The Donner Party - Day 7

[Tangrowth]

EBWOP

By Tyler I mean TySlayer, but I'm sure that could be surmised.

No comment.

Okay, just was curious if you had a read on him, and thought I'd play devil's advocate with your argument.

[triceratopzeuhl]

LC still won't explain any of his suspicions, and be being intentionally obtuse, and therefore gets my vote again.

[thellama73]

LC clearly wants to be lynched, which is usually a good reason not to lynch somebody.

[Tangrowth]

LC clearly wants to be lynched, which is usually a good reason not to lynch somebody.

See, that's what I'm worried about here. But there's always the issue that he could be doing that as a ploy to avoid getting lynched, when in reality he would NOT like to be lynched.

Stupid WIFOM.

[triceratopzeuhl]

unless he has the secret power "when you get lynched all civvies die lel," I don't see what the issue is. If he doesn't want to play he's going to hinder more than he helps even if he's civ - but I think he's bad anyway

[Tangrowth]

unless he has the secret power "when you get lynched all civvies die lel," I don't see what the issue is. If he doesn't want to play he's going to hinder more than he helps even if he's civ - but I think he's bad anyway

What do you think of Rico?

[triceratopzeuhl]

How many games has rico played? He's new here, right? He seems well-intentioned by maybe overdoing it a bit on the theorycrafting. Here's what I said about rico earlier when SVS accused him:

Why does it ping you? All he is doing is listing possibilities for epig surviving the lynch.

Do you really think that if he was epig's partner, he would outright tell you about a secret power that the team gets? I think that's absurd. It's pretty clear he is just making a guess

I've also got to agree with Rico that your (SVS's) abrupt change of opinion on voting early is suspect. Seems like opportunism following by rationalization hamstering here:

Linki, yeah, on Day One when there had not been days of discussion, lol. I love changeable votes, as of now I am pretty sure and at this time I want to put my money where my mouth is. I can always realign my investments at a later time, though.

[triceratopzeuhl]

*but maybe overdoing it, not by

[thellama73]

This is Rico's second game, the first being Film Director in which he is still alive.

[triceratopzeuhl]

Gotcha.

I guess I can't rule rico being bad, but I don't believe he is hunger/epig's teammate - which is what we were discussing earlier

[Tangrowth]

Duly noted, thanks Trice!

[Zombarella]

LC clearly wants to be lynched, which is usually a good reason not to lynch somebody.

Why not a good idea? Just because it won't take?

See, that's what I'm worried about here. But there's always the issue that he could be doing that as a ploy to avoid getting lynched, when in reality he would NOT like to be lynched.

I wondered about this too? It might be a double-fake out.

unless he has the secret power "when you get lynched all civvies die lel," I don't see what the issue is. If he doesn't want to play he's going to hinder more than he helps even if he's civ - but I think he's bad anyway

Me too.

[thellama73]

LC clearly wants to be lynched, which is usually a good reason not to lynch somebody.

Why not a good idea? Just because it won't take?

Perhaps. I can't think of a civvie reason for trying to get lynched though (except the Llama Gambit, but that has been pretty thoroughly debunked). I am just distrustful of allowing myself to be manipulated, which is what I think LC is trying to do.

[Long Con]

I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.

What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy?

Actually, that's what I'm trying with S~V~S... it doesn't seem to be working though, because it seems to me like Zomberella is on S~V~S' team, and they're feeling Civvie to me. I should probably change my vote. I guess it worked as a tester vote, because I think it gave me information about Civvies.

I'll vote for someone else, haven't decided yet. I'm not trying to manipulate, I promise.

[Snowman]

I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.

What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy?

Actually, that's what I'm trying with S~V~S... it doesn't seem to be working though, because it seems to me like Zomberella is on S~V~S' team, and they're feeling Civvie to me. I should probably change my vote. I guess it worked as a tester vote, because I think it gave me information about Civvies.

I'll vote for someone else, haven't decided yet. I'm not trying to manipulate, I promise.

waitaminit, are we not allowed to manipulate? No one told me!

