Death Note Mafia [END]

[Boomslang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Turnip Head]

Yeah, the Snowman <---- Boo <---- SVS train of trust is a bit disconcerting, I suppose. SVS, can you clarify your opinion of Boo and/or answer Epi's question about him?

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright. I've mulled it over and have made my decision.

I've decided to not go with llama or boo. While there may be issues with misinterpreting quotes, logical fallacies, and circular arguments, I'm wondering if it's coming from different perspectives rather than malign thoughts or intent. Because it's the only reason I could think the two of them would be so adamant in their arguments with each other.

Which leaves me back at where I started Day 2 with TH and Russ. Honestly, I could go for either one for refusing to answer certain direct questions I've posed to both of them. On the one hand, we have TH who has actually be contributing to other discussions besides his "case" against llama (I use the word 'case' lightly there), and is around to examine other people. Russ didn't post at all until the beginning of Day 2, when he jumped in to make a few jokey posts and basically refuse to answer questions. And now he's completely off the radar again. I think there is a game mechanic in play as to why, and with all the secrets out there, it's not one I feel comfortable with. So here's to hoping that game mechanic never comes to fruition.

Votes Russ

[Turnip Head]

You say I refused to answer your direct questions BWT, but I still don't see any, and when I asked about it, you rebuffed me

[Turnip Head]

Here's the thing I find troubling about Snowman. Even with 10 pages of catching up, he had to see in the first page or so that he was getting heat. He was here tonight - and the whole thread rejoiced to hear his input. You'd think that would make him go "Oh, I should prolly get up to speed if everyone's so anxious to hear what I have to say."

And he jokes around a bit more and leaves. Nothing more about not being quite caught up and will finish in the am - nothing addressing *anything* that's been said about him. Some jokes and he's out.

But how could Snowman respond to everything if he hadn't had time to read and get caught up? Your condemnation of Snowman pings me a bit, Bea. I would expect you to be a bit more understanding and patient with him, I guess. Looking at his responses now, are you satisfied or do you still feel something is up with him?

[thellama73]

Here's the thing I find troubling about Snowman. Even with 10 pages of catching up, he had to see in the first page or so that he was getting heat. He was here tonight - and the whole thread rejoiced to hear his input. You'd think that would make him go "Oh, I should prolly get up to speed if everyone's so anxious to hear what I have to say."

And he jokes around a bit more and leaves. Nothing more about not being quite caught up and will finish in the am - nothing addressing *anything* that's been said about him. Some jokes and he's out.

But how could Snowman respond to everything if he hadn't had time to read and get caught up? Your condemnation of Snowman pings me a bit, Bea. I would expect you to be a bit more understanding and patient with him, I guess. Looking at his responses now, are you satisfied or do you still feel something is up with him?

Why does everyone assume that Snowman has no time ever? Is he a secret agent? Does he work four jobs? Is the president of an island nation? Everyone else has time, why do you jump to the conclusion that he doesn't have time? We've been talking about him for two days and he still hasn't had time to say ANYTHING of substance? The apologism for Snowman in this thread is breathtaking.

[thellama73]

There;s such a double standard here. Why don't you assume that Russ hasn't had the time to participate? Everyone is quick to leap at the idea that his role is causing him to be absent, but in Snowman's case it's because he doesn't have time?

[Turnip Head]

Dude, Snowman was gone from the thread for less than 24 hours. He came back to the thread late at night, and then posted a more thorough catch-up the next day. It doesn't look nefarious to me in the slightest.

Russ was conspicuously absent from the thread despite being active on the site, then came back right at the beginning of Day 2. That's a completely different circumstance.

[FZ.]

I'm finally here. Like I said, I'm never here on Friday-Saturdays.
I'm in the middle of catching up, and I saw Boo voted for llama, after last I read he was saying Boomslang's behaviour was bad. I wonder what happened to that.

Also, I want to address the whole Snowman issue, though if he's posted since, I haven't read it. But the point is about him being newbie. We've all been newbies. I think even when you're new, your nature comes to play. I didn't get more vocal the more I played. I started like that. In addition, it's the nature of your posts. The fact he doesn't have BTSC means nothing. If I'm not wrong, MP brought him to this site and introduced him to the game (or is it someone else?) In any case, he can always ask the host, I know I did when I started playing. Not saying he has to be bad, though he does feel different from the Donner game, but newbiness after one played and was active does not make him handicapped. He can manipulate and lie with like the most veteran players.

