The Syndicate

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.

Correct. I'm also not sure how it's poorly worded. I worded it different ways because he didn't get it the first time. Seems simple enough to me.

How "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." and "As long as you can possibly wait for a response until you risk missing being able to vote." aren't easily seen to have the same meanings is beyond me. How you paraphrased it is right there in the thing I actually said.

I'm also not sure how, when earlier I was very clear about how I define a non-participant (someone who actually does not show up) is being spun by llama to be the same as a low poster (ie typical DP, or Snowman so far in this game). I think I was very clear (and cleared up the difference during that discussion). And yet here we still are with people spinning things.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

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.

If a potential voter is there right before the poll closes? Yes. If you have to vote 5 hours before it closes, then 5 hours is the answer. 24, 24, Etc, etc.

Unless we know for a fact he is here and is just choosing not to respond, he hasn't had the chance to respond. And since he and Zomba have both not posted in quite sometime, and it is friday night, it seems perfectly reasonable to say they just haven't been here today or tonight, which is why neither of them have posted.

I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to understand.

You have stated that there is no point of any duration at which you will consider a player to have had ample chance to respond to a vote. The implication is that any player can avoid your vote by not posting and not visiting the thread.

What is hard to understand is how this relates to your earlier statements about non-participants.

I can see how you would take that from what I said. If you selectively chose words and mashed them together to create a sentence I did not say.

DharmaHelper wrote:

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.

No this is Patrick

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.

If a potential voter is there right before the poll closes? Yes. If you have to vote 5 hours before it closes, then 5 hours is the answer. 24, 24, Etc, etc.

Unless we know for a fact he is here and is just choosing not to respond, he hasn't had the chance to respond. And since he and Zomba have both not posted in quite sometime, and it is friday night, it seems perfectly reasonable to say they just haven't been here today or tonight, which is why neither of them have posted.

I'm not sure what part of this is difficult to understand.

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.

I didn't pull up the Zomba quote SVS, Epi did. And then I read the quote. And what Epi said the quote said and what the quote said were not the same.

Ricochet wrote:Don't know why, but I don't think TH is a Ryuk/Shinigami-player. I already replied this to BWT. Why would TH (or any Shinigami-player) out himself in advance of being outed by two failed lynches/kills?

Well, before the role secret was revealed, it would have been a great way for him to get us to waste multiple lynches.

Then it was revealed. At first I thought he was X Kira (and that he was following his daily routine with the votes), but before making a case I asked MP if there was anything more to the roles (only the possibility of win conditions, I assume that was in reference to the 3rd Kira not having a know win condition and also not having it revealed in the secret), which meant the daily schedule was just flavour. So, at least if we want to base how he's been acting on a role (and that's what I do), I think he must be Ryuk (or at least a shingami assuming they all share the same base set of abilities).

DharmaHelper wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Something I want others' opinions on:

What do we think of the idea that some of these role secrets could be faked?

What makes you say that?

A lore based assumption.

Would you like to be more vague please?

DharmaHelper wrote:Something I want others' opinions on:

What do we think of the idea that some of these role secrets could be faked?

Unless any of them stand out as not being accurate to the story, I'm not sure that would make sense. If playing the game doesn't require knowledge, and roles are randomized, then the role that can reveal fake role secrets given to a person not familiar with the story is at a disadvantage. and the person familiar would be at an advantage. Even if MP gave the person multiple options instead of making them come up with it, one option would be the 'more right' one, so the dis/advantage would still exist.

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.

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Like Epi said, it's odd that Boo didn't feel comfortable defending Trice on the chance that he flipped bad, but has no qualms defending Snowman, after he says he wants to lynch low posters.

I'm not so sure I understand what Trice has to do with this. Is there a link I am missing?

Boo said he would have defended Trice but didn't want to look bad if Trice flipped bad.

And I also said Trice was actually there to defend himself. But leaving out relevant details (or any details) is what you're all about this game, so I guess I can't be surprised.

Epignosis wrote:You mean he's a psychologist in real life but doesn't know what a bandwagon is? That term in the context of the game holds the same meaning as it does anywhere else, does it not?

Plus, I used the term Day 1 when Snowman voted for me in Donner.

Uh-uh. He knows.

