirely silly thought process" in this post is also in this category.

That is definitely more than 1. Also, the general tone of your responses is dismissive of me in general.

And yes, everything you post in mafia is significant evidence. That's kind of the point of the game. That I read things and hypothesize is how I theorize--sometimes my theories are spot on, sometimes they are not.

In this particular case, I threw the comment out there. That your response has been dismissive, insulting, and overblown, I think says a lot about where you stand in this game. And it's not on the side of the civies.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote: If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.
So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.
If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

I am not switcherooing you. I am reading your posts, thinking about them in context, and offering my thoughts on them, as one does in mafia.

And, really, my posts are not about my play, but about your posts.

If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

And I will attempt to explain, yet again, what I was saying. Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact. The first time, it made the situation seem more dire than reality. The second time, you seemed to imply that all of the day/night end shenanigans were the result of one player--perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the way it read to me--and I believe that you purposefully posted in that way, so as to make things seem the way you want them to seem, and not the way reality is.

Just because you do not understand what I am saying does not mean that it is not thought out and accurate.

I do believe that anyone that does not fear consequences has not had a whole lot of experience with Rock Con as hosts...

Scotty wrote:I voted position 1 again. I don't know what consequences mean, but I feel better taking my chances over
-Poison (slow and painful death)
-Curse (I watch those ghost documentaries on History Channel and I'd rather not be cursed thank you)
-? (Question mark)
-Chaos Curse (stop it with these curses man)
-Seemer (because fuck that. Also side note: Did you know Johnny Depp was named Mah-Woo-Meh by a Native American chief after his work on Lone Ranger, which literally translates to "Shape Shifter"
-Restart night (I don't like this or the position 5 for Supreme Judge. I feel like it would make this game drag evvveeennn longer than it needs to.

Except that position 1 also has a seemer. Or is the other seemer role just not on your team?

Ricochet wrote: If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

RIP unfurl. Vote: 4 becaue I don't want consequences. Consequency hosts, knowing these hosts, scare me.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Time is growing important, since we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place - he's been vigilent before, but so far he's not quick to draw the curtains; can this mean he's not content or approving with the main wagons and/or doesn't want to shortcircuit the EoD? Could be.
There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not. And ending night early is a mixed bag (and different entirely). Either of those actions could have either good or bad strategy behind them. Without saying so explicitly, you seem to imply that the prior lockdown was also connected to his role. Which makes me wonder.

Also noting that you earlier posted about the number of baddies and added an extra person to one of the baddie teams in your count. Which could increase paranoia and is a tactic oft used by the evil (make things seem worse than they are).

Starting to wonder if your posting is intentional and subtle misdirection.
What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.
It read to me like you were creating an association with all prior lynches that included an aspect of closedness. And you were not painting a picture of caution in general, in fact you even said that he was quick to draw prior to this.

And the sarcasm in the "oooo, evil" response does not lesson suspicion. It actually makes it a smidge pingier on the suspiciometer. Blowing off suspicion is often a thing baddies do.

Not ready to lynch you, but definitely eyeballing you.
All lynches except D2 were facilitated by tallies being frozen or shut down. This is factual. If the Judge will lockdown this Day at any point until EoD, he will technically facilitate a lynch result by shutting down activity. Huge association there, what can I say.
All of the Judge's previous actions were quick. This is factual. You are correct I didn't call the Judge cautious in general, because I didn't. I called him cautious with using his current lockdown. It is only you who say I painted a picture of caution in general.

Your sentence about blowing off suspicion being a baddie trait is hypocritical, considering half the times you blow off suspicions on you with Eye-me-all-you-wants, twirls and claims that your game is misunderstood. Besides, if there's anything I'm blowing, it's ridiculous suspicions, not suspicions per se. Just to prove that, I also happened to count the civ teams having an extra member, before the Hosts actually confirmed that recruiting as finalized. Is that supposed to mean, by contrast, that I'm giving civs hope? Is that supposed to mean anything, just like me accidentally writing one extra baddie in a camp is supposed to mean anything? Of course not. Me not getting my mechanics talk or facts/stats check always accurate is no real surprise. Smidge pinge away.

[

quote="Ricochet"]

LoRab wrote:There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not.

Also, what sources do you have on this?

The D3 lockdown closed the thread, hence ending discussion along with voting until EoD (due to the timing of the lockdown). So it must mean that you say that ending a Day early doesn't end discussion.

Yet the previous end of a phase, as a mechanic, was a night end (Night 3), which ended as soon as the Judge's action was validated. It ended discussion, voting for positions and sending actions. A skip to the next phase (D4) followed.

