The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Another thing: Hedgeowl.

We killed her because I had her pegged as a role checker.
Ha, the opposite. I was role outing myself for all I was worth. That's why I was so convinced llama was bad when he refused to change his mind about me after I sent him a video. I figured it was after I sent the video to Epi and died that he was bad. It was actually a dangerous tactic if sent to the wrong person, but I kept trying to get vocal thread people to support me as civ, but they kept getting killed, going absent etc.

Bea! You were my btsc secret search buddy if only I had found you before you died.

Good game all! Thanks for such a fun concept Mongoose!
It actually just took me a couple of days to understand the role hint. I was not at my best this game.

I thought I was the only one because I was looking for the same curse I had. When you died I was planning to keep blocking whoever got cursed so the baddies could never kill. I assumed/hoped it wouldn't be double targeting since I'd protect someone else every even night.

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:So now is it obvious why I knew Llama was a civ? People making out like it was suspicious :P I thought it was pretty clear. Can't believe nobody else targeted him all game except to kill him which somehow didn't curse his killer.
Honestly I'm kinda mad I didn't catch on to that :/. Still don't get the boogs case tho...

Also, what did you guys think of my play style this game. Trying something new.

I just thought he was likely to be a civ based on his actions so I didn't want to vote for him. That's literally all there was to it.

Your style in this game obviously worked out better for you but you should do whatever you think is most fun.

Oh and congratulations baddies! You owned this game. At one point I did think about saying it was funny Dom let that curse thing go and didn't hound me for it but figured I should just leave it.

So now is it obvious why I knew Llama was a civ? People making out like it was suspicious :P I thought it was pretty clear. Can't believe nobody else targeted him all game except to kill him which somehow didn't curse his killer.

Bullzeye wrote:So MR killed me? Well now I can rest easy knowing my spirit has been avenged and my dead player tags have been fixed...

So MR killed me? Well now I can rest easy knowing my spirit has been avenged...

I voted for everything. The optimal number of cats is somewhere between none at all and an infinite amount. I like this musician now because his name is one letter away from being the same as my university's, so obviously we have a powerful connection. Llama's survival doesn't add up with what I've believed about him.

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Made wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:Like Made, I'm also gonna vote DF. He's still my top suspicion and I don't think that will change. He's already responded to the points I made against him and his responses didn't help. I had been hoping something else might happen today but it doesn't seem like it is going to so my vote goes to *DF*.
Woah... just realized he's used the same exact argument to defend his vote today as he used yesterday...smh bullzeye <3
I don't see why it's a problem that I voted the same person for the same reason twice in a row. Nothing had changed between the two votes to make me think differently.
Agreed. It's a bogus argument. I vote for the same person for the same reason all the time.
Wrong two different people: DF, then elo. Also, this wasn't September 7th
Fine but I can use the same logic to vote for two different people. It would be more suspicious if I contradicted myself. As far as September 7th goes, that's me agreeing with one opinion of Llama's but not the rest? That's because I'm a separate human being with my own thoughts and feelings.
Strawman.

As for your first comment, you used the same exact you used to lynch a civvie the day after that civvie died, and you see nothing wrong with that?

I was suspicious of DF. I felt like he piggybacked onto a weak point made about me and tried to make it into a bandwagon against me, only to backpedal when nobody bit and the heat turned on him. So he got my vote. I felt like Elo was suspicious because of her claim that Llama could have been a baddie killed by his own team. It came across as a weak way of defending a suspicion of someone who had been killed by the baddies and therefore probably wasn't bad. So she got my vote.

Regarding Boogs, I agreed with Llama's point that he could be civ because of how he acted around Keterman's lynch. Llama changed his mind. I didn't. End of story.

Made wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:Like Made, I'm also gonna vote DF. He's still my top suspicion and I don't think that will change. He's already responded to the points I made against him and his responses didn't help. I had been hoping something else might happen today but it doesn't seem like it is going to so my vote goes to *DF*.
Woah... just realized he's used the same exact argument to defend his vote today as he used yesterday...smh bullzeye <3
I don't see why it's a problem that I voted the same person for the same reason twice in a row. Nothing had changed between the two votes to make me think differently.
Agreed. It's a bogus argument. I vote for the same person for the same reason all the time.
Wrong two different people: DF, then elo. Also, this wasn't September 7th

Fine but I can use the same logic to vote for two different people. It would be more suspicious if I contradicted myself. As far as September 7th goes, that's me agreeing with one opinion of Llama's but not the rest? That's because I'm a separate human being with my own thoughts and feelings.

