The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:
zeek wrote:
FZ. wrote:On the one hand, he seems frustrated as I was when people were going after me in the beginning of the game. The kind of frustrations that sometimes makes me feel: screw them. The idiots want to lynch me, I hope they lose, and I'm not going to help them. He only has two votes, but more people have called him suspicious, so I get the frustration.
I have seen this from Epi as well which is why I'm still not overly suspicious of him.
This doesn't feel like civvie Epi to me. Civvie Epi is unafraid to lead the charge, throwing caution to the wind. The Epi of this game has been hesitant and wavering. It feels like he's holding something back. He reminds me more of how he played in Dr Who (his second iteration) than in any other game I've played with him.

Given how he's played this lynch so far though, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a currently unlynchable role. Or maybe that's just what he wants us to think.

Other than Donner, which was not your typical game, I haven't played with Baddie Epi. At least not to the point I lived to find out he was bad, so you probably know him better. But it's the feel I got. People always call out others for being defensive, like that's a baddie trait. I think I'm more defensive and annoyed when I'm bad because I know people's suspicions are false and I can't do anything about it. Epi seems like a pissed civ, or not bad (Kira). But I don't get him at all, so who knows.

Ricochet wrote:Doing my best to catch-up, though busy days ahead. In fact, I'm off to a workshop in London next week and I have idea how Mafia will mix with that. Plus, the days ahead in which I have to prepare.

First off, I just have to ask the Host: are we to consider L's likelihod percentages as accurate or as tongue-in-cheek as in the show? Besides, does anyone have thoughts on L calling out Ace?

As for my other thoughts, hate to do such a rough draft, but here goes:

One lingering thing for me since D2 was the way FZ. led the BWT lynch. I think Llama called her on trying to manipulate the last hour of voting. For me, it's more the wording of her posts back then. I don't think I've ever seen so far somebody lobbying for players to "stop" voting for someone (in this case Snowman) or to "please consider" voting for the one she wants lynched (in this case BWT). Adding to that: her obvious disapproval and row with Epig, finding his wasting his vote and such. I am aware that many are feeling better about her right now, probably because she started being the more active player people expected (in which case she either is indeed warming up her usual gameplay or adapting to the requests), but what happened back then still pinged me completely, I'd say.

Zombarella's vote on Snowman, ugh, I don't even. Again, wording, but "I know my husband and can tell he's bad, you guys don't so just trust me on it"... No. Nope. Not in Mafia gaming. Plus I think they're both (Snowman for Llama D2, now Zomba for Snowman) voting for the person who accuses them as a way of deflecting, rather than making a case of them being bad.

Speaking of Snowman, is everyone happier with him now that he survived D2/N2? He said he has a lot to offer, so do you feel he's doing it?

I don't recall right now who said it, but this is a completely different TH I'm playing with for me as well, as opposed to Film. Not sure what to make of it, yet.

I need to re-read a lot on Epig, because I'm not feeling the vote for him right now. I sort of agree with his stance on Yotsubas, I don't see why he would attempt to profile them and say it out loud, if he were bad (a Kira, even). In fact, I'm also seeing a lot on what Elohcin is trying to reflect on, about not thinking as straightforward about civ/bad alignments and profiling as in usual games. Moreso now, that it has been revealed that even some detectives/civs have unlynchability or are powerless/cannot activate their roles until a certain point, so they to must adapt to the game the way we'd imagine baddies would.

Need to re-read for an idea of what LC's kill could have meant, as well.

Unlike Boo, when I think someone is wrongfully being lynched, I'm going to do everything I can to stop it, even at the risk of looking bad. And sometimes I do end up looking bad because that person turns out bad. With all that's been going on the last day regarding Snowman's behaviour and Zomba's feelings about him, I'm starting to wonder if I was wrong.
But I would really like to know what you think I would gain from doing such an obvious and strong interfering?

linki: It would be nice to have other options. Some people have gone quiet. Where is Bea? Where on earth is Russ? And even Boo has quieted down.

I do acknowledge that what I'm thinking can also be baddie Epi.

Epi, why did you feel the need to share that information regarding Julliets? Actually, I guess what I thought is wrong, because then it would be infodumping, wouldn't it. Hmm.