[Tangrowth]

I doesn't! However, I am against using info to lunch baddies. See X-Men.

What alternative is there? Lynching baddies by telepathy?

Actually, that's what I'm trying with S~V~S... it doesn't seem to be working though, because it seems to me like Zomberella is on S~V~S' team, and they're feeling Civvie to me. I should probably change my vote. I guess it worked as a tester vote, because I think it gave me information about Civvies.

I'll vote for someone else, haven't decided yet. I'm not trying to manipulate, I promise.

waitaminit, are we not allowed to manipulate? No one told me!

[Ricochet]

*checks thread after a good night sleep

*Zomberella suspected fingerspints because of what Dom said

Yeah, I can come back later

[FZ.]

I'm getting annoyed by the info dumping discussion.

1. The info dumping started with Elizabeth's message. It ruled out one team with 4 roles. Anyone with brains, would have done a process of elimination. I voted for him not because LC said he's not on his team. For all you know, LC and I could have been on the other baddie team together. But what matters is, like I told Epi, I felt he wasn't genuinely baddie hunting, and with the addition of Donner's message, I felt that's where my vote had to go.

2. The nature of this game is very different from a mafia game. It requires different strategies. You want to call it middle school logic puzzle, so be it. I guess not everyone is as intelligent. I'd much rather solve a middle school puzzle than just gamble and throw a dice to off someone every round. Let's just see who's the most popular and can get everyone to join him in lynching whoever.

3. That said, I will refrain from saying who's not on my team, since I can agree that if someone chooses to believe me, it narrows things down. But, if I feel bad for Epi, it's because of Elizabeth's message, not anything that's happened after that.

And just a note to all those accusing us of info dumping. You talking about it, instead of shutting up about it or going to the host so she'll punish us, is what made some people think he really didn't have any defenders.

In any case, I am apologizing again (after taking it back) for making it not fun for some here, but I really have no idea how to play this.

[FZ.]

One more thing, sorry.

I have no idea how to play this game.
We can't base our votes on common sense, or at least we can't talk about common sense because it's info dumping. If I'm info dumping, be sure it's not on purpose.
The reason I like being a civ more than a baddie is because I use analysis and common sense as a civ (with very low levels of manipulation), where as a baddie, it's the opposite. I mostly have to manipulate people.
Building a case on thin air instead of explaining common sense, thereby having to manipulate people to go with my direction seems so twisted

To add to that, we can't build a case based on voting patterns, because one vote means nothing, and by next day, roles change. So it's not like I can even build a "case" on anyone

If this is just going to be a random voting game, I'd like to be replaced as well.

[Ricochet]

So I went back and read the thread and here's the thing:

I have no idea who Hunger might be, based on the discussion. I am not picking up any major signals of possible teammateship. So I fail, by Llama's standards, to defend myself best by naming a player more likely to be bad than me. Even if the game would have been more relaxed and my own pressure wouldn't be to actually have to defend my life here, I could not speak for sure of someone highly suspicious in that regard.

I believe Epignosis's own behaviour led the Forces or Levinas Murphy to simply shoot a bullet his way and see what happens, just like his behaviour led half a thread to want to lunch him the day before. From there on, the chain of possibilities regarding who killed who gets way more complicated, but Epignosis certainly had no protection, since it was his night to kill, so the kill went through. (Roxy's N1 story may hint at Hunger protecting Epignosis throughout D1, which is why he couldn't get lunched, then again her storytelling might be just for flavour.)

Bottom line, what happened to Epignosis is not indicative that it's just as easy to see how Hunger behaved throughout D1. But considering this, searching for a blatant defender is the easiest thing you can do and this was most of you have done. I still feel this game is by default more complicated, so its solutions might be just as well more complex, but I'll apparently go to my grave with this opinion.

As I've said, if this day would have been more relaxed (for me or otherwise), I would only work on a few suspicions:

LC's dodgy manners probably wouldn't make me reconsider my vote for him the other day.