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:Like Made, I'm also gonna vote DF. He's still my top suspicion and I don't think that will change. He's already responded to the points I made against him and his responses didn't help. I had been hoping something else might happen today but it doesn't seem like it is going to so my vote goes to *DF*.
Woah... just realized he's used the same exact argument to defend his vote today as he used yesterday...smh bullzeye <3

I don't see why it's a problem that I voted the same person for the same reason twice in a row. Nothing had changed between the two votes to make me think differently.

I feel at this point I've committed. Going to support Llama and vote Made - I also find it odd that he's mentioned me as suspicious a few times but never said why. If Llama really is bad at this point I'm going to feel stupid but I thought I had a solid reason to trust him.

thellama73 wrote:Well, I screwed up that quote, but you get the idea.

I honestly don't know about you any more. See, I had reasons why I believed you were a civ. But then when you died, if you'd been who I thought you'd been, I would've expected something to happen. It didn't. So

. I don't think I'd vote for you though. I do think you have a good point about Made. It's something I'd thought about myself but wasn't sure if it was worth bringing up.

thellama73 wrote:See? I told you Hedgeowl was good.

Also, Kandinsky is my favorite painter, not Bullz's.

I don't have a favorite anything. I have favourite things.

Made wrote:So before anyone votes, in order to increase the chance of catching mafia, we need to pool our votes together in order to insure we lynch mafia.
Who do we find suspicious?

I say we start with bullz, but I'm open to suggestions

Here's a suggestion: Don't start with me, don't even finish with me.

I need to vote soon and the only real ping I have is *Elo* based on the whole 'trying to make people who've been killed by baddies look bad' thing.

You talk a lot of sense there Made. Who are you finding most suspicious? I think I still trust Llama but I'm less sure now. I do find Elo quite suspicious for her claims that the baddies would kill one of their own.

Elohcin wrote:
sabie12 wrote:Well I'm off to adventures so I'm inputting my vote now. I went for Elo based on the suspicious question regarding the baddie team. Not entirely sure but this is my best guess for now. I'll be checking back later. I'm excited to see where the story goes from here.
Why would I have to ask about the baddie team if I were on the baddie team.

sabie12 wrote:Currently I am suspicious of Eloh and Epi. I've gone through the past posts and polls and it seems as though they might be working together, but not sure. I think it is suspicious that Eloh would try to make us think Llama was bad and that he had teammates that would kill him off when that wouldn't benefit anyone. I'd like to think I've been more active lately. Trying to get the hang of this whole deal.
It was just a suggestion. I have seen baddies out themselves for no reason and it never benefited anyone. I have seen baddies go after one another in lynches. I have seen baddie teams kill a member before as well. Baddies AND civvies alike do weird things. I really thought Llama was bad, this is where my thoughts were coming from, that is all. You suspect em b/c I think llama was bad, is that it?

When have you seen baddies kill their own team members deliberately, and why did they do it? The only thing I can think of is Epig in Bioshock betraying our team but he wasn't technically on the team any more as he'd been recruited and I don't even remember if you played that.

Like Made, I'm also gonna vote DF. He's still my top suspicion and I don't think that will change. He's already responded to the points I made against him and his responses didn't help. I had been hoping something else might happen today but it doesn't seem like it is going to so my vote goes to *DF*.

Mister Rearranger wrote:EBWOP (not sure why it didn't linki me): I agree, I don't get the sacrifice theory at all. The redirect thing, like I said, seems reasonable, but not worth putting much weight on either, when discussion should be focused on finding baddie behavior.

A redirect is fine, they happen. I'm 90% sure that didn't happen in this specific circumstance though. Elo was suggesting that Llama was a baddie whose team deliberately killed their own teammate though. That makes no sense and has made me seriously wonder about her.

Epignosis wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:It just isn't done.
Neither is killing the person most likely to be lynched next.

I see nothing in the roles about target redirection or switching. This leads me to believe that the killing was not strategic, but instead random.

I don't know for sure that he was most likely to be lynched next. I do think it was a strange choice to kill him when there was discussion around him but to be honest if by some fluke he really was a baddie and his team killed him then they deserve to lose for such a stupid move.

sabie12 wrote:Not sure that it would benefit anyone to kill their own teammate. That doesn't make sense to me.