This is one messed up game

If I understand, it's not that there was no kill, but rather, that the kill happened earlier in the night, right? So we're still dealing with one Kira with an DN.

My thoughts on Epi:

On the one hand, he seems frustrated as I was when people were going after me in the beginning of the game. The kind of frustrations that sometimes makes me feel: screw them. The idiots want to lynch me, I hope they lose, and I'm not going to help them. He only has two votes, but more people have called him suspicious, so I get the frustration.

Also, I can think of a way where Epig would get information and why he would be so annoyed by only two votes. Based on how he said in one post, we should look for Kiras, knowing something like this about Juliets, makes sense if I'm right.

I don't know if this made any sense to people, but I think I'm starting to feel a lot better about Epi.

I'll be back later for some more thoughts. Gotta go

Wow, this is one messed up anime :P Kidding. I have to go, but thanks for the information.

Ricochet wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought we were all in agreement about Yotsuba. We need one of them dead and don't care what happens to the rest.

But Epi is trying to make it sound like lynching someone for being suspected Yotsuba is wrong, and I don't agree with him there. We need one Yotsuba role dead, because Higuchi is Kira, and if we somehow come to the conclusion that a player is Yotsuba, unless we can also somehow rule them out of being Higuchi, then we still must lynch them.
And since we can't lynch Higuchi until/if he gets a death note, it would be pointless to pursue it now. The way I see it, the Yotsuba are a dormant group of neutral players right now.
Will we get a memo when he gets the DN? Or do we see it in the kills? Does it mean that when he does, we have more than one kill per night?
It's very hard to speculate how many Kiras will possess DN's at the same time, because it's just that: rampant speculation based on the canon of the theme.

So basically it's possible that all 4 will have them simultaneously? Maybe Epi is right and we're really going to need the Yotsuba to take away at least one.

Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:@Rico: No and I think that might have been a joke on FZ's part. I no longer believe X Kira's strict schedule has any bearing on his role's abilities.

lots of linki
Yeah, it was. But using orange would have taken all the fun out of it

Oh. I thought the accusation was real.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought we were all in agreement about Yotsuba. We need one of them dead and don't care what happens to the rest.

But Epi is trying to make it sound like lynching someone for being suspected Yotsuba is wrong, and I don't agree with him there. We need one Yotsuba role dead, because Higuchi is Kira, and if we somehow come to the conclusion that a player is Yotsuba, unless we can also somehow rule them out of being Higuchi, then we still must lynch them.
And since we can't lynch Higuchi until/if he gets a death note, it would be pointless to pursue it now. The way I see it, the Yotsuba are a dormant group of neutral players right now.

Will we get a memo when he gets the DN? Or do we see it in the kills? Does it mean that when he does, we have more than one kill per night?

Turnip Head wrote:@Rico: No and I think that might have been a joke on FZ's part. I no longer believe X Kira's strict schedule has any bearing on his role's abilities.

lots of linki

Yeah, it was. But using orange would have taken all the fun out of it

juliets wrote:Epi, you said you had more to say. Please finish your thought regardless of what people are saying.

Hey, I'm not stopping him. I've read everything and asked him questions about it.

Turnip Head wrote:Lmao. A daily schedule of lecturing. Epi would love that.

Turns out not so much. Just wanted to point out, he's been arguing with DH day one. What happened with it? Nothing. He argued with Boo day 2. What happened? Nothing. Who is he going to pick now?

Epignosis wrote:Oh ffs.

Rude

Epignosis wrote:In case it isn't clear, lynching Yotsuba is a bad idea. People who do so will excuse their vote as "Well, at least it wasn't a detective." Yotsuba are padding in this context: Kira can lynch them, happy to burn another lynch, and the detectives will be okay with this, because it wasn't one of them. That is dangerous thinking from a numbers perspective.

MP's Death Note setup is interesting to me because there is no possible civilian credit. Mafia cannot lynch one of their own and be considered good. At the same time, you cannot lynch Mafia and draw connections to other people.

So I don't want this post to go unnoticed:

boo wrote: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.
We lynched birdwithteeth, so maybe we'll go after llama tomorrow.

