The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote:He was adamantly defending Boomslang in ways that made me very confused. Maybe he hid behind Boomslang on night 1?

Then why wasn't Boomslang higher?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:You don't care that I didn't pull a no u but don't condemn HBB for lying?
"Wrong" and "lying" are not the same. "Lying" implies a sincere intent to mislead. I don't get the impression that's what Burger did. I'll leave him to respond to your commentary though, I'm not in his head.

I am currently doing my Dom/LoRab review, so I'll see what I come up with.

I think that's some biased posting you're doing there.

Tranq wrote:Death to Dom!

no. you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
--SNIPPED SO I DON'T BREAK THE THREAD AGAIN THIS IS THE ISO HE DID ON ME--

The dichotomy you found between me and Llama is interesting. I'm not baddie and definitely not LoRab's teammate, so I'd be willing to revisit my Llama suspicion.

Draconus wrote:I missed a 4 way tie?? I love ties. But great result folks

I saw a couple of mentions of me and Lorab so allow me to address what I read. I thought I explained this clearly on Day 0 but there still seems to be some confusion. I didn't want to vote Lorab on Day 1 because she was doing exactly what I went after her for doing in our previous game together. I had convinced Golden to switch to her and we lynched a civ. (I should say "convinced" as Golden was bad at the time. Anyways, I've had no further mention of Lorab due a lack of time to read up on her.
For the record and for those who don't remember I gave Jay a chance to save himself with a tie on 3.0 with a vote for llama. I didn't have time to come back before the end of the Day, but if I had a chance to I woud've voted for Lorab at that time. Before anyone says "it wouldn't have mattered. Jay was up by 2 votes" 1. We still don't know for sure what caused the lynch to be cancelled. Sure we know what Jay claimed, but we can't take those at face value. 2. Matt was also still on llama. Had he come back in time, he, too could have switched to Lorab and caused a tie. Would he do that? Idk.
My point with all of this is that I felt better about Jay than I did about both Lorab and llama.

As for who I think should be lynched next: I think DH looks the worst after this result. Typing this on my phone so I'll go look for quotes after posting this to back up my argument. But I recall DH defending Lorab pretty hard core early on and a bit recently. Be back in a few.

This doesn't sit right with me.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:3. You men me voting around my work schedule? And voting for someone I think was bad?
Well I don't know your work schedule, a quick glance over your posts does show a fairly consistent posting pattern, I don't think that is purely an excuse. E.g. Jan 15 the day before the 3.5 flip, you dropped a "Anyone else find it weird that JJJ is defending FZ when he's on the lynching block??" without following up on why when a couple of us wondered what the big deal was. You were still around for at least a couple more hours making two more posts, one agreeing with LoRab regarding Rico's theory on you regarding "suspish", the other being simply "i voted". The next post after that came literally minutes after the lynch deadline.

"BEing around"= being at home and checking the thread every so often, not ready to engage in multi page debates.
I think you're being awfully picky.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:4. I've gotten no u??? What???????? no! That is exactly what JJJ has done. He has yet to say a single reason to suspect me and thought I was civ until I continued pressuring him. But you ignore that because that doesn't fit your narrative. I haven't pulled a single No U and the only thing I'm dismissive of is a case built around a word that I only used once before on this site but was extremely common on others. It's wrong, in comprehensive, and flawed. I've explained why and not even dismissed it all that much. You are straight up lying here.
Your initial vote on JJJ came from the whole "appeal to emotion" thing you called him out on, which reads like a "NO U" to me even if you weren't the one being called out on it. I mean, hypocrisy/double-standards in casing and reasoning are something I love to point out, but your first vote was built after you had asked LC for his thoughts on JJJ, then called him out for a perceived appeal to emotion, then defended Bea for the perceived hypocrisy. Most of what came after that just looks like you sticking on JJJ with non-argument attacks (e.g. "so your buddying didn't work and now I'm somehow bad for it?", "Those are different things and you are purposefully conflating them."). Reviewing the definition for OMGUS I guess Rico doesn't fit by definition since he can't be voted for, but I'm talking about posts like "I think it's time to remove the tinfoil hat. " and "Saying that your theory "fits" and that your theory has any chance on being correct are two different things. " are just slightly wordier ways of saying "You're wrong because I say you are", which is a bad look for any townie to say, especially in an argument with a confirmed townie like Rico.

I don't think you knew/know what a NO U is.

And Rico's townness does not make him right.

MacDougall wrote:
S~V~S wrote:A role has been revealed!

Stanley Kubrick, A BADDIE:

On Position 1, cannot be lynched. On any other position, cannot be night killed
Hmm, I wonder?

....I'm wondering too.

RIP to those who died and were civ. :/

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:You also say that I haven't responded to RIcos "case" when I have. It's almost like....you're... Doing the thing..... You accused me of?????? Wow
You've never cased me. You've poked at isolated moments in my posts that you've claimed not to like and I've responded to those things in isolation. If you have a substantive case, put it together in one place and I will dismantle it in short order. Not much you have said about me is grounded in logic and much of it is grounded in falsehoods.

no u

You don't care that I didn't pull a no u but don't condemn HBB for lying?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also I'm just gonna go ahead and say this:

OMGUS/NO U -- just not that suspicious in general. It can often evidence a faulty mindset, but not necessarily a malevolent one. Chew on that current and future townies.

This did nothing to address my post and only excused yourself while not granting me the same privilege even though I didn't even do that. Nice.

You also say that I haven't responded to RIcos "case" when I have. It's almost like....you're... Doing the thing..... You accused me of?????? Wow

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:4. I've gotten no u??? What???????? no! That is exactly what JJJ has done. He has yet to say a single reason to suspect me and thought I was civ until I continued pressuring him. But you ignore that because that doesn't fit your narrative. I haven't pulled a single No U and the only thing I'm dismissive of is a case built around a word that I only used once before on this site but was extremely common on others. It's wrong, in comprehensive, and flawed. I've explained why and not even dismissed it all that much. You are straight up lying here.
I like the part where you say things that are blatantly false.

