The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:Now that you mention it FZ, SVS has been using quotes a LOT this game, while she normally doesn't like to use quotes. Hmmmm.

I am trying harder to do the case thing. Also when doing a catch up/reaction post it is easier.

Snowman wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

That's not correct, semantics boy.

Semantics Boy, the plucky sidekick of Fallacy Man!

I love this post

Turnip Head wrote:You're right Epi and llama. My bad. *skulks away cookieless*

See ^^ I gave you the cookie anyhow. I thought you were right

Boomslang wrote:Holy friggin' crap, that catchup took forever. As far as I can tell, there were two main threads of discussion going on last night, both of which revolved around Snowman. The first focused on the man himself and his personal defense (or in this case, mostly lack thereof). When he finally arrived in the thread, he made one post of basically "I'm overwhelmed, don't pick on me for failing to understand the case against me." After a while, he followed that up with a more substantive post; he makes an interesting argument that the case against him was constructed to deflect attention from Epi, but doesn't offer any quotes to back that up. On the whole, this lack of substance and factual support makes me feel increasingly less good.

The second focused on boo and the concern that the case against Snowman was becoming an out of control bandwagon on a new player. Boo seemed very concerned with giving Snowman the benefit of the doubt, saying (to my understanding) that voters should wait until the latest possible time to give him time for responding. There's a bit of reductio ad absurdum that pings me:

boo wrote: Ok llama, we'll play things your way. You're here right now. I'm going to vote for you. You have 1 second after this post goes through to give me a reason I should not vote for you. Because apparently we can set a clock on people no matter how absurd.

Finally, there's one other thing that stood out that I don't think has been readdressed:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S...in case you missed it:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

I am not voting for boo unless he says something really amazingly bad. While we have some philosophical differences re low posting and whether it's better to get rid of low posters from the perspective of PLAYERS v. ROLES, I am seeing his points more so than I am seeing yours or Llamas regarding Snowman.

What would boo have to do that's amazingly bad to get you to vote for him?

SVS still hasn't given a good answer to that reasonable sounding but very vague claim, which pings me.

What would be amazingly bad? Saying something like, "My kill failed last night" or something of that sort. Really, it was just a remark basically saying it would take a lot of convincing for me to vote for boo. And it would. It would have to be one hell of a smoking gun, becasue I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he is bad. I won't say he's GOOD, but I certainly don't suspect him any more than anyone else at this stage.

boo wrote: A LOT OF WORDS

Wow I read that once, and am gonna have to read it again. Maybe 2 agains.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

The Milk & Cookies Shot Glass. Repulsed? Intrigued? Kinda Both?

I see the mega posting did not stop while I was at the supermarket

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

Emphasis on the S.

That remark could be read either way, but OK. Since I am the Main Bitcher In Charge about over reading into peoples remarks, though, I will give you that. My bad.

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

Now see, I thought he was not trying to be "not obvious" about it. Which is one of the points that gives me pause here. Boo does not strike me as someone who has issues throwing people under the bus. Like, at all. Maybe even irl (just kidding, boo. Maybe. ).

So if boo had a floundering baddie teammate, I doubt he would be so overt.

As for FZ, I myself have backed off a but, and put that into a holding pattern, her responses seemed pretty "on" to me. I am not out of the woods as regards her, but not quite as pinged by her overall.

And as Llama says, Snowman does have a pretty good idea what he's doing. I am fairly sure that once he settles in, he's going to join Epi & Llama throwing around jargony, psychological terms. So I am taking the opposite viewpoint. I think he would be acting more seriously if he were bad. Plus neither he nor Zomba, his wife, have been around much at all. Hopefully they have time for us today, or my Crystal Ball (next to my plate of cookies) sees a Snowman melting away in the very near future.