That would mean the same mechanics apply for ending a Day early. The reason why D1 did not end early properly was because the Hosts couldn't validate the Judge's action in real time. That doesn't mean his action wasn't validated - all votes and actions after he sent his action were invalidated. Hence that would mean the early end would have ended discussion, as well, producing a skip to the next phase (N2).

So no idea what you're crafting suspicions out of or grasping at.[/quote]

Like I said, subtle misdirection. So that you can come back and say it wasn't there and so that it might not be noticed.

What sources do I have? How it has worked in this game and how I have seen day stops work in other games? I'm not sure why here is a question there. Also, even with the night stop, the thread didn't stop--that is a huge difference. When people cannot post for an extended period, their thinking changes by the time they can post. Locking the thread is different regardless. Not sure why your are trying to argue that. Even when day immediately followed night, discussion was not interrupted.

And, no, it's not hypocritical. Defending an action and explaining why it does not make me bad is NOT the same as blowing off an accusation and saying that the accusation is not even worth responding to.

MovingPictures07 wrote:LoRab, what do you think of Boomslang, Sorsha, and TinyBubbles?

Boomslang I have no idea--I don't know them and don't have a sense of their play.

Sorsha reads neutral to me.

TinyBubbles, I feel like the case against her is too similar to what got her similarly lynched in Angry Birds where she was civ. So don't really know, but hesitant to think bad.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Time is growing important, since we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place - he's been vigilent before, but so far he's not quick to draw the curtains; can this mean he's not content or approving with the main wagons and/or doesn't want to shortcircuit the EoD? Could be.
There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not. And ending night early is a mixed bag (and different entirely). Either of those actions could have either good or bad strategy behind them. Without saying so explicitly, you seem to imply that the prior lockdown was also connected to his role. Which makes me wonder.

Also noting that you earlier posted about the number of baddies and added an extra person to one of the baddie teams in your count. Which could increase paranoia and is a tactic oft used by the evil (make things seem worse than they are).

Starting to wonder if your posting is intentional and subtle misdirection.
What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

It read to me like you were creating an association with all prior lynches that included an aspect of closedness. And you were not painting a picture of caution in general, in fact you even said that he was quick to draw prior to this.

And the sarcasm in the "oooo, evil" response does not lesson suspicion. It actually makes it a smidge pingier on the suspiciometer. Blowing off suspicion is often a thing baddies do.

Not ready to lynch you, but definitely eyeballing you.

Ricochet wrote:Time is growing important, since we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place - he's been vigilent before, but so far he's not quick to draw the curtains; can this mean he's not content or approving with the main wagons and/or doesn't want to shortcircuit the EoD? Could be.

There's a huge difference, imho, between ending day early and locking down the thread. One ends discussion--the other does not. And ending night early is a mixed bag (and different entirely). Either of those actions could have either good or bad strategy behind them. Without saying so explicitly, you seem to imply that the prior lockdown was also connected to his role. Which makes me wonder.

Also noting that you earlier posted about the number of baddies and added an extra person to one of the baddie teams in your count. Which could increase paranoia and is a tactic oft used by the evil (make things seem worse than they are).

Starting to wonder if your posting is intentional and subtle misdirection.

Vote: TH

Partly as a statement that I still suspect him.

And mainly because I'm not feeling so suspicious of either of the main vote getters at the moment.

linkitis: I lost count of how many times I've tried to post. Which gave me a moment to remember that linkitis has a definition on Urban Dictionary. And to then realize that the vast majority of players here probably think it's related to links. And that the majority of players probably do not know it was named after a mafia player (although before he started playing, I think, and possibly before mafia became a thing on LP). And maybe a dozen people in this game remember him (although more folks than in recent games). And that he was a really good player and a cool guy. And a ninja. OK, done rambling and reminiscing now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:I do not WANT to lynch neutrals. I never WANTED to lynch neutrals. But I would rather lynch a neutral than a civ. And when I voted for Golden, I did not suspect anyone of being on a baddie team. I changed my vote to the person I suspected of being bad after that. I am starting to feel like a broken record--but I feel like my words being twisted. And since I think one of you is bad, then it feels like you're intentionally manipulating the way you frame my thoughts.
Possibly. I see llama as one of the most likely recruitees in the game right now, and the nonchalance of "oh yeah, and LoRab" troubles me. I'll look into him more.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:And one thing I would recommend to everyone is this: don't tell other people how to play the game. I don't think any of us are newbies and a lot of us have been playing in this extended community for a really long time. We don't need to be told how you think we should play.
You realize that you just violated your own rule to tell me that?