It shouldn't make sense to anyone. Elo knows that. You wouldn't kill your own teammate even if they were so obviously bad and everyone was going to lynch them ASAP. Killing your own teammate robs you of the ability to kill someone who actually poses a threat to your team that night and reduces the likelihood you'll win. Sure they might win the game if you do but the more baddies are alive the more likely they are to win. Dead baddies don't help win the game even if they share glory at the end. The fact anyone would suggest it as a valid tactic shocks me.

Linki: But why would the baddies deliberately target their own teammate for a kill? How do they benefit from reducing their numbers by a quarter? I have strong reason to believe Llama was civ so I feel confident that it isn't what happened but even if I'd suspected Llama myself I would think such a tactic was insane and suicidal. It just isn't done.

Elohcin wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Dom wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Oh, and RIP llama. I really thought you were on the baddie team, sorry I was wrong, most likely. @HOST - Does the baddie team win together whether or not they are dead or not?
Just wondering, Elo, what is your motivation in this question?
I was literally just about to ask this question when I saw you already had. I find it an odd question, the answer doesn't really matter to anyone but the baddies surely?
I believe it matters to all of us. If the baddie win with each other no matter what, then they can use killing llama (if he was bad) as a distancing tool. It can help us find other baddies.

Wait. Are you saying what I think you're saying? That Llama was bad and his team killed him intentionally?

Dom wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Oh, and RIP llama. I really thought you were on the baddie team, sorry I was wrong, most likely. @HOST - Does the baddie team win together whether or not they are dead or not?
Just wondering, Elo, what is your motivation in this question?

I was literally just about to ask this question when I saw you already had. I find it an odd question, the answer doesn't really matter to anyone but the baddies surely?

thellama73 wrote:It's fairly common for people to follow my crazy theories and then blame me when they don't work out. Hazards of being a natural leader.

But this is people agreeing with one thing you said and being blamed for not mindlessly following everything else you say. Also for not lynching a civ I think? Different thing anyway.

Made wrote:But the thing is you supported his GUT OPINION but then didn't. It'd be different if it was his opinion of boogs you trusted, but not his of

Gut opinion? All he did was bring up the possibility Boogs was Keterman's partner. I thought he had made a good point and agreed. It doesn't mean I only thought it because he did, he just made me aware of the possibility. It's like if someone introduces you to food you've never had before and you like it. Your enjoyment of the food isn't tied to the other person's. They probably liked it at one point because it's thanks to them that you became aware of it but if they stop liking it you can carry on enjoying it.

Epignosis wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: Llama is no more infallible than the rest of us, despite what he might tell you.
He'd probably tell you that no one can be more infallible than anyone else.

Pssssh, linguists. You know what I mean

.

Linki: I don't even understand you right now Made. I didn't vote Boogs on day two because of Llama's comment and I didn't vote him on day 3 because I find DF to be more suspicious. I don't just follow people around parroting their opinions and doing everything they do. I can agree with a thing someone says and then disagree with the next thing they say as often as I please while still overall trusting that person.

Made wrote:If you trusted Llama's read, you would of changed as Llama's opinion changed right? Why didn't you?

Just because I trust someone doesn't mean I have to go along with every little thing they do or say. Llama is no more infallible than the rest of us, despite what he might tell you. Besides, I felt that DF was the most suspicious yesterday so would have voted regardless of what I thought about Boogs.

Made wrote:
Boogs wrote:
DFaraday wrote:I hope supatown stays a thing, I like it.

Also, I'm feeling like Llama is probably a proactive civ, so I need to look over the rest to see where I stand on the board. Most players haven't made much impression so far.
A proactive Civ? All I have seen is him act unusual and try to "stir the pot" to get certain people to cause conflict. Doesn't seem Civ like behavior in the least to me. Voting for a non participant always is a bad idea if you are Civ, and considering the game started a few hours on a holiday weekend before I can check in that he says he wanted to "get us to react" etc. doesn't feel any good to me. I'm most likely giving him my vote tomorrow. I don't what proactive Civ you see in him by most of the talk here about apples and off topic being helpful. Which makes me worried about you as well to say that about Llama.
Finally found it, I just wish y'all would of pointed out he did, albeit without even saying his name, defended keterman. Wouldn't call this obvious, or even that significant enough to warrent even probable civvieness, especially since I'm the first to bring this up specifically, but noted...

