The Syndicate

I should look closer at Tranq myself if I'm going to have the audacity to call him dark red evil-doer extraordinaire.

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DH being serious about doing ISOs would be the most surprising development of this game so far.

Oh. Is this how he normally plays?

And people just accept it?

I have no idea; I am just assuming he isn't so inclined given his content in this game. Maybe I'm wrong. Go crazy, DH.

DH being serious about doing ISOs would be the most surprising development of this game so far.

Caution to everyone who's posted a rainbow in this game: I wouldn't play them like a slow-moving fluid. Any purple/blue ought to be able to become a red at the snap of a finger. Recruitment, man.

DharmaHelper wrote:Holy shit am I in every color?

Have a rainbow, at MP's request. Many of these reads are purely intuitive; I haven't had time to really assess everyone. Or even close to everyone.

Gauging the TinyBubbles ISO with my own perspectives...
llama viewed this with suspicion, asserting that it evidenced some degree of nervousness on Bubbles' part. I think this was a bit of a reach on llama's part to begin with, and I also had a separate reason for feeling differently. In Bullets over Broadway, Bubbles was criticized endlessly for repeatedly claiming aloud to be a good guy. The spoiler below is from that game, the highlighted portion showing the first example of this.
My initial reaction was to assume Bubbles was merely trying something else after seeing where "I'm a good guy!" got her in that game (she really was a good guy). However, I probably shouldn't read this as a distinctly civilian-inclined thing. She could be inclined to make this adjustment as any alignment, so I'll read it null.
This might be the sort of nonchalant joke that people have been referring to to describe her in general. Still, if this post is to be called a suspicious one then the implication must be that she is a baddie recruiter. This was Day 0.
I am inclined to accept this incredulity as genuine. Did one of the game's only two baddie recruiters jump right into the game and joke aloud "yeah I'm bad lol"? I have my doubts. I also don't think it'd suit the personality I'd associate with TinyBubbles in limited experience playing with her.
I'd like to know why Bubbles had these stances. I'm not sure what the origins were of her reads on any of the three even if I agreed with them at the time.
Potential filler, potential soft smear. I don't think Bubbles does this to her team mate, but she might do it to someone else.
Apparently she changed her mind about Golden. I don't know why she changed her mind about Golden. I'd like to know why she changed her mind about Golden.
She stated her half-willingness to vote either Bass or Golden "since that's where things seem going". Her read on Bass was... brief.
She is at least quite honest about her own read on Bass -- it doesn't exist. She waffles around a bit on Golden. The initial highlighted point is sound though. I do like that she has this in her thought process somewhere, because I did too.
Okay. But.




Wild flip-flops are hard to comprehend (hi MP), but they aren't necessarily bad-indicative. The highlighted portions trouble me a lot more than the flip-flop itself.

Yellow = I completely agree, but then why...

Orange = ...does this perspective directly conflict with your prior assertions that "Golden didn't seem himself"? That'd have to be an observation made about the content of his posts.
Uggghhhh I agree! I AGREE!

But why didn't he seem himself? WHY WHY WHY?