I am going to be around much of the day, pending D & D at RM. So I plan to read back on a few people. Although I was feeling fairly polarized after the Day Zero poll, I am starting to have both good & bad feels about people on both sides of the L/Light issue. And no discernible opinion on others. I find the first part reassuring; this tells me that the Zero poll options were not so clear cut, and that the reasons people had for voting either L/Light or Traditional Lynch could be valid. If it obviously split on party lines, that would be lame. The seond, no discerible opinion on some people that have been posting a lot and were pretty involved early, worries me.

Coffee, reading, life, more reading. BBL.

thellama73 wrote:SVS also ignored my question about whether boo's claim that Snowman had no chance to defend himself was plainly false.

I don't think it was plainly false, as it was not something quantifiable. You cannot quantify "a chance" and you are attempting to do so. Ther may not be a fancy schmancy logical fallacy name for it, but it is not something that can be set into a true/false black/white framework in my opinion.

And THAT, right there, has been the problem here from the get go. All you guys are trying to factually frame vague/undefinable suppositions into the language of logic, and it can't be done.

Linki, there you go, ignoring reality in the name of unquantifiable "absolutes". This is not an argument of absolutes.

OK, Epi. You just go ahead and don't say anything about something no one asked you to talk about anyhow.

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Who asked you to do that?

So you won't whine & moan when you get lynched for evasive answers?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

Is that baddie behavior?

Trying to spin people out? Yes, I think so.

I have seen a civ do it, but I don't think it was a successful strategy for him, and the host flaked on the game before we could find out so, meh.

Now what if llama spun boo to the point where he said something really amazingly bad?

Innocent by reason of Spinsanity?

thellama73 wrote:

Matahari wrote:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

Ok, this. Trying to catch up before posting is ridiculously difficult. I've been reading post after post of perfect examples of 'manipulated facts'. Call it spin if you want. Saying someone is inconsistent, thus a baddie, doesn't mean its true, no matter how many times you say it.

And I've played with people who vote player x for lynch because player x killed them in their last game, and tons of other silly reasons for voting. Snowmans posts were not that far out in left field. Sounded like he just didn't feel like engaging at the time. And he's new, let him find his footing.

I am still wary of FZ, she raised points about Bea's posts that were good examples of her own style of posting. But at this point, I'm so weary of the manipulating nit-pickers that I'm probably going to vote one of them. They seem badder by the minute.

linkis- of course

When did I say I thought boo was a baddie?

Why do you specifically think she is talking to you?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm really glad boo wasted his vote on me, since he has decided to use it emotionally and not logically. It's better I hang onto it until he regains his senses.

Oh there's a logic to it. See, I want you lynched now. Because regardless of what's going on with Epi, I know you're thinking straight, I know you were trying to get me to spin out, I know you think you succeeded, and I know I'm now going to turn my attention to getting you lynched, because you were wrong, and made a series of very poor choices which have me very convinced you are a baddie.

Is that baddie behavior?

Trying to spin people out? Yes, I think so.

I have seen a civ do it, but I don't think it was a successful strategy for him, and the host flaked on the game before we could find out so, meh.

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

I am not voting for boo unless he says something really amazingly bad. While we have some philosophical differences re low posting and whether it's better to get rid of low posters from the perspective of PLAYERS v. ROLES, I am seeing his points more so than I am seeing yours or Llamas regarding Snowman.

Linki, I am in a really good mood

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Elohcin wrote:one more thing. We are talking about suspicions and suspicious behavior. But if more than half of us want nothing to do with lynching non-detectives....what are we suspicious of? It wouldn't be a good idea to try to appear civ or bad, detective or non-detective. I think I am over-thinking this too much to where I am only confusing myself further.

I mean, if you're a detective, you should want to lynch Kiras and not care about how you appear.

Are you a detective?

Are you trying to get me in trouble? You do remember game of champions, yes? And honestly, I am not sure it would be in my best interest to say I was a detective even if I were Shoot, even in the show, the detectives carry fake IDs

Linki: I can vouch that Epi is not drunk atm.

SPOILERS!

The roles are spoilers

Epignosis wrote:^I already pointed that out llama. S~V~S is not here to give me a cookie, sadly.