My intention is never to be condescending or tell people how they must play the game. I made a recommendation because I thought it was important, and I absolutely do not apologize for it. I'll do it again if I see fit. That's how I play the game.

I was thinking TH as the one I suspect--I have no read on llama.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm going to spend most of my Saturday outside. I'll be back to play Mafia later tonight.

LoRab, I changed my mind. I will apologize -- not for my style but for taking such offense. You suggested you were a bit cranky; so am I and I shouldn't show it in my play like I did. No hard feelings I hope?

We are good. And I apologize for responding with snark.

bea wrote:
nutella wrote:Btw, I totally forgot Tranq was playing. He hasn't posted since Night 2. Tranq where are you?

THIS!! THIS!! SO MUCH THIS!!! A quiet, game playing, contest winning Dutchie skerrs me to to core tbh.
I was waiting to the end to post my "OMG, I forgot that Tranq was playing. No one should ever forget Tranq is playing!!" post, but hot damn LA - it's like you're in my head during this catch up. I find myself agreeing with you more than I don't.

I also find myself agreeing with Rox too, which is just a bit weird since she thinks you are bad.

linki - I love loopy lorab! Best birfday prezzie yet!!! :twirl:

Likewise. And Tranq not being memorable is, well, confusing.

I aim to amuse. My brain is fuzzy from fever, but if I'm making you happy on your b-day, I am satisfied.

And an inspirational message for your prezzie:

bea wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'd appreciate it if a lot of you folks could share your take on my exchange with Boomslang during this phase. It's a serious infraction for me, but I don't want to tunnel him hard based on one thing (shades of S~V~S on Golden). You folks can help me decide whether I am making too much of a fuss about it.
TBH, JJJ - I kinda lost track of what was going on once it started to get into semantics.

Wait...are you saying that you're antisemantic? I thought we were friends!!! :P

Yeah, I'm totally loopy tonight. Sorry.

Really long day and I don't feel great. Oy. Responding to a few posts. And, perhaps because I don't feel well and am cranky, I'm feeling more and more frustrated at people being suspicious of me because they disagree with me or because I think about things and play differently than they do. It's particularly frustrating when it's players that have played with me enough to know that suspecting me like that doesn't make sense.

I encourage everyone in the thread to eye me.

And to read my posts, and read them in context of the posts around them. And come to your own conclusions. I am not bad. I have nothing to hide.

thellama73 wrote:Oh yeah, and Lorab for wanting to lynch neutrals.

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Golden. See you in another life brotha.

I'm registering a vote for LoRab for wanting to lynch neutrals.

I do not WANT to lynch neutrals. I never WANTED to lynch neutrals. But I would rather lynch a neutral than a civ. And when I voted for Golden, I did not suspect anyone of being on a baddie team. I changed my vote to the person I suspected of being bad after that. I am starting to feel like a broken record--but I feel like my words being twisted. And since I think one of you is bad, then it feels like you're intentionally manipulating the way you frame my thoughts.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My primary reason for voting Boomslang early this phase was to generate significant pressure that might get him in here fighting for himself. Hopefully he does that while there are still votes in play. LoRab is still a suspect, and I'm moved my vote to her for now.

One thing I would recommend to everyone is this: don't trust your own suspicions too much. Don't carry your suspects from Day 0/1 all the way through Day 4 merely because they exist on the roster still. Reassess. That doesn't mean you're wrong about them, it just means you should put the legwork in to build confidence. Engage those players frequently.

Again, still not bad.

And one thing I would recommend to everyone is this: don't tell other people how to play the game. I don't think any of us are newbies and a lot of us have been playing in this extended community for a really long time. We don't need to be told how you think we should play.

Boomslang wrote: Lorab just seems to be going back-and-forth with JJJ about the meaning of neutrality in this game, which I think we're all kind of wrestling with. I tend to disagree when Lorab says "no, lynching neutrals is neutral." Lynching neutrals is more favorable to baddies because it increases the ratio of baddies to everyone else, making them more influential in lynch polls. Conversely, I like how Lorab defends the use of Day 0 material when voting Turnip Head: the game is in fact cumulative. JJJ has said that we should be less trusting of our early suspicions, which makes me wonder what people will turn out to have skeletons in their closets as the game progresses.

But it isn't a ratio of baddies to everyone else. It's a ratio of baddies to civies, and a slew of players that could be supportive of any or no given cause. Unrecruited players win with civies or with baddies--we just need to stay alive to win. To assume that all of the unrecruited players are playing a civ-supportive game is naive and dangerous for anyone who is looking to support the civs.

