The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S: TURNIP HEAD IS KIRA!! HE'S THE ONE KILLING ME! AVENGE ME!!! PLEA---

???

still voting wrong.

Turnip Head wrote:

boo wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Someone is killing off experienced players.

You and llama?

Can you repeat the question?

murderer.

Turnip Head wrote:Someone is killing off experienced players.

You and llama?

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm going outside to play in the snow. I'll be back later.

Yeah that's cool, we'll be here sorting through all this paperwork

Not a case. Probably not meant to be read. Conclusion intentional and came first. Certainly meant to be indefensible. Cannot trust.

Last ditch attempt? Or unkillable? Epi = TH?

should still lynch llama

nope

Turnip Head wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I think Zomba forgot to add to her profile on Snowman: not playing one bit.

Nah.

llama is TH and TH is llama. maybe Epi is llama and llama is Epi. maybe TH is epi and Epi is TH.

zomba is not Snowman and snowman is not Zomba.

Turnip Head wrote:

boo wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Boo, what on earth

Millions of evil llama's. Their everywhere.

Will we have time to lynch them all?

llama stew four everyone.

Turnip Head wrote:Boo, what on earth

Millions of evil llama's. Their everywhere.

juliets wrote:

boo wrote:

juliets wrote:boo what do you think of Epi this game?

I think he's using a lot of WIFOM. He isn't llama as far as we know, but then, maybe that means he's llama. We should lynch llama to find out for sure.

Wait, what? He isn't llama but maybe that means he's llama??

No, it means he could be llama. And if we lynch llama, the result will tell us if Epi is also actually llama. You know, like a llama where an Epi suit to pretend it isn't a llama?

juliets wrote:boo what do you think of Epi this game?

I think he's using a lot of WIFOM. He isn't llama as far as we know, but then, maybe that means he's llama. We should lynch llama to find out for sure.

We should lynch llama.

Zomberella12 wrote:

So our last lynch was pretty good. Lets get another baddie today.

That's clearly a demon-possessed llama. Therefore, we should kill llama.

Also, I saw Zomberella with the devil-llama.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

One other thing I would add to this discussion of our old pal zeek is that he replaced Roxy rather quickly, and it is my belief that baddies get replaced more quickly than civvies, although this game may be an exception due to the relative lack of baddie BTSC.

That's something I can agree with (baddies being replaced sooner). But, Roxy has been replaced, everyone managed to vote in the last lynch, and we know Golden is already looking to replace in. So, if there were multiple people needing replacements, that might being something, but since there's at least one replacement on stand-by, I don't see that belief as mattering in this situation.

ebwop: They aren't civvies

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:It'd only be second worst if they weren't a baddie team. But they are, so it's not a bad outcome. The only bad lynch outcome is a detective being lynched. Which you would know, if you weren't Yotsuba.

No they aren't. They're not even a team. If you are a detective, you need Kira dead. That is all. Read the detective win condition so you are clear what your enemy's objective is.

Be back this afternoon.

They have a kill (eventually), they are listed together, and their win conditions are unknown. They are civvies, they aren't listed as indies, therefore, they are baddies. Their leader is a kira. But sure, keep trying to paint your baddie team as civ friendly.

It'd only be second worst if they weren't a baddie team. But they are, so it's not a bad outcome. The only bad lynch outcome is a detective being lynched. Which you would know, if you weren't Yotsuba.

Turnip Head wrote:Epi thinks I'm a God of Death and he still didn't use an umbrella against me like he did Russ.

Man, I wouldn't go around telling people that. Eloh will be pissed when she hears Epi isn't using protection when he's with a god of death.

Turnip Head wrote:Russt, boo... who do you guys think killed LC?

Well, it says Kira, so it was Light I assume. Which means my previous thought (and Epi's) that LC was Yotsuba probably wasn't a thought shared by the killer.

Although, I'm pretty sure you have BTSC with the killer, so you could just tell us? That'd be great.

Russtifinko wrote:Geez what a crazy game so far! Here are some of my strongest impressions, presented in no real order:

I'm not particularly broken up about BWT dying, personally. I have Yotsuba filed as "indie for now, with potential to become bad". So clearly not as good as getting a Kira, but still not a bad thing. You know who's sad when Yotsubas die, I bet? Other Yotsubas (ahem ahem).

I think that the content and quality of llama's posts strongly indicate he's a civ, and yes, as a civ he is without fail very opinionated and talkative. So I think people should lay off and let him play his game.