*cookie*

Although not my best cookie. I save that for people I agree with

Oh OK, thanks boo. But I think my point still stands, I don't think you were trying to shift anything.

Li ki @ Rico, I guess we have to agree to disagree.

thellama73 wrote:Mata is completely wrong about civvies being more careful than baddies and she has also apparently never played a game with me before.

FZ, I still suspect Turnip Head, albeit slightly less than I did yesterday, but I think it is necessary to rattle Snowman out of his cocoon of barely posting, non-serious hijinks before the trail goes cold. He is the person I most suspect today, so that is why he got my vote. I voted early in order to make a splash and get people talking about him, which I think needs to happen more.

I also like your suspicion of Bea. That kind of posting always pings me too.

I agree re Mata, I also think baddies are more careful, I know I am much more careful when I am bad. As for Mata, I think she is incredibly careful regardless of alignment. She is one of the scariest players, imo, when she is not on my side. Not so sure about the rest yet, maybe by the end of this post, I will be.

Turnip Head wrote:For the curious, here is the Snowman post that Rico is referencing, as framed by Rico himself:

Ricochet wrote:This is his problematic post, the last part especially, if you ask me.

Snowman wrote:Thank you Zomberella and SVS. I have no idea if either of you are bad or not, but you boiled down your take on all the players in one post, and I appreciate it. I frankly don't have the time to comb through a couple hundred episodes of "Trice Yells at Everyone" every day. I'll offer my insight and contribute what I can, but I don't see the "discussion" coalescing around anyone in particular. All I see is argument ad nauseum around the D0 poll.

I'm happy to see so many involved, but how do you find so much to talk about when literally nothing has happened yet? The most earth-shattering event so far is the realization that Russ hasn't posted anything.

Even if ignorant or uninvolved, it still made me very wary.

I think maybe that that depends on ones idea of "nothing happened". Alot of talking happened, but no lynches or NKs or night powers, which is how I read this post. Day one, nothing happened yet. I think this is a fairly weak reason to suspect someone, tbh.

DharmaHelper wrote:For those who cannot see TH's avatar

Ha ha ha sometimes you are my favorite person

Turnip Head wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I've seen DP on the site. In fact, I see him viewing the thread right this very minute.

I'm here. I've had my browser open with the page up but I'm not really reading at this moment because I'm working on a rather intense college assignment.

Then how did you see your name mentioned so quickly?

Ha ha, I thought the same thing, the time stamp says it was five minutes.

Turnip Head wrote:You know nothing, Llama Seventy-Three.

It is known

Long Con wrote:I think people generally put too much stock in the idea of someone newer being "coached" in the thread. In my experience, it rarely happens. To suggest that Snowman is NOT in BTSC because of the lack of coaching on "bandwagon" is not something I would ever consider a reasonable assumption. Even if he had BTSC, I doubt that he would run everything he says through the chat before he posts it.

Totally. I never coach nubs in that way. Maybe sometimes with civ BTS nubs, but never with baddies.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Yes, the quote you pulled doesn't add up. She said she wants to talk about him and that she wasn't ready to vote for him.

NO HER

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

It means in a discussion about Snowman, you highlight something Zomberella said to shift discussion to her. That's fine. I thought I was just being clever.

I did not think he as trying to shift to her, I thought he was demonstrating a point by using her quote?

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:For no reason at all other than I had the time to do it, I made a purely subjective listing of all the players in the game and organized it into what sort of role they all are playing in the thread. The roles are "Case Maker" (a player who makes cases against and lobbies heavily for lynching their suspects), "Thinker" (a player who considers others' opinions and POVs, and reacts to Case Makers), "Natural Suspect" (a player whose behavior is deemed overtly suspicious, and this fact has contributed to their gameplay in a meaningful way), and "Elusive" (a player who makes no effort to be recognized for their gameplay). Players may be in more than one category. I have also ranked players according to how much each has contributed to the role, from greatest or most substantial contributions to least. Ranking takes into account a player's post count as well as the content of those posts, as determined by me. I have also included myself in these rankings, to further exemplify that this is completely subjective.

