[ENDGAME]: Film Directors.

[Canucklehead]

Im hungover and need to get back to bed. Ill go with svs' vote on bwt, and join her on it. I don't agree with voting llama or vomps.

timmer, would you say that you voted with SVS for bwt more because you agreed with her case on him, or because you didn't agree with cases on the other potential lynchees at the time (llama and vomps)?

I know in reality it was likely a combination of both factors (plus is was Day 1), but I'm curious if one factor weighed more heavily for you. Was it more of a voting FOR bwt, or a voting AGAINST llama/vomps?

[Canucklehead]

Can we please get the results ASAP?

FZ, is there any particular reason you needed the results ASAP, or are you just super impatient?

I can certainly think of one reason that did not need addressing.

OK.

[thellama73]

For anyone keeping score, I maintain a list of mafia terms I invented (a guy's gotta protect his legacy. I am not employing any of these this game. Yet!

The Llama Gambit: Provoke easy lynch votes on yourself, with the hope of catching out opportunistic players just looking for a scapegoat.

First Appearance: Thomas the Tank Engine

Plan B: “B is for Baddie.” Players with names beginning with a B are more likely to be bad.

First Appearance: Bioshock.

The Apollo Doctrine: No Vote=No Live

First Appearance: American Gods

Llama’s Folly: Minimalism Mafia

First Appearance: Oblique Strategies - an Eno Mafia

Scapehost: Publicly attack the host as a distraction

First Appearance: Fight Club

[Marmot]

You forgot one llama

Digressollamamanifestanism: Stating your strongest suspect, then proceeding to talk about anything and everything but that person before finally voting him/her.

First Appearance:

[Roxy]

Llama - we almost always never see eye to eye and it deffo always seems we are butting heds so I hate to bring this up but there is a question mark in my mind I would have you answer.

First Teeth says he will be out with his G'parents for most of the day -

I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post: <<<<snip>>>>

Then you say -

I don't like to vote for people who are not around to defend themselves either, but it is more because I think their defense could be enlightening and alert me to a misstep rather than because I feel sorry for them.

But in your very next post you do a 180 and do exactly what you said you don't like to do -

I also think, of all the people who have votes, BWT is the most suspicious. I didn't like the way he presumed to speak for Ricochet, and I didn't like his LC vote.

*Votes BWT*

'Splain Lucy

This one would be called llamasdramacloppositeopposite

[Marmot]

I fear that llama has just set himself up to be the brunt of many funnies.

[Vompatti]

I fear that llama has just set himself up to be the brunt of many funnies.

i read furries

[thellama73]

Llama - we almost always never see eye to eye and it deffo always seems we are butting heds so I hate to bring this up but there is a question mark in my mind I would have you answer.

First Teeth says he will be out with his G'parents for most of the day -

I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post: <<<<snip>>>>

Then you say -

I don't like to vote for people who are not around to defend themselves either, but it is more because I think their defense could be enlightening and alert me to a misstep rather than because I feel sorry for them.

But in your very next post you do a 180 and do exactly what you said you don't like to do -

I also think, of all the people who have votes, BWT is the most suspicious. I didn't like the way he presumed to speak for Ricochet, and I didn't like his LC vote.

*Votes BWT*

'Splain Lucy

This one would be called llamasdramacloppositeopposite

It's a fair question, and I don't expect you to go easy on me because you feel like we butt heads a lot. I appreciate the attention.

Do you want the truth? The truth is that I didn't notice that part of BWT's post. I missed it. I looked over it.

That being said, I do not consider being out for "most of the afternoon" the same thing as what I was talking about. I meat if a player was silenced/insanified/out of town for the entire Day period. BWT had plenty of time to make his case before he went out with his alleged grandparents.

[Roxy]

Thanks for the 'sponse llama but what about the gambit name? did you like it?

[thellama73]

Thanks for the 'sponse llama but what about the gambit name? did you like it?