There is a tactic that involves setting up the next lynch before the present lynch is concluded. It's a close cousin to the false dilemma, and Mafia exploit the psychology behind it. When presented with an undesirable outcome, there is a mental tendency to wish that one had voted for the other popular option, and the next Day offers that opportunity.

Like thinking that a vanilla Yotsuba lynch is OK, this is a hazardous mentality.

I have more to say, but in an effort to keep my posts concise, I'll post this now.

Epi, again, what does it matter? This is another pissing contest. We voted BWT before we knew who he was. Now, it's a matter of ego, if someone was right in their suspicion or not. Unlike other mafia games, you can't even say people were trying to save a baddie there, because most likely they didn't even know who they are voting for. So I honestly don't see why you keep talking about it. It's something you've been doing this the entire game (every day). You start arguing with someone just for the sake of argument.

I'm starting to think you're X Kira and this is your daily schedule

Turnip Head wrote:Actually I summarized it wrong. They can choose two players to learn the roles of, and then pick one of them to kill.

I assume it would help them achieve their win condition quicker.

That makes more sense. The way you worded it earlier just seemed pointless

Turnip Head wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:How does the Kira find out our names anyway. Maybe we could figure it out using the LC k.
I do think it's interesting that LC died right after Epi identified him as Yotsuba. Given how the Shinigami Eye Deal works, I wonder if writing someone's name in the notebook requires that you also know the target's allegiance.
Can you explain a little about the eye? I didn't get any of it.
Some of the Kiras can accept the Eye Deal: they can learn the roles of their targets but votes against the Kira will be worth double.

Hmm, thanks. What would they have to gain from that? Weird

Turnip Head wrote:
Zomberella12 wrote:How does the Kira find out our names anyway. Maybe we could figure it out using the LC k.
I do think it's interesting that LC died right after Epi identified him as Yotsuba. Given how the Shinigami Eye Deal works, I wonder if writing someone's name in the notebook requires that you also know the target's allegiance.

Can you explain a little about the eye? I didn't get any of it.

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:So did we establish a most likely theory on why there wasn't a kill last night?
My theory is: "Because MP said so."

So did we establish a most likely theory on why there wasn't a kill last night?

Turnip Head wrote:
FZ. 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...
I think here, he meant himself. He said that you twisted his words, and that he wouldn't say stuff like that because it would end up in him getting called out for it, so it's not what he was saying. Don't know how you read it the way you did. Hmm.
No I think it was in reference to Snowman, not me. Here's the full post with the context:

zeek wrote:Need to catch up on the past few pages and look at the voting, but:

Turnip Head wrote:Zeek voted Snowman for implying there was a civ team. What.
That's bullshit. That's not what I said. Don't take my words out of context.

I voted for him for saying he wants to help his team going into the future. I didn't like the language used, teams imply BTSC for me. I disagree with everybody who has since said there is a "civ team" because I don't think there is. We're a community, not a team. If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same. You are steadily gaining my eye, TH.

Snowman hasn't addressed my point either.
The sentence I singled out seems like Zeek's further justification for voting Snowman. If that's wrong I'm sure Zeek will correct me.

Ah, okay, sorry. I read it wrong. Well then, let him answer it himself. I feel like I'm doing his job.

And LOL to your reply to my question regarding llama

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...

I think here, he meant himself. He said that you twisted his words, and that he wouldn't say stuff like that because it would end up in him getting called out for it, so it's not what he was saying. Don't know how you read it the way you did. Hmm.

Will you be voting llama the next day too, TH?

Turnip Head wrote:Thanks Mata. I would say that even Zeek himself didn't think there was a great chance of it actually being a slip. Once again I'll quote his vote post:

zeek wrote:I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Snowman wrote:Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.
I'm not voting Snowman based on jumping onto bandwagons, but that is a factor, I'm voting Snowman because the underlined section worries me. This isn't Donner Party, there's no civ team per se. This terminology could be poor language selection by a new player or it could be a slip. Either way, he's got my vote because I just don't feel comfortable placing it anywhere else.
Zeek concludes that it was either "poor word selection" - which I don't agree with because calling the civs a "team" instead of a "community" does not seem like poor word selection at all - or it was a slip - which, as Mata has pointed out, is a line of logic that seemed flawed when they used it at STV, and the baddies became known for being the ones to use that flawed logic. Zeek says no matter which of these are true, Snowman's getting his vote.