And I forgot to add a Happy birthday to Bea last night. Everyone should wish her a delightful day, too!

bea wrote:
LoRab wrote:
bea wrote: all hail black rock!!!!!
Wait...BR is the Glow Cloud?! *mind esplodes*

Seriously, though. Happy birthday Black Rock!!!!
You sound surprised lorab, TBH I'm surprised you didn't see this coming...

Br is the glow cloud ALL HAIL!!!

ALL HAIL!!!!!! And, yeah, that explains so much.

And it's a Welcome to Night Vale thing. I know Bea has been listening to it and couldn't resist the reference (because it is awesome and everyone should listen to it).

bea wrote: all hail black rock!!!!!

Wait...BR is the Glow Cloud?! *mind esplodes*

Seriously, though. Happy birthday Black Rock!!!!

DrWilgy wrote:...guys and gals. I'm not sexist.

iThis is why y'all is a really, really useful word. I've long used it here and there, but living in Texas the past couple of years, I truly came to appreciate it in all it's beauty--also, it's like a germ that grabs on and doesn't go away and it creeps into your vocabulary. But really, it's a useful word. I recommend it.

And why Sorsha?

RIP Golden.

For what it's worth, in my experience with SVS, no matter her allegience, she doesn't make up suspicion--her cases are nearly always genuine.

@TH: forgot to quote you, but the post you quoted was more me remembering that you had been one of the posters earier in the game who were pushing against this being a good/bad game (and as someone who has played recruitment games before) when daisy had initially brought it up, than turning the tables.

thellama73 wrote: Also, I don't like Lorab's reasoning on going after Golden. If she is advocating lynching neutrals, then in my view she is also playing an anti-civ game, the very thing she accuses Golden of.

I would prefer to lynch baddies. But no one had, at least then, appeared to be bad to me.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
LoRab wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?
Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.
I will consider this. But I still don't think it's in the civ's best interests (assuming those are your best interests) to want to go after neutrals who are anti-civ, when the main goal should be baddies.

I agree that should be the main goal. But part of what compelled me to vote Golden earlier (and have since moved my vote) is that he is keeping things all about him. Like Dr W said, Golden vs the world. I believe his emotion to be authentic, but because of it, and because he seems insistent/convinced that he's going to be lynched next, it remains the focus of the thread and makes it more challenging to find baddies. Also, I'm not sure baiting the baddies into killing Epig was a good choice for the civilian cause. It's like when a lynch switcher switches a lynch to a player that no one else finds suspicious, because it's in that individual's self interest.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with my thought process. I'm just explaining what I was thinking.

And, yes, I would prefer to lynch a baddie. And right now, I think TH is showing baddie tendencies, so that's where my vote remains at the moment.

Roxy wrote: Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?

2 reasons, really. 1 is that I'm a sucker for personal need--it's my personality. And Golden's post about asking for another day spoke to me. I guess I remembered the very few times I've made such posts--and they were times when I really needed it. I can honestly only think of 2 such times, and they both involved deep mourning. It was a personal shift, not a strategic shift. I'm a softie at the end of the day.

2 is that that post he made felt emotionally honest in a way that a lot of his other posts didn't. It gave me pause and made me read him differently--even if just for the moment.

bea wrote:
By the bolded part do you mean that everyone who keeps bringing up Golden suspish is also civ or unrecruited? Could there be no baddie manipulation from the people who keep keeping his name in the conversation?

I don't mean that at all. My thoughts about Golden are about Golden--not about those that do or do not suspect him. Baddie manipulation could for sure be happening (and probably is--it usually is). My points about him have been about his posts.

Turnip Head wrote:
Roxy wrote:Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?
Exactly this. And LoRab can try to turn the tables on me all she wants, but she's the one who just said this about Golden (emphasis mine):

LoRab wrote:Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
And this about herself:
LoRab wrote:And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.
But what she says is not true. Lynching neutrals ONLY helps the baddies. If Golden is neutral like LoRab says she thinks he is, then he could still just as easily be recruited by the civs, and he would HAVE to play a pro-civ game. Voting for this reason is a fallacious argument. Lynching neutrals only gives the baddies more time. LoRab is saying she's playing a civ-friendly neutral game, but her vote for Golden doesn't reinforce that stance.

I think maybe LoRab eventually realized this, because after being called out on it by a few players (including myself), she quickly tried to move her vote elsewhere.