*head explodes*
I believe you when you say you're trying. Hang in there, you'll have lots to talk about tonight if you show up in time. Please show up in time and help me/us sort this out.

~~~

Bubbles is more suspicious than Sorsha. I'll consider her as a candidate for my vote. My biggest trepidations are these:

1.) I don't think she's a recruiter, so the "reasons" to suspect her at the earliest stage of the game don't apply.

2.) She is suspected in every game she plays. Normally I stand in her defense because I think the reasoning is poor or easy, but in this case I see enough reason for concern that I am not so inclined. Hopefully she posts soon.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay, do you think you'd be able to make a Rainbow List at this time?

I'm working on Bubbles right now. I'll try to cook something up afterwords.

Roxy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Roxy, how do you feel about the votes for TinyBubbles?

I have a reason for asking Roxy specifically.

I don't want to answer until I know the reasons. But also fyi I have previously stated my opinion to Bubbles about her andher posts.

Standstill!

The question sort of loses its value if you already know the reason for it. It's a minor point either way so screw it: I wanted to see if you felt Bubbles represented an "easy lynch" akin to your perspectives of Bass and Boomslang and thus gauge your reaction to its hasty development.

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am pushing the case because it's the one I feel the most strongly about. I don't care if other players don't see it. I've entertained a number of perspectives on the matter and still feel this way.

He probably won't be lynched at this point because nobody seems to agree with me. So if my baddie strategy is to smear Boomslang, then I suck at it.

Yo JJJ if you're smearing Boomslang, then I'm smearing Sorsha. Dealio?

Let's smear each other bb.

I am pushing the case because it's the one I feel the most strongly about. I don't care if other players don't see it. I've entertained a number of perspectives on the matter and still feel this way.

He probably won't be lynched at this point because nobody seems to agree with me. So if my baddie strategy is to smear Boomslang, then I suck at it.

Roxy wrote:1.)No. Bc his posts have a tone that does not feel civvie. He has pushed his Boomslang case (I am not the only one who does not see it yet he keeps pushing and pushing) not even trying to look for other suspicions. Though I admit I am not fully caught up. His responses did not help him any bc he keeps trying to insinuate crap into my posts that is not there. Why keep trying to say I am calling everyone who is a high poster bad when I clearly am only calling *him* bad?

Are. You. Serious?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:As to Boomslang, Jay... Can you see his exchange from you coming from a neutral perspective?

Maybe. I can see players of any alignment responding incredulously to a logical breakdown like the one I employed. I've mulled over it for a night and at this point the most troubling Boomslang post in that exchange is the one Bullzeye highlighted:

Boomslang wrote:I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

This statement is included somewhere in the Encyclopedia Baddietannica, at least in my experience.

JJJ, can you elaborate what exactly it is you find troubling about this post? What's the baddie mindset? I'm trying to understand it and am just not sure I'm seeing the mindset of a baddie in that post.

It's suspicious at face value. This is reminiscent of a post I made as a baddie in the champs finale that drew a ton of heat. I uttered a sentence that immediately brought the vultures circling: "What do you want from me?"

I was exasperated by constant pressure from a single source (coolkid in that case) and it drove me to saying something that was honestly terrible at face value. I don't necessarily think Boomslang was "exasperated" by me, but I think the constant pressure I was applying led to this crack -- I don't see this post coming from a civilian or neutral mindset.

Moreover, I'd have felt a lot better if he'd have simply granted the mistake after I pointed it out. Something like "oh yeah I see what you mean, I dunno why I was thinking that." Instead he argued me to the tooth that it did make sense, seemingly to dissuade the notion that there was a mistake. That's how baddies respond when accused of things that seem nitpicky -- they get incredibly frustrated and try to hammer home their true meaning without any honest-seeming resignation.

This just happened to me; I'm probably sensitive to it.

Roxy wrote:Thats partially true I guess but mostly I really feel like you are a recruiter or have been recruited

Stating how you "feel" doesn't give me any avenue to defend myself.

Roxy wrote:And again you are pushing crap into posts that is not there. Where did I say EVERYONE who has been most active are bad? Oh that's right I didn't. I only have this suspicion of YOU.
I also have not exonerated EVERYONE bc they haven't seemed to be around as often. Just Boomslang and Bass but Bass id dead now. I do not think that 2 players equate to EVERYONE.

You exonerated those two players for reasons that could apply to a large number of other players just as easily. You've stated suspicion of me for reasons that could apply to a large number of other players just as easily.

Roxy wrote:What? Why do you have to discuss a defense first with the hosts? This reads as extremely shady.

The rules here are absolutely nothing like the rules I've known for 97% of my Mafia life. I literally don't know for sure what I'm even allowed to say around here yet. I have only played the equivalent of about two games on The Syndicate after all.

I did ask them though. I've only applied for one recruitment slot (civilian) and I was not selected. Believe me or don't believe me, there's not much I can say to influence you. You've given me ZERO space for that.

Tranq wrote:My RGB list:

Sorsha
TinyBubbles
Boomslang

Red being the case i find the most interesting, green being the case i felt 'meh' about, and blue being the case that didn't really feel like a case. Why is Boomslang considered a main suspect, exactly?

*votes Sorsha*

Tranq, I want you to comment on the case against Boomslang without someone else handing it to you. Why do you feel that way about it?

One point that I'd expand on is this: I think baddie players are more likely to post B/S in this thread than non-baddies even with two baddie teams present. They can merely baddie-hunt like the civilians/neutrals, but there's more to their situation than that. What do I mean?

They are a team. Their priorities are different.

Here are the priorities for civilians and pro-civ neutrals:

1. Lynch baddies

/end

Here are the priorities for baddies of either team:

1. Lynch players that aren't members of their team, regardless of alignment

2. Lynch baddies of the other team

~~~

Because of that top priority for baddies, they'll be more likely to gleefully join errant bandwagons (any bandwagon for a player not on their team) even if it means they have to manufacture a fake reason for doing so.