Llama, as I said, I think we're both civ, but I think one of us is being flummoxed, because we're trusting pretty much exactly the opposite people. For example, I think S~V~S's analysis has been as helpful as yours, and so I strongly believe she's civ. boo is reading civ to me as well, whereas Epi is not. Can we discuss, please?

I have good feels about FZ. so far, and though I don't have a strong read on Snowman I think the case on him was super weak, and that some people are being too hard on him. I could be wrong, but my impression is that Epi, in particular, sees him as a threat and wants him gone, and that it may not be related to role. Epi, afraid of a psychologist putting the kibosh on your brain games? :P

Oh! And speaking of Epi, do you guys think he's just being weird, or do you suppose a role-related reason for him not voting his main suspects? I couldn't find anything obvious about who would do that or why, but it just seems so unusual for any experienced player to do that twice that I'm looking for reasons.

Linki: What boo said.

I think Epi is a Yotsuba, and that even he doesn't know what to do with that information.

Alright, well you can all discuss it however you like. But the lynch is still the third best result I think we could have hoped for (1st = Kira's, 2nd= sympathizers, 3rd = Yotsuba), and is far better than killing another detective.

Also, I'd like to point out that BWT voted early. You want to know another reason you should hold your vote until you have to cast it? Because sometimes people start voting for you towards the end of the lynch when they need to vote, and if you still had yours, you could use it keep yourself from being lynched.

FZ. wrote:

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:Has Zombarella posted anything lately?

No. Her last post was about 4 hours after Day 2 started.

Does it rule out being silenced?

Well it was during D2, so yes.

bea wrote:LOL - boo - has your opinion changed on teefies? I mean even if we are a day late, you agreed then with what was noticed today.

linki - haven't seen anything from her that I can remember since the beginning of the cycle when she said she agreed that we should look at snowman because he's a psychologigist (or something like that ) IRL so he knows how to be manipulative.

No, I still think he's bad. I just think baddie llama is more dangerous. For example, that he is currently leading a bandwagon on someone I think is a civ, while BWT is really at most a bandwagon-er sort of baddie.

FZ. wrote:Has Zombarella posted anything lately?

No. Her last post was about 4 hours after Day 2 started.

I think potential BWT voters should vote llama. But I'd also like to point out to potential BWT voters that they're a day behind, so if they lynch BWT today, then maybe they'll get to llama tomorrow. That would work.

A final thought before I'm gone for a while.

llama began his Snowman suspicion, and mostly rests it on, Snowman looking for a bandwagon to join.

llama has admitted to wanting to bandwagon Snowman.

You vote Snowman, you're probably bandwagoning.

And then D3, llama will lead a bandwagon against you.

Just something to consider.

zeek wrote:Nobody reads my posts

I did. And I think you're wrong. The detectives are a civ team. I think you're the first person to try and make the argument that they are not.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote: The difference being, I want people to vote for you after thinking about. I don't want people mindlessly follow obvious lies and spinning I've said and done to get what I want, and I'm not trying to have someone I don't actually believe is bad get lynched. One is a bandwagon, the other is not.

I do think Snowman is bad, and I do want people to think about him before voting for him. That's why I voted early. To force people to consider him. We've been over this.

No, you don't. No you didn't, you've already agreed you voted early because you wanted people to bandwagon him.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.

No, it is for his eagerness to join a bandwagon on Day 1 and his subsequent joining of that same bandwagon.

Are you serious? I have said this over and over again. You are either not reading or you have a motive for misrepresenting my vote.

And the reason you voted so early is because you wanted to start a bandwagon on him.

Basically, yes. I want him lynched because I think he is bad. Just like you want me lynched because you think I am bad.

The difference being, I want people to vote for you after thinking about. I don't want people mindlessly follow obvious lies and spinning I've said and done to get what I want, and I'm not trying to have someone I don't actually believe is bad get lynched. One is a bandwagon, the other is not.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.

No, it is for his eagerness to join a bandwagon on Day 1 and his subsequent joining of that same bandwagon.

Are you serious? I have said this over and over again. You are either not reading or you have a motive for misrepresenting my vote.

And the reason you voted so early is because you wanted to start a bandwagon on him.

Epignosis wrote:I also think Long Con is Yotsuba.

So your teammate then. I could see it.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

Nope. I get the difference. My point is I could have avoided this by not posting at all. I could have been a non-particiapnt for the first two days and gotten a free pass. I chose to play the game, which was clearly a mistake.