No--lynching neutrals is neutral. It does not only help the baddies. An unrecruited player is equally likely to become bad as good. A neutral can be helping the baddies or helping the civies. Unrecruited players just need to survive--they do not need to be playing a game that is supportive of civs. Yes, I realize that people can suspect me just as much as anyone, but I am doing my best to help the civs. I don't think that has been the case with Golden overall, although I am giving him BOTD for the moment.

And it's cute how you say I'm turning the tables when that's exactly what you're doing.

Turnip Head wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?
Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?
You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?

I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.

Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.

Only inasmuch as I'm looking for pings on my suspiciometer in general. Nothing against you in particular. You just happened to be my ping. And I'm pretty sure we all have thoughts that we don't post. I mean, I realize I don't always have an extant filter for my thought process, but even I keep some ideas close to the chest. However, that's not even the case with you.

Here, I post that I agree with Daisy's post about eyeballing people advocating that this is a non good vs bad game:

LoRab wrote:I agree with daisy's analysis of people trying to push the this isn't a civ c bad game. It clearly is. Most of us don't know what team we will be on yet, but we will be either bad or good.

I think golden is mistaken to assume he and epic will definitely not be on a team together. especially assuming they are both neutral at this point, the could both be recruited by one of the civ recruiters. And because many of the recruitments happen in ways that are not necessarily the choice of the recruiter or even a contest.

and la and Dom are all grown up. Which I guess I knew intellectually. But yes, is old feeling making. And it's so hard to believe how young they were back when they both started. La especially (she started sooner I think)

Linkitis: one does not need to be artsy for a contest like this. Ability to google search images is just as useful.

Linkitis 2: I'm not accusing you of anything but I do want to point out that random ozone and voting someone for a reason are not the same. They are kind of opposites.

And here I even name you:

LoRab wrote:I'm just going to throw out there that The Seemer is a position 1 power. Which really might make for interesting lynch analysis or lack thereof the possibility for.

@JJJ (can I call you JJJ?) I'm not sure I get what you find suspicious about Bass's post. Could you elaborate?

Tranq wrote: As for the LMS debate, i really disagree with Spacedaisy's post. Especially the first couple of Days you're going to find players with this sort of mindset, yet people keep getting lynched because of it (i think myself in RM1 or RM2, and as Typhoony pointed out Timmer in RM3). It's a fun way to play early in the game. I'm not voting for someone that's clearly enjoying and embracing a different setup.
I think what SD was trying to get at (or what I took from it and agree with) is the people who seem to be insisting that this is not a Good vs Bad game at all. Commentary on and enjoying the setup is something different. But there could be some nafarious goal in those pushing that there are no baddies and civies (TH comes to mind). Or that there are just factions not teams (Roxy comes to mind).

I'm not sure I want to vote for either of them, because I think that in a complex game, with the added idea of clans, it's not impossible to be confused. I do, however, think that it's possible that a baddie might want to perpetuate the confusion and get people to believe that there aren't baddies.

So, yeah. I did have you in the back of my mind since then. And your recent post pinged you forward in my thinking.

Golden wrote:Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

Why?

I moved my vote off of you, and there's a whole 24 hours left. I don't know the vote count off hand, until the image of day 1 is posted, but I don't think you were very far ahead. Or that the sway of the thread was towards your direction.

I am confused.

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

Turnip Head wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?
Because you posted day 3 with a post that seemed to be diametrically opposed to that post. Also, games are cumulative. And something that does not necessarily seem especially suspicious early on can become suspicious later.
It is cumulative. That's why I think it's relevant that I later said I was wrong about all teams being equal.

'
Yes, but only because you had to, because evidence was shown you were incorrect. I still suspect you were trying, in your original post, to attempt to sway people away from thinking about bad vs good.

Turnip Head wrote:The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

Because you posted day 3 with a post that seemed to be diametrically opposed to that post. Also, games are cumulative. And something that does not necessarily seem especially suspicious early on can become suspicious later.

Turnip Head wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?
I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.
This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.
Vote: TH
It's literally a question, one that was answered by multiple people, and I then stated I was proven wrong about all teams being equal.

I don't understand how any of this equates to you voting for me.

"All the recruiters are equally naughty," is not a question. And the question mark part of that post seems rhetorical, not an actual asking.

And that post seems like it's trying to move folks away from thinking baddies are, well, bad. And your posting that you never said that doesn't strike me as honest.

It's not necessarily a permanent vote. But it's a vote for now.