He also compared this game to Snowman's other game, the Donner mafia, in order to help illustrate that there are no teams here... but isn't the idea of a team even MORE intangible in the Donner game than it is here? Looks like the teams are constantly in flux in that game, whereas here they are grounded.

Zeek simply wanted to make something out of nothing.

I read it as he acknowledged his reason was not a very solid one, but since he felt uncomfortable voting for any of the other players who had votes, he gave this more weight than he would have, and went with the vote. If anything, it made him seem more genuine to me. I know that I, as a baddie would try to have the best reason I could to vote for someone, and while it's possible I judge others by how I think I would act, that's all I have.

Epignosis wrote:I am responding to this post, which I won't quite for the sake of brevity.

The detectives need the four Kira dead to win. That isn't a simplification, as S~V~S claims- that is literally what the host wrote. If the Yotsuba need the detectives dead to win, then:

1. That contradicts what is explicitly stated in the first post,
2. Would make the game 12 vs 14, which is not balanced,
3. And would not need to be a secret.

What I said regarding the Yotsuba early on bears repeating:

Epignosis wrote:What is this "non-Light Mafia"/ "Mafia 2" I keep seeing?

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

I note that there are four Kiras: Kyosuke Higuchi (Third Kira), Light Yagami (Kira), Misa Amane (Second Kira), Teru Mikami (X Kira). Unless I am reading something incorrectly or the secret win conditions contradict this, these are the only people a detective needs dead to win. I am operating under the belief that the other Lighters play a supporting role, and that lynching them would be helpful for taking down three of the Kiras, but non-essential for victory. The host explicitly identified the killers as Kiras.

And with the exception of Kyosuke Higuchi, none of the Yotsuba are Kiras, and therefore do not need to be dead for a detective to win. I hated looking this up because I am only on episode 6, but according to http://deathnote.wikia.com/wiki/Kyosuke_Higuchi *SPOILERS* The Yotsuba betray Kyosuke Higuchi when they discover he is Kira. The premise sounds just like a Mafia game- eight people who meet, and they all know one of them is the killer but not who. Sounds like an ingenuous opportunity to put a mafia game IN a mafia game. *END SPOILERS*
Let me ask you this if you are a detective: How much closer did you come to satisfying your win condition by lynching birdwithteeth? I'll help you out: You hurt your chances. Why? Because you burned a lynch accomplishing something you didn't need to accomplish. Keep this up, and Kira will eliminate you.

The paranoia regarding independents on this site astounds me.

I don't know. You keep talking about how unbalanced it would be, but it would also bee unbalanced if we viewed the Yotsubas as potential civvies, because that would make it 4 against the rest, and MP wouldn't do that either. So yeah, I believe there's something in the Yotsuba winning conditions that is more complicated. There can be tons of options here. Just for example, maybe they need at least one detective and one Kira alive to win. The fact that we don't know their winning condition does make them more dangerous for us, and the fact that they will at some point gain a kill is not helping matters.
None of this matters at the moment, because if we knew who was a Kira, we would take them down first, but since we're just going on those who look bad to us, this discussion is pointless to me for the time being. If we ever have to decide whether to lynch people we have any info on, then that conversation is going to matter

I'd love to say that this is a good lynch, and it's definitely better than the last lynch, but I would have much preferred if it was a known baddie. At this point, I'll say that I guess third parties alignments might depend on the person playing it. I know I, as an indie would most probably choose the civvie side, while others would choose the baddie. I hope BWT is the kind that would choose the latter. It would make me feel a lot better for pushing for that lynch.

I still don't think llama is bad, but not ruling out one of the non detective roles. Same goes for Snowman. I liked Russ' analysis as well. Thought it was very helpful.

And by the way, what the hell does it mean "you had your chance" ? What about your chance? What did you do to help us find someone bad? Even when talking about me, your alleged top suspect, you said maybe two things about me this whole day, and I don't remember you building cases on any other players

Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:Let me tell you Epi, you're looking worse by the minute. I didn't ask you to vote Snowman. If anything, I asked you not to. I just asked you not to waste a vote, and you're giving me this shitty speech about how you're going to vote whoever you damn well please. Bravo
I don't care how I look.