Case Makers
1. DharmaHelper
2. Epignosis
3. boo
4. AceofSpaces
5. birdwithteeth11
6. FZ
7. thellama73

Thinkers
1. bea
2. juliets
3. FZ.
4. S~V~S
5. Ricochet
6. thellama73
7. MetalMarsh89
8. DharmaHelper
9. boo
10. Zomberella12
11. Turnip Head
12. Elohcin
13. Black Rock
14. Epignosis
15. Matahari
16. Long Con
79. Spacedaisy
18. AceofSpaces
19. birdwithteeth11
20. Bass_the_clever
21. Made
22. Boomslang
23. Snowman
24. Russtifinko
25. Roxy/Zeek (not enough data tbh)
26. Disgruntled Porcupine

Elusive
1. DisgruntledPorcupine - general lack of participation
2. Russtifinko - unwilling to talk about his silence
3. Turnip Head - a degree of unwillingness to explain his votes
4. Epignosis - a degree of unwillingness to explain his non-vote for Russ

I am in the middle of catching up, and am doing an "as I go along" catch up post, but I have to say, TH, that I really love this. Sometimes Case Makers suspects thinkers for not being Case Makers, when all it really is is that they have a different way of playing than the case makers. I am a sucky casemaker, but a pretty good thinker. Sometimes.

Yeah, well...keep reading.

I did. I still like it, even if TH is potentially an unlynchable evil person, this list is still pretty awesome

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I was really hoping people would jump in with their own lists but the idea didn't catch on.

Because it's a pointless distraction.

A pointless distraction from what? Listening to Alpha Males bash each other for hours on end? I like lists, and I think understanding how people play has value. Even if the listmaker turns out to be a very bad person.

Ricochet wrote:Don't know why, but I don't think TH is a Ryuk/Shinigami-player. I already replied this to BWT. Why would TH (or any Shinigami-player) out himself in advance of being outed by two failed lynches/kills?

Good Point.

Epignosis wrote:boo is 75% boob.

Just pointing that out.

And now I have to go do family stuff. Then read further back later, I seem to have totally missed the Bea case, I only saw allusions to it but not the meat of the thing.

Turnip Head wrote:For no reason at all other than I had the time to do it, I made a purely subjective listing of all the players in the game and organized it into what sort of role they all are playing in the thread. The roles are "Case Maker" (a player who makes cases against and lobbies heavily for lynching their suspects), "Thinker" (a player who considers others' opinions and POVs, and reacts to Case Makers), "Natural Suspect" (a player whose behavior is deemed overtly suspicious, and this fact has contributed to their gameplay in a meaningful way), and "Elusive" (a player who makes no effort to be recognized for their gameplay). Players may be in more than one category. I have also ranked players according to how much each has contributed to the role, from greatest or most substantial contributions to least. Ranking takes into account a player's post count as well as the content of those posts, as determined by me. I have also included myself in these rankings, to further exemplify that this is completely subjective.

Case Makers
1. DharmaHelper
2. Epignosis
3. boo
4. AceofSpaces
5. birdwithteeth11
6. FZ
7. thellama73

Thinkers
1. bea
2. juliets
3. FZ.
4. S~V~S
5. Ricochet
6. thellama73
7. MetalMarsh89
8. DharmaHelper
9. boo
10. Zomberella12
11. Turnip Head
12. Elohcin
13. Black Rock
14. Epignosis
15. Matahari
16. Long Con
79. Spacedaisy
18. AceofSpaces
19. birdwithteeth11
20. Bass_the_clever
21. Made
22. Boomslang
23. Snowman
24. Russtifinko
25. Roxy/Zeek (not enough data tbh)
26. Disgruntled Porcupine

Elusive
1. DisgruntledPorcupine - general lack of participation
2. Russtifinko - unwilling to talk about his silence
3. Turnip Head - a degree of unwillingness to explain his votes
4. Epignosis - a degree of unwillingness to explain his non-vote for Russ

I am in the middle of catching up, and am doing an "as I go along" catch up post, but I have to say, TH, that I really love this. Sometimes Case Makers suspects thinkers for not being Case Makers, when all it really is is that they have a different way of playing than the case makers. I am a sucky casemaker, but a pretty good thinker. Sometimes.