Your "in which" post?
Because that's as close as you get. And I think it's a pretty ridiculous post of unconnected points and incorrect information. Your first post against me was simply because I didn't immediately think FZ was civvie and didn't warm up to you when you buddies me.

I said things that are blatantly false? Where did I pull a NO U? Where? Someone point it out to me. Why do you only care when I don't post things that are "truthful"? Why do HBBs posts get no such treatment? I sit because you're bad? Are you looking for someone to help you out and you don't care who goes down in the process?

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:I didn't think the text would vary for different bad teams if there are any.
That would be kind of weird. It'd give scum teams more info about each other than we're privy to. Is that normal here?

Dom wrote:....for what reasons again?
1. Your stated intent as early as day 0 to vote llama, predicting that he would become one of the more-voted candidates day 1, which reads like BTSC put out in public as to the planned goings-on involving him
2. Your early post history shows suspicion of LoRab, but not conviction; you basically +1 a post of Epi waiting for LoRab's response (exactly what Black Rock had done too btw), then later when Epi asks why people are resistant to voting LoRab, you come in again saying "Oh don't forget me!", like you were torn between defense-by-silence without distancing too far
3. Your vote history 3.0/3.5, and especially the way you dropped your vote on Jimmy early both times as if to stay away from argument near the deadline
4. You've gotten kinda dismissive/NO U when pressured at points, like the stuff Jimmy posted above, or a bunch of your responses to Rico here, which doesn't look good

And while I didn't want to put too much stock into Rico's "suspish" thing, since he mentioned that LoRab was one of two others that had used it, and considering her flip, I'll even add that to the list.

1. This is bogus TBH. I said who I was suspicious of. Not sure how else you'd like me to speak. I had reasons to vote him.
2. I can see this reason but it's wrong. I was mildly suspicious of lorab but wasn't as convinced as others. That can look like distancing but it's not.
3. You men me voting around my work schedule? And voting for someone I think was bad?
4. I've gotten no u??? What???????? no! That is exactly what JJJ has done. He has yet to say a single reason to suspect me and thought I was civ until I continued pressuring him. But you ignore that because that doesn't fit your narrative. I haven't pulled a single No U and the only thing I'm dismissive of is a case built around a word that I only used once before on this site but was extremely common on others. It's wrong, in comprehensive, and flawed. I've explained why and not even dismissed it all that much. You are straight up lying here.

fixed anway!

Dom wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:Why can't they be on opposite bad teams?
Whoever cursed Boomslang is not on Zebra's team, unless it's normal here for scum teams to have two of the same role. LoRab and Zebra have the same red 'BADDIE' text, so I'm assuming they are on the same team. Jimmy wouldn't have built a big case against Boomslang if he could know about the curse, so therefore he wasn't on LoRab or Zebra's team... wait, I'm arguing your point.

Regardless a lot of my earlier case was built on Jimmy being on the same team as Zebra. Additionally, we don't have definitive evidence that another bad team exists similar to the LoRab/Zebra/whoever else team. So actually I think overall it looks even harder to imagine Jimmy being on a bad team, unless he's an indy.
I didn't think the text would vary for different bad teams if there are any.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:-SNIP FOR READABILITY?-
I didn't respond to a confirmed civ's case on me because that confirmed civ's case on me is really dumb, if you ask me.
I'm not bad. You only suspect me because I suspect you. I made a wrong call on LoRab in terms of priority, but you've pulled a NO U on me.

I do think it is abit less likely that you are bad now, but I also don't think this lynch exonerates you.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'm super-duper down for Dom tomorrow.
....for what reasons again?

MacDougall wrote:Before you go red in the face I am joking.

o
i never can tell when you are

MacDougall wrote:I dunno bout you guys but that pretty much confirms Dom as bad to me.

wot

Epignosis wrote:It's a known spoiler tag issue.

I know it's happened before, but I don't know how to fix it.

I posted about the issue.

I don't know how to fix it, but I would imagine that SVS, TH, or MP can. They have more access to this stuff than I do.

I'm looking into it, I posted it in the mod forum.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:Why can't they be on opposite bad teams?
Whoever cursed Boomslang is not on Zebra's team, unless it's normal here for scum teams to have two of the same role. LoRab and Zebra have the same red 'BADDIE' text, so I'm assuming they are on the same team. Jimmy wouldn't have built a big case against Boomslang if he could know about the curse, so therefore he wasn't on LoRab or Zebra's team... wait, I'm arguing your point.

Regardless a lot of my earlier case was built on Jimmy being on the same team as Zebra. Additionally, we don't have definitive evidence that another bad team exists similar to the LoRab/Zebra/whoever else team. So actually I think overall it looks even harder to imagine Jimmy being on a bad team, unless he's an indy.

I didn't think the text would vary for different bad teams if there are any.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In which Dom receives an accusation from confirmed town Rico based on the most dubious premise imaginable (which also connects him to LoRab) and doesn't respond to it with any emotion, incredulity, or even interest:

Spoiler: show
Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
ok?
In which Dom tries to cast suspicion on me for a silly reason:

Spoiler: show
Dom wrote:Anyone else find it weird that JJJ is defending FZ when he's on the lynching block??

Spoiler: show
Dom wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
I... kind of like this theory. It's just crazy enough to make sense, and I know I often find myself using the language of the group I'm talking with. Does this necessarily make him bad, though? I'm not pinged super hard either way. On the civ end, I like his pressure on Tranq and the way he's been skeptical of Mac throughout the game. On the mafia end, I don't like the way he's expressed support for off-wagon candidates and then circled back to the main wagon for all of the lynches thus far; feels just a touch too blendy.

GTH, I guess I'd say bad. The connection of "suspish" with Lorab, combined with his consistent but low levels of aggro toward her, could make the case for mafia teammates.
I think LoRab put the context quite nicely, regardless of alignment.
In which Dom propped up LoRab in some manner or another without actually committing to a positive read.