How can I not waste a vote? By agreeing with you? My suspect?
How about agreeing with Boo and voting llama? Not that it's what I want, but don't go playing a victim. It's not like you tried to convince people to vote someone.
And does it mean that you think BWT is a civ, just so I know? For all you know, I can be bad and so can BWT, right?

linki: Made
I agree with boo on certain aspects regarding llama, but his points, while convincing to you perhaps, are not for me. I expect llama to be logical and contradictory. It is normal to me. He may be bad, but boo's entire post said this to me: "Llama is being exactly as Epignosis expects him to be." Bad llama has a tell, but it takes a while to manifest.

Anyway FZ., don't come at the eleventh hour demanding me to do this or that or asking me about this player or that player. Or thinking I think a player is good because I won't join your bandwagon. You had a chance to do that. I feel no pressure because of you.

I'm still here, though leaving. I don't expect you to feel pressure because of me. If you are a civ, who thinks Snowman is not bad, the pressure is on you to save that civ. I don't think I'm wrong when I say I don't remember you thinking Snowman is bad. So if you want your vote to matter, you'd put it where it will actually matter. It's a civ responsibility and that's where the pressure comes from. Don't make this about me

I'm going to sleep. You all do what you want. I think I've said all I have to say.

Good night

Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:Let me tell you Epi, you're looking worse by the minute. I didn't ask you to vote Snowman. If anything, I asked you not to. I just asked you not to waste a vote, and you're giving me this shitty speech about how you're going to vote whoever you damn well please. Bravo
I don't care how I look.

How can I not waste a vote? By agreeing with you? My suspect?

How about agreeing with Boo and voting llama? Not that it's what I want, but don't go playing a victim. It's not like you tried to convince people to vote someone.
And does it mean that you think BWT is a civ, just so I know? For all you know, I can be bad and so can BWT, right?

linki:

Made

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: The following seems nothing like playing the noob card. He knows perfectly well what he's saying, and he saying your reasoning sucks.
You mean the "what's his deal?" strawman reasoning I never used? Please. That post was dismissive at best.

Forget the "what's his deal". He lists the suspicion on him, and he's right that they don't hold water. I have no problem with voting newbies if I think I'm seeing something bad, hence my almost vote for both Zombarella and Snowman yesterday, but I agree with Boo that you're not following your own standards, because it seems as though you've painted the target and now you're drawing the circles around it. After you voted, anything he might have said would have been interpreted to fit your theory.

thellama73 wrote:
Elohcin wrote:I thought they were opposite of genuine.
Agreed. Having played another game with Snowman, he is NOT the helpless, confused n00b he is portraying himself as. My consolation is that he will not be able to pull this stunt again after this game.

The following seems nothing like playing the noob card. He knows perfectly well what he's saying, and he saying your reasoning sucks.

Snowman wrote:Hey guys, back again! What's going....HOLY CRAP I'M GONNA DIE?!

Epi and DH have an epic game of chicken that could have been ripped right from an 80s action movie, and Epi flinched. Epi became the target of attention because he never followed through with his threat to kill DH. Llama jumped in to deflect to Snowman with the airtight argument of "what's his deal"? Since then, he's expanded his anti-Snowman argument to include:

+ what's his deal?
+ I called him out, he saw it and didn't repond immediately
+ He hasn't posted since yesterday.

I hopped online last night, immediately recognized that I didn't have time to wade through the day's comments, so I made a quick "not a baddie" statement for the press, then hit the sack.

Now the argument expands to:

+ what's his deal?
+ I called him out, he saw it and didn't repond immediately
+ He hasn't posted since yesterday
+ He can't be as dumb as he sounds
+ Does he understand the word 'Bandwagon', because we accused him of hopping on one, and he didn't care (forgot to mention that one earlier)
+ He still didn't offer a convincing argument for why we should believe he's a civvie.

I'm unsure of what I might do differently if I were bad. I am sure that I'm playing a game, I guess I'm a more casual player than some, but I'm still willing to hop on once or twice a day share my two bits, use my power if I have one, vote, then rinse and repeat the following day.

Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.