Snowman, for all his astute thoughts on the game mechanisms and his repeated idea that he's skilled at social deducation games, is offering no real lunching input so far and has the habit to vote early ("Com'on people, vote [Rico] early, [it's so obvious]!), be asked a dozen times to elaborate and only do so, modestly, more towards the end of a phase (but he's off the hook today anyway).

Also, I gave TySlayer a friendly advice about participating on D1, but right now you'll have to excuse me for being a bit annoyed I'm about to be lunched by a player with only 3 posts, whose input on today's lunch was, to paraphrase him, "I have no idea who to vote for. I'm afraid to hit a civ by casting my vote". Good game, kid.

I won't cast minor suspicions on others, because I don't want to leave this game giving wrong impressions about anyone. If you lunch me today, you can all just as well continue searching for others the way you please.

[Ricochet]

Now, here are the reasons half the players have voted for Epignosis on D1. This is relevant, because these are the reasons I didn't subscribe to myself, therefore constituting me "defending" Epignosis:

- suggested likely bad alignment from FZ's/LC's infos (although the player(s) who voted for this didn't reason too much about why, to be honest)
- his self-vote
- not being enough of a baddie hunter
- BSing the others with his game mechanics theories (in other words, bluffing about his un-lunch-ability)
- sheer curiousity of what will happen or not if he gets lunched

----

And now I'll simply turn to Llama's whole case on me. I feel I can still say something about this and it will be my final defence on the matter in this game.

Llama's ways of reading back / looking for the Epig's teammate were the following:
I) Notice one possible connection.
II) Do nothing else.

(If I were to make a meta comment on this, I'd say this style of his is easily his most flawed part of Mafia gaming I have witnessed so far, in the two games I've played with him)

His charges for which I seem suspicious were the following:
1) "Epig bantzed with Rico on N0 and it's something he would normally do with teammates." Again, only a read on Epig and no read on me. Yet I must be guilty for it. Plus, let me try to paraphrase what kind of a "formidable team" he [Llama] suggests we are, just from this perspective: Epig is bad and he treats his teammate like his little b___.

The next charges are all included in a single post of his(Sorry SVS for linking, but it's a long one and I don't want to drag my post here further by quoting the whole thing):
LINK

2) my charge against FZ actually contains a defence of Epig. So much twisting of words there, I don't even

3) this is actually the main, most important charge of his whole case i.e. Why I "defended" Epig/didn't vote for Epig:

This thread is officially wat.

First of all, why are you all rushing to vote / un-vote / re-vote, with one day left, even if the votes are changeable?

Second of all, I don't think I will vote for Epig. I have no idea what he figured out about the game or about the polls (or whatever he won), but I don't think it's a simple bluff. Maybe he's Wasatch and doesn't care about the fate of the other Forces, with the prospect of switching to a civ in the future, but I haven't seen anyone panic as if I'll they'll get lunched instead. He clearly incited a lot of votes his way fast, but this is a primary reaction I won't subcribe to. Outside this conflict, I don't have any read on him being bad.

I'll probably stick to voting for one of the infodumpers, because neither are making themselves trustworthy just by saying "Epi is not in my group and obviously not a Donner, but my group is good". One of them also revealed that infodumping was his way of working his (or his team's) way throught the game, so that'll weigh on my decision too.

here are my specific (i.e. clearly stated in that post) reasons for which I did not vote Epig / jump on the lunch train:
- I am not aware of what Epig is aware about his role, powers or fate, but I do not see it as a bluff
- the lynch train is a primary, hasty reaction to all his banter and inciting
- I have no other reason to read him as bad, outside this whole sitution
- I want to stick to my own case (ie. FZ/LC)

but do you know which other player decided not to vote for Epig for three of those four exact reasons? Llama!

