The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:Observations:

-- if teamies / baddies are on the JJJ train (besides LoRab), nobody moved a muscle during D3.5
-- if teamies / baddies didn't add to the JJJ bonfire, but attempted to mount a different counter-wagon, I'd say the MM momentum is worth checking perhaps. Names like juliets or bea. How do they show up in your ISO's, JJJ?
-- the four-way tie craze was already in full motion, but it doesn't mean Mac moving from LoRab to FZ doesn't look a bit dirty; I even called him out on it; then again, he only moved his vote to create the four-way tie, which wouldn't have really helped LoRab as his teamie;
-- if Wilgy moved on MM without realizing Golden broke the tie, it also looks hella dirty; he also stayed away from ever voting FZ (despite my banter request) and him voting FZ could have perhaps pushed her by more than one vote ahead; then again, his last second switch would also be a near suicidal movie for him as LoRab teamie

Thanks as always for your dedicated spreadsheeting, Rico. That's one workload I've never quite taken on in a Mafia game. The vote that I have the most trouble figuring out is ninja's -- it seems like it should be a decent vote, especially if it put LoRab just one vote behind me. Granted it also tied her with MM so her being lynched was still a relative long-shot.

Wilgy's vote is an enigma of science. Philosophers are known to throw their tomes across the across the auditorium in a fit of frustration after failing to solve its mystery.

I'm a one-of-a-kind special snowflake and there will never be another one like me.

That was ranked loosely in descending order starting with the most likely.

Most likely baddie team mates of LoRab IMO after doing all that shit:

thellama73 / Dom (I think it's one or the other, not necessarily both -- I underlined the one I think is most likely to be bad).
Metalmarsh89
nijuukyugou
DrWilgy
Long Con
DharmaHelper

More speculative/less confident possibilities:

juliets
MacDougall
bea

I'm sure I'm wrong about things. One cannot analyze everyone in the game without that happening. Anyone who actually reads most of my stuff, please share your points of disagreement.

linki: well-timed, DH

LoRab and thellama73

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:LoRab and llama have not butted heads over who is the better writer and poster.

confirmed fishy
I don't to butt heads. The market has determined that I am the better writer, since I get paid for it.
I get paid for it, as well. So the market hasn't determined anything.

LoRab wrote:
sig wrote:So zebra was mafia, that most likely means JJJ wasn't on her team. I did see the idea that she picked him, but this makes little sense for day 1. I think it is worth looking into the players who after Rico flipped made comments, like saying how they hope he isn't as spammy or it would be better to have lynched a baddie. I find the first group to almost be trying to weaken Rico's credit thus giving him less of an opinion and basically neutering him, and the second group to just be scummy.

I think a few mafia members were on the Rico wagon, however I also think there is a good chance that either LoRab or Llama are scum.

I don't have many civ or scum reads right know, but I do think Long Con is a civilian, and I'm leaning scum on Llama. Know here is my question do you think the early snipping that Llama and Zebra did was fabricated? It was only a little bit, but I'm curious what people think of it.

I think with Zebra's lynch it also makes it less likely that Mac is on her team.

One last thing, if Roger Rabbit was a civ role last game wouldn't it be odd for it to be a scum role this game? Could this be some sort of seemer/prankster thing? Remember Night 0 scum was able to do actions in theory they could have targeted Zebra and then killed her today. This could be a seemer role where it replaces the scum who used it, just switched the alignment, or let the seemer pick a role.
I think the chances of this are low, but then again the chances of hitting a mafia night 1 is also small.
It is possible that Llama is mafia--I am not.

LoRab wrote:
bea wrote:
LoRab wrote:What the absolute fuck?

I've caught up and holy bandwagon, batman!! Seriously, people.

There is more than one person who voted for me who either hasn't mentioned me at all and should know better (Tranq) or who has never played with me before and can't even give me the benefit to answer votes (motel room). A few others who are somewhere in the middle, but that was the most obvious late lynch bandwagon I have ever seen.

And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Hi lorab. NIce to see you again. (been waiting for this post in my catsup since I read you missed the vote. All I could think is....well...she's in for a surprise..... )

Pretty clear what you think of JJ - what do you think of the rest that voted you? Who's most likely scum? Who's most likely mislead civ?
Most suspish: JJJ (though not for voting me...mainly because of the bandwagon against me which looked like it was to save him), motel room, Tranq....Golden sort of started the bandwagon, so that concerns me and bumps him up. Although maybe llama, too, for being the next to vote going by the first follower theory.

LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
I don't have BTSC with Dom. We are not on a baddie team together. If he is civ, then we are on the same team.

I will say that suspish is a word that was used a lot on LP and TP, which is where Dom learned to mafia. So it doesn't strike me as odd language from Dom. He also could have picked it up from me during our BTSC time in the last game.

All that said, it's not a word I'd expect to hear from Llama...so...an interesting note to keep in mind.

The first post here is just banter. The next three are all important I think. In response to sig's suspicion, LoRab felt the need to say "llama may be bad but I'm not" instead of just "I'm not bad". In response to bea, she names a number of people she "suspects" on her bandwagon, and at the end tacks on another addendum about llama as a suspect. Then in the last quoted post here it's the same deal.

I think that last post is critically important. Click here to see why from within my Dom review.

Spoiler: show

Llama never quite provided a substantive read on LoRab. The second last quote is decently close I guess, but it doesn't inspire me. Llama seems to be precariously perched on the fence about LoRab at all times, particularly by the time Day 3.0 rolled around and the lynch became a JJJ/LoRab dichotomy. I've illustrated the duality of his LoRab posts in color. Green represents a pro-LoRab statement, yellow represents a neutral statement, and red represents an anti-LoRab statement. He could be setting himself up for either scenario -- LoRab surviving the attempts at lynching her (allowing him to maintain a semi-positive outlook), or LoRab actually being lynched (allowing him to nod to the red sections of this analysis).

~~~

llama's Day 3.0 vote was for LoRab. On Day 3.5 it was for DharmaHelper. It should be noted that his Day 3.0 vote came before most of the quick counterwagon on LoRab formed. I don't know if he could have foreseen that taking place, and after it did it'd have been hard for him to justify moving his vote again.

~~~

I think this is highly team mate-compatible, and perhaps the most team mate-indicative of any analysis I've done for LoRab interactions. LoRab's posts bear the appearance of sprinkled-in distancing efforts, because they show her talking about llama in a capacity that doesn't strike me as naturally flowing from a mindset to smear a non-team mate. The post I linked that also might implicate Dom is also a heavy factor in this perspective. I think LoRab may have accidentally exposed llama there. Llama's posts only strengthen this read for the reasons I've displayed in colors.

LoRab and Tranq

Spoiler: show

LoRab gave Tranq crap for his seemingly random vote, asserting he "should know better". She listed Tranq as a suspect when prompted by bea. I think Tranq is an incredibly easy target for LoRab and with that in mind it's a decent look -- but only decent. There's not enough content.

Tranq never mentioned LoRab. He did vote for her though, on Day 3.0. He voted for FZ on Day 3.5.

Beats me.

I'd still say non-team mate gun to head. I don't think he's inherently bad for lurking around or even placing unexplained votes. There's always someone doing that in these dang games.

LoRab and motel room

Spoiler: show

This is limited to the same two posts I referenced for Tranq, and they have no more to say about motel room than they did about Tranq. Copy and paste I guess.

Spoiler: show

There's not much on motel room's end either. He dropped his Day 3.0 vote on her after vouching for me, so it appears his intent was more to prevent my lynch than to endorse her lynch. The fact that he'd even care either way is a nice look. He missed the Day 3.5 vote. There's not enough content for a substantive read, but he looks better to me than I expected him to at least.

LoRab and bea

Spoiler: show

This is LoRab's only acknowledgement of bea (game-relevant, I mean). I don't think this response says much about bea.

Spoiler: show

bea wrote:Oh - lorab. I can confirm that she does buddy to people she percieves as civs when she's bad. She managed to fool LC through most of that game. Then he figured it out and our baddie victory was tossed squarely into his baddie teams hand. I don't have a lot to go on in developing a read on lorab atm. I have not done any back reading so my impressions are pretty much based on this last phase alone. I would need a lot more time with her.

bea wrote:sorsha - I'm playing catch up - could you explain why you are suspicious of lorab please?

bea wrote:
LoRab wrote:What the absolute fuck?

I've caught up and holy bandwagon, batman!! Seriously, people.

There is more than one person who voted for me who either hasn't mentioned me at all and should know better (Tranq) or who has never played with me before and can't even give me the benefit to answer votes (motel room). A few others who are somewhere in the middle, but that was the most obvious late lynch bandwagon I have ever seen.

And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Hi lorab. NIce to see you again. (been waiting for this post in my catsup since I read you missed the vote. All I could think is....well...she's in for a surprise..... )

Pretty clear what you think of JJ - what do you think of the rest that voted you? Who's most likely scum? Who's most likely mislead civ?

bea wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but Roger Rabbit was not a scum in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, so the fact that Duncan was civ is irrelevant.

I have voted for him right away for the same reasons I ended up voting for him yesterday and after the Lorab counterwagon attempt and the subsequent failure to lynch him ... I think it's a no brainer? I haven't thought about this failed lynch too deeply yet tbh but at face value it looks like he's bad?

Also please don't proclaim that I said that he dropped the Llama claim to avoid being a push button lynch as though it was fact. I was providing a potential explanation. The truth might be something entirely different. It might be as simple as him just not believing he could win a battle with Llama. Boomslang had plenty of active suspicion at many points in the game and Jimmy did seem to select him quite arbitrarily and abruptly. Analyse that.

He and Llama might even be on the same team. I have no idea.

He might be civ. I'm not impossibly convinced that he is bad, but all signs point in that direction to me. If you think he is civ, I'd love to hear your explanation for everything.

bea wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Well that explains why Jimmy didn't leave a legacy post and why I felt like he expected to survive. Explains why he brought other suspects into the equation instead of just pushing for the Llama lynch too because he was never getting lynched and he knew it.
This is prolly a stupid question, but I'm sometimes a dumb - Do you think it's possible that a civ JJ could have not left a legacy post and knew he was going to survivie as well? Or is your mind made up that it shook down the way it did for baddie reasons?

Obviously based on DH's post directly after yours I posted, he feels the second is true.

My vote last day was pretty much Day 1 gun to head vote for me. I know I'm missing lots of pieces and just want to make sure we're thinking everything through.
He said himself he didn't have time to leave one, but he was around for ages and his lynch was considered for quite some time. He would have left a rainbow, a legacy post, a fucking funeral plan. That is JJJ. Him choosing not to leave one to me is a sign that he knew he wasn't going to get lynched. If he KNEW he wasn't going to get lynched he is either responsible for it or he has a team. If he is responsible for it, that isn't a death sentence but in light of all the other evidence it looks bad.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

bea wrote:Ok - I get that. Occum. And all that. I'm just saying - maybe he could have known he wasn't going to die and maybe didn't want to let on that and maybe still have civ reasons. I reference FZ in Death Note. Like she said - she had a save and she fought HARD not to use it. She never let on she had it till it happened. They ended up NKing her but we spent DAYS talking about FZ - llama and epi were CONVINCED she was bad and we determined to take her out. She was civ. I waffled like a lot. ALL OF US we civ. Except maybe epi? I can't remember which role he had, but he was playing a civ friendly game if he was one of the weird indis.

Maybe this is the same sort of scenario is all I'm saying. I get what you are saying. And what you are saying fits into the meta of what I expect JJ to do too. In the limited amount of exposure I've had to him.

In any event, I can understand his desire to not defend any more and I am curious as to where his posts go this day re: reads.

Curious to see how lorab is this day too.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, did I miss a BR catch up this day? I remember her saying My arent we all chatty then I missed anything else she might have said.

linki -that's fair too I think. I'm trying to watch ash vs the evil dead and also I have beer and also mafia.

all of this is good for my bea general well being btw, because for the moment I'm not focused on my soul crushing broken heart. No pleads for sympathy from me. Just happy for the distraction no matter how small.

Linking instead of quoting because it already contains a spoiler.

bea wrote:
Dom wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
I... kind of like this theory. It's just crazy enough to make sense, and I know I often find myself using the language of the group I'm talking with. Does this necessarily make him bad, though? I'm not pinged super hard either way. On the civ end, I like his pressure on Tranq and the way he's been skeptical of Mac throughout the game. On the mafia end, I don't like the way he's expressed support for off-wagon candidates and then circled back to the main wagon for all of the lynches thus far; feels just a touch too blendy.

GTH, I guess I'd say bad. The connection of "suspish" with Lorab, combined with his consistent but low levels of aggro toward her, could make the case for mafia teammates.
I think LoRab put the context quite nicely, regardless of alignment.

i agree. Tbh - suspish is shorthand from LP and TP and I even saw it on and used it on rev often. Fuck, I used that shit on HV.