Yes, you could have. My point about non-participants is that I still wouldn't have given you a free pass, and that the problem is, as you and I both dislike, there are people who would have given you that free pass.

And as I have said many times, and you have intentionally taken out of context many times, being a non-participant would not have been the same as being a low poster, which is why you call me a hypocrite, even though we both know, and anyone who reads what I've said knows, that is not true.

And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

FZ. wrote:

boo wrote:I was going under the impression we had all realized but decided not discuss the obvious TH being a baddie thing, but it seems like people are still taking him seriously for some reason, so I'm just going to put it out there.

Ryuk – A shinigami who appears to Light shortly after he discovers his Death Note, Ryuk explains that he has to stay with Light until he either dies or the Death Note is destroyed, and that he ‘dropped’ the Death Note into the human world because he was bored. As a shinigami, he cannot be harmed by humans, nor can he be seen by humans who have not made contact with his Death Note. Oh, and he loves apples. Has BTSC with Light Yagami. Because he is a shinigami, votes by humans in lynches do not affect him, and writing his name down in a Death Note will not kill him. Thus, he cannot be lynched or night killed. However, if he is about to be killed for the second time, although he will still not die, his existence will be made aware to everyone, outing him. Even though Ryuk refuses to take sides and often finds pleasure at Light’s misfortunes, he accompanies Light, and even may assist him. Once Raye Penber has started following Light, Ryuk offers Light the Shinigami Eye deal. If Light takes the offer, Light can role check two players every night but he must kill one of those two players. If Light currently cannot kill with a Death Note, he cannot role check anyone. Because the Eye Deal cuts his lifespan, all votes against Light in lynches will be doubled for the remainder of the game. If Light refuses the Eye Deal, he still may change his mind and accept it later at any time.

There's an unkillable baddie. No win condition actually includes needing this role (or there other two shinigami's, assuming they are also both unkillable), so I guess them being unkillable sort of makes sense.

But... I mean come on, does anyone really want to argue that this isn't TH's role and that he's already made it obvious? I imagine he began acting like he did D1 hoping to waste a lynch or two as we tried to kill him and failed, but with the role reveal it seems pretty obvious that this is his role (or one similar to it).

Of course, I'd be 100% ok with lynching him today to test it, but I'm also almost certain it would be a waste of a lynch so what's the point?

Anyways, there seem to be people still taking what he says seriously, so I figured the easiest way to explain why I won't be is to just put it out there.

So what does it mean? He wins no matter what? He doesn't have to do anything? Not sure I get this. Sorry if I'm dense here, but I admit to not exactly following all the roles and stuff. This is too overwhelming and I'm trying to play as I play any mafia game


linki: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Detectives only need the Kira's dead to win. He's part of the baddie team, but he doesn't need to die for anyone to win. So I don't pay attention to what he has to say, but I don't see the point of trying to kill him, unless we're going to do it all together to test the theory.

This is the bar llama claims to set for himself:

thellama73 wrote:The proper way to investigate is this:
1. Collect all available facts.
2. Construct a theory that explains all available facts.

What too many people in this game do is this:
1. Construct a theory.
2. Collect/invent facts that support that theory.

You guys are free to disagree with me, but you're wrong, and I'm going to continue saying you're wrong.

It is, as he also said, his Sherlock Holmes method of playing the game.

So, lets apply what he claims to do, to what he does.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: The player who accuses me of pondering too much on my voting option and being tactical about it (even if I was consistent in deciding to reflect more on it, but he's not the kind of player to care for such details, anyway) is someone who started the game by saying he'll wait for more opinions, waited a whooping 13 minutes, then simply voted for what he wanted anyway (or went along with DH's explanations), only for the rest of D0 to have more and more doubts, especially after hearing reasonings from boo, SVS or Epignosis.

No need to be coy. You can call me out by name.

As Rico said, llama wanted to vote an option, waited 13 minutes, and then voted for it. llama makes no claim that that is not true.

Did llama collect all available facts and then construct a theory based on all available facts? No, he did not. Is that something we're going to continue to see from llama throughout the rest of the game, despite his claim that that is not only not how he plays the game, but the wrong way to play the game? Yes we are.

This is his very next post:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I get up about 4:30 so yeah.

And yes, re the approach. Llama and I tradionally disagree about that. I have gone after him hard for being anti speculation (read: discussion) in the past. That was why I never bought into his Vomps case although I took flack for it; I could see him being energized and thus more involved via the theme.

But much as I don't like it, I have come to accept that this is his normal, and how the game is fun for him.