Turnip Head wrote:
LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?
I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

thellama73 wrote:
LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.
This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Bullzeye wrote:
LoRab wrote: Asking someone openly to name whom they think is civ can only help the baddies. Especially in this game, where the baddies do not have a common target but are a common target, and that whole enemy of my enemy thing. I don't think this is a civ-friendly question, and I'm not sure Bass was playing a civ-friendly game, even if not recruited. Or at least wasn't seeming so with this post.
Does enemy of my enemy really apply as the baddies can't win together? Agree with the rest of your point though.

I think it does, as both civ teams want both baddie teams to be dead.

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?
I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

LoRab wrote:You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.
That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Prior to the post you quoted, I had been quite sympathetic to you. However, the more I read your posts, the more I found it difficult to be supportive. I do not say that I outright suspect you of being on a baddie team--I do not. But I do not think your game is pro-civ. And I do think that your posts last night started to sound like a cornered baddie, and that switched my thinking and made me start to look at your posts differently. And what I have read, more and more, does not seem pro-civ to me. And certainly not like a pro-civ Golden.

And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?
I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

LoRab wrote:You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.
That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.
Honestly that post you reference, in this context, amplifies my concern and makes me outright suspicious of LoRab. She was verbally describing her own quest to find a reason to join the bandwagon against you, and continued in that direction with this most recent cop out vote. The highlighted pink text in there is a pretty literal example of this, and it is expressed in language that I find suspicious at face value. The highlighted orange text is a logical discrepancy and exemplifies a player interested in surface contexts and not deeper critical thinking. I don't think it's hard at all to associate your theorizing about the potential for Epignosis recruiting you with your prior insistence that it would be a bad idea to recruit me onto Epi's team, I'd kill him myself.

This seems like willful ignorance of the most important content in this discussion by LoRab, and a concerted effort to justify the easiest vote on the board.

I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

This is a game where we can change our votes--I don't think anyone stands out as likely on a baddie team. I am happy to change my vote if someone starts to seem actually bad or more detrimental to the civ cause. If I don't suspect anyone of being actually on a baddie team (which is what...4 to 6 players out of 32...not very good odds), then I believe that lynching a neutral who is not being civ-friendly to be the next best thing. I also have long had an innate distrust of neutral roles (which makes this stage of this game interesting in my brain).

Also, he literally asked to be lynched.

Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

And please don't tell me that I don't think deeply. I may notice really odd things in the thread, but that does not mean that I'm not thinking about them. Nor does it mean that I'm jumping on a bandwagon because I voted the same way as a few other people.

Golden wrote:Also, the fact that she was responding to a post in which I literally went out of my way to say "This is NOT new info" - because it was not, but it had been buried because people have (in my opinion) not been actually taking into account and considering a lot of the responses I've been making. That one is one of them.

I have taken a lot into account. It is exactly your responses, mainly in tone, that have made me suspicious of your intentions.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:lol MM voted for me. Maybe he's trying to tell me something.

Vote LoRab

Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

linkitis: @Golden: That post sounded more honest than anything you've posted in a while. I will strongly consider (and probably take action on) changing my vote. I just need to figure out where to put it.

Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

Golden wrote:Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

I'm tempted to vote for you, not so much because I think you've been recruited to the baddies--I don't actually. I think you're still unrecruited neutral. But I don't think you're playing in the best interest of the civies at this point. And I think that discussion of you is becoming a distraction from focusing on actually finding baddies.

Spacedaisy wrote:
nutella wrote:Guys don't freak out, LC answered somewhere that the thread lock would only be 4-6 hours.

Still good to register early votes though. I'd consider a vote for Rey since I could totally see him having killed Epi.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.
I think I haven't come across as waffley this game because of its setup. We started out with a majority of players being unrecruited, so I basically assumed most people were unrecruited, rather than being pressured into having civ or baddie reads of people, which are always difficult early in the game. It's not that I'm not uncertain about a lot of players, it's that the things I've been talking about are the things I have stronger convictions about. In more typical games that start out with full civvie and baddie teams, there's a lot more pressure in the thread to decide on stuff like rainbow lists and a definitive perspective on players who are under scrutiny, and that's the stuff that I tend to waffle on and get in trouble for (and btw @ Lorab yes in fact I have still been getting lynched as a civ for these reasons in the last couple games I've played recently). In this game I'm just observing things on my own, and there are certainly players/topics of discussion in the thread that I don't have strong opinions of either way.

That said, I don't agree with your suspicion of Unfurl, I think she is genuine.
This answer made me feel miles better about you. It was the set up with neutrals at the start that kept me from feeling 100% about you, and I didn't mention it because I wanted to see how you would respond. This rings true to me.