Turnip Head wrote:In fairness to Snowman this is an incredibly complex game, even by our standards, and I can understand not having found your footing yet.

I have to agree with this, it is why I was a bit taken aback by the Zombarella suspicions a few people had during the first lynch. I am somewhat intimidated by this thread (although after playing with her in Donneer, I doubt Zomba is afeared of anything) myself, so for someone new, i could imageine this might be overwhelming.

I just caught up to my other two threads, am gonna heat up the pizza, and catch up to this one. This post is a bookmark.

Also, why are people saying TH must have a forced vote? He voted for Llama yesterday too, and without much preamble as I recall.

FZ. wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

juliets wrote:TH, I want to sort out what people see in Snowman and re-read FZ. It seems like the case on FZ. is more meta and I don't recall if I've ever seen her bad. So I'll re-read her posts and see if I see anything there. I'm not looking at DH, Epi, boo, you or SVS at this time but there are a lot of people that are just sitting there with a question mark for me. Depending on what happens tomorrow I'll re-read some others as well. I'm not convinced about anyone right now.

FZ was bad in the Hobbit iirc. I recall her talking fairly extensively (maybe in a post game?) About how she dislikes being bad and isn't good at it. So there must have been another since I modded Hobbit, didn't play it. One of the speed games? Maybe one of the games I played at Ksite? Prolly not since I seem to recall it in a post game context.

I am sure she can tell me. She is seeming a bit more like her civvie self at this time, so I am stepping back from *probably voting* to *watching*.

Nope, I only played one baddie game on this site, and one indie. Go ask my K-site friends how I am when I'm bad. They'll probably tell you I act even more aggressively than I do when a civ (like I try to hard)

Willow you were indy, right?

I will take your word for that, perhaps it is the fact that you accuse other people of being bad for the way you have been acting, and I know I tend to suspect people for doing the things I do when i am bad, or would do, unless they have a fairly distinctive game, as you do. I will have to look for that discussion where you talked about being a baddie, just for my own satisfaction.

juliets wrote:TH, I want to sort out what people see in Snowman and re-read FZ. It seems like the case on FZ. is more meta and I don't recall if I've ever seen her bad. So I'll re-read her posts and see if I see anything there. I'm not looking at DH, Epi, boo, you or SVS at this time but there are a lot of people that are just sitting there with a question mark for me. Depending on what happens tomorrow I'll re-read some others as well. I'm not convinced about anyone right now.

FZ was bad in the Hobbit iirc. I recall her talking fairly extensively (maybe in a post game?) About how she dislikes being bad and isn't good at it. So there must have been another since I modded Hobbit, didn't play it. One of the speed games? Maybe one of the games I played at Ksite? Prolly not since I seem to recall it in a post game context.

I am sure she can tell me. She is seeming a bit more like her civvie self at this time, so I am stepping back from *probably voting* to *watching*.

Rabble rabble rabble

This is just like Waiting For Godot, except we're waiting for Epignosis, lol.

I came into today feeling pretty much the same about FZ as I did before. When she is a civ, regardless of the thread output, she is fearless, poking people and speaking her mind. Calling people out for all kinds of things. This game, not so much. When she finally does suspect someone strongly enought to commit to it (kinda) it is someone she suspects for basically the same reasons she herself is suspoect.

BUT the great Secret Eyeball Revelation plus Russti coming out of hiding has me wanting to see how Epi plays this.

DharmaHelper wrote:

zeek wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

zeek wrote:I found myself agreeing with Epi over the D0 vote but since then he's lost me a bit. This little tiff with DH seems rather pointless to me, as it's not helping at all. We'll have to lynch one of these guys eventually if they can't let their egos cool off and cooperate. That said, maybe this is a calculated move by both of them.