It was Day 1, we had no thread evidence because there had been no lunches yet, everyone was gunning for Epi, who I did not think was bad, so I decided to use my vote the only productive way I could, to disincentive bad behavior. What do you want for nothin', a rubber biscuit?

here are his specific (i.e. clearly stated in that post) reasons - slightly rearranged by me in their order for purpose of symmetry - for which he did not vote for Epig / jump on the lynch train:
- the lynch train is simply an expression for gunning for Epi
- he does not think Epignosis is bad
- he wants his vote to be productive (ie. FZ/LC)

one of these two players is today on a major lunch trial. the other is the one who made the whole trial case.

just to finish off with all his charges against me:
4) I made a joke that Epignosis' secret power is that he wins by default
5) I used an OMG smiley in my reaction to Epignosis' death

I trust everyone will judge how weak or not charges #1 as well as #2, #4 and #5 really are

---

So you'll excuse me for giving today a very likely honorary and pointless (given the current tally) vote for Llama for his grand leading hunt. He's blinded by the most obvious candidacy in a game which is supposedly far more complex and subtle. Four of his five charges are BS or weak at best and he pins me down with the remaining one for almost the same reasons he himself refused to vote for Epignosis (which, by analogy with what I wrote, reads as "defending him") - he's just as much a defender of Epig as I am, but he wants me lunched for being a defender of Epig; quite appropriate "cannibalism" for this game. He also later advised me to stop acting defensive-only, which now seems to me just an audacious thing to say, given that all the offensive on me stemmed from none other than him.

[Ricochet]

I also have a few issues with MP's view on me which strikes me as contradictory

1) His first suspicion of an Epig defender was Trice

Llama, the first player that comes to mind that defending Epi was Trice.

2) He then withdrew his suspicion, on grounds that a defender would be too obvious of a candidate, and suspected Russ instead, on a mixture of separate personal reasons (Russ' tactic speech) and the chance Epig would distance himself from Russ as a teammate, without implying that he [Russ] is a baddie. Let's call it "clear bad teammate distancing tactic".

Speaking of Russtifinko, he's high on my list of possible people to lunch today.

Here's why:
1) His perception regarding how we should play this game.
2) Thinking on it, and now knowing Epi only had one teammate, I doubt Epi's teammate would be the most obvious candidate (Trice). Instead, it's interesting to note how Epi distanced against Russ but never said whether he believed he was bad or not.

To which, the thing is:
1. Both his suspicions vanised as soon as the case on me escalated.
2. He supports that me and Epig would be in a "clear bad teammate distancing tactic", yet doesn't suspect Russ anymore for the exact same thing
3. He suspects me as a too obvious candidate for defending Epignosis, but dismissed Trice on the same grounds

I'm totally OK with voting Rico. I think the Epi connection is very possible and Rico's recent posts have struck me as too much form, not enough substance.

1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.
<snip>

<snip>
"This."

[Ricochet]

Bottom line, folks, here are my personal closing arguments:

1. I have played a lousy game so far, at least up to my personal standards. I have been confused by this game more often than not and I didn't understand what was happening through most of D1. The only relevant thing I did was to build a case on FZ/LC and that's it. So let me put it this way: Epignosis is a player who knew or understood something about this game and about his powers and acted accordingly. I am, by comparison, a player who didn't know or understand almost anything about this game.. If you believe that such a partnership is unlikely, then please don't lunch me.

3. I have undeniably acted a bit unstable throughout D2. I am not pleased with my own performance. This has led to several more charges, such as the snapshot thing. I can understand why those charges can be read in a baddie key. But should you consider they are not solid arguments, then please don't lunch me.

I had a reason 2 in my head, a strong one than #3 at least, but I slept on it and now it completely vanished, damn.

Thank you for your time.

[S~V~S]

Re quoting, it is not just me. I have gotten a few PMs from players thanking me for making that post

And Llama was taken off the poll by the Donners Day One, so it is unlikely he is other than a Donner. So the "not my responsibility" poll thing when, tbh, being helpful IS your responsibility when you are a civ, in addition to No U-ing onto someone who is likely civ makes me OK with my vote for you. Like my vote for Epi, it has nothing to do with info. It is totally based on my gut read of this whole thing.

I will be back before the poll ends in case something new comes to light, but for now leaving the vote where it is.

[Ricochet]

Thank you for your read, SVS, very thorough as always.

[S~V~S]

Thank you not to be condescending; I did read it

[Ricochet]

I am fully aware that you did.