And to address this point made by Boo:

I'm curious to hear as to why Snowman's experience level would change the tone, content, meaning and whatever else of his posts here. I'm genuinely open to counter-arguments - not least from Snowman himself, of course - especially given that I'm new myself (but at the same time I see myself as giving my equal best in all my games so far ). What Epignosis pointed out, I think, was that he was quite the active and astute newbie to being with, compared to which his style here can indeed be less involved, but it can equally be a choice or tactic put into execution. Not to mention that another player in equal status with him - Zomberella - was almost voted by a more experienced player on her first day, plus is on several other players top lists for her D1 behaviour.

BTSC, if he's only played when he's had it, that for me pretty much entirely explains why he would be more withdrawn.

What Epig pointed out was not that he was more active but that he accused him from the start and was more aggressive, and here, his posts are very different. There's a big difference. And the BTSC in Donner shouldn't have made him more aggressive, in my opinion, because we were all clueless of what was going on, yet he just started playing, which is something I didn't see him do here, yet. It's okay to give him some more time (as it is for other people), and I guess that's why I was hesitant to vote for him last day, but there's just so much we can let the newbie claim guide our decisions.

At the risk of sounding even more not in the midst of things "like you expect FZ", what has been revealed, and what is everyone talking about when asking about Epi and the eye?

To conclude, because this is a long post:
1. She's using other's suspicions not giving anything of her own.
2. Her reasoning for going after me are the same as what she's accused me of doing, not to mention she keeps saying how I supposedly play, yet she's never seen me as a baddie.
3. She's asking a lot of questions but not saying anything conclusive apart from her "gut feeling" about me. It's like she seems right in the middle of things, but it feels not genuine

1) Yup. I do that a lot. Because I'm not the world's greatest case maker. I often spend the first few days of a new game reading and asking questions and pointing out what I agree with because it helps me find my footing and helps me to try to figure out who I trust. Excepting that game on K-site, where I was the info role, have you ever seen me be the sort of player that builds cases or agressively go after people.
2) I agreed with svs that your suspicion of zombra was odd because you were doing the same thing and she was a new player. Yup. I did that too. I am saying that I expect to see different things from you based on past behavior and I'm not seeing all those things. You were totes right that Tricey was looking other places. Yup I agreed with that. I did not agree with zombra and your suspicion of me kinda feels like a No U. I'm used to a different sort of FZ. I could be wrong, you could be civ in this game too - but your behavior here feels different from how it did at the beginning of the champions game when I was pretty positive by this time in the game you were civ.
3) Yup. I ask a lot of questions. I recall in the Champs game that it made you pretty sure I was civ. What changed your mind between here and there? How do I feel "less genuine" in this game?

The difference that I see is, while usually you say what you agree with and what you don't regarding suspicions, this time, you're only agreeing.
I seriously hate the No U argument. If I see someone using really fishy reasons to suspect me, you can be sure I'll accuse you back. Like the comment on how I call people to participate more on K-site. Why don't you go back to the games where there were more than 20 players, like here and see if I told people to not talk to much. Also, look at how many speed games I've played here compared to the big ones. It feels like you're just using easy things to suspect me, and you're bandwagoning on others' suspicions. Since you have played more with me, I expect you to know that I have games where I am less sure and get a little lost. It often happens in big games, hence why I don't like playing them.


Regarding llama, I don't buy your reason for an early vote for Snowman. Out of all the people you could have voted for to get a discussion going on them and to draw them out, you chose Snowman? Was he such a big threat to the civvies that you voted an early and unchangeable vote? I feel like a civvie llama would wait more when votes can't be changed. In my experience baddies like to vote early to not have to take responsibility later on, unless one of their own is at the risk of going down. And since most baddies don't even know who their own is, that reason disappears. So your early vote gives me the biggest pinge

[boo]

This is the bar llama claims to set for himself:

The proper way to investigate is this:
1. Collect all available facts.
2. Construct a theory that explains all available facts.