It is lovely, but it lacks a little of the beautiful simplicity of something like "scapehost" or "the Apollo Doctrine"

[Dom]

If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

So this is the question I asked, MP. What conclusions was I making?
What was I reaching for?

Please, do tell me.

@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

Not saying I suspect you here for that. I don't have much of an opinion yet.

This.
This so so much.

[Roxy]

Thanks for the 'sponse llama but what about the gambit name? did you like it?

It is lovely, but it lacks a little of the beautiful simplicity of something like "scapehost" or "the Apollo Doctrine"

I would shorten it then to llamasdrama

[Tangrowth]

Dom, I'll address your question in a separate post.

@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

Not saying I suspect you here for that. I don't have much of an opinion yet.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to ask you again about that. Will do.

Well, I guess I never noticed it was something I didn't used to do but do now... it's just part of my personality. Sometimes I like to think I'm a very analytical and rational person, but I often succumb to hyperbole, which isn't exactly a rational way to describe a situation.

And LOL at the imagery, that's so great.

Now I'm not going to force myself to post a certain way and I will continue posting my thoughts as I have... I frankly never saw anything in my language that I would qualify as "drama words" but apparently people are interpreting my thoughts differently than I'm intending them, so I'll take your commentary into consideration and appreciate it.

@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

This is all very true, and why I tend to always think MP is bad as well. Although for me it is not so much the hyperbole as the "overly reasonable" demeanor, where he seems to very thoughtfully take in everyone's opinion and analyze it. I know he always does it, but it always reads like a baddie trying too hard to seem helpful.

LOL, that is MP in everyday life. Decisions never come quickly in our house.

Lol, so this.

I just overanalyze everything, and I like to consider everyone's perspective. I mean, discussion is how we flesh out baddies, and regardless of whether I trust someone or completely distrust them, it helps to get their opinion in evaluating how I not only feel about them but about the person I ask them about. Of course, as a baddie, I have just as much incentive to do that.

While I'm rereading, I've just got to comment on this ad. I laugh at the top line calling Dennis Hopper a master of his craft. When he made Easy Rider, he barely knew what he was doing!! He actually did not know that once you physically sliced off a part of a film reel, that you could go back and put it back in again, so every time he "edited", he thought those scenes were lost forever. That's partly why Easy Rider feels so disjointed.

So I've finished my read of Day 1.2.

So llama I guess wasn't doing a Day 1 gambit to see who bites but genuinely thinks Vomps is acting bad. So far, Vomps seems to be playing a more "normal" game, meaning less throwaway posts, nonsensical comments and "tures". In fact, he is directly responding to posts, like with the "what makes you think I'm afraid of being lynched" comment. But, llama called him out on this so early, I'm not sure how that would affect Vomps. Would Vompatti react in any noticeable way to being called out on something related to play style? I feel like he's usually locked into a certain mode for a game?

I dislike voting for people on play style, but like I said earlier, sometimes people genuinely do just "know" when a player is off. Roxy certainly has my ticket a lot of the time. So I'd like to hear some corroboration, some support to llama's views. Do others feel that Vompatti is playing in a "bad Vomps" style, or is this just more on-point than normal, not indicating alignment? I won't vote play style based on one person's view. but there is a consensus that something is off, I could consider it this early in a game.

I've expressed this earlier, but I frankly don't see anything weird or off with Vompatti's behavior. He MAY seem just a bit less jokey than he has been in recent games I've played with him, and in that way it's a return to the style I associate more with the beginning of Vompatti's career, where he contributed more -- but I really think it's not necessarily tied to alignment. In my experience I have seen a baddie Vomps more talkative and serious than a civvie Vomps, but only BARELY more so than the opposite. I have seen examples of an active, more serious Vomps as well when he's civvie. So I don't understand Llama's narrow-minded focus on him. I guess he just feels strongly about it.

No pings. Everything seems honky-dory right now. But I skimmed last night after getting home, and was rather tired. Vote records may be the best place to start, since it is rare to get such bonus material on Day 1. Contrary to MP, I think random votes are far more suspect than self-votes. As a baddie, I have 'random voted' before, but it's an excuse to vote for someone for no reason, and it typically isn't actually random.