I'm not anti-discussion. I just don't see why I have to consider all lines of discussion equally productive.

Anti-discussion or not isn't what I want to point out. Considering all lines of discussion is. He chose the option he wanted to vote for, and then, without even considering all lines of discussion, he voted. Whether he felt at that time they were equally productive is not relevant. How do I know that? I go back a few posts, and there is this:

thellama73 wrote:I'm increasingly starting to think Epi and SVS are right. I thought it would be fun to try a new mechanic, unless L is very good, we could be in serious trouble.

After voting during D0 for the L/Light option, after reading more of the discussion, he realizes that the people on the otherside could be right, and that the option he voted for could put us in very serious trouble. Guess what I'm going to ask. Did llama collect all the facts, and then construct his theory. Obviously he did not.

Now, I'd call this flip-flopping, and it's worse, because he did after making his choice.

But what does he do after flip-flopping? That's right, he calls out someone else for doing it. Now, yes, TH went back and forth a lot. You know the one obvious difference? TH was doing it as part of an on going discussion, to decide where he would vote. Was TH collecting facts? Yes. Was he looking to theorize based on those facts? Yes. Hmm, so doing what llama claims is the right way to play the game makes TH a baddie according to llama. That is this post, which I am not going to quote, since I imagine most people recall it anyways. But by all means, go back and read it for yourself.

And now we're only really getting into D1 llama. And so far, I've skipped almost all of his posts (I suppose presidential memes, other jokes, and talking about the show a bit could be relevant facts, but somehow, I'm not seeing it).

Ok, here's a good one:

thellama73 wrote:Yeah, I did flip flop, because I was convinced (mainly by Epi) that a normal lynch was better. But I didn't keep flipping back and forth after I changed my mind.

Not being a part of a discussion, and not taking the facts into account until after you've made your decision, is apparently a good thing because it means you didn't change your mind as much. I'm not sure there's any other way to look at this than discussion-squashing.

Then this post:

thellama73 wrote:I know I always think Rico is bad, but he is on my list too, Epi. The way he hovered around to wait and see which way the winds were blowing before placing his vote stood out to me.

Again, being a part of a discussion, GATHERING FACTS, is apparently worse than making up your mind and choosing it without being a part of the discussion, and then later changing your mind when you cannot do anything about it.

Then:

thellama73 wrote:Okay, you guys don't think confirmation bias is a problem in mafia. I do. Let's leave it at that. [snipped some stuff]

He simplified other peoples views as being confirmation bias, and decided he should squash the discussion. I wonder where else we've seen llama do that this game? Don't worry, we'll get there.

Ok, we are now past some of the first posts I pulled up to establish the basis. There's still probably about 100-ish posts left at least, so go get a drink and come back ready, cause that shit was probably just the prologue.

Want to see something amazing?

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: Are you suggesting he's a baddie? Why would a baddie be that indecisive? What does he get out of it? And if not, what's the point in even bringing it up apart from appearing like you're baddie hunting?

It's the classic "have it both ways" baddie approach. "Oh look how reasonable I am. I'm listening to everyone. I'm taking all opinion into account. You all have good points!" Refusing to take a stand. Trying to please everyone. I think it is shifty, yes.

llama talks about a classic baddie approach. What has llama been doing so far this game? Using that classic baddie approach. And attacking people who have been using (according to him) that classic baddie approach.

Just another example of not worrying about the facts and speculating, which according to llama, llama thinks is the wrong way to play the game:

thellama73 wrote:If Turnip Head is right and Russ isn't posting because he's a Shinigami, there should be three people not posting. That hasn't been the case. It also seems like way too big of a clue for MP to give us, since two of the three Shinigami are on the mafia team.

Guess llama thinks llama is playing the game wrong.

There are several posts I'm skipping over for a moment (we've reached the 50 post mark), and then we get to llama's D1 vote for TH. It's just for the earlier flip-flopping post, and a no-u, as seen here:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Llama seems a bit off. I might vote for him.

Right back at ya, there Champ.

He follows through with that vote.

Now, that may seem reasonable. However, lets look at some posts I skipped:

thellama73 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:So, from this wellspring of discussion and suspicion and theories and back and forths, you come away wanting to vote for a low poster?

What's suspicious about that? It seems very sensible to me. I have personally found all the verbose squabbling very unproductive.

What would you find productive?

I'll know it when I see it.

