[ENDGAME]: Film Directors.

[thellama73]

What is WIFOM-ing?

WIFOM stands for "wine in front of me" and reverse to the kind of circular reasoning scene in the iconic scene in the Princess Bride. "A baddie would do X, but you knew that so you wouldn't do X, but you know that I know that, so you WOULD do X... etc."

[thellama73]

EBWOP: *refers, not reverse.

[Roxy]

I am so sorry MP but this game was so unlike your last civ game I just could not believe you were civ.

Damn!! Poor FZ I am so sorry you were deaded early - again.

So lemme get this straight -

I am suspicious bc I do not think Vomp is suspicious and bc I voted for people who I thought at the time were? GTK.

If there is something specific anyone would like to ask me I will be more than happy to answer bc the reasons given so far are based on conjecture and llama's Day 1 suspicion of Vomps..

llama - you did not even respond to the reason I did not vote for Vomps. If you were so concerned why wouldn't you have said something before now? Should I have just went along like a good little poppet and voted the way you like? I am sorry but that is not the way I play. And I know it is not the way you play. Give my posts a good long look I have nothing to hide - if you have any questions I will be happy to respond.

I still cannot believe no one is suspicious of Made's posts but me. He can throw down whatever reasoning for his style this game but I am not buying it. Anyone notice he is not concerned with voting records - I wonder why? Could it be bc he has none?

I have had a very busy weekend I will try and make more time this evening.

[Ricochet]

What is WIFOM-ing?

Canuck, I get it you won't reveal if you were silenced or not (you said you have a special theory on what effects that has - could you kindly elaborate?), but I wonder if you could tell me why you voted MP. Your early vote, the first for him, is also the only unaccounted one right now.

I think the Waters role works such that the targeted player is silenced for a day period and blocked the following night period not, as people in the thread have suggested, that the player is blocked the night s/he is targeted and silenced the following day. This, of course, is just rampant speculation on my part.

Ah, I see. I'm also inclined to believe the silenced is blocked the following night, not the one before, given how the role is phrased, but Mongoose still hasn't confirmed this. I thought you meant you have your own theory on why revealing if you were silenced or not is beneficial or not, but thanks for clarifying.

[thellama73]

llama - you did not even respond to the reason I did not vote for Vomps. If you were so concerned why wouldn't you have said something before now? Should I have just went along like a good little poppet and voted the way you like? I am sorry but that is not the way I play. And I know it is not the way you play. Give my posts a good long look I have nothing to hide - if you have any questions I will be happy to respond.

I'm not telling you how to vote, I'm just saying that your voting record looks suspicious. Can you acknowledge that? Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, and someone you thought was bad kept narrowly avoiding lynches thanks to the votes of a few players. Wouldn't you think that worth looking into? It's not like I'm making this up out of nothing. Look at the vote record. It's there for anyone to see.

Reading your posts, I found your suspicion of MP lukewarm until Vomps was in danger and there were already votes on MP. Then all of a sudden you seemed sure. That is my perception anyway. You shouldn't take it personally. As I said, I am just looking at the vote record and remarking that yours, particularly with respect to timing (you were neither the first nor the last vote cast, but instead played the crucial middle role) looks bad.

[Dom]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

Who would you like to lynch?

[Made]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

Who would you like to lynch?

At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.

[thellama73]

I approve of you, Made.

[Dom]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

Who would you like to lynch?

At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.

For further judgment of SVS, I await to see if Vomps is bad or not.

[Made]

All the above said, SVS has yet to talk today and isn't on the poll...

[Ricochet]

Huh, interesting! Shall we assume a certain "persona" has something to do with her not being part of the poll today?

[Ricochet]

Anyway, is is slow today because of the Super Bowl? I'll be slightly busier tomorrow than today, but I should manage to pop in occasionally.

[Marmot]

For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.

What is irrational about this vote?

Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

[Marmot]

Also, I would vote SVS today if I could.

[Marmot]

Btw, I saw 200+ llamas yesterday, just chillin' in a field.

[Made]

Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.

[Dom]

Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.

what does this mean?

[Marmot]

Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.

I'm not implying anything of the sort.

vomps voted MP for self-preservation. Rico said that was an irrational reason.

[Dom]

Made what were you trying to say there-- I have read it like 5 times and I can't wrap my head around what you might have intended.