Spoiler: show
Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.
I didn't say that. FZ didn't do that. This is irrelevant.
Start a bandwagon was not good word choice.
Actively campaign is better.
That's a bad word choice too because FZ didn't do that either. I've made that more than clear. You seem to be consciously manipulating the course of events to fit your suspicion.

Dom wrote:Why are you defending FZ?
Because DH made a terrible, crap, worthless case and some people actually accepted the points as good. It's mind-boggling. FZ is a strong town read, and I will always defend strong town reads when they're being suspected for stupid reasons. I think DH is plain bad for it, there's no way he has paid so little attention. I'm also starting to think I gave you too much benefit of the doubt for the "shot at bea" thing, because your recent conduct is awful.
....so your buddying didn't work and now I'm somehow bad for it?
In which Dom tries to discard my rock solid logical point without actually talking about it in any meaningful way:

Spoiler: show
Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.
I didn't say that. FZ didn't do that. This is irrelevant.
Start a bandwagon was not good word choice.
Actively campaign is better.
That's a bad word choice too because FZ didn't do that either. I've made that more than clear. You seem to be consciously manipulating the course of events to fit your suspicion.

Dom wrote:Why are you defending FZ?
Because DH made a terrible, crap, worthless case and some people actually accepted the points as good. It's mind-boggling. FZ is a strong town read, and I will always defend strong town reads when they're being suspected for stupid reasons. I think DH is plain bad for it, there's no way he has paid so little attention. I'm also starting to think I gave you too much benefit of the doubt for the "shot at bea" thing, because your recent conduct is awful.
....so your buddying didn't work and now I'm somehow bad for it?
In which Dom insists upon his bogus FZ suspicion based upon a premise that has repeatedly been shown to be false, and even offers a link to a post that shows it to be false:

Spoiler: show
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dom's point is very poor. He asserts FZ campaigned for a LoRab lynch. She did nothing of the sort. She begrudgingly placed her vote after I pushed her in that direction.
You know what?
You're right.
She hardly mentioned LoRab at all OTHER THAN SAYING SHE THINKS SHE IS GENUINE AND IS VOTING FOR HER INSTEAD OF YOU WHICH SHE SAID MIGHT BE BAD BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE WITH YOU THINK YOU ARE.
[url=
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 79#p217779
]Here's the receipt. [/url]

In which Dom says something that elicits an "orly" reply:

Spoiler: show

In which Dom refuses to even consider anything I do from a town perspective:

Spoiler: show

[/quote]
I didn't respond to a confirmed civ's case on me because that confirmed civ's case on me is really dumb, if you ask me.
I'm not bad. You only suspect me because I suspect you. I made a wrong call on LoRab in terms of priority, but you've pulled a NO U on me.

I do think it is abit less likely that you are bad now, but I also don't think this lynch exonerates you.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'm super-duper down for Dom tomorrow.

....for what reasons again?

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:Not sure why this would change whether you suspect JJJ or not.
The biggest worry would be that JJJ and LoRab really were on the same team, that 3.0 was a proper lynch cancel, and JJJ's roleclaim a fake one to satisfy those of us trying to work out the motive for canceling the lynch. You have to admit that the odds of two scum from the same team being the top two candidates is lower than the odds of them being on different teams. This flip at least bumps Jimmy into the yellow-ish zone for me.

Why can't they be on opposite bad teams?

DharmaHelper wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Yay!
He says while clenching his buttcheeks and a forced grin with teeth bared.
I'm actually quite pleased to have been wrong. Not sure where this leaves me in terms of suspects, but I'll have a look and see what pops out

Not sure why this would change whether you suspect JJJ or not.

nice sig wilgy!

DharmaHelper wrote:Dom right now: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 46/9a1.png

TRU

Also good call on Lorab, everyone!

HamburgerBoy wrote:I don't think it's that obvious. He didn't explain his suspicions just now about JJJ defending FZ. His vote on JJJ 3.0 was relatively early and without much explanation either (just a "Then what the hell is this?"). He's been going with bandwagons pretty steadily now.

And for my own reason, in addition to the above, I've been suspicious since I read his day 0 posts, almost predicting that llama would become a suspect starting day 1. In general I just get non-townie vibes from him too.

You're wrong about me. I think I have laid it out nicely. I liked LC's case on JJ and think his responses have only damned him more. I don't think his survival is suspicious in itself.

I also think it's weird that he has yet to propose an alternate lynch candidate to actually be bad and not a lesser of two evils candidate. He just keeps defending himself and FZ.

Matt wrote:If Rico wasn't a confirmed civ, I'd probably eye him for suggesting Dom is bad because of the word "suspish". However, fun story, and Long Con can concur. In AWR, one of the reasons I guessed Dom was the Living Statue was because in btsc he said "tbqh", and in the game, he was literally the only person to use "tbqh" haha. So maybe you have a point.

Nah. If Dom was bad, he would've ripped Boomslang a new one for daring to suspect him. That's what I've seen bad Dom do in multiple games, just FREAK OUT on the person suspecting him.

I like Golden's vote and just may join him.

I appreciate your sentiment here, but I also don't think that's a fair characterization of all my baddie play. Anyway, your "maybe you have a point think" is chock full of fallacy. You are comparing me using a word I use often currently and confirming my identity to someone attacking me for using a word that is in my lexicon, but not used often.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.
I didn't say that. FZ didn't do that. This is irrelevant.
Start a bandwagon was not good word choice.
Actively campaign is better.
That's a bad word choice too because FZ didn't do that either. I've made that more than clear. You seem to be consciously manipulating the course of events to fit your suspicion.

Dom wrote:Why are you defending FZ?
Because DH made a terrible, crap, worthless case and some people actually accepted the points as good. It's mind-boggling. FZ is a strong town read, and I will always defend strong town reads when they're being suspected for stupid reasons. I think DH is plain bad for it, there's no way he has paid so little attention. I'm also starting to think I gave you too much benefit of the doubt for the "shot at bea" thing, because your recent conduct is awful.