I use it mostly because i can't be assed to type it all out. :P
IF BR or LC or JC disagree, but I'm willing to back up both lorab and dom that it was common usage in our old forums even if dom hasn't often used it here.

bea has dedicated a pretty decent amount of her posts to talking about LoRab, at least in part. There is a theme of soft defense which isn't the best look, but it's never overt enough to strongly ping me. I do like this question, it's one of my favorite things to ask people as a townie when they're on the verge of doom. bea might be a bit of a blind spot for me, I'm not sure I've ever read her bad before. I don't now either though, even though there might be a reason to. I'll again invite feedback.

LoRab and Metalmarsh89

LoRab made no relevant mentions of MM -- she only spoke of him reference to suspicion she cast on Matt.

Spoiler: show

There's nothing substantive, but pretty much all of this pings me on some level. I don't know why really. MM is known for his WIFOM shtick, but I don't know if I've seen him carry on with it this long before. He has 166 posts and has affected the course of this game about as much as Tranq.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:You better kill me tonight baddies because I'm hella motivated now.
Are you talking to me?

Apparently yes.

LoRab and nijuukyugou

LoRab did not talk to or about ninja.

I already talked about one of her posts relative to LoRab. Now with LoRab's flip it looks even worse than before.

Spoiler: show

This is the only other relevant post. She flips the script on Day 3.5. It appears hers was the 4th of 5 votes for LoRab, but I don't know how the tally looked at this point. I know it was a chaotic mess at this point, I don't know if I still had the tally lead. That's important information and I'll need anyone else to clarify before I can analyze fairly.

Generally I still think ninja is a viable candidate to be LoRab's team mate.

LoRab and Sorsha

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
Sorsha wrote:Ok I snuck a little time in here for my LoRab posts.

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
So this is the post that started my suspicion of you LoRab. I did have to read through it more than once to actually understand what you meant here. I think your posts are usually well thought out, easy to follow and I can pretty much see what you mean or how you came to your conclusions. This post isn't so much like that. After reading it a second time I could figure out what I think you meant, but its not really as clear as I'd expect some theory from you to be.
It wasn't so much that I was clearing up a misunderstanding about my post (which probably could have been clearer, since a few people misunderstood it. Sometimes my thoughts don't make as much sense coming out of my head than they did inside my brain, lol. Even if I am mostly clear most of the time), it was how he said it and that he didn't just say, "Oh, I misunderstood you," But instead told me how I should have been writing. Someone telling me how to write or how to play doesn't sit well. He and I had similar back and forth in the last game. My reaction was to being told I didn't know how to write, not to the fact that I could have said it differently, if that makes sense. The tone was frustration, which I tend to have at some point in many games.

Yes, I could have been clearer in my speculation earlier--but when I speculate, I sometimes spew thoughts and they don't come out as clear as my more thought out theories. I think we all have moments where we aren't as clear as other times. But that doesn't make me bad. It just means I didn't make my speculation more clear.

LoRab wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
FZ. wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?
Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.
Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.
I agree. I don't like this post by LoRab either.

LoRab- why would HB need to "suck up" to you? Have you guys played together so much that he would see you as an influence that he'd want to get on your good side in this game? I thought the only other game you've been in together was a world reborn.

What this post sounds like to me is you sucking up to BR in hopes that she will change her mind and stop suspecting you.

In other news.. I'm not going to quote it because it was really big, but I like the case that LC made on jjj. I've been shit at keeping up with the game but I remember agreeing with it when LC brought it up after zebra was killed and I'm not sure if I said anything at the time about it.

I'm not really sure I'm seeing civvie golden here either but I need to go back over his posts before I'm solid on that suspicion. His signature has that quote about civvie golden being a hurricane of self assurance and that is not what I'm seeing from him.
I don't know why he'd want to suck up to me. I haven't played with him a lot. But I also can't figure out why he'd have several posts about his civ read of me for civ reasons--sucking up to me is one reason (it's something I defintiely do with people I read as civ). Putting a target on my back is another. But there were enough posts that it felt more like buttering me up in my read.

LoRab wrote:
Sorsha wrote:@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?
I was simply answering BR. And noting that I don't suspect her for suspecting me. I guess that you could see that as buttering up, but that wasn't my intent. I was just responding. And, really, my buttering up is much more overt--ask LC. He's often been the recipient of it (enough times that it stopped being effective, lol).

And I can't speak for HB, but I know I'm not on a baddie team. I suspect him, but on a low level--it's more what you say. I don't trust his intentions and think something is up with his posts about me. I can't speak to the motivations on kills, as I'm not on a baddie team and I don't have a kill.

LoRab wrote:Oh, wait...did you mean why don't I suspect a specific number of people who voted for me? OF the 8 who voted for me, I'm not sure which are bad. I don't particularly suspect you or Sorsha because your suspicion of me is well documented. The other 6 I'm iffy on.

LoRab's content about Sorsha is pretty much limited to responses to Sorsha's accusations. I like that Sorsha responded to LoRab's suspicion of Burger the same way FZ and I did. That'd be a harsh way to treat a team mate who is struggling to defend herself against BR (harsh in terms of difficulty I mean).

Spoiler: show

Sorsha wrote:Just caught up on a few pages.....

Not finding LoRab's behavior this game suspicious... So far anyway.

The point on Fuzz is a little ping worthy atm, something I'll keep in mind for day one.

Stop with the vocaroo. This is not a vocaroo Mafia.

I have no new suspicions to speak of right now, watching a few more recent developments before I weigh in though.

Sorsha wrote:Ditto in the LoRab suspishion! I'm at work right now and can't make the post I want to atm but it goes back to the post about roles that Mac had issue with up to the points epi made here. Not feeling like the civ LoRab I'm used to.

Sorsha wrote:I read your response LoRab (not quoting because it is so huge) you always have a way of making things seem so rational and I usually can be swayed to see things how you see them. I'm going to stick with my gut for today though and vote for you.

I've not had enough time (and won't before poll closes) to catch up over the past few pages but I'll be able to over the weekend and hopefully have some stronger suspicions then.

votes LoRab

Sorsha wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:I'll just say that based on A World Reborn, I'm not seeing a different LoRab this game. Her argument with Rico seems reasonable and in line with what I've seen from others, even though I disagree (regarding rainbows and coin flips and other silliness). Epi went hard after her and started that wagon from what I can tell, but it's really based on LoRab having a safer/waffley tone. I'm ambivalent on that case. I also don't like Sorsha's post against LoRab, basically saying LoRab made a confusing post and that LoRab is usually clear. The subject matter (day 0/the poll/old roles) seemed inherently a little confusing and I don't see Sorsha's attack there as reasonable, and that pings me a bit more because during Talking Heads, Sorsha was one of the players I found myself agreeing with more strongly. During A World Reborn, Sorsha also used Matt's predilection towards wild/confusing theories against him; different target, different case, but together I think Sorsha doesn't look good.

I'll read more on LoRab in a bit, but not really liking that as an alternative to Rico.
I have to admit I'm not the greatest at reading LoRab right off the bat in a game nor do I usually get a ping from her this early, but I did, and along with what other players noticed about her I think a vote for her was justified, especially for day one. Normally I wouldn't go after Matt for his crazy theories because that's normal Matt but in a world reborn we needed to lynch civvies so I did what I had to do there. That wasn't something that happened on day one either... That was endgame. The issue I have/had with LoRab wasn't about some crazy theory she's trying to pass off either so i don't really see how these two situations relate. LoRab pinged me because it seemed like an off post from her.

Sorsha wrote:I'm torn between sticking with my LoRab vote and going with a sig vote. I've only had time to read over everything else a little bit.

With regards to jjj/LC- looking over jjj's interactions with zebra I wasn't really seeing all the connections LC was but there were a few things pointed out that that did seem odd. I don't have time to go dig them up before eod to see if those points were addressed already though so I wouldn't feel comfortable voting jjj today.

I think I'll just stick to my LoRab vote for today. I'm fine seeing sig go too but I have nothing to add to the case and haven't read anything in depth so

Sorsha wrote:@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

Sorsha wrote:
Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.
I agree with 50% of this statement. Voting LoRab again.

Sorsha wrote:No i didnt. I've discussed things and I've discussed players up for vote right now. I've been suspicious of LoRab and I've stated why.

Sorsha wrote:I voted for LoRab yesterday and was ambivalent about jjj getting lynched. I voted LoRab today and am leaning more towards not wanting jjj lynched because his posts today seem to be genuine/civ. Still catching up in bits and pieces here.

There's no denying that Sorsha went after LoRab early and often, and she was consistent about that the entire game so far -- probably more so than anyone else short of Epignosis. I don't know these two as well as most of y'all, but something tells me they wouldn't engage in this kind of heavy bussing as team mates (at least not at the start of the game). I'm leaning towards a non-team mate relationship.

LoRab and MacDougall

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.
I not, def not. That was painful to type.

You've never played a game with me bad--how do you know how to read my tone? Oh, and wait, you thought I was bad last game, too. And were wrong. Just saying.

LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.
You are very bad. Enrique in Star Wars bad.
No, I'm not.

LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?
Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.
I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

*snip*

MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?
Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.
I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.

LoRab had to dedicate a good amount of her earliest content to fending off a rabid MacDougall. For the most part that's the vibe I get -- that she's trying to get around a real problem and not a premeditated or calculated distance effort. This is the most telling thing to me: she immediately discredited Mac's ability to read her alignment based on tone, and I would expect her to treat a non-team mate that way. That's not a confident matter though.

Spoiler: show

I'll stop for a moment to note that this is Mac's very first post. Good fun. There are a ton of other posts in Mac's first 50 posts which carry on this suspicion of LoRab, many of which are already mentioned above. I'll advance to a later stage of the game.

Spoiler: show

MacDougall wrote:Voting Lorab and I'm off to bed.

MacDougall wrote:I'd be happy with seeing the back of Ricochet's GoC Fun Time but I have doubts that lynching him will result in a lynch at all let alone a Mafia lynch and I think LoRab is more bad for non intentional reasons (ie. better ones).

MacDougall wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Also, since Mac is around: do you still think I'm bad? Your basis for that was the presumed me-Tranq teamup, IIRC; Tranq has given us no comment on anything of consequence, while I'm calling him out for that.

Linki w/Rico: I don't think you answered the question (unless it was with that shrug, in which case why would you make an unsubstantiated claim?): I asked what made you think there were no indies in the game, not if you wanted them to win.

Second linki w/rico: Mac hasn't added anything to his Lorab suspicion in this phase as far as I can tell. There was a lot of stuff in Night 0, but nothing in Day 1. In fact, the only interaction besides his vote during the day seems to be vaguely jokey/defensive?

MacDougall wrote: Fiend, you are using Lorab's own smiley against her!
ARRGH SO MUCH LINKI
My basis for saying you were bad was a gut ping, not that stuff you said.

No I haven't added anything to my Lorab suspicion because:

1. Others have made good cases on her
2. Lorab is bad for the same reasons she was already bad

MacDougall wrote:Here's where I'm at right now. In no particular order.

*snip*

These are the ones who are on my scum radar:

Boomslang
Wilgy
Lorab
sig
Llama

Ricochet is who knows.

The rest are null.

MacDougall wrote:
FZ. wrote:I need to go to sleep. I don't have time to go over Lorab, so can someone tell me why he/she has a couple of votes already? Don't want to vote Sig, and am not feeling the JJJ case yet. There are some posts where he comes off genuine, and then there is his vote that strikes me as weird. I might have missed him talking about Sig and the others who already had votes, but of all things, this might be the thing that makes me doubt him the most. Then again, I need to go and find his suspicion on MM and see how strongly he feels about it and voiced that feeling. But I need more time with him to decide.
Lorab is a suspect but has been usurped by greater suspects imo. People putting their vote on her day 2 are doing it without realising there's gold in them thar hills.

MacDougall wrote:
FZ. wrote:Sorry, I'm going to sleep.

linki: so you think Lorab is a good vote? Why so? Damn you, I want to sleep
Nobody is as good a vote as sig.

I'd like to think I have a good grip on scum sig. I called him out as scum correctly in Dune and in West Wing.

I'm not so sure about my initial LoRab read anymore. She's not pinging me so much.

MacDougall wrote:ISO Lorab and Black Rock.

MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?
Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.
So you're completely caught up?
I've been caught up throughout the game--whether I've had time to fully respond has been my challenge. I know I have things to respond to from the past RL day (as I said). I will get to that tomorrow. Am not nearly awake enough at the moment.

MacDougall wrote:
Matt wrote:Epignosis, please give a simple civ/baddie/indy/unsure response of the following players...

Golden, FZ, 3J, and Metalmarsh.

Llama - Are you still suspicious of Mac or have you completely dropped it now that the two of you have successfully helped get sig lynched? MacD, what's your read of Llama?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Linki - I'll have to go check Dune then, Golden, I swore you didn't want to lynch him.
Llama is yellow skittle right now. He pinged me earlier but hasn't pinged me so much in recent action. Same as Lorab. Right now I am actually kind of not seeing anybody who is pinging me very much. Every player who I was suspicious of earlier has made me feel better about it since. Your question of Golden about his read on Epignosis is the pingiest thing I've seen in a while. Why are you asking about Epi?

MacDougall wrote:The fact that Golden, Llama and JJJ all now have their votes on Lorab is absolutely fucked in my view. After what went down today it's completely bullshit.

MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:LoRab has received six votes in 30 minutes. Tranq has 0 mentions of her and I'm getting slightly pissy at players telling me I should wait for this guy to "warm up his game".
Absolutely, this counterwagon is fucked as all get out.

MacDougall wrote:
Golden wrote:If JJ is lynched and comes back civ, I'm holding HB and Mac responsible.
If Lorab gets lynched and comes back civ I am holding you responsible.

If you can't see that Lorab getting 6 votes in record time one after another is fucked in all the wrong ways you are confirmed scum and we should CFD you. You fucking know better.

MacDougall wrote:
Golden wrote:It's ironic, Mac, because for me your night zero ping on LoRab is still one relevant factor as to why I'm willing to vote her. Your instincts in that setting have often been good.
Are you trying to manipulate me into making a crazy gambit?

I feel like two Mac's right now. Day 1 Mac is shouting "Do it! Vote her!" and current Mac is all like "No. Day 1 Mac is wrong this time!"

Lorab was one of the few players I have been wrong about on day 1 pings in recent games I've played too.

Linki: When did I OMGUS you for suspecting Jimmy? That doesn't even make sense.

~~~

Mac voted for me on Day 3.0 and FZ on Day 3.5. Both votes are horrendous. He voted for LoRab on Day 1 when Rico was the landslide lynch.

~~~

Mac's self-prophecy has been fulfilled -- that a good Day 1 gut read would devolve into a missed opportunity. He started hot against LoRab and didn't let up through Day 1. Then at some point he decided he was still suspicious but not as much so as some other candidates he'd prefer lynching on Day 2. Eventually we arrive at Day 3 where the people trying to lynch LoRab are all Mac's worst enemy and he freaks out about the counterwagon. Some part of me is legitimately wondering if Mac intentionally acted out his own gut read prophecy, because it's hard to overlook the severity of his shift and how seriously terrible his last two final votes were. When I say this it's with my strong town read on FZ in mind -- if I'm wrong about that then obviously it's not so bad.

It's also hard to overlook how immediate his anti-LoRab conduct was. It was literally his very first post. Maybe it was too good. This is speculative suspicion I am considering right now, I readily grant. But it's there. I acknowledge that in Talking Heads Mafia, when I did these kinds of interactive reads I got Mac miserably wrong. I don't know whether that's affecting my mindset now. I'd welcome feedback on this one, because it's very tough. Despite my misgivings, there are also plenty of reasons to say Mac is not on LoRab's team.

LoRab and Matt

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?
I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

LoRab wrote:
Matt wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.
I don't get it. You'd pay money to watch me make a case on Lorab?

I'm cheap, tell me how much and depending on the price, I'll tunnel Lorab until endgame. Twirl be damned!
Thanks for the twirl love. I don't like the idea of tunnelling me, though. That would be frustrating for me and not a very good use of civ resources (if you are civ)--better to find a baddie to tunnel.

LoRab wrote:crapweasel! Need to vote. And definitely don't have time to read up before the vote. But don't want to miss. Voting Matt, because of the ping I got mentioned in my last post about ignoring things in the process of coming up with doubt around a second curser. It just seems off. I apologize if Matt came up with a good response to that. And I don't have time before the lynch ends to look at other cases.

I'm back home now, so should have more time to really play now.

LoRab's reasoning for suspecting Matt appears pretty contrived to me, like she's just looking for something she can pick on in the early game. I'm not sure it looks like distancing though.

Spoiler: show

Matt wrote:Three posts ago you had 5555 posts, DH.

Sweet.

Linki - MM is bad. Remember, Lorab, when I invited you to vote for MM or Turnip in M:AWR and you weren't sold quite then either? Same thing here. Do it. DO IT!!!

Matt wrote:Every game lol. Zeebs is a confirmed chica, peeps.

Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

MM, considering you are my only suspect as of now, it's weird that I completely agree with you on Rico. Guess we'll see pretty soon, though.

Matt wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.
I don't get it. You'd pay money to watch me make a case on Lorab?

I'm cheap, tell me how much and depending on the price, I'll tunnel Lorab until endgame. Twirl be damned!

Matt wrote:

Golden, as you know, I was quite involved in another game here at TS, as well as the fact that this game was bombarded with lunacy (and lots and lots of posts to go along with it) until Rico was lynched. Today was my first of three days off in a row, and I finally caught up. You will be seeing a lot more of me from here on out.

Mac, why is it pingy that I'm asking players to tell me their reads of other players? What are your thoughts on Epig? Do you agree with him that Lorab should be lynched?

Matt wrote:Mac, no, I'm not trying to create conflict. I have reason to believe Epig is a big bad and I wanted your thoughts on him. Which I'm not sure I even got, you pretty much just kept turning it back on me, I see. Just to be clear, though, you no longer suspect Lorab?

Llama - Thanks.

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

DH - If you think Black Rock is fibbing about Lorab, does that mean you also think Epig and others are BSing their cases on Lorab? Or is it just BR?

~~~

Matt voted for llama on Day 3.0 and MM on Day 3.5. Votes for MM have been a recurring trend for him.

~~~

Matt was pretty chummy with LoRab, engaging her playfully and never in such a way that he could really learn anything about her alignment. So that's not my favorite thing. I enjoyed this bit where he shooed away Mac's suspicion for "asking for people's reads on other players" just before he asks for Mac's read on another player (Epi) relative to the LoRab case. Matt exhibited a lot of interest in how people felt about LoRab, actually -- and how they felt about the people most responsible for pursuing her lynch. I also note his Day 3.0 vote -- an off-wagon safety vote away from the horrors of JJJ versus LoRab.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. It doesn't scream team mate or non-team mate at me. I'll say it's team mate-compatible but not team-mate indicative.

Draconus wrote:Ooh linkitis. You've been busy Jay. Good to see you motivated again

The baddies thought I was their cake lynch. They hate my guts.

LoRab and juliets

Spoiler: show

This is basically nothing. It was LoRab's only acknowledgement of juliets.

Spoiler: show

Linking because spoilers are in it.

juliets wrote:Ricochet I'm not getting into a long boring nobody will read it discussion with you over whether it's possible for me to be persuaded. In Lorabs case she was not specific about what others had said that caused her suspicions. In my case I was specific. And calling me a potential baddie does not scare me in the lease because i know I am civ.

juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.

juliets wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:
Ricochet wrote:All I'm reading in juliets' post is I'm following Mac's, Epig's and Sorsha's train of thoughts.
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Is there something wrong with that? Sometimes people post their thoughts to persuade others and whether or not that was their intent, I was persuaded to look hard at Lorab as a result of those posts. That's how the game works.
This is exactly the same juliets I saw last game, and it's just as suspicious as ever to me. I know she said that she was playing her usual game back then as well, but I definitely can't ignore this. Gun to head scum.
I understand what you're saying about last game we played (and I will reiterate this answer to Ricochet is indicative of my style) but i don't understand why you see my reply as suspicious. Can you explain that for me?

I have several appointments today and will likely not be back until 5:00+ pm. Just want everyone to know why I'm not responding to any questions or putting forth any thoughts during the day. I still suspect Lorab but whether I vote for her is dependent on what her reply is to the comments made about her.

juliets wrote:I just caught up and am glad to see Lorab's responses in the thread. Rico, Lorab did indeed address me because she addressed Epi and Sorsha's concerns and my concerns were based on issues that they had brought up. I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand that.

Anyway, unlike Sorsha and BR I found Lorabs points to be clear and concise and she has persuaded me not to vote for her tonight. I'll keep an eye open for any future behavior but I am currently satisfied she is not bad. This does not mean however that I am suspicious of Sorsha or BR.

juliets wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:During your rampage of silliness yesterday Rico, who did you genuinely suspect?
Off the top of my head, the rebuttals in which I actually blended flipping out with actually having an issue with the casemakin' were towards LoRab and juliets. I felt LoRab plainly picked up others' suspicion, which is uncharacteristic of her. I was also genuinely confused by how juliets can suspect LoRab for the things she is also doing (working with other players' material). Tranq's EoD felt very shady, tbh. I could add Dom's wagoning in the mix perhaps, but thing is Dom's D1 has been docile, and that doesn't show up in my baddie reads of Dom. I probably partly influenced him to take such an approach, but it is what it is now.
Let me see if I can clear this up. This is the line in Epig's post that finally clicked for me as far as Lorab was concerned. It's not the only issue but it is the issue at question here:

"What is it about Ricochet that others have pointed out that Lorab "definitely" sees? With Ricochet being the author of almost a quarter (!) of the thread's posts, this is as unspecific as it gets."

In other words, she was using thoughts of others but she didn't name the others or the specific issues that led her to her suspicions. This to me sounded like something a baddie would do, make the suspicion as broad as possible and only find some specifics if someone asks for them.

In contrast, I provided specifics both for why I wasn't at the time suspecting Rico anymore and why I was suspecting Lorab based on things others had brought to the table. There is a difference in these two examples. The issue was about specifics with Lorab. I was specific in my suspicion.

I feel the need to add here that as I've said before I no longer suspect Lorab because when she addressed what Epig and Sorsha had said I felt she was sincere and was satisfied with her answer.

juliets wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
juliets wrote:Ok, I read everything posted while I was writing my post and there is nothing to change my mind, and in fact more to confirm my suspicion. So I'm going ahead and voting sig.
You gonna ISO Black Rock and Lorab?
Yes, I didn't realize you had answered me. I will start tonight but just a warning, my school is playing tonight in the national championship and I have to take time out and watch it. Roll Tide.

juliets wrote:After hours working on it (the issue is getting to those quotes, posting them and getting back to where I was), I just tried to post the first half of my iso on BR. Unfortunately, when I tried to post I got that nasty round circle over and over again until it finally quit and said my document had expired. I tried everything I knew how to do to get it back but no luck. I will tell you that the majority of the iso was about BR's suspicion of Lorab, how she worded it, how she decided not to vote Rico and ultimately voted Lorab. Though I didn't agree with her on the Lorab vote (I believed Lorab was the right vote but then changed to Rico) I didn't find anything in her reasoning that seemed false or disingenuous.

I will start over on this tomorrow. I may do the back half of BR first since i didn't find anything suspicious in the first half, and when I finish with her I will got on to Lorab.

~~~

juliets wrote:Here is my ISO of Lorab. Note that I fully admit i don't have a good read on Lorab's meta except she uses the twirly whether good or bad.

This is the first post that indicates Lorab looks bad:
Spoiler: show
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.
I not, def not. That was painful to type.

You've never played a game with me bad--how do you know how to read my tone? Oh, and wait, you thought I was bad last game, too. And were wrong. Just saying.

And here is the first post Mac was talking about:
Spoiler: show
Lorab wrote:I need to wrap my brain around this game. I don't think I've played a champions game before--although I did co-host one. Cupcakes FTW!! Just got back from vacation...way too tired to think through what roles are included and how that decision may have been made. Will ponder after sleep. To do so earlier would be scandalous.
I don't see Mac's point on this particular issue. Her first post seemed normal to me.

Another assertion by Mac that Lorab is bad but I don't see her vote for Ezekiel as reason to call her bad:
Spoiler: show
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.
You are very bad. Enrique in Star Wars bad.
No, I'm not.
In this post Jimmy records that Lorab's posts seem too well thought out and he tends to see that as a baddie trait. This is Lorab's response:
Spoiler: show
I enjoyed the format, but see the points against it. And, relatedly, can't remember what I was going to say in response to this because I can't look back at the quote. But, in general, I'll say that I write for a living--about 3/4 of my job is writing. I'm generally careful with language, or at least I try to be. This has come up a few times now, but it doesn't make me bad. It's just how I write. Like in every game I play, the suspicions against me are incorrectly reading my posts. But, eye me all you want. *twirls* (oh, and I think the green things are scarves)
Here is an instance where Mac doesn't call her bad but infers that something is baddie regarding her question:
Spoiler: show
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?
There are several points in this next long post:
Spoiler: show
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?
Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.
I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.
I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.
As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ricochet wrote:Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.
It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.

MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?
What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?
Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.
The underlined portion of this quote shows Lorab being snippy about how she writes things. I though Mac and Rico had a good point but does this make her bad? It might show us a little about her mood, but not necessarily that she is bad.

Also in this post is Epi's accusation that Lorab is too comfortable. Lorab says she doesn't know what he means and I have to say I am not sure either. This may get explained further down the road. Also, Epi calls for someone to put pressure on Lorab so we can see if she cracks which he says would be indicative of baddie Lorab. I don't question his logic here I'm just not sure that she cracks when Epi puts pressure on in the future. (we'll get to that I hope)

I am going ahead and posting this part of the iso so I don't end up posting a gigantic document. I'm working on the rest of the iso now.

~~~

Spoiler: show

~~~

juliets voted for me on Day 3.0 and MM on Day 3.5.