What too many people in this game do is this:
1. Construct a theory.
2. Collect/invent facts that support that theory.

You guys are free to disagree with me, but you're wrong, and I'm going to continue saying you're wrong.

It is, as he also said, his Sherlock Holmes method of playing the game.

So, lets apply what he claims to do, to what he does.

The player who accuses me of pondering too much on my voting option and being tactical about it (even if I was consistent in deciding to reflect more on it, but he's not the kind of player to care for such details, anyway) is someone who started the game by saying he'll wait for more opinions, waited a whooping 13 minutes, then simply voted for what he wanted anyway (or went along with DH's explanations), only for the rest of D0 to have more and more doubts, especially after hearing reasonings from boo, SVS or Epignosis.

No need to be coy. You can call me out by name.

As Rico said, llama wanted to vote an option, waited 13 minutes, and then voted for it. llama makes no claim that that is not true.

Did llama collect all available facts and then construct a theory based on all available facts? No, he did not. Is that something we're going to continue to see from llama throughout the rest of the game, despite his claim that that is not only not how he plays the game, but the wrong way to play the game? Yes we are.

This is his very next post:

I get up about 4:30 so yeah.

And yes, re the approach. Llama and I tradionally disagree about that. I have gone after him hard for being anti speculation (read: discussion) in the past. That was why I never bought into his Vomps case although I took flack for it; I could see him being energized and thus more involved via the theme.

But much as I don't like it, I have come to accept that this is his normal, and how the game is fun for him.

I'm not anti-discussion. I just don't see why I have to consider all lines of discussion equally productive.

Anti-discussion or not isn't what I want to point out. Considering all lines of discussion is. He chose the option he wanted to vote for, and then, without even considering all lines of discussion, he voted. Whether he felt at that time they were equally productive is not relevant. How do I know that? I go back a few posts, and there is this:

I'm increasingly starting to think Epi and SVS are right. I thought it would be fun to try a new mechanic, unless L is very good, we could be in serious trouble.

After voting during D0 for the L/Light option, after reading more of the discussion, he realizes that the people on the otherside could be right, and that the option he voted for could put us in very serious trouble. Guess what I'm going to ask. Did llama collect all the facts, and then construct his theory. Obviously he did not.

Now, I'd call this flip-flopping, and it's worse, because he did after making his choice.

But what does he do after flip-flopping? That's right, he calls out someone else for doing it. Now, yes, TH went back and forth a lot. You know the one obvious difference? TH was doing it as part of an on going discussion, to decide where he would vote. Was TH collecting facts? Yes. Was he looking to theorize based on those facts? Yes. Hmm, so doing what llama claims is the right way to play the game makes TH a baddie according to llama. That is this post, which I am not going to quote, since I imagine most people recall it anyways. But by all means, go back and read it for yourself.

And now we're only really getting into D1 llama. And so far, I've skipped almost all of his posts (I suppose presidential memes, other jokes, and talking about the show a bit could be relevant facts, but somehow, I'm not seeing it).

Ok, here's a good one:

Yeah, I did flip flop, because I was convinced (mainly by Epi) that a normal lynch was better. But I didn't keep flipping back and forth after I changed my mind.

Not being a part of a discussion, and not taking the facts into account until after you've made your decision, is apparently a good thing because it means you didn't change your mind as much. I'm not sure there's any other way to look at this than discussion-squashing.

Then this post:

I know I always think Rico is bad, but he is on my list too, Epi. The way he hovered around to wait and see which way the winds were blowing before placing his vote stood out to me.

Again, being a part of a discussion, GATHERING FACTS, is apparently worse than making up your mind and choosing it without being a part of the discussion, and then later changing your mind when you cannot do anything about it.

Then:

Okay, you guys don't think confirmation bias is a problem in mafia. I do. Let's leave it at that. [snipped some stuff]

He simplified other peoples views as being confirmation bias, and decided he should squash the discussion. I wonder where else we've seen llama do that this game? Don't worry, we'll get there.

Ok, we are now past some of the first posts I pulled up to establish the basis. There's still probably about 100-ish posts left at least, so go get a drink and come back ready, cause that shit was probably just the prologue.