Linki: wombatist

Now don't misquote me here, but I'm afraid I haven't said it this game.

I find self-votes and random votes BOTH suspicious. I'm not sure which I find more suspicious. However, I find the rationale for a self-vote, if someone is civilian, makes much less sense. At least with a random vote, there is a reason that someone else could be bad, and I'm not. With a self-vote, if you're a civilian, your chance of lynching a baddie with your vote is 0%.

[Tangrowth]

If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

So this is the question I asked, MP. What conclusions was I making?
What was I reaching for?

Please, do tell me.

I think we're on two completely different planes of communication right now, Dom, so we're missing each other's points.

Let me walk you through my train of thought and hopefully that will adequately answer your question:

This is the original post I'm referring to:

And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

Now, MP, is that really strange for me at Day 1?
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking.
Is questioning people bad?
Why are you concerned with my questions?
Is this an unusual way for me to play?
(Hint: it's not)

So yeah, Llama's got my eye. I thought that much was obvious.

Now I've been saying that all I was asking you here was for your thoughts re: suspects. You had, before this post, asked Llama a couple of questions and then said to his response "OK. I just wanted an answer. Thank you!", but other than that and your questioning me about my "serious assumptions" post, I didn't really see anywhere where you said "I suspect so and so and here's why" or anything like that. Which is fine, but it's what prompted my question, because I value your input and was wondering what you were currently thinking.

You responded, however, asking all these questions and reading all this stuff into it.
- I never said or meant to insinuate that it was strange for you
- It wasn't obvious to ME what you were thinking, so that's why I asked the question
- I never said or meant to insinuate that questioning people is bad
- I never said or meant to insinuate that I am concerned with your questions
- I never said or meant to insinuate that it's unusual for you to play

So what gave you the impression that I said or meant any of those things? I was only asking for your suspects/thoughts. That's IT.

So when you responded like that, that's why I said it seemed like to me you were "reaching", like you were reaching for some kind of insinuation out of a simple request for your thoughts. That's all. That perception of your behavior, combined with the train of thought below:

Well, I have to leave really soon, and won't be back.

I'd really rather not get any more votes because people miscomprehend what I am clarifying (and maybe that's my fault for not being clear enough with my explanations; if so, I apologize), but I don't see Llama as bad. I really don't want him to die today either because he tends to attract a lot of attention early on regardless of alignment, and I see no reason to believe he's any more bad than anyone else right now (same with S~V~S and Rico).

The point on LC was made, but I thought his response was genuine, and I don't see that being worthy either.

I thought Dom's response to me was incredibly overreacting (not totally out of character, so that alone doesn't mean much), but it struck me as odd because I never implied any of those things, and it seemed to me he wanted to make a big deal out of me asking him who his suspects were, when he NEVER actually said them outright. And I know he asks a lot of questions, but the fact that he never came out and said how he felt about anyone, including Llama, just seemed strange to me, and an easy way to seem like he was contributing but without putting any thoughts out of his own in addition to his questions. And I think he's taking advantage of a vocal Llama to place an easy vote, so I'll be voting Dom. It's relatively weak, but it's really the only thing I'm feeling right now.

votes Dom

Are why I voted for you on D1, since I wasn't really pinged by anything else, and I was only minorly pinged by what I mention there.

Now that we have a day's worth of voting records to go off of, I'm not even really sure what I think about you right now, and I don't think I'll pursue you for a vote today, which is what I said here:

If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

Now I thought I addressed your "what am I reaching for?" question in this post as well, but apparently it wasn't adequate. So hopefully this post answers your question? If it doesn't, please let me know.

[timmer]

Im hungover and need to get back to bed. Ill go with svs' vote on bwt, and join her on it. I don't agree with voting llama or vomps.

timmer, would you say that you voted with SVS for bwt more because you agreed with her case on him, or because you didn't agree with cases on the other potential lynchees at the time (llama and vomps)?