I've found posts from most people other than Epi and DH pretty productive.

llama was ok with voting a low poster, because the discussion so far was 'very unproductive'. So, instead of knowing what he'd see when he sees it (gathering facts), and then using that come up with a theory and vote on it, or at least allow that opportunity to occur, llama waits a few hours, and votes for TH. Far before the lynch is near over. In 2 votes, llama has failed to allow for as much fact-gathering as possible, and voted because it's what he decided he was going to do, without the facts being important to the vote. Just some more inconsistency I find interesting.

The next morning, we have the start of the Snowman stuff:

thellama73 wrote:

Snowman wrote:Thank you Zomberella and SVS. I have no idea if either of you are bad or not, but you boiled down your take on all the players in one post, and I appreciate it. I frankly don't have the time to comb through a couple hundred episodes of "Trice Yells at Everyone" every day. I'll offer my insight and contribute what I can, but I don't see the "discussion" coalescing around anyone in particular. All I see is argument ad nauseum around the D0 poll.

I'm happy to see so many involved, but how do you find so much to talk about when literally nothing has happened yet? The most earth-shattering event so far is the realization that Russ hasn't posted anything.

Waiting for a bandwagon to hop onto?

I'm sure we're all familiar with this post at this point, but I thought I'd include it just in case someone needs a refresher. An honest one that hasn't been spun and lied about.

I've skipped a bunch of posts again, to bring up this one:

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote: I am about to re-read Trice because in the discussions so far he sticks out to me. llama, I think someone may have mentioned this but TH changing his mind so much does not sound like a baddie thing to me. I think a baddie would be more sure of his opinion.

I think baddies like to try to have things both ways, but a diversity of opinion enriches us all!

This is still during day 1 in case you were wondering. I just found this post interesting, no more commentary on it, but I think at this point you can figure out what I think about it.

Alright, this post:

thellama73 wrote:For anyone considering joining me in my vote for TH, let the record show that he has said 1) he thinks Russ is likely a baddie; 2) he doesn't want Russ to be lynched "until there can be no doubt"; 3) Russ' behavior tomorrow will fail to remove all doubt.

Essentially, he want to leave someone he thinks is bad alive indefinitely.

Followed by:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I believe Epi is wrong about what role Russ might be. I think he's much more likely to be this one, because of the part I underlined:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Teru Mikami (X Kira) – As a devoted worshiper of Kira, Mikami has a strong sense of justice and feels evil absolutely must be punished. He adheres to a very strict, daily schedule. (Secrets)

That said, I am not inclined to see Russ lynched on Day 1. I want to see what he will do on other days! Will he have to post in rainbow font on Day 2? Will he have to include the word "poop" in every sentence? We should continue to observe his behavior until we can be absolutely sure. It's how L would want us to proceed.

So you think Russ is likely to be a Kira and you don't want to lynch him? Seriously?

TH says 'I think he's much more likely to be', llama apparently must read TH as saying, 'He has to be this one', or chooses to ignore that TH just wants to see what Russ has to do in the future before deciding if he's right. So, this is more spinning and dishonesty from llama, and I think it was intentional.

Alright, this one. I'm more interested in what FZ had to say about llama than how llama actually responded:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: Crazy enough, I'm actually contemplating voting for llama. I don't feel like he's his usual self. I feel like he knows TH's reason for voting him can't be true baddie TH, because he wouldn't do that, yet he's going after him and trying to find something to justify it with. I also don't think that TH's indecisiveness regarding the D0 vote was fishy in any way, and I don't think llama really thought it was either.
Something about how llama is playing strikes me as not genuine

So you think it's totally cool that TH openly doesn't want to lynch baddies, and my pointing that out is not genuine. Good to know.

The emphasis is mine, and is what is important here. This is after llama has made the find fact, make theory to support fact post. FZ calls him out on not doing that. If that belief is so important to llama, if he truly believes that's how an honest civ should play the game, and if llama is a civ in this game, then why is llama not making any effort to address that point in this post? Think on it.

Now, people may not remember this next part. I quite like it. I'm not going to quote it, but please do go and read it, it's here. llama turns around, and right after taking some suspicion from FZ, turns around, builds a case against her (based almost entirely around her discussing TH), and then tries to play if all off by saying no one is buying what she is selling.

I have skipped posts again. Most of what I skipped was one sentence posts about FZ, and his PSA.

thellama73 wrote:

bea wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I might as well reciprocate while I'm here. I laid out my suspicion of TH earlier, and I maintain it.

*Votes Turnip Head*

llama- I missed your reasoning the first time around. Was it that he was wishy-washy with the day 0 vote? If you re-summed it between here and the end of the thread, I will catch it. Still reading up.....