~~~

juliets seemed mostly receptive to BR's and Epi's suspicion of LoRab early in the game. She repeatedly prompted LoRab to address those two so she'd be able to judge her based on those responses. If they're team mates then that'd mean juliets is literally prodding her towards her accusers in the thread instead of just doing that in BTSC, so that's something. I won't make much of it though. After LoRab had addressed those accusations, juliets felt she did a nice job and did not maintain a perspective of suspicion at any point thereafter. When prompted by Mac, juliets provided a nicely thorough (though apparently incomplete) ISO of LoRab. Props to Mac for generating this content and juliets for her willingness to do it. Much of the ISO is commentary rather than analytic, but that's not necessarily a problem. juliets does take distinct stances, like when she opposes Mac's early gut pings on LoRab, nods her understanding to Epi's and BR's suspicions, and overall suggests she just doesn't see LoRab as a good lynch option.

While her conclusions might have been misguided, she's done quite a nice job here to convey an earnest mindset and look like she's genuinely trying to find the right answer. That's a good thing.

LoRab and Long Con

Spoiler: show

Not much to talk about in LoRab's posts. It's semi-banter about the twirls, but I guess it could be called relevant in that LC is claiming it has some impact upon how he reads her. If this isn't entirely a joke then I'd call it a little suspicious on LC's part. Just looks like a fake interaction on the surface. I dunno.

Spoiler: show

~~~

Long Con voted for me on both Days 3.0 and 3.5. He never voted for LoRab.

~~~

There are lot more mentions of LoRab then these in his ISO, but the vast majority of them are off-hand mentions within his cases against/discussions about other people (primarily Draconus and I). I pulled the ones that I felt were the most relevant. Early in the game he was supportive of Epi's case against LoRab and throughout the game has voiced some suspicion of LoRab. It must be noted though that by comparison to his other high-name suspects, he hasn't done much to substantiate or push that suspicion. He put up a big ISO on me and then did it again later with Draconus. That doesn't necessarily have to mean he has ill-intent, but nor should it be ignored with a mafia LoRab flip in tow. I don't struggle to see this as a distancing effort (while he spearheaded the most notable counterwagon -- mine) and would say he looks no better to me now than he did before.

FZ. wrote:Can someone please explain a little about Recruitment mafia? Does it mean that baddies could potentially recruit anyone they want, or is it something else?

90% of the people playing in Recruitment IV started unaligned and had to be taken onto a team by one of the four factions that started with one member (two civilian, two mafia). Recruitments weren't always under the control of those factions though, there were various mechanics in place that determined who ended up where as the game went on. I do hope there's no recruitment in this game, it's near-impossible to balance effectively unless the game is specifically designed for it like BR/LC's was.

LoRab and Epignosis

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.
I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

LoRab wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?
I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).
So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.
You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.
Lorab says "seem," which is a strange word choice.

For example, this sentence:

"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing."

I would have phrased it this way:

"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post are bullshit, and aren't contributing anything. Please stop cluttering the thread that everyone is expected to read in order to be informed."

There's nothing "seeming" about it. Ricochet is flooding the thread with bullshit.

But Lorab's phrasing is hedging her stance, which is ordinarily something Mafia do. Like here:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
What is it about Ricochet that others have pointed out that Lorab "definitely" sees? With Ricochet being the author of almost a quarter (!) of the thread's posts, this is as unspecific as it gets.

Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.
My vote doesn't hinge on what others think, but what others think got me thinking about suspicion of him. Semantics, maybe, but in my mind there is a huge difference. And yes, I said seem. I often say seem. Because I'm not sure. I don't have info, so anything I say about him is how I'm reading his posts and how those posts seem to me.

Saying his posts are bullshit is, first of all, not my style. And, second of all, isn't entirely what I meant. I described my own thoughts. I recognize that I read things really differently than you do and think about the game extremely differently. We've established that many times. But that just makes me different, not bad.

My stance isn't disingenuous--it's my honest thoughts. If I felt more sure than I would sound more sure. But, at this point, I'm not--it's only day 1. And no one has slipped in a way that tweaks my eyebrow to notice something that makes me highly suspect them (and go after them for days). So, yeah, it's all based on what I read--and some of that is others' thoughts and some of that is how posts seem. It's just where my thinking is this game.

LoRab wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I'm voting Lorab again. For now.

Thanks 3J for that...whatever it was.
If you would like to elaborate on your suspicion, that would be great.

LoRab wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?
Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.
So you're completely caught up?
I've been caught up throughout the game--whether I've had time to fully respond has been my challenge. I know I have things to respond to from the past RL day (as I said). I will get to that tomorrow. Am not nearly awake enough at the moment.

etc...

~~~

Epi has voted for LoRab every day of the game so far.

~~~

I'm not going to bother quoting everything. There's a lot of Epignosis posts I haven't referenced because many of them show up above anyway and there's a thematic consistency to them that makes their inclusion here unnecessary. Check his ISO if you disagree.

If Epignosis is on LoRab's team, then this would obviously be a thorough bussing effort and he'd deserve to be lauded for it. As it is he deserves lauding if he's a civilian too. In scenarios like that, I tend to lean town -- I also recall him going hard after Floyd for most of the first half of Trees Mafia, albeit in a slightly less substantive way, and the narrow focus in this game reminds me of that. I don't think they're team mates.

LoRab and Golden

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
Golden wrote:Anyone play a game where paper rock scissors was relevant? It's not ringing bells with me.
About a million years ago, Seals and Bigs used Rock Paper Scissors in LOST Mafia on LP to decide ties. Late/end game, there was a tense tie between 2 players which ended with RPS. A short time later, when Illy and I were hosting Angel mafia on TP, those same 2 players ended the game in a tied lynch, which we had them break by playing rock paper scissors. TH played both those games and might remember. I don't believe SVS played either (don't see it on my spreadsheet from hosting and checked LP for LOST).

That is the only RPS connection with mafia in my mind.

LoRab wrote:
bea wrote:
LoRab wrote:What the absolute fuck?

I've caught up and holy bandwagon, batman!! Seriously, people.

There is more than one person who voted for me who either hasn't mentioned me at all and should know better (Tranq) or who has never played with me before and can't even give me the benefit to answer votes (motel room). A few others who are somewhere in the middle, but that was the most obvious late lynch bandwagon I have ever seen.

And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Hi lorab. NIce to see you again. (been waiting for this post in my catsup since I read you missed the vote. All I could think is....well...she's in for a surprise..... )

Pretty clear what you think of JJ - what do you think of the rest that voted you? Who's most likely scum? Who's most likely mislead civ?
Most suspish: JJJ (though not for voting me...mainly because of the bandwagon against me which looked like it was to save him), motel room, Tranq....Golden sort of started the bandwagon, so that concerns me and bumps him up. Although maybe llama, too, for being the next to vote going by the first follower theory.

The others I either have no idea on at the moment or am middle of the road about.

LoRab tried to pin the "JJJ save" on Golden. Nice look for him.

Spoiler: show

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Golden wrote:Well, the great and mighty day one scum radar of Mac has failed you in this game.
So you know for a fact that Lorab is good then?

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.
I don't really care where they come from. I have them too, and I think my day zero, day one gut is right a lot more often than probability should let it be. I agree with tone reading, especially in early game, as being a very successful catching ground for baddies, and I always have. I'm just saying your magical radar is wrong in this game, since you have named two suspects and at least 50% of them are town (specifically, me).

If you go doing what you like to do and be all twisty turny... such as knowing you named me as a suspect, but pretending I must have info on LoRab when I say I know you are wrong... that bothers me. It's manipulative, and reminds me more of your TH play than either Dune or Star Wars.

Golden wrote:Of the two with most heat right now (RadicalFuzz and LoRab) I'd be far more likely to vote LoRab.

The suspicion on RadicalFuzz reminds me of a standard suspicion of sig. Or a little bit of how people thought I was bad because I tried something different in recruitment. I don't see where the baddie motives are for claiming that you are going to play a different style this early in the game, for a couple of reasons 1) drawing attention to a change in play style is hardly helpful - I'd think a baddie would more likely want to avoid drawing attention to it... and 2) because I don't see it as likely that he is paranoid enough about how different his baddie meta looks that he would need to protect it in advance.

JJJ's quote 2 on LoRab - that is standard for all LoRab metas and she would say it either way. She isn't easy to read. I'd like to know more about why you and Mac feel the other two read as constructed, because they don't deeply to me. But I find LoRab to be good at hiding her affiliation, and so she could be bad. If I was to vote LoRab, it would be more because I trust the instincts of both of those people who have called her out (should they be town) and not based on my own read.

I'm more suspicious of two people who don't have a lot of heat right now.

My eye is more on Rico and Mac at this point. Rico minimises the value of the poll without any evidence beyond his own opinion that he has presented, but also claims certain options benefit him. He claims he thinks it has no value, but he immediately questions me for apparently being so sure that roles are imported wholesale, as though there could be some kind of baddie motive for that in a poll he apparently doesn't think has any meaning. His mindset just doesn't add up, to me, I don't know what his perspective is. He is drawing a lot of attention to himself with apparent nonsense/jokes (like that rainbow list). Maybe his agenda is just to have fun and be a little zany, in which case success. But I'm wary of the things that seem to me to be contradictions.

Mac, has felt more like town Mac for me except that one trap he put me in which reminded me much more of TH where he liked to try to talk people into traps. I don't remember him doing that when civ, and I don't like it from either player. I might have felt a little better if he'd taken the time to explain where his mindset was on that after I called him out on it. But I feel much more wary of Rico at this point.

Golden wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.
This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Actually Zebra I have a thought.

Boomslang and HamburgerBoy have both inferred that I am playing like Ricochet, which is actually a suggestion that I am playing like what many perceive my general meta to be. HamburgerBoy has experience with my general meta but Boomslang does not. As you have observed I am not actually playing like what they are insinuating I am playing like, they are resting on a perception of what I usually do play like without having noticed that I am not playing like that at all (which both Golden and you have noticed). This sounds to me like HamburgerBoy has been talking about me in their chat and Boomslang has picked things up that he wouldn't otherwise know about my meta.

Speaking of which there are some falsities being spoken of as fact here about my "meta". Like it's normal for me to play chaos. It's actually not normal at all. The only time I've actually played chaos on TS was as a caught scum in TH and as an independent role that absolutely justified it in Reborn. In Star Wars, Dune and Tree I played like I am here for the most part. There were times in Star Wars that I got melodramatic but that was in context I've yet to find here (an argument with someone who is scum reading me, who I am scum reading), though we are approaching this point with Boomslang.

In fact if you analyse my RYM history, the majority of my "chaos" performances were as scum and they are renowned because I won while doing so. The only chaos you see out of me as a civilian is early game to provoke discourse and when I am engaging in a firefight.
At this point, I'd sooner vote for boomslang than for either lorab or llama.

I don't find llama particularly suspicious at all.

Golden wrote:A rainbow, because why not:

Notable points: I've been getting decent vibes from HB today. I think he has handled pressure relatively well. So he isn't at the bottom as people might have expected from my post history, I've moved him up as far as mild town. Some of the low posters, my reads are essentially based on meta for being so quiet, as I don't have a lot of content to go on. I have no overly strong baddie reads.

*snip*

Mild baddie

Matt
Dom
LoRab
Spacedaisy
Metalmarsh
Sorsha

*snip*

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:If Black Rock is bad and not genuine in her suspicion of Lorab this early, I will be surprised.
I agree.

Of the people with multiple votes right now, I'm most likely to vote sig but could also vote LoRab. I'm not going to vote JJ.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
sig wrote:Why am I a moderate baddie? I also find it funny you have LC and Wilgy both in the same class of reads. I can't recall you voicing suspicious on any of us especially me?
He did suspect you for your Zebra interactions; you should probably go back and reply to his case there.
I don't recall doing that. I have expressed my suspicion of LC a few times, though.

Golden wrote:
FZ. wrote:No idea who to vote for. Can I get a pass on my first day? I want to sleep.
For me, the most damning part of the case on LoRab is that people who are relatively good at reading her well have called her out and haven't let up. Sorry, I'm not the best to describe it, I know you've been looking for something in that direction.

Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.

Golden wrote:Not so much that Boomslang is civ... just that in review I'm not sure I see enough that I, personally, would vote for him today. I'd probably have him at a very mild anti-town read. His sig vote does stand out, for example.

But I just switched my vote to LoRab.

@HB - But why should he weaken the llama bandwagon?

Golden wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:But you specifically said you wouldn't vote for Jay, and Jay said he was cool with a LoRab lynch (I think he had her low on his rainbow too), so the outcome should have been obvious. And Sorsha is one of my least townie reads this game, so that doesn't make me feel any better.
The outcome was obvious. It's why I voted LoRab. You think I voted her thinking that the votes wouldn't come in behind me?

I voted LoRab because I feel sure it was the best bet to see Jay survive.

Golden wrote:re whoever is wondering why lots of people voted lorab yesterday but not today...

It's because yesterday, lots of us were finding a consensus candidate to save jj.

I'll vote lorab to the same end of it comes to it, but I think mm is a good bet. He really is playing like dune mm.

Golden has voiced some degree of suspicion for LoRab pretty consistently from the early stages. In a few cases he defers to the reads of others (notably BR and Epi), but that's not to say he doesn't also contribute his own material to the discussion too. It should be noted that his LoRab votes were both motivated by his desire to prevent the lynch of other people (me on Day 3.0, FZ and I on Day 3.5). I read his behavior during both EOD sequences as quite genuine and agree with pretty much everything he posted. I don't think we're mindmelding this much because of any nefarious intentions on his part, he's saying many of the things I have in mind before I say them. I doubt he's LoRab's team mate.