You address only the very last paragraph I read from four big posts. Ok.
I must be helpful with the poll results towards the rest of the players to prove my civviness, but the other 11 civs currently game can do nothing helfpul with the poll results and only lunch me for not being helpful. Fine by me.
Tamsen Donner can offer amnesty to any player in this game, so Llama can only be a Donner for receiving such amnesty on D1. Sound logic.
My entire defence against Llama's case is a big No-U to him. Mkay.

As I've said, thorough. And helpful, too.

[Ricochet]

last paragraph I wrote*
11 civs currently in the game*

[S~V~S]

I addressed what was important to me. My vote for you had nothing to do with Epignosis; addressing those sections is better left for someone who IS voting for you based on that.

And I didn't have a shot of the poll; if I did I would have posted it, especially with all the was it or wasn't it a tie.

[S~V~S]

Also your vote for someone who is probably a civvie is not giving me the warm fuzzies about you

[Ricochet]

I addressed what was important to me. My vote for you had nothing to do with Epignosis; addressing those sections is better left for someone who IS voting for you based on that.

Why didn't you post that before?

I am going to vote for you at this time. I think Llama made some good points, and this post:

It's true that we don't know what the Host would do in case of a tie, but it's still an option. As you've said, the easy interpretation is that Margret Reed was a LC voter and thus brought it back to a tie. The subtle interpretation is that Epignosis had a secret power preventing him altogether from being lynched. Due to the complementary nature of the Weather/Hunger forces, a guess would be something like "neither of them can be day lynched as long as the other is alive".

Another guess, but without fully knowing if this can actually be true from the rules, would be that their protections extend to or are in effect on the Day. So Hunger opted on N0 to protect Epignosis (since killing was not allowed) and the protection ran through Day 1. Thus, Epignosis nonchalantly didn't mind the lynch train he himself set and that is also what he meant by the "I can read" part: "You can decide whether to let someone starve to death on even nights or protect Weather." The starving part is basically a night kill, but the protection could in fact take place outside the Night phase.

...seriously pinged the living daylights out of me.

So your vote for me had "nothing" to do with Epignosis, but you voted for me based on at least "something" to do with Epignosis.

And I didn't have a shot of the poll; if I did I would have posted it, especially with all the was it or wasn't it a tie.

So 10 civs currently still in the game.

[Ricochet]

Also your vote for someone who is probably a civvie is not giving me the warm fuzzies about you

Yes, because we both defended (not voting for) Epig on D1, but I'm probably the baddie and he is probably a civvie.

[Ricochet]

Also, you intend to vote me for wanting to say, without wanting to sound the wrong way, that posting the poll results isn't a responsability, but you decide it does sound the wrong way. Then you agree it's not a responsability, but then vote for me because I should have made it my responsability. Perfect.

But I really get your reason for voting me, SVS. I really do. Which is why I actually am gonna refer you back to my very last paragraph.

3. I have undeniably acted a bit unstable throughout D2. I am not pleased with my own performance. This has led to several more charges, such as the snapshot thing. I can understand why those charges can be read in a baddie key. But should you consider they are not solid arguments, then please don't lunch me.

The opposite is fine by me, too.

[S~V~S]

My tipping point was the poll. The thing about that post was that I think you actually quoted your power in it; that is why it pinged me. And that would have been the case regardless of partner.

I could have been persuaded that you were not talking about actual powers here. I could not be persuaded past your holding onto a poll that would have cleared up some questions until you needed it to defend.

You can twist my words all you want, pretty much everyone says contradictory things in an ever changing game landscape.

My decision not to be swayed by your defense came when you voted for someone who is probably a civvie out of pique.

[S~V~S]

I am going to repeat, Llama was taken off the poll by the Donner's.

[thellama73]

I agree that each one of my suspicions about you is weak on it's own, Ricochet. As you rightfully point out, I defended Epi too (it helps that I know I'm not bad though, so I don't need to make a case on myself.)