Don't kill me guys, I've got a lot to offer. Llama's got it in for me, which is weird, and his circular argument of "I think he's guilty because I said he was guilty so I think he's guilty" doesn't hold water.

Or do, and I'll haunt you with my spooky red text.

S~V~S wrote:OK, I wanted to vote Epi, but I can also see the points on BWT. The more Llama posts the more frustrated he sounds, which equates to civ Llama for me. Bad Llama is cooler in the thread since he has the chat to complain to.

But there is really limited BTS this game. BUT also why would a baddie work so hard and go so far out on a limb to lynch Snowman?

boo made many good points, but tbh, I have seen Llama be just as sneaky and manipulative when a civ (that's a compliment llama )

And Llama, Mata is right. If you do something 20 times, and it gets you lynched 20 times, it's time to modify what you do. It can't be fun for you, since I know how frustrated you get over being lynched early all the time.

After all that's been going on, I'd vote Epi too, but since it won't help us, what about voting BWT?

Let me tell you Epi, you're looking worse by the minute. I didn't ask you to vote Snowman. If anything, I asked you not to. I just asked you not to waste a vote, and you're giving me this shitty speech about how you're going to vote whoever you damn well please. Bravo

thellama73 wrote:FZ, you haven't explained why you are suddenly so confident in Snowman and why you are so eager to manipulate the last hour of the lynch.

Because after he got more votes I went to look up the posts I missed from last night, and they seem more genuine than most posts in this game. I could be wrong of course, but I believe I'm not, and I also don't see you as a baddie, hence I'm trying to push people to vote for BWT to prevent what I believe might be a civ lynch

linki: Whatever. You still haven't answered the question. Are you thinking what's in your best interest to do now?

Epi, aside from voting me, which obviously won't do much, who among those with votes are you willing to vote for?

Damn, too late.

Sorry, meant to say there are still enough voters to vote otherwise.

BR, don't vote Boo!! How's that going to help now?

Epignosis wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I need to change my position in my chair to improve my deductive reasoning skills 40%.

I don't sit like this because I want to. I have to sit like this.
I actually tried it and damn near fucked myself up.

It has made me aware, however, that when I am thinking, I tend to touch my lip.

FZ. wrote:I just went back and read Snowman's posts. I don't like the votes for him. Stop it
Oh, NOW you want to say that?

Boomslang wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:No FZ. You aren't the only one. I mentioned BWT earlier and I am seriously considering him for a vote. Though boo's case on llama merits some consideration I think, I just get scared voting llama because I usually am wrong when I do find him suspicious. It makes me nervous. As far as BWT though, his level of engagement is making me feel suspicious and the thing is I remember in GoC I was not at all surprised by his engagement there, I was in fact surprised by the fact he got lynched for it, but for some reason in this game it feels insincere to me, but I can't put my finger on why.
I think the case on BWT is better than the one on llama, not because Boo isn't right about the fact llama is not doing what he says he does as a civvie, but because the fact he isn't playing how he thinks he is, doesn't make him bad.

BWT, on the other hand, has just made a claasic baddie move, by voting for the most obvious choice, one that has no consequences because he never encouraged anyone to follow, nor is he here to debate it. He gave Russ a bate he knew Russ had to take, and Russ "took" it because he had no choice, making it easy for BWT to vote him.

linki: I have to post
This is a really good summation of the case against BWT and helps me clarify my own thoughts on the issue. I'm guessing that both BWT and Snowman are bad, but of the two, I think BWT has the potential to be more dangerous. Snowman's probably going to get lynched anyway, so I'll throw a vote on BWT to indicate my feelings and provide some support if others want to join me.

Good. I'm voting him myself

boo wrote:
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.

Thanks, thought so.

S~V~S wrote:No, she hasn't but she is Mrs Snowman. I would feel even less confortable with a vote for her than a vote for Snowman, tbh. At least Llama made a case on him, whether I agree with him or not.

I didn't mean to lynch her but wondered if she was silenced, and if so, who would want to do that. Never mind

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?

Has Zombarella posted anything lately?

boo wrote: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.