I still want to lynch Boomslang. I'll check into TinyBubbles and see whether I hate that wagon.

#tunnelingfordays

The rush of anti-Sorsha votes has been rather abrupt, and I think someone needs to explore her posts through a non-baddie lens at least as a devil's advocate. I'll do it.
I think the highlighted portion is a logical inference. I also like the dejected honesty of this post -- she was playing loosely enough to grant that her ability to contribute was hampered, and that she didn't have much to say. She spoke on the topic that nearly everyone else was speaking on.
Raise your hand if you'd feel uncomfortable single-handedly breaking a tied tally late in a day phase after having had little time to really keep up with the game? *raises hand*

Granted I probably would still do it, but I don't fault Sorsha for hesitating here.
This is the post that seems to be giving people trouble, so I'll focus on it more.

Yellow = on RYM this would be called face-value suspicious, but around here it seems like everyone makes this post. So I'll read that null.

Orange = She maintains that she has had time constraints, which I think is completely believable considering the circumstances she described earlier in the game. She pledged to comment on things as she came across them, which inevitably leads to...

Red = ...her opting to comment on the Golden controversy. It's not remotely suspicious to me that she elected to speak on this matter because it was the foremost discussion in the game. I'd be significantly more suspicious if she had ignored it or brushed it over. That this commentary exists does not trouble me at all -- I'll decide instead whether the content of the commentary should be a reason for concern.

So do I? I understand why some people are concerned. I am not sure that I am though. The first red sentence is perhaps a bit illogical -- it implies that baddie team killing Epi would have known Golden was trying to bait them into that kill, which is obviously not correct. The second sentence expands on her thought though and even when I try to see it through a baddie lens I feel a lot of doubt. This reads pretty innocuous to me, honestly. First of all I think her point is pretty sound -- blatant frame jobs don't always work, or at least they shouldn't (this one did ). Sorsha made the same point that someone else made (I think S~V~S?), that from a baddie perspective it'd make more sense to allow the two players to continue arguing long-term as a distraction.

To me this looks like a player trying to stay relevant in the thread by discussing the same topic that has dominated the game -- even to this point after Golden's demise. There is a logical discrepancy present -- it doesn't make sense to wonder about whether a baddie team would do what Golden is baiting them to do because they wouldn't know they're being baited. I think this is a minor point though. If she'd employed this logical error in a more aggressive anti-Golden agenda (hi Boomslang) I'd be more concerned. She seemed to be sorting through the issue out loud. This became a trend.
Is this really such a troubling post? Baddies are capable of total trepidation with their votes, but I don't see it as often as I see it from townies (in this case it could apply to neutrals). Nearly this exact lamentation has appeared repeatedly in this game from multiple players, not just Sorsha. I think it's understandable that she'd feel this way, especially since she wasn't able to keep up with activity in this game in real-time.
She did eventually place a vote, and she explained her position. If her objective was to frame Golden from a distance, then I don't think she did a very effective job of that. Indeed this vote evidences that she would have practically told the thread her own plan and then executed it.

"Baddies would want to perpetuate the Golden controversy as a distraction."

*tries to keep Golden alive by voting in one of the more active counterwagons*

Is that what happened? Maybe, you be the judge. I think we have to acknowledge this question though.
If this is a frame job perpetrated by Sorsha, then it just officially became the frame-then-defend method of framing. This isn't framing-then-jabbing from a distance as many people seem to be asserting. The highlighted portion displays Sorsha finally coming to a stance on the Golden issue while still considering the same confusion she had originally (which I have stated seems logically fallacious but not in a suspicious way). I think this evidences a consistent mindset in Sorsha -- she explored the issue thoroughly, dealt with her own unique doubts, and eventually took a side. That's a good look for her I think.
She expanded on her suspicious of TinyBubbles in a way that I like. I don't agree with her reasoning really, but I understand where it comes from and can follow her thought process. The connection between a potential BTSC and her claims of emotional investment is a unique and complex idea, one that I think is more likely to occur in the mind of a player who is genuinely interested in figuring out TinyBubbles. Sure, both baddie teams are likely to do some hunting, but I maintain that they are also more likely than others to make B/S posts. This isn't one in my opinion.
She took a vote from DrWilgy and responded to it with a level head. Moreover she presented theories about the Epi kill that I don't think were present in this thread before this post (anyone please correct me if that's not true). Most appealingly, she doesn't merely try to move DrWilgy's vote elsewhere -- she tries to understand it as well as his perspective in general. She is working to figure him out simultaneously to figuring out why he voted for her. This is exactly what I do as a civilian in every game ever, so I appreciate it especially. Objectivity is my friend.
She just keeps dropping truth bombs on all these dissenters. I don't necessarily think DrWilgy looks bad for asking these questions, but I don't think Sorsha has done a poor job of answering them either.