LoRab and HamburgerBoy

Spoiler: show

Gonna talk about this post on its own. It's the one that sold me on a LoRab vote. I've asserted that this suspicion she was casting upon Burger for "defending her" appeared very insincere, like it was manufactured for the sole purpose of appeasing BR. With that in mind, I would think this post presents a good opportunity to learn more about Burger. On one hand I might say that a blatantly insincere read on someone should inherently be a bad look -- in a game with multiple mafia teams (if this is such a game), every player should be able to genuinely baddie-hunt and there's no need to produce this kind of insincerity about someone whose role you don't know. On the other hand, LoRab was specifically prompted by BR to provide this read, and if I'm right about LoRab's motives (that she wanted to appease BR's baddie-hunting sensibilities), that would instead mean that it should have no bearing on my Burger read. Whether he's her team mate or not, this read was forced. I lean more in that direction right now, which means I'll decide how I feel about Burger based upon other points.

Spoiler: show

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'll just say that based on A World Reborn, I'm not seeing a different LoRab this game. Her argument with Rico seems reasonable and in line with what I've seen from others, even though I disagree (regarding rainbows and coin flips and other silliness). Epi went hard after her and started that wagon from what I can tell, but it's really based on LoRab having a safer/waffley tone. I'm ambivalent on that case. I also don't like Sorsha's post against LoRab, basically saying LoRab made a confusing post and that LoRab is usually clear. The subject matter (day 0/the poll/old roles) seemed inherently a little confusing and I don't see Sorsha's attack there as reasonable, and that pings me a bit more because during Talking Heads, Sorsha was one of the players I found myself agreeing with more strongly. During A World Reborn, Sorsha also used Matt's predilection towards wild/confusing theories against him; different target, different case, but together I think Sorsha doesn't look good.

I'll read more on LoRab in a bit, but not really liking that as an alternative to Rico.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Here's my rainbow so far, people in black don't have enough content for me to judge. Far from definitive though, I expect by tomorrow many of those yellows will be in green or orange, and a couple of oranges in red.

*snip*

LoRab
Epignosis
Matt
MacDougall
Boomslang
MetalMarsh
sig
Elohcin/FZ
juliets
thellama73
nijuukyugou
Dom
DrWilgy

*snip

HamburgerBoy wrote:
sig wrote:hello HB how are you doing?

I'm keeping my eye open however, I don't see the reason why everyone thinks Lo Rab is scummy. I will admit I was skimming those areas so I might've missed something, but from what I read she looked null.

What do we think of Elo being replaced? Is she more likely to replace out as mafia or is it unrelated to meta?
You just said that you thought there was a good chance LoRab (or llama) was scum though. Why do you think that?

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Black Rock wrote:I missed you mentioning me before and yet appear at the bottom of the orange list. WTF?
I did mention you briefly a couple times but I'll list my grievances more formal-style now:

1. You specifically called out LoRab wanting to see what she'd say, and then (the following day) accused her of not answering questions when she had in the time between. Also, you never went back and addressed things with her after saying you'd read them.
2. Your reason for voting seemed to mostly follow Epi and Sorsha's case, the latter I especially didn't buy.
3. Aside from Rico, who you ultimately declared yourself undecided on regardless, you haven't seemed to look anywhere outside of LoRab

Of course, all of that falls apart of it turns out LoRab is actually scum, and I only have meta from one game on her, but I feel a bit townier about her than you and Sorsha.

I'm glad you responded to a bunch of points just now, although I'm also noting that you didn't respond to Jimmy's insinuation that you and zebra could have been partners:

[quote="JaggedJimmyJay]BR's willingness to read Rico as neutral/town but still voice support for Zebra's case against him isn't ideal. She flirts with Rico as a suspect, never seems to fully latch on, but still endorses his demise and credits Zebra for much of her flexibility (perhaps allowing Zebra to take the blame for an eventual non-mafia flip). I am not sure this indicates a team mate relationship between Zebra and BR, but it is a bit suspicious on its own power.

That kind of waffling doesn't look good to me, and since Rico was suggesting that he would know info about those who voted for him, staying off the bandwagon while still supporting it looks especially bad.[/quote]

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'll update my rainbow now.

*snip*

LoRab
Matt
Epignosis
MetalMarsh

*snip*

HamburgerBoy wrote:RIP sig, sorry to see that you were town.

Now we just need to make sure that the wave of bandwagoners doesn't stay set in their ways and go back to LoRab again.

Also, the sig flip, taken together with other things, seems to strongly imply there were two intended nightkills night 1, and that DFaraday's death may have been due to something weird/unrelated.

[/quote]

HamburgerBoy wrote:
LoRab wrote:HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.
People call me defensive of other players as both scum and town. I defended sig and pretty heavily the previous two games I played with him, for example; A World Reborn I was scum and he was civ, the other (RYM #91) I was civ and he was scum (this was more of a brief defense admittedly, but I totally dismissed a legit scumslip he had made and told everyone it was just a mistake and normal for him).

Do you agree with llama that people shouldn't have defended/stated the towniness of Fuzz, that it put a target on him?

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Dem switcheroos.

LoRab just received four votes in the last 10 minutes.
Pretty disgusting counter-wagon, isn't it? Just when things were getting interesting, it's right back to the same ole.

HamburgerBoy wrote:My thoughts don't require Jimmy to be on Zebra's team. What do you think about the alternatives?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In which DH acts soooo surprised and perturbed by the LoRab wagon, as if it was somehow inherently more suspicious than the Boomslang wagon or the llama wagon. Again he is only interested in touching the observable surface of the thread and not actually think about anything. It's transparent bullshit.
I have to side with DH on this one. I think it was inherently more suspicious because she was being mentioned as a minor case since early in the game, and I had definitely warned about that long before the LoRab wagon suddenly built. By day 3 it was seemed it had fizzled out, Epi still on it but most people looking elsewhere, and then suddenly it happens all over again with almost no new discussion. Granted, Sorsha had been a major voice against LoRab as well, and golden was at least transparent in his reason for moving things there, but beyond that it was definitely on the shady side. For a player like DH, who may not know how often we have rapid lynch changes like that on RYM, I could especially see his suspicion.

HamburgerBoy wrote:New rainbow time!

*snip*

Matt
MetalMarsh
SpaceDaisy/Bea
Boomslang
LoRab

*snip*

~~~

Burger voted for me on Day 3.0 and FZ on Day 3.5. The latter vote seems pretty gross to me, but I've said that about all of the FZ voters.

~~~

Okay, so obviously Burger said a few things that appear less than good right now. We're forced to play WIFOM, and I find myself leaning in the direction of "this is too bad to be bad". I am sure at least one person among those resisting the LoRab lynche(s) was just wrong, and Burger is probably the best candidate. I think his leaning-town reads on LoRab were more the result of his distrust for the people going after her than her actual content, though he can correct me if I'm wrong about that. This is a tough read for me because I do think Burger has seemed quite pro-town for the most part, so that's influence my perspective on any WIFOM being observed.

Rico, are you going to break my posting record already?

Ricochet wrote:voting DH for "bad vibes" on D3.5 (then again, so has JJJ )

Hey I made it clear why I suspected DH. I also had to vote before the whole 5-5-5-5 nonsense started to develop.

juliets wrote:voting thelma and louise

Same I guess.

LoRab and DrWilgy

LoRab never said anything to or about Doc.

Spoiler: show

The first post here is actually just a small piece of Doc's larger case against sig. I notice here that sig stated suspicions of both LoRab and llama without expanding much on why -- so Doc asked him to expand on one of them. He cared about sig's read on LoRab, but he did not care about sig's read on llama. That's interesting. This weird connection between LoRab and llama (that I'm seeing in analyses of other people) continues in the second post. The third post is another terrible vote, perhaps the worst vote of Day 3.5. There is essentially nothing in his posts to indicate prior suspicion of FZ, and by the time he placed this vote numerous people had already expressed strong town reads on her. So why in the world did he literally try to lynch her? If Golden's LoRab vote hadn't come right when it did, this would be a very different scenario right now.

Addendum: now I see his final vote was on MM. Huh? Doc I'm confused, please translate. Was the vote ever on FZ?

~~~

He voted for me on Day 3.0 and MM on Day 3.5.

~~~

I need to know what's going on with that vote before I can make a decent judgment. Otherwise I do see a few team mate-compatible pings.

LoRab and Draconus

LoRab never talked to or about Draconus.

Spoiler: show

Not much there. He stood in her defense early on based on meta and their prior game together, got some crap for it, responded to that crap, and has since had little/nothing to say about LoRab. I think it's important to qualify that his content is inherently limited by the fact that he had to spend all of Day 1 asking questions -- but I'll also note that LoRab was nowhere in any of those questions. I think his hesitance to lynch her on Day 1 is believable, but I'd like to see what happened exactly in the prior game to decide if the parallel Draconus drew here was actually appropriate. Team mate-compatible but not indicative.

LoRab and Elohcin / FZ.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
FZ. wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?
Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.
Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.
Can't help the way you read my posts, but my response was honest. I generally read posts of one player saying, more than once, that another player is civ as being suspish. When it is about me, even more so.

And I disagree with your analysis of his posts about me. He said, several times and in several ways, that he thought I was civ--at times softening that, but keeping to that general theme. His posts focus too close to comfort for me to think that they are innocuous.

Also, curious how you would imagine a civie would respond to that direct question, since you say that's how you'd expect a baddie to respond. Since I was responding as a civie and honestly, I'm curious what you would have expected.

FZ was not impressed when LoRab answered BR's call for a read on Burger. LoRab voiced suspicion of Burger for his defenses of her, and FZ suggested this was a forced read and not authentic (I agreed). LoRab's effort here to qualify her comments reads to me like a genuine effort by LoRab to reshape FZ's mindset -- something that is unnecessary and hard to fake if they're team mates.

Spoiler: show

FZ. wrote:Can someone tell me what is the case on Lorab?

Also, JJJ, why is MM your top suspect? Do you find Sig to be good? If not, why are you kind of wasting a vote (unless you think people will join you...not that I'm seeing you try to convince anyone)

FZ. wrote:I need to go to sleep. I don't have time to go over Lorab, so can someone tell me why he/she has a couple of votes already? Don't want to vote Sig, and am not feeling the JJJ case yet. There are some posts where he comes off genuine, and then there is his vote that strikes me as weird. I might have missed him talking about Sig and the others who already had votes, but of all things, this might be the thing that makes me doubt him the most. Then again, I need to go and find his suspicion on MM and see how strongly he feels about it and voiced that feeling. But I need more time with him to decide.

FZ. wrote:Sorry, I'm going to sleep.

linki: so you think Lorab is a good vote? Why so? Damn you, I want to sleep

FZ. wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?
Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.
Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

FZ. wrote:I think that my top suspects currently are DH, Juliets and Lorab. Lorab, mostly for that post where she answered BR. Boomslang is another one I'm looking at. There are a few others that I find myself curious about, but not as much as these at the moment.

FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really have to go. I'm set for 6 hours of sleep if I can fall unconscious right... now.

Nope.

Anyway, I'm going to leave my vote on Boomslang. I've decided I prefer him over llama, and I think he's a more viable candidate right now than LoRab (I'd support her lynch too). I encourage y'all to continue having this productive discourse all the way to the final buzzer of the phase. Make EOD exciting, that's when people crack.

G'night folks. Beware shenanigans.
If Golden feels Boomslang is a civ, maybe we should switch to someone else? If you split your votes, you'll end up being lynched
LoRab?
After Sorsha's vote, maybe her?

FZ. wrote:linki: Fine

FZ. wrote:I need to go too. I'll go with Lorab

FZ started cool on LoRab, soliciting others to share their reasons for suspecting her. This was soon after she subbed in and she was still catching up. After LoRab presented her "suspicion" of Burger for his defenses, FZ moved against her and for the most part stayed true to that stance. Toward the end of Day 3.0 she did falter some, and needed me to push her to placing her final vote on LoRab. I think this looks like a player who is unsure what a lynchee is going to flip and is feeling reservations -- the mark of an uninformed non-mafioso. I don't think they're team mates.

LoRab and Dom

Spoiler: show

This is the only non-OT post in which LoRab acknowledges Dom, but it's a fantastic post for analysis.

She straight up said Rico's "suspish" thing should not implicate Dom. Of course she'd say that because it also implicated her, but that doesn't inherently mean she's lying about this.

This is the most interesting sentence in the entire game so far, in my opinion. I feel like llama's relationship with LoRab, and perhaps even Dom's by association, can be found in this content.

We've confirmed that LoRab was a baddie. She pooh-poohed Rico's "suspish" point as a point against Dom. She encouraged it as a point against llama. This has to mean something. Pool your minds upon this post and tell me what you think. Is she protecting team mate Dom and redirecting attention to non-team mate llama? Is she buddying non-team mate Dom and redirecting attention to team mate (but unlikely-to-be-lynched) llama? What inspired her to say this about llama? I feel like this is a billboard sign with a fluorescent light perimeter and blinking text on a busy highway that reads: "EITHER DOM OR LLAMA IS MY TEAM MATE."