I know in reality it was likely a combination of both factors (plus is was Day 1), but I'm curious if one factor weighed more heavily for you. Was it more of a voting FOR bwt, or a voting AGAINST llama/vomps?

I felt the llama vomps thing needed to percolate to pay any future dividends, more than I thought BWT. I'll be totally honest, the decision to vote him was a brief one; I had a splitting headache, read through quickly, and thought "yeah, that could be something". I then went back to trying to never open my eyes again. But now I've read the day back properly, I likely still would have voted that way, I don't see anything I missed that would have altered my choice.

[FZ.]

I guess I'm officially backing off from LC. SVS, I don't think it had anything to do with the play style on Ksite. It was more of a feel of how baddies hide their frustration while trying to look helpful, especially since one baddie team seems to not have much power. But since I seem to be the only one thinking this, and since it's taking away the attention from other players, we'll just move on. Maybe I'm off.

Vomp has gone back to posting jokes. Since the "why do you think I mind getting lynched" post, I think he only posted once or twice, OT and with a joking tone. I wonder if he's trying to go back to his usual MO because people called him out on it, or is it just him being him.

In all honesty, I don't get the Dom-MP back and forth. What's that all about?

And to answer whoever asked me, I wanted to go to sleep yesterday, and I wanted to know if we successfully lynched a baddie or not, before I turned in.

linki: MP and Dom, do you each suspect the other, or is this back and forth just for fun? If you are suspicious of one another, can you please sum up your reasons in a short post?

[Tangrowth]

I thought I had already voiced my thoughts about Dom, but I realize there have been a lot of posts, so I will gladly clarify:

I had no real pings throughout D1 except for Dom, which is why I voted for him (and no one commented on this), because I thought:
1) The fact that he was drawing so many implications out of my question for his thoughts seemed even more overreactive than is what I would expect to be characteristic from him
2) The fact that, even though he had asked me and llama questions, he generally hadn't posted a ton in D1, so a voice in the back of my head was wondering if it wasn't a way to seem like he was being helpful, but wasn't putting forth any suspects of his own. Because, as you can see if you read back through his D1 posts, he never said he outright suspected anyone, by the time I had made my vote.

Now, I realize after:
1) Reflection over the fact that we may just be having a HUGE misunderstanding this entire time
2) Seeing as though we have one day's worth of vote history to base decisions off of, I feel there may be other avenues much more worth pursuing than sticking to some really weak ping I had on D1

That I don't really actively suspect Dom at this moment. I have no read on him either way, I think.

If you read this AND my response above and still don't understand something, then I can try again, but I feel like so many people just aren't understanding my explanations for my thoughts this game. Am I just being really unclear or what? And I'm not being emotional at all when I say or ask any of this; it's an honest question.

[Ricochet]

Llama - we almost always never see eye to eye and it deffo always seems we are butting heds so I hate to bring this up but there is a question mark in my mind I would have you answer.

First Teeth says he will be out with his G'parents for most of the day -

I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post: <<<<snip>>>>

Then you say -

I don't like to vote for people who are not around to defend themselves either, but it is more because I think their defense could be enlightening and alert me to a misstep rather than because I feel sorry for them.

But in your very next post you do a 180 and do exactly what you said you don't like to do -

I also think, of all the people who have votes, BWT is the most suspicious. I didn't like the way he presumed to speak for Ricochet, and I didn't like his LC vote.

*Votes BWT*

'Splain Lucy

This one would be called llamasdramacloppositeopposite

It's a fair question, and I don't expect you to go easy on me because you feel like we butt heads a lot. I appreciate the attention.

Do you want the truth? The truth is that I didn't notice that part of BWT's post. I missed it. I looked over it.

That being said, I do not consider being out for "most of the afternoon" the same thing as what I was talking about. I meat if a player was silenced/insanified/out of town for the entire Day period. BWT had plenty of time to make his case before he went out with his alleged grandparents.