I don't think the thoughtless-ness of it within the games context is the same as typical context, no.

Ok? And he misused it as far as I'm concerned in this game, and what he says trumps what you say for what he thinks.

Turnip Head wrote:What's up with boo defending Snowman, a low poster, despite his earlier insistence that we lynch his kind? Boo, where does Snowman fall in your Thinker rankings? Who's below him? Who do you think is worthy of your vote so far?

Non-participant isn't the same as low poster.

You're at the bottom.

I'm probably voting BWT.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Yes, the quote you pulled doesn't add up. She said she wants to talk about him and that she wasn't ready to vote for him.

NO HER

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

It means in a discussion about Snowman, you highlight something Zomberella said to shift discussion to her. That's fine. I thought I was just being clever.

boo wrote:I'm also not really sure what you meant in the last post about Snowman being new without being new. Have he and Zomba (or just him, but clarification would still be good) played mafia at a different site, or are the mind games you're referring to something else? Because unless they just played at a different site, I'm not really sure I see the relevance. Anyone who has ever met a woman (haha, casual sexism. take that society!) has a lifetime of experience with mind games before playing mafia, but we don't expect that to translate to immediate mafia prowess.

Just my opinion- unlike some, I don't think new people should be given a pass because of newness. It's how you learn. I was bad in my first game here and rabbit called me right out. I played the discouraged newbie card and went on to win the game. Then in my second game, I made a rookie mistake and Zany Dex got me lynched right quick-like.

I see no reason- least of all in THIS game- to treat anyone with leniency because of any kind of newness, least of all someone who is as perceptive and possibly deceptive as I believe Snowman can be.

I'm not sure you've followed why being new is relevant. I said I wasn't sure he even understood what bandwagoning is referring to in the context of the game, and llama said he should know. If he has only played one game, I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption, especially since in the post where Snowman said it, it really didn't seem like he knew what it meant, and if he did, and knew it was a baddie behaviour, why would he have done it in the first place?

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Yes, the quote you pulled doesn't add up. She said she wants to talk about him and that she wasn't ready to vote for him.

NO HER

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I'm also not really sure what you meant in the last post about Snowman being new without being new. Have he and Zomba (or just him, but clarification would still be good) played mafia at a different site, or are the mind games you're referring to something else? Because unless they just played at a different site, I'm not really sure I see the relevance. Anyone who has ever met a woman (haha, casual sexism. take that society!) has a lifetime of experience with mind games before playing mafia, but we don't expect that to translate to immediate mafia prowess.

Yes, the quote you pulled doesn't add up. She said she wants to talk about him and that she wasn't ready to vote for him.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki with Epig: I don't think's boo's reaction is a gambler's fallacy; that logic only really applies when the second event has exactly the same odds as the first. Which is not the case in these circumstances, in which the available information differs.

I haven't read your post yet, but wanted to comment on this first. My point (in context) is that if boo is comfortable lynching a non-participator or someone unhelpful (as many are not), why would he be disapproving of a Snowman "bandwagon" (a lynch is not necessarily a bandwagon, by the way) on the basis of that having not worked out with Trice, who was actively engaged (by boo's own judgement).

That's the dissonance I mean.

I wouldn't agree Snowman isn't engaged. He isn't highly engaged, and I'd like more from him, but on that count there are people who are worse offenders than him.

Very well, but you said "My big problem with the Snowman stuff is that it already looks like there's a bandwagon forming against him, and seeing as how that went so poorly with Trice (who I didn't step in for because he was actually defending himself and I don't like to try and help people in the early game since if they're lynched and bad that somehow makes me bad for doubting a pretty shaky case)..."

You don't defend someone early because he was actively defending himself and could have been bad, but you ARE defending someone early (only Day 2) who is not actively defending himself and could still be bad. Therefore I don't see the significance in those qualifications.

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.

Epignosis wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki with Epig: I don't think's boo's reaction is a gambler's fallacy; that logic only really applies when the second event has exactly the same odds as the first. Which is not the case in these circumstances, in which the available information differs.