Now I don't think LoRab did this on purpose of course. I'm asserting this would be a significant error by her. Y'all talk to me about this. I'm excited.

Spoiler: show

I could have included more quotes/content here, but they're all related to Dom's suspicion of the LoRab wagon relative to FZ and I. Check his ISO if you want to see more of them -- it's also a heavy component of current discussion. I've left them out so the spoiler isn't unnecessarily huge.

Dom lent a little support to one of Epi's earliest points against LoRab, but he didn't seem to revisit this suspicion later. He acknowledged it again on Day 3.0 and pledged to revisit the case, but after that he went full speed ahead against me instead. He never voted for her either as far as I can tell. That's not the best look. He really didn't do much of anything with LoRab other than accuse other people for their votes on her based upon the notion that I was saved. This means he wasn't necessarily defending LoRab, he was just attacking me. That could mean he was genuinely perturbed by her wagon similarly to DH, but if that's the case I'd ask the same questions about his willingness to critically think that I've asked about DH.

~~~

Dom voted for me on Days 3.0 and 3.5.

~~~

I think this relationship is team mate-compatible and perhaps even team-mate indicative. My biggest doubt stems from first colorful point I made in which LoRab defended Dom and attacked llama instead. That's a calculated move, because if both of them or neither of them are on her team then I don't know what would inspire her to say that. I want to hear about that component of this analysis from a number of people -- I would really appreciate it. I think it's very useful data and it would be wasteful not to discuss it thoroughly.

I'm going to post this analysis by itself to encourage that.

Dom wrote:You don't care that I didn't pull a no u but don't condemn HBB for lying?

"Wrong" and "lying" are not the same. "Lying" implies a sincere intent to mislead. I don't get the impression that's what Burger did. I'll leave him to respond to your commentary though, I'm not in his head.

I am currently doing my Dom/LoRab review, so I'll see what I come up with.

Dom wrote:You also say that I haven't responded to RIcos "case" when I have. It's almost like....you're... Doing the thing..... You accused me of?????? Wow

You've never cased me. You've poked at isolated moments in my posts that you've claimed not to like and I've responded to those things in isolation. If you have a substantive case, put it together in one place and I will dismantle it in short order. Not much you have said about me is grounded in logic and much of it is grounded in falsehoods.

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also I'm just gonna go ahead and say this:

OMGUS/NO U -- just not that suspicious in general. It can often evidence a faulty mindset, but not necessarily a malevolent one. Chew on that current and future townies.
This did nothing to address my post and only excused yourself while not granting me the same privilege even though I didn't even do that. Nice.

It was a linki. I rarely bother to type "linki".

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:4. I've gotten no u??? What???????? no! That is exactly what JJJ has done. He has yet to say a single reason to suspect me and thought I was civ until I continued pressuring him. But you ignore that because that doesn't fit your narrative. I haven't pulled a single No U and the only thing I'm dismissive of is a case built around a word that I only used once before on this site but was extremely common on others. It's wrong, in comprehensive, and flawed. I've explained why and not even dismissed it all that much. You are straight up lying here.
I like the part where you say things that are blatantly false.
Your "in which" post?
Because that's as close as you get. And I think it's a pretty ridiculous post of unconnected points and incorrect information. Your first post against me was simply because I didn't immediately think FZ was civvie and didn't warm up to you when you buddies me.

"As close as I get" to doing exactly what you just said I never did. It's false, it's misinformation, and if you really feel that way then you're not paying enough attention to this game.

Dom wrote:I said things that are blatantly false? Where did I pull a NO U? Where? Someone point it out to me. Why do you only care when I don't post things that are "truthful"? Why do HBBs posts get no such treatment? I sit because you're bad? Are you looking for someone to help you out and you don't care who goes down in the process?

I never said you pulled a NO U. I don't care about NO U's. I don't agree with everything Burger has ever said, but I think he has presented truthful information much more consistently than you have. Sometimes interpretations differ. I can understand why he might think you're NO U'ing me even I don't think you actually are. You're going after me relatively hard now after my "in which" commentary and I don't struggle to believe that Burger is perceiving the exchange in that light. I do grant that your suspicion came first, but I don't think that makes any difference at all.

Also I'm just gonna go ahead and say this:

OMGUS/NO U -- just not that suspicious in general. It can often evidence a faulty mindset, but not necessarily a malevolent one. Chew on that current and future townies.

Dom wrote:4. I've gotten no u??? What???????? no! That is exactly what JJJ has done. He has yet to say a single reason to suspect me and thought I was civ until I continued pressuring him. But you ignore that because that doesn't fit your narrative. I haven't pulled a single No U and the only thing I'm dismissive of is a case built around a word that I only used once before on this site but was extremely common on others. It's wrong, in comprehensive, and flawed. I've explained why and not even dismissed it all that much. You are straight up lying here.

I like the part where you say things that are blatantly false.

LoRab and Black Rock

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.
Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.
Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.

And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.

Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).
So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!

LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.
She is building the case herself. As far as I'm concerned she is making excuses and avoiding answering anyone's questions or concerns. That sounds like baddie LoRab to me.

Although I enjoyed your twirlaholic funs, LoRab. I'm not impressed that you didn't address anything last night. It's been a long time since I have had such strong baddie vibes from you.
I fell asleep last night. Did I miss questions in my post a little while ago? What haven't I addressed? Seriously, please let me know so I can answer. I answered the posts I saw that had specific things to say about me. I didn't see any other posts that raised anything else. What else can I address?

Your vibes about me are wrong.

linkitis: Fair enough. I was a bit confused that you said I didn't answer anything.

LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:AAAAAHHHHH WHOOOOO DEEEEEEEEEY
Now I feel bad for voting you.

Actually no I don't.
I just voted for LoRab... because she is bad. I see you have switched your vote to yourself. I hope in my future reads I see a damn good reason.
No, she is not. If you could make a case on me, so that I can explain my actions and defend myself, please do. If you think you have info on me, it isn't accurate. I'm not bad, and I'd like to be able to defend.

LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:I have put my vote on LoRab. Not to sound like a broken record or anything. I thought I might vote for JJJ but I found some of his more recent posts to be compelling and I am less sure he's a baddie. I work tomorrow before and during the deadline so I want to make sure I have a vote in just in case.
You continue to be wrong about me.

The most important thing we need to do with BR is determine how realistic the possibility is that her aggression against LoRab was a continued bussing effort. I think the best way to approach that question is to see how LoRab handled BR's accusations. For the most part it's a lot of "no, you're wrong", which doesn't say much. However, I did yellow-highlight one bit in the above quotes that I find telling. LoRab asked BR for a substantive case and tried to shake her from any possible "information" she might have. This looks to me like a mafioso struggling to get around the hounding of a non-team mate and displaying frustration/almost desperation at a lack of avenues to defend and maybe escape it. That's a nice look for BR.

Spoiler: show

Black Rock wrote:Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.

Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.

I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.

My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.

He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it?

Black Rock wrote:I am going to vote for LoRab for now. Her posts reek of her mafia self. I look forward to seeing what she has to say to Epig.

Black Rock wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I read your response LoRab (not quoting because it is so huge) you always have a way of making things seem so rational and I usually can be swayed to see things how you see them. I'm going to stick with my gut for today though and vote for you.

I've not had enough time (and won't before poll closes) to catch up over the past few pages but I'll be able to over the weekend and hopefully have some stronger suspicions then.

votes LoRab

That's how I feel. Her responses are so clear and convincing. I have myself questioning my gut. I have been fooled by this LoRab before. I am leaving my vote where it is for right now while I finish my catch up.

Black Rock wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:AAAAAHHHHH WHOOOOO DEEEEEEEEEY
Now I feel bad for voting you.

Actually no I don't.
I just voted for LoRab... because she is bad. I see you have switched your vote to yourself. I hope in my future reads I see a damn good reason.

Black Rock wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I'm still on Lorab. I said she cracked under pressure. I applied pressure. She disappeared. When she came back, she was sweet as sugar. I think her twirly behind got the jitters when I called her out so early.
*thumbs up*

Black Rock wrote:Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.

Black Rock wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Black Rock wrote:I'm so behind. Life kicked my ass yesterday and I just got time to post this today.

I just wanted to say that I didn't miss the vote yesterday, I was unable to vote at all. I will do a big catch up after my three year old goes to bed, he's being a demanding... and is requiring I move away from the computer as I type this. Because he's being rude to mommy I think I will take my time.
Ok, so that's the late sig, Golden and BR being incapacitated so far - I don't remember Boomslang or LoRab having voted on 3.0 though. Is it possible to start correlating who might have wanted one less vote on the tally from these three players? Who do you think w/could have incapacitated you, BR?
I felt like the person who blocked my ability to vote was afraid I was going to vote for LoRab, I'm on the fence if it was a baddie power or a civvie one. I would have likely voted for JJ, but I'm not completely caught up so that may have changed.
So far from page 70-74, I am completely ok with a JJ lynch and would have for sure voted for him because it does look like a push for LoRab.

Not saying I don't suspect LoRab still. They are likely on two different teams.

I'm also ok with a Tranq lynch. I'm not going to give him a pass, by saying that's just Tranq. He's much more devious than that.

Golden, why do you feel so strongly about JJJ?

Black Rock wrote:I have put my vote on LoRab. Not to sound like a broken record or anything. I thought I might vote for JJJ but I found some of his more recent posts to be compelling and I am less sure he's a baddie. I work tomorrow before and during the deadline so I want to make sure I have a vote in just in case.

Obviously BR put extensive effort into pursuing a LoRab lynch and got a very early start. I think almost all of this looks authentic. Some might be unamused by this WIFOM, but I honestly completely believe BR when she says this.

~~~

BR missed the first JJJ/LoRab poll war, but expressed willingness to lynch both.

She voted for LoRab the second time.

~~~

I feel pretty strongly that Black Rock is not on LoRab's team.

LoRab and Boomslang

LoRab did not mention or engage Boomslang.

Spoiler: show

Boomslang wrote:Alright, I have to go record some music and must vote. I don't think Rico is mafia, I think Llama is civ, and haven't really considered the Lorab arguments. Therefore, I'm going to leave a protest vote on Mac: as has been noted previously, his playing is not that different from Rico's, but he's being very defensive of it and was blatantly hypocritical when he compared his own baseless accusation to the one MM made about him. *votes Mac*

Linki w/Rico: Tranq should speak up, true facts.

Boomslang wrote:I'm running low on time before class, and I don't think I'll be able to vote after that. Quite disappointed in Drac's lack of posting today. I think the JJJ case is overblown; his effort with the smiley curse alone, when as a baddie he could have safely played it cool, makes me lean civ on him. Lorab's defense seems genuine, while sig is much more flippant. I don't like the games he played with smileys in a recent post, in particular; it's self-conscious, not natural. I'll put my vote *on sig* unless I find time on a class break to read more and change my mind.

Linki w/Golden: Good illustration of the difference between civ read/buddying. Worth keeping in mind, imo.

Boomslang wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.
I... kind of like this theory. It's just crazy enough to make sense, and I know I often find myself using the language of the group I'm talking with. Does this necessarily make him bad, though? I'm not pinged super hard either way. On the civ end, I like his pressure on Tranq and the way he's been skeptical of Mac throughout the game. On the mafia end, I don't like the way he's expressed support for off-wagon candidates and then circled back to the main wagon for all of the lynches thus far; feels just a touch too blendy.

GTH, I guess I'd say bad. The connection of "suspish" with Lorab, combined with his consistent but low levels of aggro toward her, could make the case for mafia teammates.