....so your buddying didn't work and now I'm somehow bad for it?

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
I don't have BTSC with Dom. We are not on a baddie team together. If he is civ, then we are on the same team.

I will say that suspish is a word that was used a lot on LP and TP, which is where Dom learned to mafia. So it doesn't strike me as odd language from Dom. He also could have picked it up from me during our BTSC time in the last game.

All that said, it's not a word I'd expect to hear from Llama...so...an interesting note to keep in mind.
Civs are not a team.

Dom has used it a whooping one time on Syndicate in three years of being on this site (oh, to the day! ). His LP/TP background doesn't matter. You are clearly in BTSC, talking about how to feign that you find X or Y "suspish", or actively talking through which players could be "suspish" as a second mafia output (if there is a second team).

You defending this and bringing up background from the B.C. of mafia playing, when the guy obviously didn't keep the word in his language for the past three years, doesn't make me feel any better about this.

I think it's time to remove the tinfoil hat.

Ricochet wrote:
You, LC, Canuck, LoRab, bea and a few others I (very superficially) checked having "suspish" in their vocabulary would not be uncommon at all. Dom using it for the second time ever - the first being a game he won as indy bad - is uncommon and fully supports my theory.

Saying that your theory "fits" and that your theory has any chance on being correct are two different things.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Ricochet wrote:It'll now be the third time me saying that yes, temp votes should normally affect players who need not receive votes to be empowered.
I just voted for every player that hasn't already received a vote today and then returned to Tranq. I have no idea whether the hosts even have a way to track that, but I did it so there you go.

You better hope there's no Golem.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dom's point is very poor. He asserts FZ campaigned for a LoRab lynch. She did nothing of the sort. She begrudgingly placed her vote after I pushed her in that direction.

You know what?
You're right.
She hardly mentioned LoRab at all OTHER THAN SAYING SHE THINKS SHE IS GENUINE AND IS VOTING FOR HER INSTEAD OF YOU WHICH SHE SAID MIGHT BE BAD BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE WITH YOU THINK YOU ARE.
[url=
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 79#p217779
]Here's the receipt. [/url]

FZ. wrote:I'm here. I just started reading, but saw that a lot of people talked about me and two posts that seriously pissed me off.
This:

DharmaHelper wrote:
FZ. wrote:I will barely be here this day, so I really hope this doesn't go JJJ's way. I do agree that if he is bad, and knew he won't be lynched, that there are scum in his voters.

And this:
DharmaHelper wrote:If you guys don't feel like JJJ has tipped his hand (which I do, for the record) at the very least vote for his teammate FZ. who has made it perfectly crystal clear she is bad as fuck.

1. What civ minded person would participate in the lynching of someone they FULLY ADMIT THEY BELIEVE TO BE A GENUINE CIV

2. What civ minded person says "Sure JJJ *could* be bad, and if he flips bad, don't look at the people that saved him, look at the people that voted to lynch him"

What a joke that is.

DH, you must be the worst baddie to ever walk this planet. Why would I, as an alleged baddi, who went after Lorab for her reply to BR and told her that her reaction was suspicious as hell, would then go and say she sounded genuine, before voting for her? Why not just leave my suspicion there, which a lot of people supported by the way, and assuming I know she's civ, (which even if I was bad I couldn't, if there are 2 teams and not 1, that is) and make myself look much better in my defense of JJJ? How stupid do you think I am to do what you suggest I did, as a baddie?

If you do that as a baddie, then you need to get your act straight. I don't. I was contemplating my actions out loud. I was suspicious of Lorab, but was also a little afraid to vote for her, because her last defense felt somewhat genuine. Even so, out of the two top vote getters, I felt JJJ was the more sure civvie.

Seriously, there are reasons to suspect people, and there are reasons to just end up looking like a real idiot. Which to me, you do at the moment (no offence). I thought you were bad before. I need to decide whether to go back to that thought or not. Now, I'll go back and look at who agreed with you, and who among you feel the most suspicious for that.

This feels like a "you suspect me for the wrong reasons" post.

FZ. wrote:I still have a few more pages to read , but from what I have read so far, out of those who have votes, I think I'm most comfortable voting for MM. I think I would also feel comfortable voting for Drac, but he has no votes, for Sorsha or Dom. Either have votes at the moment.

MM feels to me like he was in Pikmin mafia. He's mostly making jokes, he's not contributing at all from what I can remember. I remember when I was bad with him in Pikmin, I kept telling him to start contributing more, because the MM I remember from a few games in which he was a civ (Flash comes to mind), he was doing a lot of research and trying to figure out things, whereas in Pikmin, he kept asking people if they were bad or on teams with one another.

As for Lorab, her defences still have me doubting her baddiness. Again, I don't see her as a clear civ, like I view JJJ, but I'd rather not vote her if I don't have to save JJJ. Yeah, the late votes for JJJ could be an attempt to save her, but they could also be from people who thought JJJ could be bad, if they know there are more baddies than just them. Clearly, me feeling better about her could just me being too naive, but I'm hesitant. I feel BR is genuine, so I believe her vote is also genuine, and I'm still not sure what to think about Epi, but I'm wondering whether his persistence is because he knows something, or something else.

Lastly, tranque is just an easy lynch. I don't tend to give those kind of players the time of day. This is my game philosophy:
If a player is bad, but non existent in the game, and the baddies win the game because of that player, they can take that win and shove it. I tend to think that baddies try harder than civvies because they know other people depend on them. How hard is it, to come up with a stupid reason to vote for someone, and look better than just driving by and voting? And if you're really doing that as a baddie, you're just a coward.

When have you expressed any suspicion of me before this post?
If Tranq is so easy, why has it taken so long to lynch him for playing just like he did the last time he was bad?

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'd be happy to vote for Dom. While even Sorsha I can partially excuse for kick-starting the LoRab run yesterday (golden said it would be her or LoRab to save Jimmy; Sorsha's response was only natural self-preservation), Dom's been coasting and others more familiar with him than I have suspected him for his tone and kinda arbitrary votes. Why can't we do this?