I don't understand the part underlined. Isn't it retroactive or paradoxical? BWT made his case and voted before having to leave for the rest of Day 1. He then started getting lynched for his vote. How could he have had time to further "make his case", having left?

[thellama73]

FZ, are you still with me on a Vomps vote today (assuming, of course, no more clear suspicious emerges in the interim)?

linki Rico: I meant he had time to say what he wanted to say that day.

[Marmot]

I find self-votes and random votes BOTH suspicious. I'm not sure which I find more suspicious. However, I find the rationale for a self-vote, if someone is civilian, makes much less sense. At least with a random vote, there is a reason that someone else could be bad, and I'm not. With a self-vote, if you're a civilian, your chance of lynching a baddie with your vote is 0%.

If you can point to one instance where a player self-voted, and was lynched that same day as a result (civ or otherwise), then MAYBE I will reconsider my feelings on it.

[Ricochet]

link @llama: Wasn't his post meant to be a conclusion to what he wanted to say (and did say) that day?

[Canucklehead]

Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

TH (you beautiful human, you): did you read the previous pages before you voted? Or were you doing a quick catch-up/skim through kind of thing? I ask because, iirc, the fact that votes were unchangable was adressed both by MM's self-vote (which he realized afterwards he couldn't change) and llama's explicit question to the host (which MM answered for her). Did you miss these posts?

HOST: are votes changeable?

HOST: are votes changeable?

Nope.

I went ahead and self-voted since I won't be around. Have a good weekend y'all.

[Canucklehead]

oops. meant to also include this TH quote in my previous post:

I didn't realize voters weren't changeable this game.

[Made]

Hi

Ok, so um, just caught up and read some intresting things. The point the LC (?) made about bring up suspcion too early is kinda suspicious in of itself, which I'd agree with. I also agree that at least one or a few baddies are in the BWT vote.

As for LC's role read, If I find the time, I'll make an annotated version of that and see how that compares. If I find significant more info on the roles, I'll consider looking that way. The thing about that post that kinda pingged me (and someone tapped on this) was the fact that the read was very safe. The last line of LC's post even spoke to that effect..something like "game exactly as advertised".

Anyways, that's where I am right now. Got drivers ed class so if I can I'll be here for that
linki: can I just refer to MP as Ulysses from now on? So many words...and lots of other post From other people, stand by....

[FZ.]

I thought I had already voiced my thoughts about Dom, but I realize there have been a lot of posts, so I will gladly clarify:

I had no real pings throughout D1 except for Dom, which is why I voted for him (and no one commented on this), because I thought:
1) The fact that he was drawing so many implications out of my question for his thoughts seemed even more overreactive than is what I would expect to be characteristic from him
2) The fact that, even though he had asked me and llama questions, he generally hadn't posted a ton in D1, so a voice in the back of my head was wondering if it wasn't a way to seem like he was being helpful, but wasn't putting forth any suspects of his own. Because, as you can see if you read back through his D1 posts, he never said he outright suspected anyone, by the time I had made my vote.

Now, I realize after:
1) Reflection over the fact that we may just be having a HUGE misunderstanding this entire time
2) Seeing as though we have one day's worth of vote history to base decisions off of, I feel there may be other avenues much more worth pursuing than sticking to some really weak ping I had on D1

That I don't really actively suspect Dom at this moment. I have no read on him either way, I think.

If you read this AND my response above and still don't understand something, then I can try again, but I feel like so many people just aren't understanding my explanations for my thoughts this game. Am I just being really unclear or what? And I'm not being emotional at all when I say or ask any of this; it's an honest question.

I get number 2 in the first list. Can you recall why Dom voted llama? Dom, can you answer it?
But basically you're saying that all this talk was a waste of time? :P
Which avenues do you feel are worth pursuing? I have to be honest. The thing that worries me about you is the fact that usually, you are more involved in the other discussions and is the first one to see my point of view. I haven't seen that so far this game, which makes me wonder. Basically, you've only focused on Dom and defended the rest.