At the time of my vote, there were three things that bothered me about TH (there are now four.)
1. Going back and forth and contradicting himself on the Day 0 vote. I felt like he was trying too hard to be reasonable and please everyone, which I think is baddie behavior.
2. When I called him on this, he barely reacted at all, offering no real defense or argument. I have done this many times as a baddie. Ignore a minor suspicion and it's more likely to go away than if you make a big thing of it.
3. He voted for me with no real reason. I assume the reason is that I am onto him and he wants to stop me knowing my reputation for leading lynches (even if I end up being wrong a lot, I am good at attracting followers as we saw in Film Director).

Now, 4. He basically admitted that he doesn't want to lynch a suspected baddie, which is crazy.

This is llama summing up his TH suspicion.
1. llama did that. llama did it after already voting, so unlike TH, he wasn't even an actual part of the conversation, he was just trying to please everyone.
2. When people have called llama on things, his reaction so far has been to try and blow them off, or no-u them. He says he has done this many times as a baddie. I agree.
3. llama has voted without real reasons.
4. That isn't what TH said, and is llama spinning things to make someone he has decided it bad seem more bad and take votes.

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:I'm here. Reading posts from today.

@Llama, so I think my assessment of your posting was based on length not number. I'm gonna have to reassess how I assess. Anyway, not voting for you today.

Brevity is the soul of wit, quoth the Bard.

I suppose that means he and I are both witless.

Not many Night 1 posts I want to bring up, but there is this one:

thellama73 wrote:I think the FZ case is interesting. She stated she was thinking about voting for me and I hit her back hard. After that, she immediately backed off, which is not what I expected her to do. She's definitely someone I want to look at more going into Day 2.

He makes it sound like it isn't his case. Then he says hitting her back hard is the same thing as a case, then he says he want to look at her more during Day 2.

Then this:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

I guess when llama does it isn't baseless speculation?

And here's why the previous FZ comment is relevant:

thellama73 wrote:I know who I'm voting for on Day 2 now. Spoiler alert: it's not FZ.

The time between the two posts was a few hours, the posts within the two are not helpful for discerning who llama is now going to be voting for, but he already knows. I'd bring up the fact-theory thing again, but it's just getting old at this point.

Then he establishes who he meant when he said he knows who he is voting for:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I definitely considered that the Eye deal could be in the game but didn't want to upset Llama by wildly speculating.

Why do you care whether you upset me? You shouldn't.

Welcome Russ!

I'm going to join the early voting crowd and vote Snowman, who I think is very, very bad.

Challenged on the vote:

thellama73 wrote:

bea wrote:why do you think snowman is very very bad llama?

His earlier comment about waiting for a consensus to emerge before voting, his humorous deflection when I called him on it, and his layig quite low indeed for this whole game. I feel very good about this vote.

He adds nothing new to why he thinks he's bad, but during the night, he apparently got information that he felt no need to conceal his receiving of, that made him decide to vote for Snowman. Or he just doesn't care who he votes for and thought he found someone he could start an easier bandwagon on than FZ and swapped to that.

Now, I know what you're thinking. I left out the consideration of llama's vote being forced. You a damn fool.

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Is there a vote-forcer in the roles? I don't think TH and Llama are forced-votes.

If my vote were forced, I would never cast it early to signal that it was forced. Bad form.

Whether casting it early or not is true, talking about the possibility of your vote being forced when your vote is being forced IS bad form, and often against the rules when your vote is forced.

And now we're nearing the end, where llama spins things I say and outright lies.

This is the tl:dr of that conversation, for anyone who wants it as simple as possible:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

I said a reasonable person waits until they need to vote before voting. llama takes that to mean every single person can wait until the poll closes to vote, and that I am saying they must do so. I know llama knows that isn't what I said. I think llama is bad, not because he was wrong this one time, but that he then began trying to use this situation to get me on tilt, which is why the rest of our discussion happened.

As for the rest of, you can go ahead and read the first page of in topic (and probably some of the 2nd since llama will be undoubtedly continuing to post), but I think it's recent enough that I don't need to pull more quotes, and that first post from it really sums it all up for me.