Who has suspected me for those reasons?
Because the opposite is true.

Sorsha, I do think it's weird. It's almost like the pile on of votes on Lorab was a paper thin save attempt on JJJ.

i voted

Boomslang wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
I... kind of like this theory. It's just crazy enough to make sense, and I know I often find myself using the language of the group I'm talking with. Does this necessarily make him bad, though? I'm not pinged super hard either way. On the civ end, I like his pressure on Tranq and the way he's been skeptical of Mac throughout the game. On the mafia end, I don't like the way he's expressed support for off-wagon candidates and then circled back to the main wagon for all of the lynches thus far; feels just a touch too blendy.

GTH, I guess I'd say bad. The connection of "suspish" with Lorab, combined with his consistent but low levels of aggro toward her, could make the case for mafia teammates.

I think LoRab put the context quite nicely, regardless of alignment.

Anyone else find it weird that JJJ is defending FZ when he's on the lynching block??

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.
I didn't say that. FZ didn't do that. This is irrelevant.

Start a bandwagon was not good word choice.
Actively campaign is better.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In which JJJ shows how FZ absolutely did not start the bandwagon on LoRab:

Spoiler: show
FZ. wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.
I agree with 50% of this statement. Voting LoRab again.
I don't like this vote. Because you just ignored all discussion and just voted for someone else.

FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really have to go. I'm set for 6 hours of sleep if I can fall unconscious right... now.

Nope.

Anyway, I'm going to leave my vote on Boomslang. I've decided I prefer him over llama, and I think he's a more viable candidate right now than LoRab (I'd support her lynch too). I encourage y'all to continue having this productive discourse all the way to the final buzzer of the phase. Make EOD exciting, that's when people crack.

G'night folks. Beware shenanigans.
If Golden feels Boomslang is a civ, maybe we should switch to someone else? If you split your votes, you'll end up being lynched
LoRab?
After Sorsha's vote, maybe her?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really have to go. I'm set for 6 hours of sleep if I can fall unconscious right... now.

Nope.

Anyway, I'm going to leave my vote on Boomslang. I've decided I prefer him over llama, and I think he's a more viable candidate right now than LoRab (I'd support her lynch too). I encourage y'all to continue having this productive discourse all the way to the final buzzer of the phase. Make EOD exciting, that's when people crack.

G'night folks. Beware shenanigans.
If Golden feels Boomslang is a civ, maybe we should switch to someone else? If you split your votes, you'll end up being lynched
LoRab?
After Sorsha's vote, maybe her?
Just the first in a wave of late drive-bys, I imagine. Doesn't really make me feel anything about Sorsha. I'll go LoRab. Okay really now, sleepy time.

FZ. wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Sorsha wrote:No i didnt. I've discussed things and I've discussed players up for vote right now. I've been suspicious of LoRab and I've stated why.
This is in response to fz
But right now there are 3 people who have votes. Do you have opinion on any of them? are you interested to see any of them lynched? If not, are you interested to save one of them that might be lynched of you keep your vote that way? Discussing before and discussing now, during the money time are two different things.

linki: Fine
The last linki was directed at me. She wanted to lynch Sorsha. I pushed her to LoRab. This case is bullcrap.

Why are you defending FZ?

Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.

ok?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Except that's not at all what occured. You were likely to be lynched. Not two people, just you buddy. FZ actively participated in saving you by bussing onto someone she FULL ADMITTED she thought was being genuine. Civs do not bus other civs to save other civs. The math on that does not compute any way you try to spin it.
Except I absolutely do that all the time. So you're full of shit.

Not all civ reads are the same. Some are stronger.
You wouldn't choose someone else in that scenario? Like someone who you don't think is civ?
If it's late in the phase and only two people have enough votes to be realistic final choices, I will usually pick one of them -- even if I read both as civilians. I think it's usually pointless to defiantly vote for one's own pet suspect when that vote has no chance of amounting to an actual lynch. Townies need to have accountability and responsibility for moving the game as a team.

So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.
You are purposefully misrepresenting my sentiments. I am not supposing someone might choose to vote someone they may think is civ over someone else they think is civ. I am supposing someone actively started a bandwagon and campaigned for their lynch.

Those are different things and you are purposefully conflating them.

Ricochet wrote:
Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Any non-long-con player, your thoughts on what LC inquired.
I'm leaning civ ATM.
I ask about what LC inquired, you tell me what you think of LC himself.

Ok.

Ah... I thought it said thoughts on LC are inquired.

I don't think he's suspish for that.

thellama73 wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Are you fucking kidding me right now.
This post from DH pings me a bit. For context, it was posted right after JJ was allowed to role claim and did so. To me it reads like DH had built his case counting on the fact that JJ wouldn't be able to be too specific about his role, and the hosts ruling threw a monkey wrench in his plans. Almost this exact thing has has happened to me before when I was bad: an unexpected host decision exposing the flimsy nature of my case. It's a small thing, but it caught my eye.

Except:
1) not his case
2) JJ's badness is not connected to this claim
3) case isn't flimsy

Ricochet wrote:"Tranq - good"

bro

this tbh

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Ricochet wrote:"Tranq - good"

bro
When I have absolutely no clue, I default to good. I don't know how to have a clue about Tranq. Can it be done? Is it possible in this universe?

Have you read anyone's thoughts on Tranq?

DharmaHelper wrote:FWIW If the FZ train starts selling tickets put me down for a first class car.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

Ricochet wrote:Any non-long-con player, your thoughts on what LC inquired.

I'm leaning civ ATM.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Except that's not at all what occured. You were likely to be lynched. Not two people, just you buddy. FZ actively participated in saving you by bussing onto someone she FULL ADMITTED she thought was being genuine. Civs do not bus other civs to save other civs. The math on that does not compute any way you try to spin it.
Except I absolutely do that all the time. So you're full of shit.

Not all civ reads are the same. Some are stronger.

You wouldn't choose someone else in that scenario? Like someone who you don't think is civ?

Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.

you think we're seeing baddie sorsha?
like we saw in a world reborn?
like the one you trusted?

FZ. wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.
I agree with 50% of this statement. Voting LoRab again.
I don't like this vote. Because you just ignored all discussion and just voted for someone else.

To be fair, you literally did something quite similar later.

thellama73 wrote:
Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.
In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.
Why would any Mafia team avoid taking out an opposing voting bloc that also stops them from killing every night?
That's a good question, but I think it happens a lot in the early game. It's usually beneficial for mafias to cut down the number of civilians and wait to go after each other once there is a nice cushion, and then turn on each other in the mid to end-game.. Remember that lynches are still happening, so the presence of a competing mafia acting like mafia makes for good lynch competition. At least that's my experience.

I get what you're saying, but if I don't think I can lynch someone I know is bad, then why wouldn't I kill them?

Golden wrote:If JJ is lynched and comes back civ, I'm holding HB and Mac responsible.

This is weird.

Epignosis wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:I thought that was exclusively directed to me. I don't see others posting numbers either. Are you being serious right now?
A number (ha) of people posted numbers in their subsequent posts. No, it was not directed at you, and yes, I am serious.

I thought it was directly to HB....

Long Con wrote:
Golden wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:I just realised - Boomslang currently has the curse Draconus had on day one.
I hadn't noticed this either. Good eye.

I'm willing to bet the question-curser is on a separate mafia team to Zebra's. Unless Boom was cursed by a team mate (here we go again), that'd be a tick in his favor at least for one side.
Boomslang was being talked about and suspected. He had more to gain than you in terms of using the curse on himself if he's on that team. And again, what is the curse?
Speaking only in yes/no questions.
How do you know it's just yes/no questions, as opposed to just speaking in questions?

TRU

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.

If his posts on Boom are honest does that exclude him from being bad?

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.
In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Why would any Mafia team avoid taking out an opposing voting bloc that also stops them from killing every night?

Tranq what are you thinking? Who are you suspicious of?

I understand Sorshas point to an extent but do not think Golden is guilty of her accusations. I don't think golden tried to get fuzz killed

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:This is so subjective it hurts.
To people who are not me, sure. I don't fault anyone who doesn't believe me at face value. We're playing Mafia, people lie in Mafia. I'm not lying about this, but whatever this is the game we play.

Don't misrepresent me though.

Dom wrote:It also seemed like a shot at Bea, tbh.
I wouldn't dream of that! I love bea, she's probably the kindest person I've seen on the whole Internet (and I do hope she is able to get through her difficulties in short order). I have no intention of taking a shot at anyone, y'all are super cool kats.

So why is your moving situation any less emotionally manipulative?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:Actually, my ping on dom is a lot higher than that now. I just reread his interaction with JJJ and it is bad. Really bad. The guilt trips like 'that seems like a shot at bea' and criticising JJJ for doing what he has to to explain the difference in his post count. Ugh. It feels like a trap he is putting JJJ into.
I honestly read Dom in the town direction because of that. I don't know him as well as you do perhaps, but I don't know if he's the kind of person that'd go below the belt like that just to help get me lynched. I get the impression he really felt the way he claimed he felt.

I agree with you about LC and llama though. I agree with FZ about DH.

More of a response to Golden, but I'm not sure why me seeing a bit of hypocrisy is "pingy".

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quick question for anyone who cares to answer:

What Syndicate game comes to mind first when you think "civilian llama"? I'll use this information to check some gut suspicions of mine against meta.

TBH I think Llama might have been civvie in the Hobbit, but can't really remember.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Did you read my post. He said he read my ISO to deduce something that was in a post I wrote directly to him. He also referenced that I had cooled on Lorab suspicion in the same post as asking me if I disagree with Epignosis which considering Epignosis has a mafia read on her goes without saying. He's just pushing shit around and trying to act like he's contributing. He's bad, and you are probably his teammate.
So just to be clear, your main issue is that you feel he's just saying the obvious and throwing what you already said right back at you, under the guise of making novel content?
Spoiler: show
In other words, what I'm doing right now to your post if I've read it correctly.

Dom wrote:Was timmer not on our team?
Before you were recruited, birdswithteeth was on our team, but he had to leave so timmer rejoined as a replacement.

Got it. Forgot that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom, I said I don't use appeal to emotion to progress a baddie strategy, not that I never express emotion in any game.

This is so subjective it hurts.

It also seemed like a shot at Bea, tbh.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
FZ. wrote:I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.
fwiw, in A World Reborn the consensus was to kill timmer for our night 1 kill, the reasoning being that he could be very threatening once he starts getting active in a game. I had no input on that of course not being familiar with him, but I think some civ in the thread even guessed the reason behind the kill.

Was timmer not on our team?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

You don't say....

those two posts were supposed to be together.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:I would add to that, that players that are really committed as civvies, and have to keep up that level of involvement when they are bad, often let RL interfere with the game more than they would let it when they are good. It might not even be a conscious thing, but for me, it's really stressful and hard to keep up the lies when I'm bad, so I let myself fall back on the real life things I need to do, whereas when I'm good, no matter how busy I am, I find myself drawn back to the game.
Maybe this wasn't really related to appeal to emotion, but it's something I'm wondering about regarding JJJ
I understand what you're saying, and it might even be true. I don't know. But can't it also be true for a civilian player who is expected to make 1,000 posts in every game? Whenever I finally am mafia-aligned here (as myself and not a sock), I probably will struggle to meet my perceived town meta.

I struggle to meet my town meta when I'm town.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Me too. I'm not going to be able to post as much as usual. Roll your eyes if you wish, but it's the truth.
When I said this, it was with this in mind:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm changing my continent of residence in a few months.
I'll go ahead and change that to white text. I'm changing my continent of residence in a few months.

My continent of residence.

This is a significant thing obviously, and it's a stressful workload right now for me. It's already had and will continue to have an impact on my performance in this game.