[Marmot]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

Who would you like to lynch?

At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.

Dom, maybe it has something to do with this, and the fact that llama approves.

[Dom]

What does a potential "hint" have to do with this? That's where my confusion is.

[Ricochet]

I don't think I see the hinting part in Vompatti's vote.

For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.

What is irrational about this vote?

Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

Timing and context. Self-preservation votes are understandable, but less so when you're most surely no longer in danger (i.e. the vote gap between him and MP at that time). And it's even less understandable, imo, when before that you outright called two other players to be "terrorists" latching on to Llama's theory. I know it's been said, in case of major voting trends, that baddie behaviour is more likely to be reflected in votes outside those trends, but in this case I personally would have prefered to see Vomps back up his baddie-naming. Him bandwagoning for MP certainly doesn't make him look any better to me.

Why would you vote for SVS, if you could?

[Vompatti]

I don't think I see the hinting part in Vompatti's vote.

For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.

What is irrational about this vote?

Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

Timing and context. Self-preservation votes are understandable, but less so when you're most surely no longer in danger (i.e. the vote gap between him and MP at that time). And it's even less understandable, imo, when before that you outright called two other players to be "terrorists" latching on to Llama's theory. I know it's been said, in case of major voting trends, that baddie behaviour is more likely to be reflected in votes outside those trends, but in this case I personally would have prefered to see Vomps back up his baddie-naming. Him bandwagoning for MP certainly doesn't make him look any better to me.

Why would you vote for SVS, if you could?

The vote gap was only two, and there were around seven or eight votes still missing (most of which never came). Also. Llama's theory had already been disputed when FZ and niogigouugykyu for some reason chose to follow it.

[Ricochet]

Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.

[Vompatti]

Were they any more inclined to vote MP though? If Lizzy was here she would defend me.

[Ricochet]

There's not much real feedback on MP from those who didn't vote, either. One or two would have probably not have voted MP, judging from their posts.

[Marmot]

Were they any more inclined to vote MP though? If Lizzy was here she would defend me.

Is that regardless of her role, or do you know her role?

[Vompatti]

Were they any more inclined to vote MP though? If Lizzy was here she would defend me.

Is that regardless of her role, or do you know her role?

Yes.

[Long Con]

I think Lizzy and Vomps support each other in all games, isn't that right?

[Marmot]

I think Lizzy and Vomps support each other in all games, isn't that right?

That's what I figured.

[Long Con]

A dangerous practice... it means that every time one of them is Civ and one is bad, the one who is bad has an advantage over other baddies. They get to start the game with the trust and devotion of one Civvie.

[Long Con]

In fact, that's enough to convince me. Vompatti is playing the mysterious joker today, and it's Day 3 and it's still dominating the thread while Civvies get lynched and (probably) nightkilled. I don't think keeping Vompatti around is doing the Civvies any good, and if Vompatti wants to rebut that, I'm all ears.

*votes Vompatti*

[Vompatti]

I've never pretended not to be useless, yet I don't understand why the civs would rather vote for me than any of the baddies.

[Ricochet]

I've never pretended not to be useless, yet I don't understand why the civs would rather vote for me than any of the baddies.

You didn't seem invested in voting a baddie rather than voting a civ yesterday, though.

[Vompatti]

I've never pretended not to be useless, yet I don't understand why the civs would rather vote for me than any of the baddies.

You didn't seem invested in voting a baddie rather than voting a civ yesterday, though.

And I won't be voting a baddie today either.

[Dom]

Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.

I'm planning on voting Vompatti, but this is kind of BS. I would have voted to preserve myself if I were in Vompatti's situation as well. There WAS a very real possibility he would be lynched. Why do you think we're discussing the "saves"? Non active players could pop in and vote, things change peoples minds... this is a rather contrived shot at a player who I think has enough suspicion around him already to vote for. You are justifying your vote for someone in the worst possible way, tbh.



Long con, thank you for your hard work. I'll be voting Vompatti today.

*votes*

[Made]

Riddle me this Vomp:

The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let' take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.

[thellama73]

I'm self voting today.

[thellama73]

Just kidding, I voted for Vomps.

[Canucklehead]

I'm on board this lynch train, too!