I haven't read your post yet, but wanted to comment on this first. My point (in context) is that if boo is comfortable lynching a non-participator or someone unhelpful (as many are not), why would he be disapproving of a Snowman "bandwagon" (a lynch is not necessarily a bandwagon, by the way) on the basis of that having not worked out with Trice, who was actively engaged (by boo's own judgement).

That's the dissonance I mean.

I wouldn't agree Snowman isn't engaged. He isn't highly engaged, and I'd like more from him, but on that count there are people who are worse offenders than him.

I think it's just the term for night kills LC. From the revealed shingami role: "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."

So, the death notes can move around (I assume mostly or entirely just between the 4 kira's), but I don't think (and I think this is what you were trying to figure out) that the detectives can get and start killing with them. So I don't think we're going to see people claiming they've had or have a death note. In the actual story, did any of the detectives ever actually get and use a death note?

Long Con wrote:Still lots of time to vote, and no bandwagon set in stone at this point. There have been others talked about for suspicious behaviour.

Not set in stone, but I do think there has been angling to form one. And there's a difference between coming back in and defending yourself when you only have one vote to coming and and already having several. Even just people holding onto votes instead of voting before the lynch is even at the halfway point (especially when they're still around and aren't at all worried about missing the vote) is helpful so that if (/hopefully when) he comes in to defend himself, he doesn't look at the votes and just decide it isn't even worth the effort. Lots (most) people get frustrated when they start taking votes, for a new player to come in and see they have even just 3 or 4 of like 5 or 6 votes total cast would already be enough to pretty much call it quits.

There isn't a vote-forcer in any of the secret-revealed roles.

Sure Rico. But I don't view what he said and did as suspicious and that's my point. I also think there are people (BWT and Boomslang for example) who are far more obvious cases of intentional bandwagoning, and I think I've come up with more in general that points towards their being bad than anything that has been said about Snowman.

I'm not trying to help him get off the hook, but at this point, his beating the bar of defending himself compared to other people wouldn't take much. Go back and read BWT defending himself from what I said. He wasn't trying to engage what I said about him, he was trying to just go past it and ignore it so that other people would. I think even with Boomslang there's more there to justify a vote (I doubt I'm going with him today, but we'll see what he has to say if he ever does come and say anything).

And those are just two options.

My big problem with the Snowman stuff is that it already looks like there's a bandwagon forming against him, and seeing as how that went so poorly with Trice (who I didn't step in for because he was actually defending himself and I don't like to try and help people in the early game since if they're lynched and bad that somehow makes me bad for doubting a pretty shaky case), I think people who don't agree and aren't looking to bandwagon him need to actual make an effort to stop that from happening and engage. I think people who are considering voting him, and are civvies (so not looking to bandwagon) also need to be challenged before it becomes the easy and safe choice.

Turnip Head wrote:I've seen DP on the site. In fact, I see him viewing the thread right this very minute.

Yup, of the 5, those last three don't strike me as being silent because they were actually silenced (we already know bass won't be around much, zeek said he wouldn't be when he last posted, and DP is DP), just went over the player list and figured having them all mentioned would be helpful.

Your silence (for you), makes me consider the same thing LC. :P The fact that it's both you and BR just adds to it or makes me think you guys are just busy right now. But neither of you have actually played that card. I wonder if lynching one of you would draw the other out more?

We also haven't seen posts from bass, DP, or zeek. So 5 total possible silences.

Turnip Head wrote:Has the silence bug hit Boomslang?

He isn't the only person who hasn't posted today.

I just finished reading over Made (he stopped posting D1 and didn't even vote), for example. I don't really have anything to say about my read of him. He was everywhere with somewhere new every post, there were inconsistencies I didn't really get but I'm pretty sure were intentional. I dunno. I'm guessing he's just weird.

Doing more reading of people.

Boomslang wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:35 minutes left and 15 missing votes

Welcome to my hell.

I feel like the game is in a Mexican standoff right now... So guess I'll be among the first to shoot. I think there's a lot of information that came out of the Trice/Ace exchange, most of which showed Trice to be self-contradictory and a bit flustered. I'm not reading a genuine defense in those posts, so I'm going to add my vote.

linki w/Rico: I feel the same way about Russ, but I feel a little less forgiving toward TH. Hopefully Russ posts tomorrow and can give some good intel. Also skeptical of FZ; Snowman's few posts suggest a lack of involvement with the game, which hasn't yet made itself clear to me as ignorance or malice.