The way I see it, DF and Bulls are still the most suspicious, and one of them should die tomorrow.

So I'm 'the most suspicious' for thinking someone might be a civ after a player whose civvieness I'm quite confident of pointed out how he could be a specific role? Which he actually turned out to have? Seems legit.

Made wrote:I feel so lost. Why was boogs obviously felt samples???? I read boogs post from day 1 and he never defend keterman directly, but did attack Llama. Llama mentioned the next day that he thought that maybe boogs and keterman were teammates, but he gave no support and even later changing his mind! People (Bulls and Df) then cited Llama as the reason they thought boogs was felt samples. The way I see it, Bullz, DF, and Roxy are all suspcious for thinking boogs was obviously civvie, because he wasn't.

Where did I say he was obviously/definitely civ? I only ever said it was pointed out he was possibly a specific role which is why I didn't vote for him on day 2. It isn't even why I didn't vote for him in this lynch.

I just picked six at random. I don't drink tea all that much.

Oops misunderstood the rules. Thought you didn't want to bother. Guess I'll be back when this is over. Oops misunderstood the rules. Thought you didn't want to bother. Guess I'll be back when this is over. Oops misunderstood the rules. Thought you didn't want to bother. Guess I'll be back when this is over. Oops misunderstood the rules. Thought you could still post normally if you could still post normally if you could still post normally if you didn't want to bother. Guess I'll be back when this is o

Mister Rearranger wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Mister Rearranger wrote:
Bullzeye - Since your suspicion of me dropped off incredibly fast, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you'd not only been insanified, but had your vote forced as well. But now that the curse is over, you mentioned that you disagreed with my Llama vote. But your focus is now on DF. I'm confused, though have felt good about you from Day 1.
Basically I believe that Llama is civ. I had no real suspects on day 2 and wasn't in the mood to be making cases due to the curse, so rather than reread I decided my best option was to vote for someone who had voted for someone I trust. Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ, Vomp mentioned that Hedge's vote was essentially random (or something like that, he was German at the time), I didn't want to bandwagon a new player by voting Sabie, so you were just the unlucky one with no reason not to vote you. I kept saying I wished there was more to go on because my vote for you was no better than random in all honesty. Nothing really came up until after I'd voted, if the Elo movement had really gotten into sway before I voted I'd probably have gone with her instead.
Thank you for getting back to me on this, btw.

You can understand how that may seem non-committal to a degree, right?

Well yeah. But there wasn't really anything to go on for most of the day in my opinion. I can't help that discussion only really kicked off when my vote was cast.

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,
Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?
I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.
Didn't mean to misquote, just didn't remember the exact phrasing...
Also, Boogs never defended Ketterman before he died....so there's that...

Well then I don't remember exactly why it was that Llama came out with this:

thellama73 wrote:Sorry Keterman. Self-preservation and all that, old sport.

I am now more inclined to think Boogs might be Keterman's partner in (lack of) crime.

But the fact he brought it up is what I was referring to when I mentioned that Boogs had been pointed out as a possible civ.

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,
Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?

I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.

Elohcin wrote:I wouldn't say Made's behavior is the same as it was in Misfits. In misfits, he got into "gansta" character. Here, he pretended (I guess) to be insanified. I am not sure who I am voting for though. I have a gut ping about llama, but am confused by it because of my vote on day 2. But, his response to my vote brings about more pings. Hmm...I am going to go ahead and vote Llama.

I really don't think he was pretending to be insanified. That post you quoted saying he was was just more "gangsta".

Mister Rearranger wrote:
Bullzeye - Since your suspicion of me dropped off incredibly fast, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you'd not only been insanified, but had your vote forced as well. But now that the curse is over, you mentioned that you disagreed with my Llama vote. But your focus is now on DF. I'm confused, though have felt good about you from Day 1.

Basically I believe that Llama is civ. I had no real suspects on day 2 and wasn't in the mood to be making cases due to the curse, so rather than reread I decided my best option was to vote for someone who had voted for someone I trust. Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ, Vomp mentioned that Hedge's vote was essentially random (or something like that, he was German at the time), I didn't want to bandwagon a new player by voting Sabie, so you were just the unlucky one with no reason not to vote you. I kept saying I wished there was more to go on because my vote for you was no better than random in all honesty. Nothing really came up until after I'd voted, if the Elo movement had really gotten into sway before I voted I'd probably have gone with her instead.