The point is there are lots of different reasons why I think you might be bad, and they are not mutually exclusive. Taken together as a whole, to me anyway, they make you more likely to be bad than not. Yes, each one can be explained away individually, but as a group I believe they make quite a strong case. It's possible I'm wrong, I don't think I am.

I'm sorry that you seem to be so hostile towards my advice on how best to defend yourself. I was sincerely trying to help. I've played a lot of mafia games, and I've never escaped a coming lynch by simply refuting the claims against me, because such claims can't be refuted. They are based on gut or interpretations, or perceptions. You can write all day long about "here's why I'm not bad" but I'm telling you from experience, it doesn't work. The only thing that works is to find someone else who looks worse than you, and convince people to lynch that person instead.

The personal attacks on my playing abilities are unnecessary. I realize I've been on a baddie-hunting cold streak lately, but if I'm so bad at mafia, why am I the second most winningest player on the site after SVS?

[Ricochet]

My tipping point was the poll. The thing about that post was that I think you actually quoted your power in it; that is why it pinged me. And that would have been the case regardless of partner.

I could have been persuaded that you were not talking about actual powers here. I could not be persuaded past your holding onto a poll that would have cleared up some questions until you needed it to defend.

You can twist my words all you want, pretty much everyone says contradictory things in an ever changing game landscape.

My decision not to be swayed by your defense came when you voted for someone who is probably a civvie out of pique.

I thought you said you read why I'm voting for Llama.

As I've said, me holding onto a poll and being bad for it must mean that 11 civilians in this game missed or didn't track or screenshot or don't have any knowledge of the poll. That's the only case in which I can be made guilty. Also I want you to specify where did I not do my best to clear up questions when people asked them or were simply confused by them.

But I will have basically killed myself with posting the poll in reply to fingersplints back then. Just like I will have basically killed myself for not bandwagoning for Epi on D1, thus standing as his greatest defender now. Karma.

I am going to repeat, Llama was taken off the poll by the Donner's.

No, you said he must be a Donner himself for being taken off the poll.

[Ricochet]

I agree that each one of my suspicions about you is weak on it's own, Ricochet. As you rightfully point out, I defended Epi too (it helps that I know I'm not bad though, so I don't need to make a case on myself.)

The point is there are lots of different reasons why I think you might be bad, and they are not mutually exclusive. Taken together as a whole, to me anyway, they make you more likely to be bad than not. Yes, each one can be explained away individually, but as a group I believe they make quite a strong case. It's possible I'm wrong, I don't think I am.

I'm sorry that you seem to be so hostile towards my advice on how best to defend yourself. I was sincerely trying to help. I've played a lot of mafia games, and I've never escaped a coming lynch by simply refuting the claims against me, because such claims can't be refuted. They are based on gut or interpretations, or perceptions. You can write all day long about "here's why I'm not bad" but I'm telling you from experience, it doesn't work. The only thing that works is to find someone else who looks worse than you, and convince people to lynch that person instead.

The personal attacks on my playing abilities are unnecessary. I realize I've been on a baddie-hunting cold streak lately, but if I'm so bad at mafia, why am I the second most winningest player on the site after SVS?

You agree that you lunch case is weak, but you push it anyways and I'm still the greatest lunch candidate. A lunch case made up of weak charges can still be a solid, strong lunch case. I'm more likely to be bad than not for doing on D1 what you have done and what others have done.

Good to know.

I did look for someone else, read my first post of the four. It obviously doesn't work, so you are thus free to lunch me for your original claims. Regardless of that, I believe I have the right to regard or not your advice, considering you are the one who is leading the lunch on me.

I have not made personal attacks. I do honestly believe the flaws in your reading/hunting are exactly that, flaws.

[S~V~S]

That would be the implication, yes. Why would they take non BTS members off the poll? When we change it won't matter,but for now it does.

And I read your reasons, I don't believe them.

And you are missing my point, probably intentionally. I did not have a screencap; I would think most of the civvies did not. The poll ended while I was afk. But you had one. Everyone was trying to puzzle out what happened, and you were an active poster. Yet you chose not to help.