Boomslang doesn't have many posts and lots of them are jokey, and this one pretty much sums up what I have to say anyways. But take a minute and read over him.

Before voting for Trice, Boomslang had had some minor suspicion of him that he voiced, but in a post after that it had sounded like he thought Trice and Ace were both just to much into it and that at this point he didn't seem all that suspicious of either of them. That is this post:

Boomslang wrote:

Made wrote:Caught up, but I don't feel there's a niche anywhere in conversation for me to fill as of yet.
I agree with SVS, while I did read the entirety of DH v Epi and Ace v Trice, I think it would help me during a reread if i knew where the arguments were going while reading. Personally, I feel like DH and Trice are arguing past each other on the "Good" remark, so if a third party could reframe that, both for my own understanding, and the mutual understanding of Dh and Trice, that'd be awesome.

Not a ping, but honestly, I expected Llama to take a bigger role in conversation thus far.

Epi, You said that ace is normally a quiet player, having never played with him, can you elaborate further?

also, play style reads on DP, Meta, Zomba, Boo, Trice, and Snowman would be nice if someone would like to offer them.

As far as I understand, the "good" remark is in reference to what Trice said about the L/Light lynch option, in reference to Ace's analysis of the options. DH read Ace's analysis as saying it would be more logical for the baddies to pick the normal lynch, while Trice read Ace's analysis to say the lynch option would be the one civilians would pick. Trice then argued that the two interpretations were identical. I think DH is splitting some unnecessary hairs here, but I don't think Ace's language marks him as bad.

Then he does a bit of discussing a variety of things (mostly Snowman and FZ), a bit of joking, and then we get to the voting post.

Now, problem number one. I have no idea why he thought it was a mexican standoff. Trice already had 5 votes, the next highest voter finished the lynch with 3, and Boomslang knew he was about to widen the gap and bring Trice to 6 votes. So... how can he claim to the first to shoot? It... makes no sense. He gives a little bit to explain his vote, and does so.

The voting post (ignoring his linki bit that is directed at Rico that is just going back to his discussion about other people) is just him bandwagoning onto Trice, while phrasing it in a way that tries to make it sound like he's some sort of decision maker who is leading the charge, not someone piling on another vote for someone who already has the lead, is taking a clear lead because of his vote, with the lynch only having (less than) 35 minutes left.

Since then, we got one post from him during N1, and nothing today.

Ricochet wrote:I'm curious to hear as to why Snowman's experience level would change the tone, content, meaning and whatever else of his posts here. I'm genuinely open to counter-arguments - not least from Snowman himself, of course - especially given that I'm new myself (but at the same time I see myself as giving my equal best in all my games so far ). What Epignosis pointed out, I think, was that he was quite the active and astute newbie to being with, compared to which his style here can indeed be less involved, but it can equally be a choice or tactic put into execution. Not to mention that another player in equal status with him - Zomberella - was almost voted by a more experienced player on her first day, plus is on several other players top lists for her D1 behaviour.

BTSC, if he's only played when he's had it, that for me pretty much entirely explains why he would be more withdrawn.

Outside of that, it's the "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." line from him that people seem so up in arms about. That doesn't read baddie to me, that reads like a genuine question from someone who isn't really sure how to go about finding every little thing someone says suspicious and able to discuss in that way.

Then the bandwagon comment? There are veteran players who say (and honestly mean it) stuff like that and take less flak for it. There are plenty of players who don't say it but who it's obviously true of who take less flak for it. It is the kind of honesty Snowman should probably learn to keep in check, because nobody likes it even if we all know there are people who decide pretty much every D1 vote in the same way, but it isn't the kind of honesty I look at and see a baddie blunder.

I'm also not even sure he understands what we mean when we use the term bandwagon, because when llama called him out on it (asking "Waiting for a bandwagon to hop onto?"), his response was, "If the right wagon comes along, sure! has your wagon already been through all nine pages that follow his post?"). That just makes me think he thinks a bandwagon is any suspicion he agrees with and decides to vote on, not a suspicion he's ambivalent about but doesn't care enough to really think through where to place his vote.