Lorab, your response about her age doesn't hold water for me because in the recent games I have played with her this meta has still been there. That is not to say her game play hasn't evolved, she is a great player for sure, but even in the last game I played with her she herself admitted to this meta? She was explaining why she comes across blendy, they didn't believe her, she got lynched and flipped civ.

Good to know. I haven't played with her for a while. and she attests to he same patterns. I will keep this in mind.

@Daisy: With LA, I'm hesitant because she could be neutral (and neutral/indy LA reads like baddie LA) like most of us. And also because she's no longer a kid. I mean, I like to think that if I were playing at age 14, my posting and style would change by 21. I'm not trying to defend her, but I figure her style has evolved--and the whole, if I think you're good, you're bad thing has maybe changed (I've had a similar experience with her). I guess I'm wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt. For now.

Golden wrote:Aha, DH brings out honest talk which he has so far very carefully avoided saying.

Being unrecruitable is not a problem. I do think my actions would make it less likely for a baddie to intentionally recruit me. You think I see that as a downside? It gives me more control over my destiny. Also, if I am unrecruitable, I am by definition not a threat. For me it serves two very good purposes off the bat.

I don't think it makes me unrecruitable for the civs, but in any event as long as their are civ contests I will enter them and they might get me anyway. And if they don't get me, I still only have to survive to win. Again, where is the downside?

I did the whole thing in part because I suspected epi was bad AND that he wanted to recruit me, after having thrown sufficient shade at me that it would make the other of us look good should one of us be lynched. (And before anyone goes saying this is new information and why didn't I say it before, when people asked what epi's baddie motivation was for going after me, I already gave that answer, ages ago).

You could have gone in another direction entirely, though, because I did create a much bigger problem for myself - namely, the number of people who want to lynch me.

I honestly have trouble perceiving why anyone would think I was legitimately bad (or at least, legitimately on the team that killed epi). It's like a rinse and repeat of watchmen, where I got lynched essentially for doing something which would have been an obvious thing for a baddie to do. Newsflash - not one of my baddie games has EVER been characterised by that kind of play. I'm amazed at how many people have focussed on my civ-meta (which, as I consistently say, I think I am actually playing to INCLUDING the move on epi) and ignoring entirely my baddie-meta.

So which do I think is more likely? Obviously, I know which is true and my answer is biased. I am neutral and I have no problem staying that way, especially over being recruited bad. I still have to play smart while neutral, because despite best intentions I may be recruited bad. But I think that anyone who knows me should also objectively recognise the second as being more likely, and for that matter anyone who thinks that I actually know how to play the game and wouldn't be stupid enough to do whats its claimed I did - kill epi, and then play some massive wifom when there would have been literally no reason for me to do it.

You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

S~V~S wrote:So you must hate the idea of rainbowlists? Where they rank players from least to most trusted?

While I agree with you, I am afraid that the world has moved on.

I do not like rainbow lists, it's true. Although I'm all about rainbows in terms of politics. Just saying.

And even if the world has moved on, I still find the idea suspicious of asking who is civ. Even if it makes me old school.

OK, read up, which I feel a sense of accomplishment about. Phew. A few comments:

1. They are subs, not hoagies. Despite the fact that I now live in the greater Philly area. Frigging subs. Dammit.

2. @Tranq: I wouldn't advocate for that. My suspicion is too much speculation at this point. And an nk will only tell us clan (and only if that clan) not allegience. And it's not a pingy enough ping to take the risk. Also, I like JJJ's contribution, and don't want to lose that on an out there theory (yes, I know that I'm out there).

3. In all honesty, if I had been awake, I'd have change my vote to bass, mainly because of this post:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:golden do you really think MP was civ recruited already?

Asking someone openly to name whom they think is civ can only help the baddies. Especially in this game, where the baddies do not have a common target but are a common target, and that whole enemy of my enemy thing. I don't think this is a civ-friendly question, and I'm not sure Bass was playing a civ-friendly game, even if not recruited. Or at least wasn't seeming so with this post.

4. Can't remember what else I was going to say.

Also, voting 3. I'm stubborn like that.

Oy. So much to catch up on. Been in meetings all day today and went to bed early last night. But as I scroll up the last page, I have to giggle at aaple bringing this up. They are still not gay and that is still blasphemy!! Ernie and Bert on the other hand...

aapje wrote:
Scotty wrote:
aapje wrote:So what's a rainbow post? Other than the thing DH posted
Some would say they are posts that are outwardly supportive of Gay rights.