The first two posts here show Boom acknowledging that people are suspicious of LoRab and explaining why he's voting for someone else. The first one is a rather blatant "I haven't considered the LoRab arguments" and the second is a positive read on her. I won't make significant judgments about this kind of limited content, but I will say the first one doesn't strike me as a conscious effort to ignore the case against a team mate -- it looks like an authentic shrug. The third post here is the most interesting to me, in which he lends some support to Rico's "suspish" theory and implicates Dom and LoRab as possible team mates. I find myself wondering whether any of LoRab's team mates could bring themselves to distancing from their team mates based on that case -- it's so easy to discard and not take seriously.

~~~

On Day 3.0 Boom missed the vote I believe.

On Day 3.5 he voted for FZ in that 4-way tie madness. I hate this vote, but I'd have to look deeper than the scope of this analysis to understand it better.

Generally it's not enough for any confident read, but I would lean slightly towards a non-team mate relationship.

DharmaHelper and LoRab

Spoiler: show

This is LoRab's only acknowledgement of DH's existence. It's a chummy statement that doesn't touch on the content being quoted -- in which DH expressed some light suspicion of Burger for his anti-BR stance (which wasn't necessarily a pro-LoRab stance).

Spoiler: show

Yay, I get to talk about a Vocaroo post!

The second half of the recording is about her, so skip ahead to about 1:20 if you want. He asserts that on Night 0 he hasn't seen anything from her that he'd characterize as abnormal. He also grants that the people who have expressed concern that her posts looked a little rehearsed (Mac and I primarily) weren't wrong to say so, that he understood our perspective. He didn't think it was inherently suspicious for LoRab to have a few posts that sounded rehearsed though, and even suggested it could be normalcy for him in typed content rather than spoken content.

His read was off obviously, but that's not necessarily a big deal. I would take some issue though with the fact that DH covered such a wide range of the spectrum of the LoRab conversation in this recording without really disagreeing with anyone. He agreed with those suspecting her that her posts looked rehearsed, or that they could look reheared. He stood in LoRab's corner though too by maintaining a non-suspicious perspective of her in spite of that.

Spoiler: show

DharmaHelper wrote:Let me see if I can cover what I said with any level of efficacy.

1. I find the discussion around RadicalFuzz more suspicious than RadicalFuzz. Seems like an easy place to start a train and place a copout Day 0 vote.

2. I don't think LoRab is suspicious, and I don't think the argument that her posts are "careful/crafted" holds up. I can see the thought process behind it, I just don't think it is solid.

3. I questioned Golden at one point regarding why he would trust Mac's gut if he finds Mac to be suspicious.

4. I slammed Rico some more regarding his rainbow list, and I posited to Golden that the purpose of the list and Rico's general behavior was in an attempt to look civvier than he is and to hide behind humor, basically.

DharmaHelper wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.
Even her very first post regarding LoRab is actually one of suspicion built on agreeing with Rico's case on her, and as you have said yourself, Rico was spewing bullshit. BR's next post was basically (if indirectly) agreeing with your case on LoRab. She then said a couple things about wanting to see LoRab address points to her, and then ignored that LoRab actually did later. After that, she then proceeded to agree with Sorsha's post against LoRab. Sorry, not a one-two punch to me, it looks like for the better part of day 1, her only concern was agreeing with people that found LoRab suspicious.

In fact, in light of the Rico-LoRab thing I had overlooked before, what do you think of the possibility that Black Rock was bussing? I don't find BR's case on LoRab to be coming from anywhere genuine.
This ain't the first time ol' HB took up the fight for the Not Too Shabbi Rabbi. Is that offensive to say? LoRab. I'm referring to LoRab. Whom I adore.

For my part, I'm not sold on a case that in the course of Night 0 to Day 3 has not evolved past "I got the heebies"

DharmaHelper wrote:
Black Rock wrote:Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.
Still catching up on last night, but I got to this post and felt the need to address it, because it set off several red flags.

1. Refusing to engage the person you suspect in discourse regarding those suspicions is pingy as Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. The reasoning you give here also doesn't make sense to me. You say her response was measured and careful in order to debunk the theory that she was being too measured and careful? Dunno, that doesn't click with me. I'm wary in general of anyone who outright refuses to back up their suspicions of someone. That tells me you know you're standing on thin ice and would rather ignore the person you suspect (in this case LoRab), than have your suspicion debunked. If a suspicion cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is either false in nature or faulty in nature.

2. This is fear mongering to me. You're not arguing the facts of the case, you're propping LoRab up as this "big scary boogie woman" as justification for why you refused to engage. Using a player's skill at the game as a reason to A) Want to lynch them and B) Ignore the holes in your suspicion does not sit well with me.

3. Explicit WIFOM. And especially faulty WIFOM as well.

4. I find this particularly amusing. There won't ever be a good case to build on LoRab ever in the whole game? That's just patently false. Anyone can build a "good case" on anyone given enough time and content and effort. But you don't want to put that effort forward because why? Because you know that if you do, your "gut read" starts to turn into something entirely different?

Looking at this post, I'm seeing a majority of emotional appeals rather than factual statements and evidence. That tells me that you have no evidence, and indeed no desire to acquire any such evidence. It comes down to you just wanting to lynch LoRab because she's a "good player", which is a motivation I'd associate with baddies.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Matt wrote:Mac, no, I'm not trying to create conflict. I have reason to believe Epig is a big bad and I wanted your thoughts on him. Which I'm not sure I even got, you pretty much just kept turning it back on me, I see. Just to be clear, though, you no longer suspect Lorab?

Llama - Thanks.

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

DH - If you think Black Rock is fibbing about Lorab, does that mean you also think Epig and others are BSing their cases on Lorab? Or is it just BR?
How would that make sense? Black Rock's suspicion of LoRab to me looks disingenuous, but that has no bearing one way or the other on Epi or anyone else. My comment on Epi's side of things was that I don't hold much stock in a case that hasn't evolved in 3+ days of discussion beyond what I don't see as a smoking gun. I don't recall "anyone else" having thoughts drastically different from Epi or BR in the case of LoRab.

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

DharmaHelper wrote:
FZ. wrote:This. DH's colour posts really bug me. Not because of the colouring. Because I find myself thinking his attempts feel blown up to seem like he's so engaged in scum hunting. And I find myself disagreeing with his reasons for suspecting people. For example, if someone can't back up their suspicion with a great "case" like people expect, it doesn't make them bad. If anything, when I'm bad, I try to really back up my suspicions as much as I can. Just like he's doing here. It's so easy to find these easy reasons to suspect people. By easy I mean, not doing what is expected by the book (like backing up suspicion).
1. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you haven't read the rest of the thread apparently. I am not "attempting to seem like I'm scum hunting." I'd like to know what gave you that vibe. I try in every game I play to be verbose and thorough in who I suspect.

2. If we disagree, we disagree.

3. Let me be absolutely clear. not being able to back up your suspicions and not being willing to back up your suspicions are two different things. Building and presenting a poor case does not make a person bad, I agree. What I found suspicious was not that BR built and presented a poor case though. What I said was that BR did not build a case, she did not engage LoRab, and she did not make an effort to pursue her suspicion of LoRab. In my view, this means that she knew that if she did, the case would fall apart and not be as strong as what she'd presented. Two different things.

DharmaHelper wrote:
FZ. wrote:DH, to spare us all another long post quote, I'm answering without it.

It's not that I don't think you're not attempting, I'm just not sure I buy the sincerity of your suspicions. Yeah it could just be disagreeing I guess, but I'm not sold on it yet. You seem like a logic person and the way you play as a civ, from what I've seen, is something I find easy to relate. The fact that I find myself disagreeing with you so much bothers me.

I get how that's different, but in what way did she not pursue her suspicion? She voted for her twice. I perceived it as a gut feeling more than a solid reason, thus her answer that she can't really build a case. Again, I can only judge by how I play when I think of what a baddie would do (unless I know that person's bad game really well), but if I were a baddie, I would try to build the case, just so I look like I can back up my votes and not look bad.
Uhm, she literally said "I won't bother to respond to LoRab's defense because it's too perfect."

DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:What kind of fuckboy wagon is this?
Which one?

Because honestly, I'd agree with you that the JJ wagon is.
Bruh if you can't look at these LoRab votes and see some kind of fuckery, I can't help you.

DharmaHelper wrote:@FZ Instead of pissing down my back why don't you actually address my suspicion?

1. Why did you actively participate in the lynching of someone you had come around to believing to be genuine? Why not place your vote on a third party that you suspected?

2. Why did you immediately point the finger at JJJ voters rather than LoRab voters? What do you think of the LoRab train in general? Do you think Tranq's vote or Motel Room's vote look civ motivated?

The first post shows DH reasserting the bit I mentioned above from the Vocaroo post. This time it should be noted that he's clearer about disagreeing with Mac and I about LoRab's posts being rehearsed even though he understands the thought process. Otherwise the remaining content leaves us a ton of opportunity (and challenge) in reading DH's motivations. The color-heavy discussions he has around BR's suspicion of LoRab and FZ's suspicion of him for that are very substantive. While it's obviously not the best look for DH to work so hard to shoot down a BR gut read that has proven to be rock solid, it must be acknowledged that the points he made don't appear manipulative or fake. I can understand a civilian having the mindset that he is espousing in this many-colored post.

I'm curious what DH thinks of BR now in light of LoRab's baddie flip. Please talk about that if you haven't already, DH.

Then there's also the end of Day 3.0 madness in which DH appeared in the thread, observed the quick wagon mounting on LoRab, and then slammed on the brakes before leading people back onto my wagon. I've asserted that his behavior in this stretch appeared disingenuous to me, because it required him to believe things that I think would indicate he did very little critical thinking (that a quick wagon is inherently a problem, that I am mafia and my entire team tried to save me all at once). I maintain that this is a bad look. It might be a matter of me disagreeing severely with DH's entire perspective of what a townie in a Mafia game is supposed to be doing (which would also stem from his view on rainbows which I think is completely wrong). This is where I feel I have to defer to people who know him better to help me get a grip on what he's done.

General questions to all non-DharmaHelper players who know him well -- is it typical of him to resist end of day bandwagon shifts as a civilian? Is it typical of him as a civilian to think an entire mafia team would expose themselves in a pie-eyed stupid strategic move? Help me out here.