Llama, the way it looks now, I'm with you. But we still have another day.

[thellama73]

link @llama: Wasn't his post meant to be a conclusion to what he wanted to say (and did say) that day?

Yes, that's my point. He had a chance to talk that day and say what he wanted to say.

You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment, but I think it's clear when I say "I don't like to lynch people who can't defend themselves" that I did not mean you can disappear a couple hours before the lynch ends and expect to get a pass. He was here for the bulk of the 48 hours. I was referring to people who are insanified or silenced and literally can't respond to the day's events (or in special cases like MetalMarsh when he is going to be gone for the whole day period.) I was not, and never have been, referring to an absence of a few hours.

[thellama73]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

[FZ.]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

[Marmot]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Can I pick on you for wanting to lynch vomps even though I don't know why?

[Ricochet]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Kindly point out where she said that about BWT in her post in which she decided to vote for BWT. She said about MM's self-vote, which, by your criteria, perfectly fits "an entire-day absentee" that "you'd hate to lynch". Her vote was a clear reactiong to BWT's vote.

[thellama73]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

[A Person]

I find self-votes and random votes BOTH suspicious. I'm not sure which I find more suspicious. However, I find the rationale for a self-vote, if someone is civilian, makes much less sense. At least with a random vote, there is a reason that someone else could be bad, and I'm not. With a self-vote, if you're a civilian, your chance of lynching a baddie with your vote is 0%.

If you can point to one instance where a player self-voted, and was lynched that same day as a result (civ or otherwise), then MAYBE I will reconsider my feelings on it.

pretty sure it's happened to me

[Ricochet]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

[Ricochet]

Also, it was not my intent to get you in a "gotcha" moment. Perhaps it was Roxy's. I only didn't understand your reasoning in your reply to her, as I pointed out.

[FZ.]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

I was actually teasing you ...sorry

[thellama73]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Can I pick on you for wanting to lynch vomps even though I don't know why?

Yes, that's fine.

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Kindly point out where she said that about BWT in her post in which she decided to vote for BWT. She said about MM's self-vote, which, by your criteria, perfectly fits "an entire-day absentee" that "you'd hate to lynch". Her vote was a clear reactiong to BWT's vote.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this, because I think it is perfectly clear.

SVS posted this in her vote post for BWT:

Linki @ Vomp. Fair enough, although iirc, he said he was self voting as he was going to be afk for a bit. So since he signed up, yeah, he might mind being lynched while he is not around to defend. Another one of those silly "principles" I like to keep in mind. Although I do agree re the llama votes.

It is not about BWT, but neither is what I said, and I see no reason why that point is relevant. It is a general point, and I stand by what I said.

I immediately agreed with SVS by posting this:

I don't like to vote for people who are not around to defend themselves either, but it is more because I think their defense could be enlightening and alert me to a misstep rather than because I feel sorry for them.

So SVS said she didn't like to vote for absent players, then voted for BWT.
I also said I don't like to vote for absent players, then voted for BWT.
It's the exact same thing, and I think SVS would agree with me that BWT didn't qualify as an absent player just because he slipped out several hours before the end of the vote.

linki Rico: I was not "invoking" my reluctance to vote for absent players in my vote for BWT. As I said, I didn't even notice he was absent. I was referring to MM, responding to SVS' post referring to MM. I hope that is quite clear.

[FZ.]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

[Marmot]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

[Ricochet]

I supposed it's clear now, but you could have first defended that you didn't meant BWT and then ask me why I didn't pick on SVS for this reason. You did it the other way around.

linki @FS: see above

[FZ.]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

I haven't played a lot of games with Vompatti, but I think about 4-5. In one of them he was bad, and his behaviour was different than his other games. This one reminds me of it for a few reasons:
1. He joked about suspecting himself, which is what he did in that game?
2. He posts more serious game related posts
3. He's more involved.
Now, others can tell me they've seen him do 2 and 3 no matter what alignment, but if I keep letting people tell me this every time I have a suspicion, I don't see much point in playing the game

[Ricochet]

FZ*. Sorry. Typo-ing like mad right now.