I don't think it matters too much which shade of green you use, but if you go into the full editor and click OT it puts the proper tags in for you

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle. I generally don't vote for high vote getters unless I feel strongly about them. I do, however, have a history of throwing a vote on someone who has pinged me but is otherwise not up for lynching, just to address them and try to get discussion surrounding them. That's what I did with Bullz; I never felt certain he was bad, but I thought his behavior raised my suspicion enough to bring up discussion about him, hence my nominal vote.

Since then, my view of Bullz has improved a bit (although I'm still not convinced he's a civ), as he does seem to have acquitted himself fairly well. Otherwise, I feel like Llama, Dom and Roxy are probably civvies, and have little read on the rest of the board. Since I believe that Hedge is a baddie, and Elo is currently my second highest suspicion by default, I suggested that they could possibly be teammates (which only makes sense, because we only have one bad team. I'm not sure why that part was an issue).

Were the lynch to come down to Elo and Bullz, I would vote Elo, since I don't have any other outlying suspicions I would want to throw into the ring. Were it Llama vs. Elo, I would vote Elo, again, because I do find her suspicious and don't have anyone to call out. Were it Hedge vs. Elo, I would go with Hedge because I feel more strongly about her.

In conclusion, I did what I set out to do with Bullz: I brought attention to him, and am somewhat satisfied with how he handled it. As of this point, I will be voting to actually contribute to the lynch, unless another obscure ping should arise.

Yeah I don't really buy this, it just feels like more backtracking. I think you tried to get something started, nobody agreed, people started to turn on you, so now you're acting like you were never really suspicious of me to begin with and it's all a misunderstanding. You say you'd vote Elo or Hedge yet you're never really made any case against either and this post is the second time you imply you suspect them without actually bringing up any reason why. You will be getting my vote today.

Elohcin wrote:
Made wrote:
Elohcin wrote:I picked a pooh book

Hunnid acre woodz str8 reppin yo.
In all my mafia experience, I have never known anyone to be insanified during the night.

I don't think he's insanified. He just thinks he's a gangster.

Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
But good or bad why would I do that? What would I accomplish? People would just ignore my posts. Nothing would happen. It would be pointless.
Avoid accountability.

Yeah but for what? Nobody was talking about me until you and DF took issue with the way I dealt with the curse. Anything people didn't understand they can ask about now, it's not like I was cursed forever or the game would be over after the day.

DFaraday wrote:While I still maintain that Bullz' posts seemed needlessly convoluted, and thus a way to avoid committing to anything, I wasn't seriously pushing for his lynch. I occasionally throw a vote on someone who pings me a little if I know they're probably not getting more votes, just to kind of call them out. I wasn't feeling strongly about either Elo or Llama (although of the two I'd think Elo is more likely bad). I'm not sold on Bullz being a civvie now that he's explained himself, but I don't plan on continuing to push you, since I'm thinking it's more likely that Hedge and possibly Elo are baddies.

Also, I'll go with Oz. It's my favorite of the three franchises.

Convulted is an interesting word considering there were probably no more than 20 individual words in each post. The insanity generator repeats words and makes posts longer than they are but it really shouldn't be too hard to put most of it back together and infer the rest from context. I find your backtrack almost as suspicious as your poor vote choice.

thellama73 wrote:I have to say, I'm a little puzzled at the accusations of Bullz. Do you guys think he faked being cursed? Because if he was legitimately cursed, I don't see what advantage he would gain by not being understood. If he wanted to not be understood, he could have posted far more esoteric, off-topic stuff. He made a lot of declarative statements that I personally thought were pretty clear.

To be honest, there were actually times where I refreshed the output of the insanifier hoping for something clearer. So I was definitely trying to be understood. Maybe it's because I know what the posts all actually say but I feel like with a little effort it wouldn't be too hard to figure most things out.

Made wrote: Not to say I agree with this theory, but it allows you to avoid suspicion for a day

I was cursed. Most cursed people avoid suspicion for the day anyway until they're not cursed any more. That tends to be how it works unless there was already a large movement against them.

Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: I know. DF was more after me than you but I lumped you in together because I felt you'd both unfairly criticised me without fully understanding my position. This is also why I lean more toward DF for it than you. As you say, you were against voting for me. DF wasn't. His vote was essentially because I was cursed and he didn't understand why I wasn't breaking the rules of the curse. Granted he didn't know the rules but I had tried to explain them and this apparently didn't matter much.
About my BTSC partner, it must have been Blost, then. I miss him.
Regardless, Bullz, it's just a quirk I noticed, it seemed to me you were making no effort to be understood. That is, actually quite a good point about DFaraday, something I was hoping you'd say if you were civvie, to be honest.
Fair enough. I was making effort though. In all honesty I don't even understand how it makes me bad that people couldn't understand everything I said. The whole point of being cursed is that people don't understand you.
It seemed like you made no effort to be understood.
It seemed like you made an effort to not be understood.

But good or bad why would I do that? What would I accomplish? People would just ignore my posts. Nothing would happen. It would be pointless.

Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: I know. DF was more after me than you but I lumped you in together because I felt you'd both unfairly criticised me without fully understanding my position. This is also why I lean more toward DF for it than you. As you say, you were against voting for me. DF wasn't. His vote was essentially because I was cursed and he didn't understand why I wasn't breaking the rules of the curse. Granted he didn't know the rules but I had tried to explain them and this apparently didn't matter much.
About my BTSC partner, it must have been Blost, then. I miss him.
Regardless, Bullz, it's just a quirk I noticed, it seemed to me you were making no effort to be understood. That is, actually quite a good point about DFaraday, something I was hoping you'd say if you were civvie, to be honest.

Fair enough. I was making effort though. In all honesty I don't even understand how it makes me bad that people couldn't understand everything I said. The whole point of being cursed is that people don't understand you.

Vompatti wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Haben Bullz sagen, er ist zuversichtlich, Lama ist nicht schlecht und hofft, dass er nicht gelyncht werden, oder dass er zuversichtlich, Llama nicht gelyncht werden und hofft, dass er nicht schlecht ist?

Ich bin jedenfalls froh, dass er nicht gelyncht werden.
I was saying I'm confident he's not bad and hoped he wouldn't be lynched. Do you have to stay German? I was told my curse was over after day ended.
Wäre es gegen die Regeln sein Deutsch zu bleiben, auch wenn ich nicht zu haben?

Probably not! Speak whatever language you like I suppose. People might get antsy though and decide it means you're bad. I won't but someone might.

Vompatti wrote:Haben Bullz sagen, er ist zuversichtlich, Lama ist nicht schlecht und hofft, dass er nicht gelyncht werden, oder dass er zuversichtlich, Llama nicht gelyncht werden und hofft, dass er nicht schlecht ist?

Ich bin jedenfalls froh, dass er nicht gelyncht werden.

I was saying I'm confident he's not bad and hoped he wouldn't be lynched. Do you have to stay German? I was told my curse was over after day ended.

Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:Ugh, finally. I think it's really annoying and off that both DF and Dom jumped all over me for apparently 'not trying to be clear' or whatever when they didn't even understand the rules of the curse. As I'd already indicated, I couldn't just post single words. I had to post at least 3 complete sentences per post. I took that to mean actual sentences not truncated in any way. I don't see why I was worthy of a vote all because they didn't like the way I was dealing with it. I may consider a NO U for DF tomorrow actually.
Also, Bullz, your posts became much more understandable AFTER I called you out. And I can think of many ways to make yourself more comprehensible. For example:
"Who are you suspicious of?" is the question being asked of you.
If you needed to post three sentences, why not make them:
"I suspect person X. I suspect person Y. I suspect person Z"
I know you know the big picture mechanics of this insanifier because we played the game where it was first introduced. In fact, if I remember correctly you were my BTSC partner in Dexter, were you not?

You don't remember correctly. I never even played that game. I've only seen that insanifier a couple of times before, most recently in The Hobbit. I was told I had to post complete sentences, which I interpreted in a certain way. With regard to the suspicion post, what I was also trying to say is that the only reason I was considering MR/Sabie was their votes for Llama (with Boogs being a probable civ IMO and Vomp saying he thinks Hedge was) and I knew it wasn't great and was hoping for more to go on.

Dom wrote:So, Bullz, I wasn't "all over you", in fact, I advised voting against you.

Bullz, I am curious though, why are you thinking of "NO U"ing DFaraday and not me. It really will affect my opinion on you.

