JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I still think BWT is fishy, specifically his "Go civs!" post before his non-lynch, but I'm backburnering that because I agree with the suspicion on Bass. I'm seeing a few things that I associate with his baddie game, there was one post in particular where he answered some suspicion on him and then turned it around into a question for (I think) Golden. I think that sort of pivot play is straight out of Bass' baddie repertoire.
This is a very specific meta read on Bass. It might have been valid insight, I don't know Bass well enough to say. I'd appreciate it though if TH could try to recall some specific example of Bass "answering suspicion and turning it around into a question" in a past game as a baddie.
It's a technique I've seen him use before. If you are really interested I'll try to hunt down specific instances, but it's not really relevant anymore, I was wrong.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I suddenly feel like I should be paying more attention to Jay
This may have just been in response to my prior post when I joked that people "paying attention" might notice that some accusations of Golden could also apply to me. TH can clarify though: did this represent a true moment in which your suspicion of me began to develop? I ask for my own sake, this isn't really relevant to the overall progression of this ISO.
No.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:Ricochet wrote:Turnip Head wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Turnip Head, what are your thoughts?
I was thinking Bass was bad but his last few posts feel genuine to me. Not really feeling a Golden vote either. Idk.
[no Bass posts or posts on Bass (from anyone, that is) in between]
Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Bass.
Please explain.
I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.
This seems a little obtuse. I mean no offense, TH, indeed you strike me as a very intelligent person. That's why this looks like playing dumb to me -- the reasons Ricochet might have viewed TH's Bass vote with suspicion were pretty self-explanatory (as he explained in the following quote pyramid). Ricochet even stated "the problem" in his accusation. Whether his suspicion was accurate can be debated, but I don't struggle to believe TH really didn't grasp
why it was viewed with suspicion.
I still don't see the problem here. I suspected Bass and didn't suspect Golden. Asking me to lay that out even more explicitly is fine, I guess, but I haven't been saying things this game simply for everyone else's benefit, I say things when I feel the need to.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:Ricochet wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.
Bandwagoning.
Flip-flopping.
Voting in contradiction your last read/viewpoint on the player you voted for.
Also: I didn't notice before Scotty bringing this up as well, and I agree with him that you also made some stronger remarks about rey only to never pick it up again, come vote time.
These would be the problems I can enumerate off the top of my head right now.
Why is bandwagonning a problem? If I had voted elsewhere, I'm sure someone would cite me "wasting my vote" as a problem, too.
Why is flip-flopping a problem? Is it a baddie thing to do?
I don't feel like my vote is in contradiction to my viewpoint. Yes Bass sounded sincere to me in his final moments, as players often do. I'm sorry that I wasn't sure about him. I said I wasn't feeling a Golden vote, and he was the only other realistic option at that point.
I brought rey up for the first time about 20 minutes before Day 2 ended. It's not even Day 3 yet.
The same conversation continues here.
Yellow = TH makes it clear that he was conscious of how his vote might reflect on him and that he cared about that to some degree. That's not a great look.
Orange = Another question that strikes me as obtuse. While a flip-flop isn't an immediate indicator of obvious baddieness, it
is valid cause for suspicion. This seems disingenuous to me.
Green = He's technically right that Bass was the most viable counterwagon to Golden, and that he had expressed more suspicion of Bass than Golden. I think
this is the right answer to Ricochet's accusation, but I don't know why TH felt the need to include all of the other stuff. Just say this. Why even ask whether flip-flopping is bad? Why even ask whether bandwagoning is a problem? This looks like overworked defense to me.
I asked those questions because I wanted to see Rico's answers (I don't believe he ever supplied them). I don't view bandwagonning or flip-flopping as indicators of baddie behavior - Rico apparently does. I don't think there's much incentive for baddies to employ these techniques, in fact I view flip-flopping as an inherently civvie trait.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:For my part - and I can only speak for my interactions with him, because I haven't looked at full thread context - it feels like Scotty is willfully exaggerating events in order to further his viewpoint. Maybe that's just how Scotty baddie-hunts, but it's a thing I noticed.
I'm a little bugged when TH asserts some cause for suspicion, even if minor, without referencing an example of some sort. This is just a statement in a vacuum, TH has left everyone else to figure out what he means.
My purpose wasn't to convey suspicion. It was an observation. I did notice Scotty stopped doing this after I mentioned it. If you read my interactions with Scotty you'd know I don't need to reference it; it's right there in my previous posts re: him.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:thellama73 wrote:LoRab wrote:
Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?
This.
As someone else already pointed out, lynching neutrals only helps the baddies.
A quite unneutral thing for LoRab to say
(Wait, did I just agree with something that llama said in a mafia game?
)
linki: Will contemplate.
I think this is an important post. TH chastises another player for an move that he feels is pro-baddie. That means TH has distinctly taken the side of the neutrals/civs against the baddies in public discourse, and by my measure absolved himself of the excuses that can easily be applied to DH -- that he is deliberately doing less than he could be doing because of his probable neutrality. That he has adopted an anti-baddie mindset should imply that his effort will reflect that mindset.
LoRab proclaimed
herself as pro-civ. I was pointing out that her behavior was not.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:LoRab wrote:Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?
Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.
why are you so threatened by one vote?
You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?
I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.
Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.
I think it's pretty clear what LoRab meant by "again", and it wasn't that.