Here's my concern: people saw me put up 750 posts in Economic and 1450 posts in Talking Heads, at a very high word-count-per-post standard in both, and they can't help but associate those things with their read of me (or similar RYM performances for the RYMers reading me) -- even when I've said they shouldn't do that. It's not going to happen. Talking Heads especially was a one-time thing. I'm probably never going to do that again.

Then what the hell is this?

*votes JJJ*

DharmaHelper wrote:Oi real quick before I clock out tonight, Anybody wanna talk about why the fuck the thread says "Day 3.0" and not "Day 3"

you could read the thread and find out!

Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.

I suspected LoRab earlier, so I'll look into those reasons again.

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I wonder if Brian's death was related to the fact that he missed the vote? Not a mod-kill but perhaps someone has the ability to somehow kill no voters.

I recall in TH we had a role that forced people to multiply their post count or be killed if they failed to meet their post count limit. Perhaps there is a scum or rogue role that makes it so if a person misses a vote they can be hit or you target them and if they miss a vote after that at any point they die. Could be a neat way to get rid of non contributors. Has there been a role like this before? I can see why RadicalFuzz was hit on account of bossing but Brian was barely around and neither was timmer so they seem like less tactical, more "because I can" type kills.
It's a neat way to get rid of busy moms too.
Eloh, you could say, was gotten rid of by a role being used to its potential (Rico's). I'm sorry Eloh couldn't keep up and enjoy the game, because it is much funner when she can.

But I'm not sure what your point is.

Dom wrote:I'm not sure what the point of engaging in that discussion in the game thread is.
If you'll look at what I was talking about, I wasn't talking about this game. I was talking about Talking Heads.

That's a lot of talking.

In Talking Heads, Eloh had trouble keeping up. Then she ended up having to make like 30 on-topic posts or something like that. She tried, but could keep up, and got killed for it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. That's all I was referring to.

I understand now.

Llama, who's your biggest suspect?

Golden wrote:
Dom wrote:I'm not sure what the point of engaging in that discussion in the game thread is.
The question is - why three kills.

And in some ways I agree with you, in that we can speculate all we like but we don't have any evidence (that I can see).

That's not the point I was talking about.

But also valid.

I'm not sure what the point of engaging in that discussion in the game thread is.

LC, summary on JJ pls

thellama73 wrote:Ah, Dom beat me to it. Well played, Dom.

RadicalFuzz wrote:But, Llama, is the universe not ever expanding, and thus there will always be more to colonize?

The on-topic conversation between us about credit is going nowhere Llama, let's just drop it.

Wilgy you tease me so.

Space is expanding. That does not mean more matter is being created. Space, like a balloon being blown up is expanding. Imagine dots on the balloon. That is matter. As space expands, the dots get further away and the amount of volume that is being taken up is larger, but the amount of matter (dots) remains constant. Eventually, there will be no more hydrogen to create new stars, old stars will have lost their heat and burned their fuel and the universe will be a cold, dark place.

Although, that's only one theory on how the universe will end. There are several others.

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote:If humanity survives until the sun envelopes the earth then we will already have colonised other solar systems, and it will not be the end of humanity as we know it, only the end of the earth, therefore Mac is scum.
But all stars will eventually die. It doesn't matter how many worlds we colonize. Eventually, the universe will grow cold, and we will perish with it.

If humanity survives that long (which is trillions of trillions of years), we will likely be post-singularity and have figured out how to power ourselves much more efficiently-- even so efficiently that we could either access other universes or create new stars.

Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I did not suggest llama definitely cursed me or imply I was convinced of that. I said something completely different from that. I literally said "I don't know". The difference is not at all negligible.
But what you said was this:

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.
Unless I'm reading it differently than you intended it, that's saying "I don't know if Llama did this or if one of his teammates did it".

The difference is negligible, because they both mean "Llama is a baddie on the cursing team".

I do like this point LC made.

Ricochet wrote:Zebra's role isn't a seemer. She would have framed a player to show up bad on checks. That's just manipulation. A seemer would show up as good when lynched.

The speculation plausibile would be if Zebra's killer would mess with zebra's role reveal, turning it into a bad flip.

Then why is the power also bad? Did the seemer get to change that too?

nijuukyugou wrote:
MacDougall:
Something isn't sitting right with me. His tone looks different from Star Wars, where he was good and I felt like he was civ the whole game. But I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it started with the interaction/semi-thread towards MM for throwing suspicion on him early on - it looked very defensive. And he looked to be using his "superpower" of finding baddies on the first day (he was right in Star Wars, granted), but it looked forced. More observation needed, and now that the thread has slowed down considerably, I may be able to accomplish this. But my vote won't go there today, as it's a tenuous suspicion at the moment. Also, I agree with his vote, so...there's that.

I think he sounds more like he did in A World Reborn-- not sure how I feel about that yet.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.
That was spoken night 0. While people were getting pretty anti-Rico by that point, I think the inclusion of Llama in there is noteworthy when you hadn't even been cursed yet, and llama hadn't really done much aside from calling sig fluffy and attacking Mac/defending Rico in the big argument. Based on my last game with Dom, I remember him actually jumping the gun a little bit after Chatzy discussion (near the end of the game trying to win over fingersplints), and him throwing llama's name out there in an either-or for two of the eventual poll leaders is a red flag for me. I'll bump him down to orange in my rainbow as well.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you clarify?
Basically, I thought you were calling things too early. It was still day 0 when you made that post, and there wasn't as much reason to vote for llama (you were doing it apparently because you thought he was giving Rico a pass and Mac not). Now we know Rico was town, and Mac I feel worse about by the hour, so I don't think that helps. I think you had planned ahead of time with others to discredit llama, or saw teammate's plans to do so, and sort of anticipated one of the smaller counter-wagons against Rico as a result.

But I voted Rico. My post there was about inconsistency-- not about the actual content of the post I was critiquing.

Sorsha wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Nice baddie you caught, Llama.

RIP sig

Second Day in a row Tranq votes late and on the lynch train.

Fuzz missed his vote.

In addition, DH, Dom, Juliets, Mac, Blooper are also 2/2 on mislynches now.