Sorsha's lengthy defense against Scotty's case

I thought Scotty was biased towards the negative when he cased DH. I think he did the same thing here. I'll decide later how that should reflect on him, but again -- I think Sorsha did everything we could reasonably ask of her with these responses. Her clarifications largely mesh with what I've inferred in this analysis, and I hadn't even seen them yet when I started writing this thing. I am inclined to believe her.
Hey look what I did!

~~~

If you read this and still want to lynch Sorsha, I want -- nay demand -- to know where you disagree.

Tranq wrote:Why is Boomslang considered a main suspect, exactly?

Hey y'all, I'm compiling a big post in which I defend Sorsha! Are you ready?

aapje wrote:I've reread all of Sorsha's posts. It's been quite a while since I've played with her but she sounds like I remember her. Although I can see her being on the team that killed Epi.

I will probably not be around until the end of the day and there is a good chance that Monday is the next time I will check in again. Sorry for that!

What about Sorsha's play makes you specifically declare that you could see her being on the team that killed Epi?

Spacedaisy wrote:Jay, see my above regarding Boomslang. He could be bad, but I don't think your disagreement with him right now proves anything. You seem to be getting very nit picky in your arguments, is this the norm for you? I've only played one game with you and my concern is that I know of your reputation, you would be considered a prize recruit.

I can understand why you'd perceive it to be nitpicky. It might have been. The method was nitpicky, but the main point I was trying to convey was important -- or at least I thought so. The entire discussion can be simplified to this: did Boomslang muck up a fake accusation against Golden, or did he not?

The norm for me is to be hyper-thorough and hyper-objective (even when I am being accused). My reputation on this website is pretty much _______________________.

I'm still trying to build some manner rapport with the regulars here; my methods are unique in this environment and I don't feel like I have had much influence in any game I've played yet. I think I'm an unattractive recruit most people don't really know me. It makes me feel awkward as such an active player.

bea wrote:Also - I'm totally cute and fun to have around and I've been away forever and everyone is super happy I'm playing for sure!!

My fear is that this is totally true, and thus...

bea wrote:also also - I'm still unrecruited fwiw.

This is less likely. :P

EBWOP, fixing name in quote.

LoRab wrote:I do not WANT to lynch neutrals. I never WANTED to lynch neutrals. But I would rather lynch a neutral than a civ. And when I voted for Golden, I did not suspect anyone of being on a baddie team. I changed my vote to the person I suspected of being bad after that. I am starting to feel like a broken record--but I feel like my words being twisted. And since I think one of you is bad, then it feels like you're intentionally manipulating the way you frame my thoughts.

Possibly. I see llama as one of the most likely recruitees in the game right now, and the nonchalance of "oh yeah, and LoRab" troubles me. I'll look into him more.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:And one thing I would recommend to everyone is this: don't tell other people how to play the game. I don't think any of us are newbies and a lot of us have been playing in this extended community for a really long time. We don't need to be told how you think we should play.

You realize that you just violated your own rule to tell me that?

My intention is never to be condescending or tell people how they must play the game. I made a recommendation because I thought it was important, and I absolutely do not apologize for it. I'll do it again if I see fit. That's how I play the game.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Also, I don't think players can ever just come in and shout they've been forced to vote or do something; they can try to signal it, at least. So MP heavily denying to have been forced doesn't fully detract me from finding the other version to be a plausible signal or tactic in dealing with a forced vote. In fact, a pee fountain sort of signaling.

Is there really any precedent for players abjectly denying that they were forced to so something they didn't want to do when that is in fact the truth? Couldn't they just ignore those comments to allow the theories to survive instead of putting a concerted effort into eliminating them?

I've flatly denied being forced to do things I was forced to do in many a game.

In some hosts games, the host punishes you if you let on that you have been forced, and if directly asked, you had best deny it. So denial does not mean much. I do not recall if these hosts are punishers or not, I try not to run afoul of their directives.

Just home, will read back to this AM.

I'll take your word for it, folks. This concept is from another planet for me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:As to Boomslang, Jay... Can you see his exchange from you coming from a neutral perspective?

Maybe. I can see players of any alignment responding incredulously to a logical breakdown like the one I employed. I've mulled over it for a night and at this point the most troubling Boomslang post in that exchange is the one Bullzeye highlighted:

Boomslang wrote:I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

This statement is included somewhere in the Encyclopedia Baddietannica, at least in my experience.

Roxy, how do you feel about the votes for TinyBubbles?

I have a reason for asking Roxy specifically.

I need to reassess bea too. Sorry for the thinking outloud filler posts, these are for me to see later as reminders.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MM, why are you quiet again? What changed?

Oh yeah, you said you'd be around Saturday.

MM, why are you quiet again? What changed?

Taking responses into consideration as they come.

In any event, I've said enough about Boomslang. At the very least this conversation has gotten him involved and there is a lot of content for people to assess him by.

I need to check out Ricochet. He has a ton of posts and I've barely interacted with him so far.

Canucklehead wrote:In a game with two baddie teams, why would anyone need to "manufacture" suspicions on anyone? Why not just baddie hunt? And why would a baddie team want to orchestrate the lynch of the Ayer almost singlehandedly responsible for monopolizing the is issuing in the thread? Doesn't make sense to me, so I'm more willing to buy that potential baddies are in the camp of Golden apologists, rather than the Gokden witch-hunters.....but wifom is a thing, so

Baddies are more likely to participate in lynches they don't actually support than non-baddies -- even when there are multiple teams. They have to justify their participation somehow.

Boomslang wrote:Nutella just stated the issue exactly. Ok, Golden can't know for sure that Epi is on a different baddie team. But if he strongly suspects Epi of being bad, then he's taking Premise 4 to be true anyway. I can combine assumptions because this is Mafia, and that's what people do, guess what other people are guessing and make decisions based on those assumptions. I also agree with Nutella that this logic tangent has lost its value, and I'll be making no further comment so as not to clog the thread even further.

You asserted that Golden knew Epignosis was on the other baddie team, and provided a supporting argument for how he knew that. That is in itself an assertion based on something you would call logical. I'm trying to convey that it wasn't. And that it's different from the point you're making in this post here.

I'm not bringing logic tables into this discussion because they look nice. I'm making a specific point.

Scotty wrote:JJJ, what is your opinion of DH- do you see any civ motives?

No. But I'm not looking for "civ" motives. I'm looking for "baddie" motives and "non-baddie" motives. I don't struggle at all to find the latter with DH. He's more suspicious to me than he would be if he had approached this game in a more civilian-friendly mindset, but that doesn't mean he should be a suspect by default. He's playing for himself -- ask yourself what that might mean.

I'd appreciate it if a lot of you folks could share your take on my exchange with Boomslang during this phase. It's a serious infraction for me, but I don't want to tunnel him hard based on one thing (shades of S~V~S on Golden). You folks can help me decide whether I am making too much of a fuss about it.

nutella wrote:linki @ JJJ: I think the problem that you are not quite articulating to him is that he's going from "Golden strongly believes Epi is bad" to "Golden knows for certain that Epi is bad." But I also think this logic argument is kind of a useless tangent.

Do you disagree with me when I assert that Boomslang may have been manufacturing a fake reason to cast suspicion on Golden and made a mistake? That's what I'm trying to convey here.

Boomslang wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

What do you disagree with?

I don't think you're stupid, hence my concern.

Scotty, I was under the impression that your review of DH's content would be the objective sort -- to determine how you feel about him. It seems though that each of your points about his posts is distinctly negative without caveat (as if an alternative perspective wasn't in your mindset). Do you see any non-baddie motives for DH to do what he's been doing?

Could someone who is not Boomslang nor I please review our recent exchange and provide your take?

Boomslang wrote:Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

Boomslang wrote:JJJ, you're still missing my point. In addition to your two premises I had assumed Premise 0: Golden is on a baddie team. This was untrue, as we found out, but it was not known to be false at the times I voted.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

Boomslang wrote:4. If Golden were baddie he would have known if Epi were on his team. He thought Epi was bad. If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team, Epi must have been on the other baddie team. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I still don't get it at all. Let's follow the thread of logic:

Premise 1.) If Epi and Golden are on the same baddie team, then Golden knows Epi is bad -- TRUE

Premise 2.) If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team then Epi must have been on the other team -- TRUE

Premise 3.) Golden is on a baddie team. -- PRESUMED WITHIN CONTEXT AT THE TIME

____

Conclusion: Golden knew Epi was on the other bad team