So... would I like to see more from Snowman? Yes. But even if he wasn't a new player I would find the arguments for lynching him to be some serious grasping at straws. As it is... I have to question the motivation of people who want to lynch him, because I think many of them are the ones looking to bandwagon.

and there's a bunch of linki

Ok, thanks. So the X Kira very strict, daily schedule, which has nothing to do with what was revealed in his role, is just entirely flavour then unless he has a different win condition then what is stated for the team.

Questions on snowman:

1) Isn't he new?
2) Didn't everyone in Donner have BTSC?

Because if it's yes to both, a change up in how he's playing in this game isn't surprising at all.

Turnip Head wrote:Why do you think Russ didn't post on Day 1, boo?

And day 0. And night 1. And didn't vote Day 1.

I don't know, I don't trust it. If it is role related, which I can't make sense of, is there a civvie explanation? If it isn't role related, it just seems like a ploy to escape attention and then come in and fake it to stir up confusion when that stops working, and I definitely don't see a civvie explanation for that.

Turnip Head wrote:It's entirely possible and extremely likely that Russ has a role that gained something by staying silent on Day 1. What I don't really know at this point is what role that would be. My best guess, X Kira, is clearly wrong.

My problem now with it being role related is that since we now know the roles of living players are going to be revealed over time or when conditions are met or whatever, is that if that is in a role it would out him when that role gets revealed, while outting him as not certain roles (like X Kira) as they are revealed. That seems really weird to me, especially because there is no ambivalence about it, he's the only person who didn't post, we didn't have like 3 or 4 people who could each have a role with something similar.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm brandishing my pitchfork in anticipation of Epi's response.

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.

Really? Then what was suspicious about it in the first place for you?

Turnip Head wrote:I'm satisfied. What about you guys?

If it's such an obvious mechanic as Epi is making it sound like, when he's 7 episodes in, why did no one who has seen all of it not already mentioned it as a mechanic we should be worried about, and DH, who has seen it was still suspicious of Epi (at least before he gave the explanation). So either it's an elaborate set up by everyone who knows the theme to get Epi killed, or it's a minor thing and it's still weird Epi thinks it is so obvious it's a game mechanic and it's weird he just happened to bring it up before any non-baddie could know it was in the game with certainty.

I'd like to look at a Trice voter today (well, maybe. the epi and eye deal just seems like a huge red flag), but it wouldn't be Ace. Of the Trice voters, Ace is the only one who was actually case-building against Trice, and he was right in it with him. To me, that establishes a bias for Ace that is hard to see past.

For all of the other Trice voters, I can see some of them buying into what Ace was saying - on the condition that they were taking his word on certain things, meaning they wouldn't see past that bias since they weren't looking close enough at what Ace was actually saying and fact-checking instead of taking his word.

Because there were things Ace was saying about Trice that were true and reasonable suspicions. Those led Ace to being suspicious of Trice. Those same things were (imo) true of Ace, and led Trice to being suspicious of Ace. From there, it devolved into them both being suspicious of each other and looking for something suspicious in every single post, which led to Ace thinking Trice had spun things he had said dishonestly. I think they both did some of that, and I think they both saw some of that where it wasn't actually happening. I can forgive Ace that and not automatically assume it makes him bad. He was making an effort, and I think it was an honest one.

I do not think that same sort of effort was put in by some Trice voters. Some of them maybe just didn't have the time, or whatever, other ways of explaining it that don't make me just want to start lynching each Trice voter one by one, but enough that on top of other things being a Trice voter will add to any suspicion of you that I have.

So there's BWT. Who I'm already suspicious of. Who voted for Trice. This is his vote post. I do still think he was just piling a vote onto Trice because it was an easy vote, and he says the big ping that got him to vote Trice is: "My biggest ping on him came from him misquoting Aces, and then building IMO a weak case on it and hounding Aces about it." That could just as easily warrant a vote for Ace by replacing Aces with Trice. But the lynch was headed towards Trice, and BWT wanted to go with it, the actual facts didn't matter, an easy vote for someone was what mattered, and if it was a detective and not a baddie teammate he didn't have BTSC, well that would be ideal. And in a Day 1 spat where things are happening like they did between Ace and Trice, well it's a pretty good bet it's civ on civ, so that was a great place for BWT to place his vote.