And that is why you should vote to lynch llama.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm glad I waited for Snowman to properly respond now. Here's where I currently stand:

- I'm not sure what to think about the whole llama/Epig/boo thing. I think there's a lot of misinterpretations going on there. Of the three of them though, I think llama is the one who has done the most in terms of misinterpreting and circular logic. Granted, all of them have, but I think it started with llama claiming boo never answered his question about how long one should wait to vote for someone who doesn't respond. I think boo answered it, but llama twisted his words to say he didn't....HOWEVER, Snowman had also bothered to actually respond (something I had completely forgotten about), and it was a jokey post at first. So by that train of thought, then boo was also wrong. Because he claimed Snowman hadn't responded, when it fact he had.

- I'm still just as suspicious of Russ and TH. My opinion hasn't changed much there. Also, Russ seems to have popped in for a bit early on Day 2, then fallen off the face of the Earth again. Does anyone know if he's been around since he last posted or not?

- After Snowman gave his argument, I feel a bit better about that whole situation.

I'm going to go eat some lunch and then vote before I leave for work. But I think my vote for sure is going to one of the following: boo, llama, TH, or Russ.

llama wasn't claiming Snowman had come in and posted during the day either, I think we had both thought that post happened during N1. Someone requoted it eventually, which is when llama decided I knew it happened (early during) D2, and he didn't.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I read "He will not have had a chance to respond" as "He lost his chance to respond" since boo will follow that opportunity up with a vote (if his vote was available that is). Is that wrong?

That's not how I understand it. I understand it as "he has not had a chance to respond, despite having nearly two days to do so."

Maybe boo will address that discrepancy then.

There isn't one. There's llama, lying and spinning things, which is what he's been doing, and is apparently what he is going to continue doing.

Turnip Head wrote:I expected boo to come in here with a big case re: his revelations of Llama's baddieness. I am so far underwhelmed.

It won't be a long case (well. all things considered at least). The actual conversation stands for itself, which based on the responses of people who have come in and read, seems to already be working better than I anticipated.

Once I go through llama's posts (I haven't even started, I've been working to recall specific things that will be a part of what I do want to say, and deciding how to frame those things once I say them), the post will be a summation (as best as I can do) of other things I find suspicious about llama, and why people should vote for him based on those things and the lies and spinning he has attempted, which is what got me to vote for him (that, and wanting to make my point about what he was arguing was absurd).

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

For me to have been inconsistent, Snowman would have had to have not posted.

You voted for Snowman because of something Snowman said.

Snowman is not a non-participant.

Your spinning is just plain sloppy now.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

Hey boo. I think you fucked up. I am willing to vote for you. This isn't the alcohol talking. It's my judgment of you from this afternoon. You are inconsistent, incoherent, and involved in naughtiness.

I do not think you are a detective. That means I have to decide if you are Kira before I vote.

I think it's the alcohol talking.

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

Epignosis wrote:Does boo drink?

I haven't been. But I was thinking the same of you tbh.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

boo wrote:Goes back to not wanting to see him take more votes before he even comes in and has a chance to talk for himself, because I think that would lead to him just giving up and not bothering, which makes his lynch even easier.

But if these people couldn't wait that long, then...what?

boo wrote:If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

Or some of these people are evil.

Then he's shit out of luck. Luck is a thing that exists Epi, it does play a part in a mafia game.

Sure, or some of those people are evil. Which isn't relevant in a game where the baddies start with the same amount of BTSC as the civvies, but ok, lets throw it out there because we can.

Then why use a scenario that doesn't pertain to our present circumstance?

If the yellow portion doesn't pertain to this game, as you state in the pink comment, then why bring it up? Aren't you invalidating your own argument?

I see a boo who is spiraling out of control.

Those were both yours scenarios. Someone taking 12 votes who you don't want to vote for, while waiting for the person you do want to vote for, means the person you want to vote for was never going to take all (or most) of those 12 votes unless they came in and role-claimed a baddie. Whether some of those 12 voters are themselves baddies is not relevant to them voting for the person with 12 votes or the person you'd like to vote for.

I see an Epi who either isn't reading and making an effort to understand, or is intentionally lying.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In fact, Snowman did come to this thread (after I voted for him), saw that people were talking about him, posted, and did not respond in any substantive way. This was a choice on his part. Do you still maintain he had no chance to respond?

Snowman wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Snowman reminds me of Bad Mr. Frosty:

Yikes, now I kinda want to lynch Snowman...or play Clayfighter.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 37#p116237

3 out of 26 people have voted so far. Based on the fact that I know I'm still here, I know you're still here, and I know TH has been here since voting, we could still be sitting at 0/26 people having voted so far, without changing anything. If making a joke post is enough to convince people he's never going to actually address things, they can vote for him as they see fit. It doesn't convince me he's not going to do so.

Not the question I asked.