BWT seems more baddie to me, and llama's defence, even if I don't agree with him, seems genuine. But at the rate Snowman is getting votes, this doesn't look good

I just went back and read Snowman's posts. I don't like the votes for him. Stop it

bea wrote:
FZ. wrote:
bea wrote:@ FZ - you're not the only one keeping an eye on teefies. He's on my watch list too. Teefies, LC, Made - though his post does bring up a good point, he's still someone I keep forgetting is playing and that's really weird as Made is pretty unforgettable. BR not because I suspect her per say but because I'm still trying to figure out how to read her in general. Outside of saying she wouldn't mind seeing more discussion on Snowman has Zombra been back to offer any more insights in light of the new Snowman discussion?
Oh yeah, I mean to comment on your previous post. Since no one is seeing baddie Bea, and apparently, I'm out of my game this game, I'm willing to wait and see how this continues.

Why are you keeping an eye on BWT, and is it enough for a vote? What has Made said that has got you worried other than you forgetting he's even playing?
As for LC, I started thinking he's acting very not like him, but lately, he feels more genuine and trying.

linki: I'll address these later

BWT - he's really really good at doing the "see all sides of the arguments" posts. He looks like he's concidering options and sometimes they feel genuine and sometimes they don't. I totally see what you are seeing in regards to his wanting answers from TH and Russ - saying he doesn't need them from Rusty and voting anyway. Feels like he knew how he wanted to vote and just set up a circumstance to make it look like he was giving Rusty a chance. TH never did answer his question like at all. I guess the thing that worries me most with Teefies is why did Rusty earn the vote but TH didn't? (Sorry TH - I was gonna sum up the question at some point today but tbh after a few pages, I don't remember it exactly anymore. It had something to do with your early vote for Llama though I think.) Compounded by not again asking he question when TH specificlly asked him to feels a lot like that was just pomp and cirucmstances to find a reason to vote the way he wanted to vote. Not sure if it's enough for a vote, but it may be where I end up going.

LC - So for most players I tend to run with the idea that they are all on the up and up and look for things that seem odd. This is not the case for LC. My meta experience with LC has left me just kinda always thinking he's bad and him having to work very hard to earn my trust. He knows this. We've post game talked a lot. Even when I think LC is civ, I'm always waiting for the other shoe to drop. He's as good of a mafia player as he is a civ, he's great at switching sides which makes him a prime candidate for recruitment any time that sort of mechanic is in play. I agree his posts read genuine. I also believe that this is an easy game to fall behind in and easy for players to hide in that "I'm super busy, I'm trying really!!" sort of posting. His posts tend to - much like svs said of epi - follow points of the game rather than players. It gives the appearance of contributing without contributing. Especially in a game with so much hair splitting.

Made - It's kinda the opposite reason for LC. Again, I get that RL is busy. He probably is swapped with school. My meta with him is that he tends to flounder a bit when he's bad but he's pretty ballz out right in the thick of things when he's a civ and figures he's got nothing to loose. The particular structures of this game (IE - the lack of baddie bts) seem taylor made for Made to shine, and I'm not really seeing that yet - which is a bit troubling.

linki - more linki - Daisy.

Okay, thanks. I think I'm going to vote for BWT, but will keep this in mind for the next days. I don't know Made that well, and apart from him not being around enough, I didn't see anything from LC.

TH, Zeek struck me as genuine in his posts and vote. I don't buy "slips". Almost never happen, and it's usually civvies that get accused for them.

linki: Fair enough

Anyone who hasn't voted, please consider a vote for BWT

linki: llama, show me later, but right now, it doesn't matter much, does it?

Spacedaisy wrote:No FZ. You aren't the only one. I mentioned BWT earlier and I am seriously considering him for a vote. Though boo's case on llama merits some consideration I think, I just get scared voting llama because I usually am wrong when I do find him suspicious. It makes me nervous. As far as BWT though, his level of engagement is making me feel suspicious and the thing is I remember in GoC I was not at all surprised by his engagement there, I was in fact surprised by the fact he got lynched for it, but for some reason in this game it feels insincere to me, but I can't put my finger on why.

I think the case on BWT is better than the one on llama, not because Boo isn't right about the fact llama is not doing what he says he does as a civvie, but because the fact he isn't playing how he thinks he is, doesn't make him bad.