Sure Russ, if you also want to say that he was forced vote yesterday when he also voted for llama without saying anything other than llama is a bad llama to explain it. But hey, apparently you didn't get to start posting until now, so who the fuck knows what's going on?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Oh thank goodness, Russ has posted and maybe we can get some closure and move on.

Indeed. We might be lynching Russ today instead!

Or...

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm going to start approaching this game in a different way. And a different playstyle.

TH and Russ: I want a defense from both of you. Whoever gives a worse defense of why they shouldn't be lynched will get my vote.

Let the game begin...

We could with you for a ton of really great reasons that some extremely handsome individual laid out previously... who was that? and which you now seem very interested in adding to.

@MP: Was the lack of a kill a missing PM, or a survived kill? Were there missing PMs? If to the first question, how would a survived kill be writtten?

bea wrote:TH voted llama pretty quick day 1 with no reason why too.

Wotchyouthinkin' TH?

Boo - that's a good question. Do you find anything odd in the people who answered epi as well?

linki - ok TH you think llama is a bad llama - any reason why?

Off the top of my head... no. It was llama and DH who have both watched it in full I think, SVS and I once what the deal was was established... and I'm not sure there was anyone else. So just Epi for asking about it and then it turning out it appears to be a pretty huge mechanic in the game, that would seem to only have baddie links.

Well Epi, those reveals make me interested to know why you wanted to know if people would accept the eye deal...

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I understand lynching people who just aren't playing but where do you draw the line. I mean it almost sounds like even if you are a low poster you might have to worry about people wanting to lynch you for not being as active as them.

I think low posters should be just as worried about being lynched as medium and high posters. Because I believe in equality for all. I don't think in the early game that that is ever the case, its rarely before D3-D4 where a low poster really needs to be concerned about getting lynched. But that comes with the trade-off of being more likely to get NKed (usually), so it kind of balances out.

My ranting is about actual non-participants.

I would like more from low-posters, and for people who that's just their playstyle, I don't get the appeal of the game, and I don't like the mentality of granting them immunity (almost always) in the first couple of lynches no matter how suspicious they may be just because there is less quantity to find suspicious. But it isn't the same thing.

And for your point of a low poster needing to be more worried about a high poster lynching them, I'd argue they should be. Who are the people most likely to jump onto a bandwagon? Low posters. Who is most likely to get bandwagoned? A high poster. There is a reason yesterday when llama took a third (accidental) vote from BR he became worried he could actually be lynched. I'm pretty confident when I say it wasn't the high-posters llama was worried about coming in and lynching him.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I think Russti cannot post, not that the forgot to or whatever else. But to make the assumption it's for a bad reason is a huge stretch.

I have seen him in the thread as well.

I am in complete agreement with this.

Boo is also right.

Good, because not being able to see it both ways is another mistake people will probably wind up making. Whether what I've said is true of Russ or not, it is true of non-participants in general.

And I don't think it's true of Russ, I think he's just not playing.

But sure, lets say he just isn't allowed. I don't think MP would make a role that isn't allowed to post (or vote in lynches apparently, which is something MP hates like any other host), and if he did, I do not think that role would be killed the first time a lynch attempt is made, but that the lynch attempt (or x number of votes maybe) would be what would allow that role to begin posting and playing normally. And until Russ can begin playing normally, he cannot be read, so I think it's still worth putting votes on him. I'd like to see that as an actual lynch attempt, but I'm going to guess x = 5 if that guess is the case, so if 4 other people voted (or were considering voting for him at the time I voted), I would vote for Russ in the hopes that that is the mechanic in play as well.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Boo, Trice got lynched for the content of his posts, not because he committed the simple act of posting. Don't make him the straw man in your argument. Are you saying we should lynch Russ for not posting, regardless of whether the silence is role-enforced or not?

Again, he doesn't post, he doesn't get lynched. That simple.

It isn't, and if it were, the chance the lynch actually goes through and doesn't simply allow him to start posting is pretty much 0. So yes, I would be more than happy to see someone who isn't even playing lynched tomorrow over someone of any alignment who is actually here and trying to have fun and make the game more fun for everyone else. Russ, whether by choice or role, is not making the game fun, and I see no reason to prioritize keeping people like that in the game over everyone else.