Do you have any rainbow posts you would like to share with the class, aapje?
Oooh I know just the thing! I'm sure some people will appreciate this classic:

Pretty sure it was before day 2, and certainly before you said anything in the thread about your day, that I brought it up. And if I reamin suspish, then so be it. Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.
So you're inclined to believe that the person who ended the day early was not aligned with Team Good Guys, or still among the neutral pile?

I think you could select a large number of posts from about the same area of the thread and find a "could have been..." description for them that suits your theory in a similar fashion. You're already reaching quite a bit -- not only to peg this role on me, but beyond that to assert it'd even warrant a vote if you were right.

I noticed something and brought it up, partly to see your reaction, partly because I thought it worthy of bringing up. Yours was the only vote within a time frame close to the vote end time that talked about people being sure to vote. It stood out to me. I pointed it out. It's what I do.

I do not the the person who ended day early is civ aligned, for sure. I think they may have been bad alligned--but they may be neutral. But their action does not feel neutral. So I feel it is worth discussing.

And I don't think I said I was going to vote for you, just that I suspected you and had/have an eye on you. Your reaction to that seems a bit over the top, tbh, and didn't make me feel better. But still just keeping an

for the time being.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:But the timing of JJJ's post pings me.
Is this a reference to the same post?

yes

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:Which, earlier statement about Judge having nefarious purposes (I like the word nefarious these days), makes this post ping my suspiciometer.

It was made at 6:06. Just 20 minutes after day was ended prematurely. Trying to sound innocent and remove oneself from the idea by encouraging people to vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.
Also, who is the "us" of whom you are speaking?
Are you asserting I might have been the one to force the day's end? I'm honestly not sure, this post confuses me. If so, I would ask you why you think I put a concerted effort into moving the votes off of DFaraday and onto either BWT or Bass at the end of the day -- well after its early end.

"Us" referred to the people who had already placed votes including myself. Securing a lynch is paramount to learning something from late-day proceeding, so I called for everyone else (civilian, baddie, and neutral alike) to aid me in the process of murdering somebody.

You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.

nutella wrote:Dom, thanks for clarifying -- I was indeed the second player to vote for Bass today, after MP, but I still don't get why that is suspicious. Can you elaborate on why my vote warranted an ? And no I wasn't upset about you eyeing me specifically, it's more that your general pattern of opportunistically badgering people about little things is bothersome and imo unproductive. Maybe you have some success rate of catching baddies with stuff like that, I don't know, but to me it really seems like fluffing up your posts with trivial "pings" rather than discussing more substantial thoughts.

I'm still not understanding the BWT votes. On Day 1 I think several people voted for him for several different reasons, rather than a single case that gained any kind of momentum. Now Roxy votes for him without any kind of explanation that I see, and Lorab repeats her vote for him despite the fact that it seemed to me that her previous reasons for suspecting him were mostly resolved (primarily the list of low posters taken from G-man being inaccurate). Lorab, am I wrong -- did you have other qualms with BWT that he has not responded to?

It still seemed convenient to vote for a low poster without looking at who the actual low posters were (especially when G-Man didn't even describe his list as actual low posters). And his end-lynch post didn't sound civ to me. And I don't have any better suspicions.

Voting now so I don't miss the vote.

Going with BWT again, because I don't have strong enough thoughts about anyone else at this moment. Might change if something comes up.

Hey, y'all. I kind of feel like crud today with a summer cold and have spent most of the day sleeping. Between fuzzy brain and inability to stay awake, I will be in and out of posting and having actual thoughts.

reywaS wrote:
LoRab wrote:@Roxy: I still find BWT suspicious, although less so after his explanation.

Black Rock wrote:Team Caelia has recruited.

reywaS wrote:Well, ain't that dandy.
In my experience, "ain't that dandy," is generally said when someone feels something is, well, not dandy at all. In fact, I can't think of this phrase being used as an actual positive, outside of really, really dated tv shows and films--and I'm pretty sure you're not on Leave it to Beaver.

Anyway, my point is...uh....wouldn't a civ recruiter recruiting someone be a good thing? Why would you respond negatively?

Roxy wrote: Lorab - there are a lot of new players maybe they stopped the day bc they wanted try out their power? Odds were highest day one to take out a Neutral anyway. Feels like if they were unrecruited they would most likely be a new play to the Recruitment games.

But the timing of JJJ's post pings me.
you're assuming it was a negative response. Why not just ask me if it was? Did you read the other posts I made right afterward? I had just smoked a doobie and was feeling spammy.

As I said, I don't think I've ever heard it used that way outside of 50's tv. Otherwise, can you explain how you meant it positively? You seem to be talking around an answer here.

Search found 126 matches