[Ricochet]

That would be the implication, yes. Why would they take non BTS members off the poll? When we change it won't matter,but for now it does.

And I read your reasons, I don't believe them.

And you are missing my point, probably intentionally. I did not have a screencap; I would think most of the civvies did not. The poll ended while I was afk. But you had one. Everyone was trying to puzzle out what happened, and you were an active poster. Yet you chose not to help.

Why would they take only BTS members out of the poll? That would only tell the baddies who to target as very likely Donners.

Ok with that.

Again, you refuse to tell me or specify where people were puzzled and I did not actively help them by way of post, not by screecap'n the poll.

[S~V~S]

You did not see all the posts asking if it were a tie or not, etc?

And if there were not role changes I might agree with you, but there are role changes. And I believe Rox clarified "in your wagon train" to mean within your group but it is possible I misremember.

[Ricochet]

You did not see all the posts asking if it were a tie or not, etc?

And if there were not role changes I might agree with you, but there are role changes. And I believe Rox clarified "in your wagon train" to mean within your group but it is possible I misremember.

Questions with questions, again. Please. Specify.

You do misremember, that was about George Donner's protection powers.

[FZ.]

Let me ask you a question SVS:

Why would Rico snapshot the poll in the first place, if he's just a baddie? Why would he then say he has the results and not share them? If he intentionally thought to hide them, wouldn't it be better just to lie about it and say he doesn't have it?
If this is what tipped your decision, it's making me think question your intentions.

I am starting to feel like Rico isn't Epig's partner.

I also think that TySlayer's way of playing so far can easily fit a newbie baddie that doesn't know how to act and what might raise suspicion. I think we've gotten so used to experienced baddies, that we can't recognize an inexperienced one when we see it. He first just votes for me, without any reason, and then he comes in and says he has no idea who to vote for and would love some ideas. Could it be that now that his partner is gone, he doesn't care who we lynch? Would really like to know what people think about that.

Also, while Russ doesn't care whether he lynches his team, has he said anything that seems like baddie hunting? All I see from him is talking about the info dumping. If he did, I'm sorry. I just don't recall any.

[thellama73]

I agree that each one of my suspicions about you is weak on it's own, Ricochet. As you rightfully point out, I defended Epi too (it helps that I know I'm not bad though, so I don't need to make a case on myself.)

The point is there are lots of different reasons why I think you might be bad, and they are not mutually exclusive. Taken together as a whole, to me anyway, they make you more likely to be bad than not. Yes, each one can be explained away individually, but as a group I believe they make quite a strong case. It's possible I'm wrong, I don't think I am.

I'm sorry that you seem to be so hostile towards my advice on how best to defend yourself. I was sincerely trying to help. I've played a lot of mafia games, and I've never escaped a coming lynch by simply refuting the claims against me, because such claims can't be refuted. They are based on gut or interpretations, or perceptions. You can write all day long about "here's why I'm not bad" but I'm telling you from experience, it doesn't work. The only thing that works is to find someone else who looks worse than you, and convince people to lynch that person instead.

The personal attacks on my playing abilities are unnecessary. I realize I've been on a baddie-hunting cold streak lately, but if I'm so bad at mafia, why am I the second most winningest player on the site after SVS?

You agree that you lunch case is weak, but you push it anyways and I'm still the greatest lunch candidate. A lunch case made up of weak charges can still be a solid, strong lunch case. I'm more likely to be bad than not for doing on D1 what you have done and what others have done.

Good to know.

I did look for someone else, read my first post of the four. It obviously doesn't work, so you are thus free to lunch me for your original claims. Regardless of that, I believe I have the right to regard or not your advice, considering you are the one who is leading the lunch on me.

I have not made personal attacks. I do honestly believe the flaws in your reading/hunting are exactly that, flaws.

No, I said the individual data points were weak, not the case. A collection of many small clues can make a strong case, because while the odds of ONE of them being wrong may be high, the odds that ALL of them are wrong is low.

It's worth remembering that in mafia, the standard of evidence is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "the preponderance of the evidence."