I'm sorry Russ isn't letting you have fun.

I'm not prioritizing keeping people like that, but why should the microscope be focused on them on Day 1? Why are you prioritizing such behavior. What if we have 4 inactives, and we lynch them over the next 4 days. Tell me where that will get us. Imagine it being Night 5. We've lynched 3 inactive civs and 1 inactive baddie. Unfortunate for the civs, but yay we lynched a baddie. Too bad he didn't talk so we cannot make any connections to other players. In terms of discussion and reading player behavior, we might as well be the equivalent of Day 1, which is a terrible spot to be in.

Linki: I noticed that theme as well, and almost mentioned it.

The next game you don't get 4 inactives. You're too focused on winning a single game, when letting people who should be enjoying it (Trice) not get that full opportunity because you think it will be harmful to your chance of winning. This isn't even a single game argument, it's about improving the game as a whole. Inactive players do not do that, active players do. Punishing inactive players sends the message that it's a behaviour that won't be tolerated (in the same way a lynch can be used to punish a role-outer, or an asshole who just wants to spew crap but is borderline enough that the host can't really justify taking action, where the players can decide, 'hey, this asshole is making the game less fun. so lets just kill them and get back to it').

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

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.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

And this I don't understand about other websites. Why lynch a non-participant when you can lynch someone with an actualy suspicion? The lynch is the civvie's biggest asset, so it would be silly to use it on a player for not speaking. There is 0 evidence (for those who like facts), and it's too early to pass judgment on it.

Linki @Epi: I can think of 2 reasons.
1) He lost interest in the game after his Day 0 post. (I'm unconvinced this is the reason)
2) He has something to gain by being silent. I just finished watching Episode 25. I wouldn't say it centers around Rem and Misa though, but they are involved, and I do suddenly see where you are coming from. I'll give no spoilers though.

3) I thought of another possibility. There is a chance that Russti WANTS to be lynched, and is doing this for that reason.

And to my second point, if he were to gain benefits/abilities for being silent, then I would expect him to have to vote (hence the day 1 vote), so missing the vote yesterday changes things.

Linki: Can I get you some ibuprofen?

No, but a dose of you stopping being wrong would be excellent.

Turnip Head wrote:Boo, Trice got lynched for the content of his posts, not because he committed the simple act of posting. Don't make him the straw man in your argument. Are you saying we should lynch Russ for not posting, regardless of whether the silence is role-enforced or not?

Again, he doesn't post, he doesn't get lynched. That simple.

It isn't, and if it were, the chance the lynch actually goes through and doesn't simply allow him to start posting is pretty much 0. So yes, I would be more than happy to see someone who isn't even playing lynched tomorrow over someone of any alignment who is actually here and trying to have fun and make the game more fun for everyone else. Russ, whether by choice or role, is not making the game fun, and I see no reason to prioritize keeping people like that in the game over everyone else.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:Not playing is a playstyle now? Wow. There's a stretch.

Anyways...

For example:

Trice posted Day 0. Trice posted Day 1. Trice got lynched, a direct result of his posting. Clearly a terrible strategy, sorry Trice, maybe try the one that actually works next time?

Next game, Trice doesn't post Day 0. Trice doesn't post Day 1. Trice doesn't get lynched Day 1! What a great strategy Trice! So, instead of playing the actual game, lets play 'How Far Can You Push Your Luck?'. Trice doesn't post Night 1. Do we lynch him Day 2? Nah, still wouldn't be fair. Trice continues not to post during Day 2. Trice doesn't post Night 2. Trice still hasn't posted during Day 3. Maybe we're finally getting ready to lynch him? Ahh, but then he realizes that, and comes and starts posting (letting him get away with nothing while 2 people have been lynched and another person has been NKed). Or gets replaced (burning a replacement for someone who may actually have something come up irl and need a replacement, and cannot get one and either has to stick it out or be host-killed). Wow, good thing we didn't lynch him, he sure added a ton of helpful stuff to the game so far.


As for your point of MP punishing non-participants... that really isn't something that should have to happen, and I don't think it would happen if players would stop letting it happen and would just work to bring an end to the behaviour by not allowing it.