Discuss.

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.
This is how he was in AWR in the beginning too. He picks up his participation later in the game. This is a bit strange from you since you hosted that game and would know that!

This connection rings true to me. I'm not 100% sure it's right, but it does look similar to Tranq's play in AWR.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Chose meteor/asteroid impact because it's the closest thing there to the correct answer, that our sun explodes.
This, except that we'll be dead long before the sun actually explodes (is it even predicted to go supernova? I thought it was the type of star that grows then fizzles).

It won't supernova, it would need more mass. It will grow and shrink several times as it exhausts more and more elements to fuse in its core. Eventually it will become a red giant, and our planet will be vaporized. then, it will shrink down to a white dwarf star. Quite sad.

I just caught up-- oh my god you guys gave me a lot to read after my trip!

Ricochet wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:During your rampage of silliness yesterday Rico, who did you genuinely suspect?
Off the top of my head, the rebuttals in which I actually blended flipping out with actually having an issue with the casemakin' were towards LoRab and juliets. I felt LoRab plainly picked up others' suspicion, which is uncharacteristic of her. I was also genuinely confused by how juliets can suspect LoRab for the things she is also doing (working with other players' material). Tranq's EoD felt very shady, tbh. I could add Dom's wagoning in the mix perhaps, but thing is Dom's D1 has been docile, and that doesn't show up in my baddie reads of Dom. I probably partly influenced him to take such an approach, but it is what it is now.

You didn't influence me to be busier than normal.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Dom wrote:I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.
That was spoken night 0. While people were getting pretty anti-Rico by that point, I think the inclusion of Llama in there is noteworthy when you hadn't even been cursed yet, and llama hadn't really done much aside from calling sig fluffy and attacking Mac/defending Rico in the big argument. Based on my last game with Dom, I remember him actually jumping the gun a little bit after Chatzy discussion (near the end of the game trying to win over fingersplints), and him throwing llama's name out there in an either-or for two of the eventual poll leaders is a red flag for me. I'll bump him down to orange in my rainbow as well.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

I'm not a fan of sig's speculation of seemers. We have no reason to suspect that there are seemers yet.

Anyway, I'm gonna vote for sig now. I'm still busy guys and doing my best. Anyone who plays with me knows that I don't like phoning it in like this.

MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:
Long Con wrote:Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it. Depends on how unwaveringly honest you think Mac is intent on being. The implication here is that he didn't want to lie about his baddieness, he preferred to flaunt it instead? "Mwa ha ha, you will NEVER find the evidence you need to defeat Me! Foolish Civ!"

Is this like A Few Good Men, where Col. Jessup wanted to claim proud responsibility for the Code Red?

Like when you attacked sig for his use of the word "interesting", among other things, this feels to me like you are opportunistically jumping on things to cast suspicion on people... as opposed to stating a genuine suspicion. Like a predator that senses weakness.
This is exactly why I did not read MAc's post in a positive light.
I don't believe that you could actually form a scum read based on something so weak? A fake scum read sure, but a genuine one no. I have no problem saying I am a civilian when I am not one. Lying is something I do well when I am bad. By this logic anytime someone defends themself by addressing the logic without adding an "I am x alignment" post-script you would scum read them, which I don't believe to be true.

I said I didn't read it in a civ light. I didn't say I wanted to lynch you. You are jumping to conclusions-- just like I'd imagine a baddie would.

Anyway, my NY trip is going well. Saw Hamilton last night, seeing Fun Home and Spring Awakening today. Won't be around much. RIP Rico, but maybe you can be a little more productive in death.

Long Con wrote:Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it. Depends on how unwaveringly honest you think Mac is intent on being. The implication here is that he didn't want to lie about his baddieness, he preferred to flaunt it instead? "Mwa ha ha, you will NEVER find the evidence you need to defeat Me! Foolish Civ!"

Is this like A Few Good Men, where Col. Jessup wanted to claim proud responsibility for the Code Red?

Like when you attacked sig for his use of the word "interesting", among other things, this feels to me like you are opportunistically jumping on things to cast suspicion on people... as opposed to stating a genuine suspicion. Like a predator that senses weakness.

This is exactly why I did not read MAc's post in a positive light.

Ricochet wrote:Lots of serious talk over the night I don't know what to make of. Fuzz's thoughts are written in a complicated manner and Golden did nothing but hit the ball back at him the same way. Hmm. And then you let Baddie Con take it into OT zone. M'kay.

Elohcin wrote:This game is moving way too fast for me.
It'll be over soon, it seems.

Turnip Head wrote:This is not the 2015 Game of Nerds

But I love nerds, and this thread is already unreadable as is, and I'm drunk, so carry on
It'll be over soon, it see- oh wait, you're not a player.

It's becoming clear the game will virtually start on Night 1, the way the past 19 pages aren't about my spot on baddie catching anymore, but a skip button for players to appeal to. Let it be known, post-mislynch, how easy it was for Dom and Timmer, for instance, to play this card.

Nice attempt, but nah.

I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).

thellama73 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Dom wrote:Llama, why did you dismiss DH rather than take issue with the content of the post?
I don't actually know what you're referring to here. Can you be more specific?
Nevermind, I went back and looked and see what you mean.

I don't know what there is to address. I read Mac as behaving a certain way, and DH says that same read applies to Rico. I don't really agree. It amounts to different interpretations of the same data.

Why not speak about how the situations are different?
Why so obtuse?

DharmaHelper wrote:Also, since when is "Indy" synonymous with "Better let this person win the game"

This this this.
Even if Rico is Indy, there is no reason to allow him to live for that reason alone.

MacDougall wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Mac and Fuzz are teammates (in a bad kind of way).
Please don't make matter of fact statements like this without making a case or I will make your experience in this game very unpleasant.
Ok.
I would encourage you in this situation to not bother trying to force a case out of this ping because you will find absolutely nothing to support it beyond your own faulty intuition.

I was reading you as civ until this post. :/

Search found 156 matches