I know. DF was more after me than you but I lumped you in together because I felt you'd both unfairly criticised me without fully understanding my position. This is also why I lean more toward DF for it than you. As you say, you were against voting for me. DF wasn't. His vote was essentially because I was cursed and he didn't understand why I wasn't breaking the rules of the curse. Granted he didn't know the rules but I had tried to explain them and this apparently didn't matter much.

Dom wrote:
Made wrote:Let's do it this way, Bullzeye. If permitted, in your next message only refer to who you're suspicious of (unless someone has cracked the code of this curse, i'm not seeing the pattern yet.
I found Bullz's response to this rather dumbfounding to be honest. Rather than do what was instructed, he constructed a response that made it more confusing to read.

I think we've all seen this randomizer (the veterans, that is). If you one word, it become abundantly clear what you're saying. The fewer words-- the better. However, when tasked with communicating feelings, Bullzeye responds in very confounding ways. I am not sure it makes him bad, but it does make me question his motives.

I fail to see how I was 'dumbfounding' in my response. I was asked to only refer to people I was suspicious of so the next post I made only included names of people I was suspicious of. You'll notice it contained fewer names than the one that prompted Made's request. Therefore simple logic would suggest that the names not included in my response were people I wasn't suspicious of while names I had included belong to those I was calling suspicious. I was outright forbidden from 'one-wording' and had already tried to communicate that fact at least once.

DFaraday wrote:All these curses are making the thread nearly incomprehensible.

I agree with Dom that it's weird that Bullz doesn't seem to be trying very hard to get his point across clearly. He may have a tricky curse to deal with, but generally fewer words will make the gist of the post pretty clear.

I'm still not convinced about Llama. I'm just reading go-getter civvie on his part.

I do think Sabie came across as genuine in her few posts, and she'd probably be a bit more active if she did have teammates.

As to this, I was trying as hard as I could and it should have been obvious that I was restricted to certain things. Again, I tried to say at least once before this post that I had to post full sentences. The fact you voted for me when I couldn't defend myself and in fact because of the reason I couldn't is crazy. I don't even understand how you could possibly think I was bad because of it.

Ugh, finally. I think it's really annoying and off that both DF and Dom jumped all over me for apparently 'not trying to be clear' or whatever when they didn't even understand the rules of the curse. As I'd already indicated, I couldn't just post single words. I had to post at least 3 complete sentences per post. I took that to mean actual sentences not truncated in any way. I don't see why I was worthy of a vote all because they didn't like the way I was dealing with it. I may consider a NO U for DF tomorrow actually.

I hope you aren't bad Llama. I confident you I feel pretty confident you aren't get lynched! I feel pretty confident you aren't bad Llama. If I confident you don't get lynched! I could. I hope you aren't get lynched! I feel pretty confident you don't get lynched! I feel pretty could help you I confident you I hope you I hope you aren't get lynched! I would help you aren't bad Llama. I hope you I would help you aren't bad Llama. I could. I feel pretty confident you I feel pretty confident you I would

I don't trust his Llama vote. Also nothing to vote for *MR*. Because I am going to vote. Also nothing else really cause I don't trust his Llama vote. Also nothing else I don't trust his Llama vote. Also nothing else I don't trust his Llama vote. Also nothing else I don't trust his Llama vote. Also nothing to vote. Also nothing to vote for *MR*. Becaught my eye yet. I am going else I am going else really caught my eye yet. I don't trust his Llama vote for *MR*. Becaught my eye yet. I am going else I

DFaraday wrote:
sabie12 wrote:Well I am off to work so I need to do my vote now because my supervisor will be there. Is that a green font thing? Not sure. Anyways, my vote is going to llama purely because he has been very hard on me to I can assume distract others from whatever he is planning and take the spotlight off of himself. I believe that is how the game is played. Hopefully I'll be able to sneak on later and see how this all turns out.
That is how the game is played!

Anyway, I don't think I'll be on again before it closes, so I'll just vote Bullz. And I still don't get why there's so much talk about MR.

Hardly seems fair when dealing with a curse you don't like how the rules of? Hardly seems fair when dealing with a curse you don't even I can't know the rules of? Hardly seems fair when dealing with a curse you don't like how I'm defend properly. Why me? Because you don't like how I'm dealing with a curse you don't even I can't even I can't like how I'm defend properly. Why me? Because you don't know the rules of? Hardly seems fair when dealing with a curse you don't like how the rules of? Hardly se

Search found 77 matches