And yes, the point is to lynch baddies. Someone who isn't playing can just as easily be a baddie as someone who is (another absurd argument people like to bring up, but I'll try and move past that one), and Day 1 suspicions (as was the case with Trice) rarely pan out anyways.

You've simplified this to the point of being incorrect. Trice was not lynched because he posted, he was being lynched because of WHAT he posted. Very different reasons.

I agree it is something that MP shouldn't have to do, but that doesn't mean we should be passing judgment on each other.

I understand that if you have no better options to lynch than an inactive/non-participant, then you could fall back on that, but your argument that an inactive could be bad just as much as civ doesn't hold water. Active players can be read, and inactive players cannot. It's a shot in the dark when you lynch them. Anyway, in my experience, inactive players tend to be bored, vanilla civs over any other role.

No, it's very simple. Trice doesn't post, Trice doesn't get lynched, someone else does. It's that simple. Until that isn't the case, just not posting is a great way to not get lynched, far better than actually posting is.

You're just flat out wrong. And it's painful, but that's what it is, and I'll just have to live with it.

Not playing is a playstyle now? Wow. There's a stretch.

Anyways...

For example:

Trice posted Day 0. Trice posted Day 1. Trice got lynched, a direct result of his posting. Clearly a terrible strategy, sorry Trice, maybe try the one that actually works next time?

Next game, Trice doesn't post Day 0. Trice doesn't post Day 1. Trice doesn't get lynched Day 1! What a great strategy Trice! So, instead of playing the actual game, lets play 'How Far Can You Push Your Luck?'. Trice doesn't post Night 1. Do we lynch him Day 2? Nah, still wouldn't be fair. Trice continues not to post during Day 2. Trice doesn't post Night 2. Trice still hasn't posted during Day 3. Maybe we're finally getting ready to lynch him? Ahh, but then he realizes that, and comes and starts posting (letting him get away with nothing while 2 people have been lynched and another person has been NKed). Or gets replaced (burning a replacement for someone who may actually have something come up irl and need a replacement, and cannot get one and either has to stick it out or be host-killed). Wow, good thing we didn't lynch him, he sure added a ton of helpful stuff to the game so far.


As for your point of MP punishing non-participants... that really isn't something that should have to happen, and I don't think it would happen if players would stop letting it happen and would just work to bring an end to the behaviour by not allowing it.

And yes, the point is to lynch baddies. Someone who isn't playing can just as easily be a baddie as someone who is (another absurd argument people like to bring up, but I'll try and move past that one), and Day 1 suspicions (as was the case with Trice) rarely pan out anyways.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

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.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

And this I don't understand about other websites. Why lynch a non-participant when you can lynch someone with an actualy suspicion? The lynch is the civvie's biggest asset, so it would be silly to use it on a player for not speaking. There is 0 evidence (for those who like facts), and it's too early to pass judgment on it.

Linki @Epi: I can think of 2 reasons.
1) He lost interest in the game after his Day 0 post. (I'm unconvinced this is the reason)
2) He has something to gain by being silent. I just finished watching Episode 25. I wouldn't say it centers around Rem and Misa though, but they are involved, and I do suddenly see where you are coming from. I'll give no spoilers though.

Because lynching a participant over a non-participant encourages non-participation. Non-participants add nothing to the game. Participants do, regardless of their alignment, they're still there making the game fun. Keeping the non-participant around hoping they eventually stop being a lousy player and actually play or get replaced while killing off people who are actually playing just punishes the people actually playing.

This isn't a new argument, and for whatever reason (they think one person who isn't even playing can help them win I guess) there are still people who don't seem to get it.

Turnip Head wrote:Boo are you saying that all civilians should be expected to be decisive in their suspicions on Day 1? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

I'm saying that all players should be expected to vote, and that not voting and then not giving actual answers to questions (and not even being straight foward about not answering the question) is not something that should be given a free pass.

Turnip Head wrote:I agree with FZ, I think the arguments against her are trivial. It's only Night 1, I don't expect her to be decisive this early.

Oh ya? I guess I'll just stop voting on day ones then. And everyone else should to. Because we shouldn't have to decisive, it's really not a fair expectation.