[Vompatti]

Riddle me this Vomp:

The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let' take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.

Just vote for me, I think I've deserved it.

[Ricochet]

Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.

I'm planning on voting Vompatti, but this is kind of BS. I would have voted to preserve myself if I were in Vompatti's situation as well. There WAS a very real possibility he would be lynched. Why do you think we're discussing the "saves"? Non active players could pop in and vote, things change peoples minds... this is a rather contrived shot at a player who I think has enough suspicion around him already to vote for. You are justifying your vote for someone in the worst possible way, tbh.

You are wrong in assuming I meant Vomps' D2 vote is the only aggravating thing in his behaviour or that I'll vote him just on those grounds. You may be right in me being too pinged by his save-vote and by him not backing up possibly the only serious thing he stated (or defence he made) in the game, but that's just how I felt.

Have to go offline for study, dinner, maybe movie. I can wait on voting until after.

[Made]

Riddle me this Vomp:

The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let' take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.

Just vote for me, I think I've deserved it.

[timmer]

I've caught up to the game, and I don't see how there can be anything BUT a Vomps lynch today.

First, his actions are not contributing to the game in any meaningful way.
Second, he's aware of this and every single post is meta now, more than even in the beginning of the game.
Third, a few of the cases on OTHER people are attached to whether Vomps was saved.
Fourth, a Vomps accuser got NK'd. While it can be argued that baddies did that to put more of a spotlight on Vomps, I'm inclined to go the other way, as I think it was pretty clear Vomps was an imminent goner, and it was more likely a shot at WIFOM.
Fifth, he twice appears to have been saved in lynches.

At this point, there is nothing better than that for a lynch today. Vmps gets my vote. And I'm sorry for being absent, it's been a busy Super Bowl weekend!

[FZ.]

I'm self voting today.

[Roxy]

Llama - yes I understand my votes look bad but you are wrong when you say MP was not on my radar when in fact I said I thought Canuck had made some decent points - but - the top 3 vote getters last round were MP, Vomps and MM I had not read back on MP and bc I was unsure of my vote rather than use someone else's opinions/suspicions for my vote reasoning I like to use my own. Out of the 3 MP's game stood out the most bc this game he was very back track-y but in the beginning of Dr Who he was laser focused and unbending in his suspicions so I went with MP.
i am sorry but I have to play my own way. I can tel you in the 100's of games I have played I have never tried to save a teamie mostly I am one of the first to vote a teamie or even make the case myself - in other words I have never once voted to save a teamie nor have I ever defended one ofc this is all wifom but it is checkable. if Vomps was my teammate I would have been the first to make the case or held onto your coattails of suspicion.

Wow Timmer has done a swift back stroke there.

I am voting for my own suspicion today Made but I have time.

[Dom]

Roxy, do you think lynching Vomps is a good idea at all?

[Marmot]

Llama - yes I understand my votes look bad but you are wrong when you say MP was not on my radar when in fact I said I thought Canuck had made some decent points - but - the top 3 vote getters last round were MP, Vomps and MM I had not read back on MP and bc I was unsure of my vote rather than use someone else's opinions/suspicions for my vote reasoning I like to use my own. Out of the 3 MP's game stood out the most bc this game he was very back track-y but in the beginning of Dr Who he was laser focused and unbending in his suspicions so I went with MP.
i am sorry but I have to play my own way. I can tel you in the 100's of games I have played I have never tried to save a teamie mostly I am one of the first to vote a teamie or even make the case myself - in other words I have never once voted to save a teamie nor have I ever defended one ofc this is all wifom but it is checkable. if Vomps was my teammate I would have been the first to make the case or held onto your coattails of suspicion.

Wow Timmer has done a swift back stroke there.

I am voting for my own suspicion today Made but I have time.

My mind has changed on Made. He's no longer on my radar.

Also, per the bolded part. I don't think a civvie would say that.

[Marmot]

Another things I saw. Roxy asked SVS the same question 4 times before SVS finally answered.

1) Here
2) Here
3) Here
4) Here

SVS has never mentioned Roxy (game-related) outside of answering that question.

Also, SVS might possibly be silenced today? Along with being removed from the lynch poll.

[Marmot]

I just realized that MP (essentially) rezzed BWT for the second game in a row. Cars before this one.