BWT, on the other hand, has just made a claasic baddie move, by voting for the most obvious choice, one that has no consequences because he never encouraged anyone to follow, nor is he here to debate it. He gave Russ a bate he knew Russ had to take, and Russ "took" it because he had no choice, making it easy for BWT to vote him.

linki: I have to post

boo wrote: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.

Haha, while that might be true, I'm not going to vote just based on that. I feel like most of your suspicion of him relies on the fact he doesn't meet his own standards of playing. But I think almost none of us do. The only thing I was really really bothered by, was his early vote, and he's managed to convince me it was genuine. At least for now

linki: Glad you find it cute. I'm a human being, I change my mind constantly. Just move to the floor, so you don't have to change positions in your chair. It's so confining.

linki: post now, answer later

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: Since we were both so sure on Vomps in the Film game, and were wrong, I wonder how it is you're so sure of yourself. Also, I asked who other than him you'd vote for.
Is being wrong sometimes supposed to turn me into a quivering mass of indecision to be led by others? Nope.

Who would I vote for if I was unable to vote for Snowman? It's a difficult question. Certainly not you. Not boo. Not Epi. Not DH. Probably not even TH anymore. His behavior today is starting to change my opinion of him. I would consider a vote for SVS, based on her misrepresentation of my vote. I would consider a vote for bea. I would consider a vote for Ricochet.

When I wrongfully lynch a civvie, and when I know how I hate when it happens to me, I'm more careful in following games. Not to mention the fact you did it so early. I guess we play differently, but I'm not going to vote for you after all. Like the end of last day, your answers made me feel better. We'll see what happens next day, assuming you'll still be here.

Boomslang wrote:
FZ. wrote:By the way, am I the only one pinged by BWT, his vote for Russ, and his whole behaviour surrounding TH and Russ? Just seems like the easiest suspicion ever. If it's role related, Russ is the last person to talk about it because it's infodumping, and BWT knows it.
I mentioned something related to this earlier. BWT first pressed Russ to provide a defense, but then didn't seem altogether that concerned if he got one or not. BWT did end up voting for him, which is at least consistent, but it does seem like he picked an easy target and one for which he wasn't very concerned about the quality of evidence.

Linki w/bea: That makes another of us

A good baddie would at least be consistent. Means nothing to me. I think he knew Russ wouldn't answer and it made it even easier for him to vote for him based on that. He's not even trying to convince others, he just voted, and went on his way. Feels like he just wants to appear like he did what he's expected to, but it feels like BS to me

AceofSpaces wrote:I'm Voting for Snowman . I have to leave now and do other things.

Did we get any explanations for this?

S~V~S wrote:

When I find a bone, I can be an aggressive chewer. I try to be nice, but it isn't always easy.

TBH, the person I am most pinged by at this point is Epignosis. He's arguing points more than people, which is not civvie Epis MO, imo. I am not seeing the Crusader. I am not planning on voting for either llama or Snowman (unless that smoking gun shows up). I have seen Llama do this one time too many, and I think a hell of a lot of people have said a lot less than Snowman, both numerically & content wise.[/quote]
You actually bring up a good point on Epi, one I didn't think about. Though he keeps saying he might vote for me (I'm a person), but it's not what I expect of him in terms of building a case, and he does seem to talk a lot about the roles. I don't see him setting up people or "trapping" them like he usually does. Hmm.

I'm starting to think llama isn't getting my vote either. Any thoughts on BWT?

bea wrote:@ FZ - you're not the only one keeping an eye on teefies. He's on my watch list too. Teefies, LC, Made - though his post does bring up a good point, he's still someone I keep forgetting is playing and that's really weird as Made is pretty unforgettable. BR not because I suspect her per say but because I'm still trying to figure out how to read her in general. Outside of saying she wouldn't mind seeing more discussion on Snowman has Zombra been back to offer any more insights in light of the new Snowman discussion?

Oh yeah, I mean to comment on your previous post. Since no one is seeing baddie Bea, and apparently, I'm out of my game this game, I'm willing to wait and see how this continues.

Why are you keeping an eye on BWT, and is it enough for a vote? What has Made said that has got you worried other than you forgetting he's even playing?
As for LC, I started thinking he's acting very not like him, but lately, he feels more genuine and trying.

linki: I'll address these later

Search found 522 matches