We'll have to lynch you eventually if your criteria for baddieness is disagreement.

Good luck with that My criteria for baddieness is not disagreement. Don't continue this day after day. Vote Epi and if you can't get the support to lynch him, move on until you can. This sort of thing can easily derail discussion and I don't want that.

Bogged down by work today and it's late so I'm going to bed. I have 5 pages to catch up which I will endeavour to do tomorrow. Got a busy weekend but I will do my best to contribute.

Me? Move on? You do know who I am right?

Oz, the great & terrible?

Yes, Thank You

Maybe he did not expect secret reveals? Because talking about your own secrets.... well.

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Interesting secrets~ Death Note people, what the hell do they mean? And didn't someone ask that question?

(Sorry for snip) What do you mean? If all the canon fits into place in this game, only the Kiras having DN do any killing in this game. And mind you, probably not all four at once. Canon-wise, I'd say a maximum of two.

I don't understand what they mean. Thats what I mean. I know zero plus what little I have picked up from the thread.

the yes yes yes is @boo.

Ricochet wrote:TH why did you vote for Llama instantly?

Maybe he gets a cookie for being the first voter? I have seen hosts do stuff like that. Or maybe he just really feels it

Interesting secrets~ Death Note people, what the hell do they mean? And didn't someone ask that question?

And I am not gonna touch todays conversation with a ten foot pole. Just gonna say to boo:



And move on. And concede that your point about rewarding non participation is something I have to think about. A lot.

Linki~ yes yes yes!!!!

I think Russti cannot post, not that the forgot to or whatever else. But to make the assumption it's for a bad reason is a huge stretch.

I have seen him in the thread as well.

Turnip Head wrote:Boo are you saying that all civilians should be expected to be decisive in their suspicions on Day 1? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

This wasn't your typical day one, either, TH. I would have expected civ FZ to be in the thick of it, not vacillating on the sidelines.

And Epi, I do not recall ever seeing MP have s role that puts a giant target on someone's back.

Its interesting that FZ, an experienced player, uses that defense particularly regarding THIS thread, when wasn't that essentially her reason for suspecting Zomba? That she was uninvolved?

Turnip Head wrote:It's definitely unlike FZ to miss a lynch. I'm not sure what to make of it though. I don't suspect her much.

There could be something to the Z'rella case. I thought she was acting fishy re: Epi's vote.

In what way was it fishy?

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Looking back Epi, you suspected FZ because of her absence as well, saying she is probably bad with SD. But FZ has since contributed quite a bit (though she did miss the lynch), and you never updated your suspicion to something current. If you did, then I can't find it.

I don't share your assessment of FZ. I think she has since posted a lot, but the content is not what I associate with good FZ. Good FZ. has a certain tenacity and assurance. She is a focused civilian, one that has proven dangerous to Mafia. I am not seeing that here.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I also fail to understand why two players are bad because they didn't post much on Day 0 or early Day 1.

The killers and the rest of Mafia do not begin with BTSC. This makes it difficult for them to scheme, and for that reason, I would expect more Mafia to take a backseat. I think some of these people might feign confusion.

That's what I said

*gives self a cookie*

Sop=standard operating procedure

DharmaHelper wrote:Thats...thats what I said

I may need to bake some more cookies

I am not saying it makes him a detective; I think it likely he isn't one. My point was that suspecting him solely for these points doesn't say much; its like lynching DP for not posting, or lynching ZRFTS, Vomps or Wazz for being unusual. Lynching Epi for being Byzantine & arrogant is the same thing.

Although the Jason Maher point LC makes is a good one. Just because something is SOP doesn't mean it is OK or to be ignored.