[thellama73]

Although, the fact that FZ seems so pissed off about this is starting to make me hesitate...

[S~V~S]

You did not see all the posts asking if it were a tie or not, etc?

And if there were not role changes I might agree with you, but there are role changes. And I believe Rox clarified "in your wagon train" to mean within your group but it is possible I misremember.

Questions with questions, again. Please. Specify.

You do misremember, that was about George Donner's protection powers.

I can pull quotes tonight after work . But can you answer that, plz? You don't remember the discussion about whether or not it was a tie?

And FZ, baddies use polls to frame people all the time.

[Ricochet]

I do remember the discussions and I've often replied to it.

I know I'm not doing myself any favor by the following analysis, instead of letting SVS actually prove I wasn't helpful and that it's a intentional sign of baddieness, but I've read back and here is the transcript of the thoughts or confusions expressed in the thread specifically about the D1 lunch result. I'll also mention when I have been active and what have I done or not to reply to those issues.

DAY 1 ENDS - NO LUNCH
MP - has theory on no lunch situation
NINJ - confused, but has a few thoughts thoughts
--------me, active, with my first active answer: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewtopic.php?p=112117#p112117
EPIG rebuttal to MP's theory
ZOMB - now-infamous "snapshot" question
--------me - now-infamous "yes" answer
--------(to be noted: SVS - replies within a minute, about the numbers poll, doesn't react one bit to me saying I have snapshot; nobody else does / demands the snapshot, Zomberella included)
ZOMB - replies to my first active answer
(TRICE - a bit of reaction to what's happened overall, but not clear if specifically to the lunch results or not)
LLAMA - reaction to the lunch result
FZ - reaction to the lunch result, questions state of votes
--------(no answer from the thread. players active at that time: Llama, MM, SVS)
--------I'm only active one hour later, only respond to infodumping debate
ZOMB - theories on how the lunch was prevented
--------(SVS reply. Doesn't agree with every point, but appreciates the input)
FZ - asks again about the tie results
--------receives answers from: fingersplints, Llama, rebuttal from Epignosis, ensuing bant between SVS and Epignosis
FZ - reply to Epignosis, still confused
ZOMB - actively questions if Llama really has no idea what happened in the lynch
--------me, active: only reply to banter about Epignosis's invincibility / chance of secrets

EPIG and MM are killed. NIGHT 1 ENDS

MP & ZOMB - more talks re: D1 lunch theory

(...later...)

TRICE - asks for resolution on lunch theory
--------ZOMB - offers input
--------TRICE reply
--------me active, offer input (to be noted: this is my post that will later pinge SVS)
--------FINGERS - offers input, remembers only a partial tally
--------RICO - offers screenshot as proof of final tally

BOOM! Problems.

[Ricochet]

So the only problematic moment I see is when FZ first asked about the state of votes. As I've said, I've been active only an hour or so later, but let's just assume the timespan is short enough to include me, along Llama, MM and SVS, among the four players who did not reply one bit to FZ's concerns. But, I assume I'll have to take the lunch for that, since it's a frequent scenario in this day's trial against me.

[FZ.]

Although, the fact that FZ seems so pissed off about this is starting to make me hesitate...

Nah, just wanting to be sure.
I'm pissed about the info dumping stuff, not this

The thing that's making me hesitate is the fact that he did indeed defend Epi more than once, which maybe in this game is different, but usually baddies don't defend each other strongly, and the fact I don't see any reason for him to admit as a baddie that he had the screenshot and then not give it.

By the way, llama, what do you think of SVS?

[FZ.]

You did not see all the posts asking if it were a tie or not, etc?

And if there were not role changes I might agree with you, but there are role changes. And I believe Rox clarified "in your wagon train" to mean within your group but it is possible I misremember.

Questions with questions, again. Please. Specify.

You do misremember, that was about George Donner's protection powers.

I can pull quotes tonight after work . But can you answer that, plz? You don't remember the discussion about whether or not it was a tie?

And FZ, baddies use polls to frame people all the time.

Still doesn't explain why he admitted to having it only to not give it to us.