Okay.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:Roxy wrote:Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real
moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?
Exactly this. And LoRab can try to turn the tables on me all she wants, but she's the one who just said this about Golden (emphasis mine):
LoRab wrote:Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
And this about herself:
LoRab wrote:And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.
But what she says is not true. Lynching neutrals ONLY helps the baddies. If Golden is neutral like LoRab says she thinks he is, then he could still just as easily be recruited by the civs, and he would HAVE to play a pro-civ game. Voting for this reason is a fallacious argument. Lynching neutrals only gives the baddies more time. LoRab is saying she's playing a civ-friendly neutral game, but her vote for Golden doesn't reinforce that stance.
I think maybe LoRab eventually realized this, because after being called out on it by a few players (including myself), she quickly tried to move her vote elsewhere.
This is a bit awkward. "Exactly this" implies TH is stating his full agreement with what Roxy had said, but in truth their points weren't the same. I'll express them to the best of my own interpretation (they can both pipe in if I do a poor job of interpreting):
Roxy's point = it wasn't necessarily suspicious that LoRab was involved with the anti-Golden movement. it was suspicious that she moved her vote away from Golden when Golden asked her to.
TH's point = it
was suspicious that LoRab was involved with the anti-Golden movement because it conflicted with her claimed pro-civilian neutral approach. It was also suspicious that she moved her vote away from Golden when Golden asked her to.
These two seemed to arrive upon their individual misigivings about LoRab in different ways, but TH's language implies otherwise. #nitpickpolice
The implication here if TH is bad is that he was latching onto the anti-LoRab movement via Roxy (perhaps a trend since he has joined Roxy against me as well) so as to share accountability instead of shoulder accountability.
I think the word "And" implies that I was adding onto the point that Roxy was making; no need to reword what she said if I agreed with it.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I thought that BWT not accounting for Azura forcing votes in Pos. 5, in the context of assessing MP's vote for Golden, felt like a potential slipup if he knew Azura had targeted players other than MP.
As in "Well hmmm, I know I didn't force MP's vote, and I don't see any other vote forcers, so that can't be it."
This is a bit of a reach. BWT could have easily just overlooked a relevant role since there are about 12,000 of them to keep track of.
I have vocally entertained this possibility.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:Have JJJ and MovingPictures ever had BTSC before?
This is at least some evidence that TH had
something specific in mind about me as his claimed suspicion began brewing. I don't know what it was though. What the relevance of this question, TH?
I was wondering if one of you would be inclined to recruit the other.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:aapje wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I switched my vote.
Weird post by TH, not even specifying to whom or why he switched his vote.
I voted for Jay, and I did it for science. I'll
vote for him again though, I think he's been recruited.
*prolonged fart noise*
Suspecting me of being recruited is fine. I don't really view Roxy with suspicion given her repeated insistence of that. I would expect TH to try a little harder than this though -- at least present some kind of information from my post history that gives him this perspective. I've prodded him repeatedly to give me something, but so far that hasn't turned up very much.
The reason I haven't indulged those requests is because it hasn't seemed necessary. You are the only one prodding me for an explanation, but there's not much incentive for me to list out what I think are your tells at this time, you will of course just argue that I'm wrong about you. And right now no one's looking to lynch you. That in itself might tell me something about you. At this point I'm fine just pushing your buttons and seeing what happens. It doesn't mean I don't have reasons for feeling the way I do. And I understand why you would want to see my reasoning regardless of your alignment. But again I don't think I gain much by engaging in it, while you do; I just want to continue observing how you behave without interfering.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Let's recall that earlier TH had espoused an anti-baddie strategy in his criticism of LoRab. That means we can rightfully expect meaningful anti-baddie effort from Turnip himself. I expect better effort than this.
I haven't proclaimed the same things about myself as LoRab has about herself, which is what I was highlighting in my dealings with her. However, I'll say that as the game goes on I've found myself wanting to solve the game, which
does conflict with my need to remain neutral.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:My opinion of JJJ is that he's emulating his civilian game but not quite hitting his mark. That suggests guilt to me. This is based on an admittedly small sample size so I'm treating it more like a hunch than anything else. A lot of what Roxy has been saying about JJJ has been making sense to me lately, when I read their conversations I see her side more than his. I started feeling this way around Day 3ish, which makes me think he may have been recently recruited.
I've felt better about him toDay so far, but not much better.
TH expanded
some on his suspicion of me, asserting that I am falling short of emulating my civilian game. It's important to me that he provide an example of something in my posts that gives him this impression, especially because of his own admission that his knowledge of my game is based on a small sample. I genuinely have no idea why TH would feel this way, and he isn't helping me to understand despite my repeated requests. He's also appealing to Roxy's case again, sharing accountability for his read on me with her instead of taking personal responsibility -- even though her read on me doesn't even seem that meta-based. She has cited specific beefs that she has with my content in this game.
I can do this, there's just not much incentive to do so. I think you've been recruited, and I have reasons to think that, but not much reason to argue my point of view.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip Head wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If you perceive me to be mimicking it inadequately, then I need to see what inspired that perception.
Why?
I perceive obtuseness again.
Not obtuseness. Think of it more like Plato's dialogues. I'm pushing to see what happens.
With that in mind, I'm gonna go catch up.
I'm going to stay out of it until further notice/unless something sways me to one side or the other.