DharmaHelper wrote:I was going to make a rather large post about why I suspect Epi, but I doubt it would get read, so instead I will make a list, and if anyone wants me to elaborate on any specific thing, let me know. I suspect Epi and will vote for him for the following reasons:

1) His fear mongering and shifty behavior in the D0 poll
2) His Hypocritical suspicion of Rico's Lore-Based assumptions, given his own lore-based assumptions.
3) His shoddy, lore-based reasoning for suspecting Russ.
4) The idea that he chose to suspect and claimed that he wanted to vote for Russ, who seemingly could not / cannot defend himself.
5) The fact that he flaked out of this vote rather than sticking to his guns
6) The fact that he did not want to explain why he did not stick to his guns.

1. I kinda agreed with him, so
2. I see your point here. Epi did tons of verbal acrobatics around this point, but he still did the deed. But his non-vote for Russti made me think this was one of those trap things people seem so fond of recently. Leaving bait for someone to see if they pounce. Or he could want us to think that, based on his non answer to your avatar.
3. See 2, although "shoddy" is a bit hyperbole on your part tbh. And for me hyperbole=shoddy, so meh. But yeah, that seemed a very specific assumption re Russti when there are so many role secrets.
4. This was a point for me, most definitely. There are any number of possibilities in all of those *Secrets* after like almost every role (except those Vanilla Yots), and Russ is a strong, active player. But again, the non-vote.
5. Don't know that I would call it a flake out. I am thinking he never planned to vote for Russ, but he was fishing for something. Some Byzantine thing us plebs could never understand, I am sure.
6. See ^^

I think these all are linked into one big point, really, except the first one with which I disagree. They are standard issue Epi, "I am a Sooper Genius" mind games, imo. Does it make him bad, though? Possible. But whereas this chain of events would pretty much indict someone else, it is SOP for Epi.

I intend to take this night to reread yet again (on Night One! You chatty cathys!).

I could not make up my mind re the poll.

Welcome zeek

xoxox Roxy

Epignosis wrote:I wouldn't do it either.

Nah, doesn't sound like a good return for investment.

DharmaHelper wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Knowing the price, would you accept the eyes of a Shinigami?

How much do the eyes of a death god go for?

If I remember rightly from the show, the deal to get Shinigami eyes halves your lifespan?

Sounds like a bad deal; what do they do?

For posterity.

linki~ ninja'd :grumble:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I've just realized Mello will "join Mafia" if L dies, but I have no idea which side of mafia it's implied he'll join. Canon-wise, it wouldn't make much sense joining either camps, but rather be an indy, teamed up or not with Sidoh, with, perhaps, special win conditions.

BTW, Host, I've filled two A4 pages so far with canon-role-speculations and I think I'll stop now because it's time for medications and sleep.

That's an odd use of the off topic tags. You know, because it isn't.

Rico doesn't really "get" how the text colors work yet.

I forgot that you know exactly how to use them.

Actually, he does.

???

Aw

I voted for FZ. I think she is not acting like a civvie, she keeps talking about how bad or not bad a variety of people are, and then she votes for someone for a really weak reason? Normally that would be no biggie, but this was a crazy Day One, and she was right in the thick of it for quite a bit of it. Or said she was going to vote, and then did not.

Not buying it.

*gives Epi a cookie*

I said earlier I needed to reread her as her and I tend to agree when we are bothciv, and I am not seeing that here at all. So I will reread omn the bus and vote when I get home.

Boomslang wrote:

FZ. wrote:Dang, I need to go, and I don't think I'll be back before going to sleep. I don't feel comfortable voting for any of those with votes yet Zombarealla, if you're a civvie, I'm really sorry.

*votes zombarealla*

Reading over FZ's posts, this desire to vote really seems to come from nowhere for me. He mentions her "saying nice things" about him, with the counterpoint (in the same post) being that she simply hasn't been active in what has been an overwhelmingly complicated thread. He seems torn between her and Snowman, then expresses the decision to vote in his next post, 3 minutes later. Then as soon as she throws up a post, he backpedals. I'm not sure what's going on, but it seems fishy.

I am considering a vote for FZ actually. She is generally an aggressive civvie. In this game she seems to be flailing, and grasping at weak suspicions. She mentions some of the names coming up a lot, but seems reluctant to actually vote for one of them.