It's adorable that you think I care. You change the question you ask after you ask it. So I'll just be using you as a podium to say what I want to say as I think to say it as you inspire me to think to say it.

thellama73 wrote:In fact, Snowman did come to this thread (after I voted for him), saw that people were talking about him, posted, and did not respond in any substantive way. This was a choice on his part. Do you still maintain he had no chance to respond?

Snowman wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Snowman reminds me of Bad Mr. Frosty:

Yikes, now I kinda want to lynch Snowman...or play Clayfighter.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 37#p116237

3 out of 26 people have voted so far. Based on the fact that I know I'm still here, I know you're still here, and I know TH has been here since voting, we could still be sitting at 0/26 people having voted so far, without changing anything. If making a joke post is enough to convince people he's never going to actually address things, they can vote for him as they see fit. It doesn't convince me he's not going to do so.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

boo wrote:Goes back to not wanting to see him take more votes before he even comes in and has a chance to talk for himself, because I think that would lead to him just giving up and not bothering, which makes his lynch even easier.

But if these people couldn't wait that long, then...what?

boo wrote:If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

Or some of these people are evil.

Then he's shit out of luck. Luck is a thing that exists Epi, it does play a part in a mafia game.

Sure, or some of those people are evil. Which isn't relevant in a game where the baddies start with the same amount of BTSC as the civvies, but ok, lets throw it out there because we can.

If someone already has 12 votes, the people voting for them don't agree with you and wouldn't have voted for the person you want to vote for unless they had literally come in and role-claimed a baddie. You're more practical than this.

thellama73 wrote:To clarify, I wasn't giving Snowman an hour to respond to my vote. My point was he last checked in after I voted for him, meaning he could have seen it and responded if he wished.

Could have. Not did. Could have.

But it's a good thing you like dealing in the theoretical and not the factual, or man oh man, you'd look inconsistent right about now.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You cannot advocate lynching low-posters while being okay with them not posting.

I think boo is okay with lynching low-posters, but for some reason wants to protect Snowman.

Go back and read Epi. A non-participant, meaning someone who IS NOT PLAYING, is not the same things as a low-poster.

And it does make sense llama. If I wanted to vote for Snowman, I give him the chance to respond until I need to vote before voting for him. He doesn't respond, I can still vote for him because I think he's bad, he didn't defend, I need to vote. If I vote before I need to, and he then comes in and responds, that's stupid, because what he said to defend himself may change my mind, and guess what, we can't change votes in this game. Again, simple.

Read my post. I was careful not to say "non-participant." I said low-poster, because everyone had posted (except Russ), so non-participant wasn't a thing.

It's sad really. I believe your arguments about low-posters / non-participants, but you don't believe in it yourself. Not this game. You gave yourself an out, it seems: If you wait until zero-minus 10 seconds to vote for such a player, that player will never be lynched, and you can continue to rally against them without ever changing the culture.

It takes more than that. It takes saying EARLY ON we won't tolerate low-posters / non-participators / what have you. Vote these guys out.

But you seem to be okay with it...sometimes? Dude.

Read my posts. I was careful to say non-participants. Someone asked and I very clearly laid out the difference.

They absolutely can be lynched. If someone who needs to vote 8 hours before the poll closes doesn't get a response to their suspicion, they vote 8 hours before the poll closes. If 5 people can wait until right before the poll closes, they should wait until right before the poll closes. It's about giving a person a fair chance to respond to the reasons they should be lynched before voting for them during that lynch. That fair chance is holding off until you can no longer do so.

You're also ignoring the fact that there are multiple lynches in a game. I suspected BWT D1. Even if I hadn't gotten an answer from him D1, and decided not to vote for him D1 (I wouldn't wait for someone like that. I need to vote, I suspect them, they haven't defended, I vote for them) as some people do, lets say he then gave me the answer he did D2. I vote for him D2. Lets say he hasn't given me answer into D2 when I need to vote, I vote for him then.

And you're out of time. *votes llama*

thellama73 wrote:You're drawing a distinction without a difference, Boo.

Snowman:
Last visited:
Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:37:14 pm

I voted for him more than an hour before that, meaning he had the chance to see my vote and respond to it. He chose not to. Your claim that he has not had the chance to respond is false.

linki: bwt. It wasn't hard to understand. It just didn't answer the question I asked.

Ok llama, we'll play things your way. You're here right now. I'm going to vote for you. You have 1 second after this post goes through to give me a reason I should not vote for you. Because apparently we can set a clock on people no matter how absurd.