~~~

I accept your premises. However, the conclusion does not follow from them. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

The conclusion still doesn't follow. That doesn't fix it.

DharmaHelper wrote:

nutella wrote:I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

You caught two of them at once eh?

aapje wrote:What does ISO stand for?

"Isolation"

It refers to reviewing a player's posts in isolation -- their post history and nothing but.

BTW, happy birthday Black Rock.

Boomslang wrote:The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

Boomslang wrote:4. If Golden were baddie he would have known if Epi were on his team. He thought Epi was bad. If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team, Epi must have been on the other baddie team. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I still don't get it at all. Let's follow the thread of logic:

Premise 1.) If Epi and Golden are on the same baddie team, then Golden knows Epi is bad -- TRUE

Premise 2.) If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team then Epi must have been on the other team -- TRUE

____

Conclusion: Golden knew Epi was on the other bad team

~~~

I accept your premises. However, the conclusion does not follow from them. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

Ricochet wrote:Again, how does MP being genuine in his crazy act make him look better? Sure, I'm not giving any verdict yet that he'd be as suicidal as jumping on a Golden wagon as a bad recruitee, with no prior reasoning, but I still wouldn't be able to call him "genuine" and well intent after such a performance. At best, I'd label him a neutral who did more harm than good by disorienting the game with such antics.

It only makes him look better for those who believe his story as he told it after the fact. At the moment I am inclined in that direction, but I admit that I am troubled by the fact that his vote never moved from Golden.

Boomslang wrote:Ok, I've finally got time to sit down and write a substantial post. So let's do it.

My self-vote was an experiment to see how quickly I could get bandwagoned based on practically no other "baddie" tells. And with that single action, I nearly got lynched. To me, that showed how many people were willing to protect Golden at the drop of a hat. My voters wanted to encourage a game environment in which someone can claim responsibility for a death (CAUSED BY A BADDIE, as Rey pointed out) and not get lynched for it. Although Golden did not flip bad, I maintain that if he had not been lynched for his statements on the death of Epi, it would have opened up the space in which baddies could operate.

I don't understand what you mean by the yellow bit, please expand on that. The orange bit is a very generous self-assessment -- "practically no other baddie tells" is frankly a silly thing to say about yourself. You might not be a baddie, I don't know, but your post history is not some sparkling beacon of town beyond the self-vote.

Boomslang wrote:I also want to point out that JJJ's "case" on me is built almost entirely on an absence of evidence. Of things that I did not do, of brilliant points that I could have made Day 0 or 1 but didn't, of a vote for Bass that was entirely justifiable but not justified by more than one post. Of "confusing" post about G-man's support of Golden that JJJ interprets correctly at the same time he's denouncing it for being confusing. He doesn't have a leg to stand on, and he knows it.

The yellow bit is exaggerated bullsuit. You have no idea what I know and don't know. I was suspicious of you, I built a case explaining exactly why, and have repeatedly taken responsibility for that case. If I "know I don't have a leg to stand on", then why in the world have I worked so hard to point everyone straight to my own case about you every time someone has asked "Why the Boomslang votes???"

That I correctly interpreted a post does not mean it wasn't confusing. That's crap.

Boomslang wrote:The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

How would Golden have that knowledge if he were on the other baddie team? The baddie teams don't start the game aware of one another.

Roxy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Roxy wrote:I meant to add that JJJ and MP's convo felt fake.

I can understand you thinking the MP side of the conversation was fake. He was bonkers and his eventual explanation can only be believed or disbelieved at face value. What was fake about my part in it though? I was trying to figure out WTF he was on about.

Bc you were all like "yeah I was playing like Epi bc I knew you were faking it"

Gosh and golly! lol

What? I didn't say I knew he was faking it. I pressed him hard "like Epi" because I didn't know that. I was trying to get him to show me what he was doing.