I'll think I'll watch Frank tonight. Hey, rememeber movies being the theme of this game?

[thellama73]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

You are right, they are unrelated. I did not notice that BWT said he would be gone when I voted for him, until Roxy pointed it out. I was referring to you, not BWT.

I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ. I have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

[Bass_the_Clever]

I don't understand why people keep bringing up llama's and S~V~S's vote for I think llama has made it pretty clear that BWT had enough time to say what he had to say before he voted. I think people keep bring this up to maybe distract the tread about talking about anything else.

[Bass_the_Clever]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

You are right, they are unrelated. I did not notice that BWT said he would be gone when I voted for him, until Roxy pointed it out. I was referring to you, not BWT.

I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ. I have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

I agree with people worry more when they have a team. I also find these points really helpful because I never can read Vomps.

[Marmot]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

You are right, they are unrelated. I did not notice that BWT said he would be gone when I voted for him, until Roxy pointed it out. I was referring to you, not BWT.

I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ. I have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

I'll take your word for it. I don't have any interest in lynching vomps (aside from exacting my revenge from Oblique Mafia).

[Ricochet]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

You are right, they are unrelated. I did not notice that BWT said he would be gone when I voted for him, until Roxy pointed it out. I was referring to you, not BWT.

I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ. I have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

[Vompatti]

This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

I believe that if Llama were to count my posts he would find that most of them are indeed OFF-topic, and, if I survive the lynch, will be increasingly so due to the thread already being tl;dr at this point.

You may embed only 7 quotes within each other.

[Long Con]

Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

I haven't played a lot of games with Vompatti, but I think about 4-5. In one of them he was bad, and his behaviour was different than his other games. This one reminds me of it for a few reasons:
1. He joked about suspecting himself, which is what he did in that game?
2. He posts more serious game related posts
3. He's more involved.
Now, others can tell me they've seen him do 2 and 3 no matter what alignment, but if I keep letting people tell me this every time I have a suspicion, I don't see much point in playing the game

Can you list the games for us? Maybe someone else can do a read of them and analyze Vompatti's behaviour to see if they agree.

[Marmot]

This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

I believe that if Llama were to count my posts he would find that most of them are indeed OFF-topic, and, if I survive the lynch, will be increasingly so due to the thread already being tl;dr at this point.

You may embed only 7 quotes within each other.

I'm taking a leaf from llama's mafiabook.

Are you bad k?

[Turnip Head]

Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

TH (you beautiful human, you): did you read the previous pages before you voted? Or were you doing a quick catch-up/skim through kind of thing? I ask because, iirc, the fact that votes were unchangable was adressed both by MM's self-vote (which he realized afterwards he couldn't change) and llama's explicit question to the host (which MM answered for her). Did you miss these posts?

Yes, yes I definitely missed those posts. I don't think I would have ended up changing my vote, but when I cast it I definitely thought I had the option. It's been the norm for so many games now that I didn't even think twice about it.

I was going to be looking at FZ today but she's backed off of LC which gives me pause when suspecting her. I felt her vote for BWT was disingenuous as it seemed she was more suspicious of LC and Vomp but voted BWT anyway. Something about FZ feels off to me so far but I don't know enough about her baddie game to know if what I'm seeing is correct. I know she has explained her BWT vote but it still sticks out to me.

Other than that I still don't feel I have enough to go on. The MP/Dom exchange reads like the screenplay for Cloud Atlas: long, meandering and pointless. The Vomp suspicion doesn't resonate with me because he seems normal.

Does anyone want to talk about Rico's Day 1 vote? I believe he was the only player to randomize, and I was under the impression this was his first mafia game. Day 1 randomizing has become somewhat standard around here but it felt too savvy a move for a new player to make especially since he was the only one to do it.

That's all that really stood out to me though I'm digging all the discussion we've got going so far.