~~~

DH voted for me on Days 3.0 and 3.5.

~~~

Overall there's a lot to think about. I agree with HamburgerBoy that it's hard to say his defenses of LoRab against BR's suspicions looks disingenuous. That appears sincere to me. But his conduct at the end of the Day 3.0 lynch looks highly insincere to me. I'll wait for feedback.

You better kill me tonight baddies because I'm hella motivated now.

In which Dom receives an accusation from confirmed town Rico based on the most dubious premise imaginable (which also connects him to LoRab) and doesn't respond to it with any emotion, incredulity, or even interest:

Spoiler: show

In which Dom tries to cast suspicion on me for a silly reason:

Spoiler: show

In which Dom propped up LoRab in some manner or another without actually committing to a positive read.

Spoiler: show

In which Dom tries to discard my rock solid logical point without actually talking about it in any meaningful way:

Spoiler: show

In which Dom insists upon his bogus FZ suspicion based upon a premise that has repeatedly been shown to be false, and even offers a link to a post that shows it to be false:

Spoiler: show

In which Dom says something that elicits an "orly" reply:

Spoiler: show

In which Dom refuses to even consider anything I do from a town perspective:

Spoiler: show

I'm away for the day most likely. Voting for DharmaHelper.

Dom's point is very poor. He asserts FZ campaigned for a LoRab lynch. She did nothing of the sort. She begrudgingly placed her vote after I pushed her in that direction.

Tranq wrote:until i'm able to make informed decisions.

Do you think it's realistic that you'll ever reach this point?

Returning this post for a moment:

nijuukyugou wrote:I’m able to look back and understand what’s being said about LoRab a bit better now (I’ve been wondering about the suspicion on her for a while, but am just now getting to it). Very gut-related on BR’s part (although she said she feels slightly better after LoRab’s comments on HB’s buddying up to her), and then tone-based and BR-trust based on Epi’s part, then someone else (this switching back-and-forth from computer to phone is annoying, so some of you may become “someone” unspecific, sorry) commented that she got very defensive at first, then went all IDGAF with the swirly smileys, and has since dropped the hyper-defensiveness. So, it’s tone based, mostly. Possibility. What gets me is BR’s comment that LoRab (who I haven’t played with much, as far as I can remember) does an excellent job of evading suspicion and votes, and is doing just that right now - gets talked about, and then the discussion gets derailed or pulled away to another more noticeable candidate. I’ll come back to this.

nijuukyugou wrote:I’m finding JJJ to be floundering a bit under pressure. Of course, I said this about sig, and I was so very wrong, but I don’t think I’ve seen this side of JJJ, which makes me think (I’ll go back to that). I think LC’s made good points about him, and JJJ’s especial emotional reaction to two things pings me greatly: a) the accusation of his going after llama for being cursed (which he first backtracked and said he “was absolutely not sure it was llama” when he sure seemed it from his post) and b) the “accusation” that he was using an emotional defense to gain sympathy by saying he’d be gone from the thread (overreaction, for reasons others have said, that what JJJ wasn’t the kind of emotional appeal that JJJ is “morally against,” but rather a way to pull suspicion off of him subtly. Funny, too, that the reaction he’s having to this accusation is a rather emotional appeal). But I’m torn two ways with this. His reactions stand out to me so strongly that I can’t ignore them, but like I said before, I’ve also never seen this before from him. When I’ve played in games with his being bad, he’s rather calm and collected the whole time, which gives me pause, because I feel like I’m going after the easy candidate again like I have the last two lynches.

Aaaaaand since I've been writing this and checking back and forth, the votes have...changed. Quite drastically. Hmm. But the two highest vote-getters (JJJ and LoRab) are people I'm willing to vote, so...Hmm. UGH DAMN YOU PEOPLE I REQUIRE SUSTENANCE decisions decisions...Guess I'll make it interesting, then. I do so enjoy people's reactions when I'm able to get them, and it seems JJJ not as easy a vote as I thought. Let's see what happens.

I think ninja does express clear suspicion of both LoRab and I, but there's an important difference. With LoRab, she seems willing to nod to Black Rock's case and affirms its validity. There are no caveats in which she speaks about potential non-mafia angles for LoRab to do what she's done. With me, there are multiple caveats in which she expresses doubts about the suspicion. But she voted for me in the end. And she said this. Eek.

I'm not sure why bea chose me as her vote. juliets was placing her trust in Mac's read. DH I've already covered and heavily suspect. ninja's vote can be called a little suspicious because she seemed to waffle around when she talked about me while having been more clearly suspicious of LoRab.

Ricochet wrote:It'll now be the third time me saying that yes, temp votes should normally affect players who need not receive votes to be empowered.

I just voted for every player that hasn't already received a vote today and then returned to Tranq. I have no idea whether the hosts even have a way to track that, but I did it so there you go.

Mac, I'm willing to pressure Tranq. I might have to move my vote to a stronger suspect though before I leave for the day. What do you think of the notion that it was LoRab who was saved and not me? Follow the end day votes.

Rico, do you think temporary votes affect the Brutal Executioner role or would they have to be final votes?

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.
I didn't say that. FZ didn't do that. This is irrelevant.
Start a bandwagon was not good word choice.
Actively campaign is better.

That's a bad word choice too because FZ didn't do that either. I've made that more than clear. You seem to be consciously manipulating the course of events to fit your suspicion.

Dom wrote:Why are you defending FZ?

Because DH made a terrible, crap, worthless case and some people actually accepted the points as good. It's mind-boggling. FZ is a strong town read, and I will always defend strong town reads when they're being suspected for stupid reasons. I think DH is plain bad for it, there's no way he has paid so little attention. I'm also starting to think I gave you too much benefit of the doubt for the "shot at bea" thing, because your recent conduct is awful.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I bought a vacuum cleaner today and I'm pretty sure I just broke it.
Why would you buy a vacuum cleaner if you are changing continents of residence?

I need to clean this house thoroughly before I leave it behind. My old vacuum was broken. I'm bad at vacuums.

juliets wrote:Ok, i get that now. I did not play Talking Heads so I don't have that reference point. I do remember you saying you wouldn't be posting that much I just didn't know "that much" mostly reference Talking HEads.

For your reference: I finished that game with 1,491 posts.

MacDougall wrote:You also just highlighted her willingness to vote for someone she initially defended when placed under duress.

Yes. Someone she initially defended who was not me. She wasn't thrilled to vote for LoRab, but she preferred it over voting for me.

This just seems plainly obvious to me, I don't understand why this is a debate.

In which JJJ shows how FZ absolutely did not start the bandwagon on LoRab:

Spoiler: show

FZ. wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Golden wrote:I'd actually be ok seeing Sorsha or LoRab lynched.
I agree with 50% of this statement. Voting LoRab again.
I don't like this vote. Because you just ignored all discussion and just voted for someone else.

FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really have to go. I'm set for 6 hours of sleep if I can fall unconscious right... now.

Nope.

Anyway, I'm going to leave my vote on Boomslang. I've decided I prefer him over llama, and I think he's a more viable candidate right now than LoRab (I'd support her lynch too). I encourage y'all to continue having this productive discourse all the way to the final buzzer of the phase. Make EOD exciting, that's when people crack.

G'night folks. Beware shenanigans.
If Golden feels Boomslang is a civ, maybe we should switch to someone else? If you split your votes, you'll end up being lynched
LoRab?
After Sorsha's vote, maybe her?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
FZ. wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really have to go. I'm set for 6 hours of sleep if I can fall unconscious right... now.

Nope.

Anyway, I'm going to leave my vote on Boomslang. I've decided I prefer him over llama, and I think he's a more viable candidate right now than LoRab (I'd support her lynch too). I encourage y'all to continue having this productive discourse all the way to the final buzzer of the phase. Make EOD exciting, that's when people crack.

G'night folks. Beware shenanigans.
If Golden feels Boomslang is a civ, maybe we should switch to someone else? If you split your votes, you'll end up being lynched
LoRab?
After Sorsha's vote, maybe her?
Just the first in a wave of late drive-bys, I imagine. Doesn't really make me feel anything about Sorsha. I'll go LoRab. Okay really now, sleepy time.

FZ. wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Sorsha wrote:No i didnt. I've discussed things and I've discussed players up for vote right now. I've been suspicious of LoRab and I've stated why.
This is in response to fz
But right now there are 3 people who have votes. Do you have opinion on any of them? are you interested to see any of them lynched? If not, are you interested to save one of them that might be lynched of you keep your vote that way? Discussing before and discussing now, during the money time are two different things.

linki: Fine

The last linki was directed at me. She wanted to lynch Sorsha. I pushed her to LoRab. This case is bullcrap.

Dom wrote:When I have absolutely no clue, I default to good. I don't know how to have a clue about Tranq. Can it be done? Is it possible in this universe?

Have you read anyone's thoughts on Tranq?[/quote]

Yes. I'm uninspired. His last vote wasn't great, but I don't know what I am supposed to expect a total lurker to do with his vote.

Dom wrote:So you'd actively start a bandwagon against someone you read as civ as a civ?
I don't buy it.

I didn't say that. FZ didn't do that. This is irrelevant.

juliets wrote:As i said in the beginning I don't know why you are so quick to call me bad when I feel like I'm giving you every opportunity I can to prove yourself not-bad. Maybe you could explain that to me since I answered your post.

I did "gun to head reads" on every player. All that means is that I made a quick gut judgment -- it's not a condemnation or a call to lynch you. Or a vote for you. I was more perturbed by your vote for me than I was of some others because I didn't expect it. Most of them were not surprising to me, but yours was. I wouldn't have anticipated you'd trust Mac enough to allow his unverified comments about my style as a player to be the deciding factor in your decision. Indeed, his comments were incorrect (the same incorrect comments he made in our last game together).

Mac is accustomed to a JJJ who plays at a maximum level of effort at all times and under all circumstances. Many others here saw that to a ridiculous extreme in the Talking Heads game. This has led to me being held to a higher standard of contribution than anyone else, and perhaps I deserve that, but it's just not reasonable. I said before the game started that I won't be posting that much. I made it clear early in the game that I'm not as invested in this game as I normally would be. I have to step back and chill out, because my conduct in Talking Heads was over the top and frankly obscene.

I knew people would suspect me, but I didn't anticipate quite this.

I'll look at ninja's big ass post. I gut read her as bad but I don't really know why.

nijuukyugou wrote:I think I’ve seen a couple of comments about how the kills were “weird” and that perhaps a deal was made with hosts to kill those particular people, or that they were modkilled? I will echo the sentiment of preposterousness on this line of thinking. But I don’t think people who said it are bad for saying it. I just wanted to express my incredulity on having this idea at all.

Why?

This looks like filler.

nijuukyugou wrote:I’m able to look back and understand what’s being said about LoRab a bit better now (I’ve been wondering about the suspicion on her for a while, but am just now getting to it). Very gut-related on BR’s part (although she said she feels slightly better after LoRab’s comments on HB’s buddying up to her), and then tone-based and BR-trust based on Epi’s part, then someone else (this switching back-and-forth from computer to phone is annoying, so some of you may become “someone” unspecific, sorry) commented that she got very defensive at first, then went all IDGAF with the swirly smileys, and has since dropped the hyper-defensiveness. So, it’s tone based, mostly. Possibility. What gets me is BR’s comment that LoRab (who I haven’t played with much, as far as I can remember) does an excellent job of evading suspicion and votes, and is doing just that right now - gets talked about, and then the discussion gets derailed or pulled away to another more noticeable candidate. I’ll come back to this.

Agreeable perspective of LoRab I think, even if largely borrowed from Black Rock.

nijuukyugou wrote:llama’s always hard for me to read, but it’s kinda funny to me that Golden jumped on llama for jumping on people for painting Fuzz as SuperCiv and immediately called him bad for it. This comment of llama’s doesn’t make me think he’s bad; rather, I also agree with it, at least in some cases. I (and other even better, more talkative SuperCivs) were NK’ed by baddies in Watchmen; we were put at the top of people’s damned Rainbow Lists early on, and the mafia picked us off one by one. Now, granted, this was a rather inexperienced and disorganized (from what I hear) mafia team, so perhaps it’s only that sort of combination that causes that to happen, but it’s not unheard of, and is one of the reasons why I also don’t like these rainbow lists, at least early on in the game (mostly I just…gahhh how the hell do you even make a prediction of so many people so early?! My eyes…) Anyway, I’m not inclined to think llama’s bad because of saying that. Maybe other reasons that I have yet to look more deeply into, but not that.

More personal stance, seemingly. This is a more substantive explanation for a pro-llama perspective than I've seen elsewhere to my memory, and it's unique to ninja. So that's neat.

nijuukyugou wrote:I’m finding JJJ to be floundering a bit under pressure. Of course, I said this about sig, and I was so very wrong, but I don’t think I’ve seen this side of JJJ, which makes me think (I’ll go back to that). I think LC’s made good points about him, and JJJ’s especial emotional reaction to two things pings me greatly: a) the accusation of his going after llama for being cursed (which he first backtracked and said he “was absolutely not sure it was llama” when he sure seemed it from his post) and b) the “accusation” that he was using an emotional defense to gain sympathy by saying he’d be gone from the thread (overreaction, for reasons others have said, that what JJJ wasn’t the kind of emotional appeal that JJJ is “morally against,” but rather a way to pull suspicion off of him subtly. Funny, too, that the reaction he’s having to this accusation is a rather emotional appeal). But I’m torn two ways with this. His reactions stand out to me so strongly that I can’t ignore them, but like I said before, I’ve also never seen this before from him. When I’ve played in games with his being bad, he’s rather calm and collected the whole time, which gives me pause, because I feel like I’m going after the easy candidate again like I have the last two lynches.

Eh? I've only been mafia-aligned once ever on The Syndicate, and that was when I was roleplaying as S~V~S. I had like 80 posts in 6 game cycles.

Otherwise her beefs with me are a waffly rehash of LC's case and Dom's doubts about my non-willingness to use emotion strategically as a bad guy.

nijuukyugou wrote:Aaaaaand since I've been writing this and checking back and forth, the votes have...changed. Quite drastically. Hmm. But the two highest vote-getters (JJJ and LoRab) are people I'm willing to vote, so...Hmm. UGH DAMN YOU PEOPLE I REQUIRE SUSTENANCE decisions decisions...Guess I'll make it interesting, then. I do so enjoy people's reactions when I'm able to get them, and it seems JJJ not as easy a vote as I thought. Let's see what happens.

Ellipsis abuse. I might let this become my personal language-based ping like Epi's adverbs. That would be fun.

~~~

From her other posts, a bit of her other content also seems rather borrowed. That could be because she's in permanent catch-up mode and just can't get here fast enough to be the first to say something. I dunno. She did make one point about Mac that is original and looks organic.

nijuukyugou wrote:MacDougall:
Something isn't sitting right with me. His tone looks different from Star Wars, where he was good and I felt like he was civ the whole game. But I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it started with the interaction/semi-thread towards MM for throwing suspicion on him early on - it looked very defensive. And he looked to be using his "superpower" of finding baddies on the first day (he was right in Star Wars, granted), but it looked forced. More observation needed, and now that the thread has slowed down considerably, I may be able to accomplish this. But my vote won't go there today, as it's a tenuous suspicion at the moment. Also, I agree with his vote, so...there's that.

~~~

I wouldn't really say she looks insincere. I might say her posts are slightly bloated. I don't have a substantive read. I highlighted a couple things that either pinged me or confused me. I also think we generally need to be careful about being cool with people on the strength of reading them "sincere". If there are multiple mafia teams as most of us seem willing to assume, then everyone has plenty of capacity for sincere baddie hunting.

MacDougall wrote:So I am good but I am insincere about my suspicion on you. Ok.

Changed my mind. Congratulations!

Ricochet wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Ricochet wrote:"Tranq - good"

bro
When I have absolutely no clue, I default to good. I don't know how to have a clue about Tranq. Can it be done? Is it possible in this universe?
He's not playing at all and bandwagons like cray.

Clues.

What did you think of ninja's random huge ass post?

Ricochet wrote:"Tranq - good"

bro

When I have absolutely no clue, I default to good. I don't know how to have a clue about Tranq. Can it be done? Is it possible in this universe?

I wish I was bad, it would be hilarious to see y'all sorting through all of this would-be anti-spew after the flip.

MacDougall wrote:You did a G2H on every player

Yanno what, I can do that much. Those are easy.

Black Rock - good
Boomslang - bad
DharmaHelper - bad
Dom - good
DrWilgy - bad
Draconus - good
Epignosis - good
FZ. - good
Golden - good
HamburgerBoy - good
juliets - bad
Long Con - bad
LoRab - bad
MacDougall - good
Matt - good
Metalmarsh89 - good
motel room - good
nijuukyugou - bad
Sorsha - bad
thellama73 - good
Tranq - good
bea - good

I'll try to provide a little analytic content before the day ends. I will have virtually no time tomorrow though. I'm spending it with friends.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I bought a vacuum cleaner today and I'm pretty sure I just broke it.

Oh, maybe I was supposed to charge it?

I bought a vacuum cleaner today and I'm pretty sure I just broke it.

Ricochet wrote:Civs are not a team, they are a faction. As a civ, I don't know if I'm joining civ, mafia or indy in performing an action (such as a lynch). As such, I cannot call it a team.

Mafia are a team, because they are exactly aware who they are, what they are doing and how they position themselves throughout the game.

We disagree in the strongest possible way on this. So be it.

Search found 429 matches