Want to see something amazing?

Are you suggesting he's a baddie? Why would a baddie be that indecisive? What does he get out of it? And if not, what's the point in even bringing it up apart from appearing like you're baddie hunting?

It's the classic "have it both ways" baddie approach. "Oh look how reasonable I am. I'm listening to everyone. I'm taking all opinion into account. You all have good points!" Refusing to take a stand. Trying to please everyone. I think it is shifty, yes.

llama talks about a classic baddie approach. What has llama been doing so far this game? Using that classic baddie approach. And attacking people who have been using (according to him) that classic baddie approach.

Just another example of not worrying about the facts and speculating, which according to llama, llama thinks is the wrong way to play the game:

If Turnip Head is right and Russ isn't posting because he's a Shinigami, there should be three people not posting. That hasn't been the case. It also seems like way too big of a clue for MP to give us, since two of the three Shinigami are on the mafia team.

Guess llama thinks llama is playing the game wrong.

There are several posts I'm skipping over for a moment (we've reached the 50 post mark), and then we get to llama's D1 vote for TH. It's just for the earlier flip-flopping post, and a no-u, as seen here:

Llama seems a bit off. I might vote for him.

Right back at ya, there Champ.

He follows through with that vote.

Now, that may seem reasonable. However, lets look at some posts I skipped:

So, from this wellspring of discussion and suspicion and theories and back and forths, you come away wanting to vote for a low poster?

What's suspicious about that? It seems very sensible to me. I have personally found all the verbose squabbling very unproductive.

What would you find productive?

I'll know it when I see it.

I've found posts from most people other than Epi and DH pretty productive.

llama was ok with voting a low poster, because the discussion so far was 'very unproductive'. So, instead of knowing what he'd see when he sees it (gathering facts), and then using that come up with a theory and vote on it, or at least allow that opportunity to occur, llama waits a few hours, and votes for TH. Far before the lynch is near over. In 2 votes, llama has failed to allow for as much fact-gathering as possible, and voted because it's what he decided he was going to do, without the facts being important to the vote. Just some more inconsistency I find interesting.

The next morning, we have the start of the Snowman stuff:

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

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

Waiting for a bandwagon to hop onto?

I'm sure we're all familiar with this post at this point, but I thought I'd include it just in case someone needs a refresher. An honest one that hasn't been spun and lied about.

I've skipped a bunch of posts again, to bring up this one:

I am about to re-read Trice because in the discussions so far he sticks out to me. llama, I think someone may have mentioned this but TH changing his mind so much does not sound like a baddie thing to me. I think a baddie would be more sure of his opinion.

I think baddies like to try to have things both ways, but a diversity of opinion enriches us all!

This is still during day 1 in case you were wondering. I just found this post interesting, no more commentary on it, but I think at this point you can figure out what I think about it.

Alright, this post:

For anyone considering joining me in my vote for TH, let the record show that he has said 1) he thinks Russ is likely a baddie; 2) he doesn't want Russ to be lynched "until there can be no doubt"; 3) Russ' behavior tomorrow will fail to remove all doubt.

Essentially, he want to leave someone he thinks is bad alive indefinitely.

Followed by:

I believe Epi is wrong about what role Russ might be. I think he's much more likely to be this one, because of the part I underlined:

Teru Mikami (X Kira) – As a devoted worshiper of Kira, Mikami has a strong sense of justice and feels evil absolutely must be punished. He adheres to a very strict, daily schedule. (Secrets)

That said, I am not inclined to see Russ lynched on Day 1. I want to see what he will do on other days! Will he have to post in rainbow font on Day 2? Will he have to include the word "poop" in every sentence? We should continue to observe his behavior until we can be absolutely sure. It's how L would want us to proceed.

So you think Russ is likely to be a Kira and you don't want to lynch him? Seriously?

TH says 'I think he's much more likely to be', llama apparently must read TH as saying, 'He has to be this one', or chooses to ignore that TH just wants to see what Russ has to do in the future before deciding if he's right. So, this is more spinning and dishonesty from llama, and I think it was intentional.

Alright, this one. I'm more interested in what FZ had to say about llama than how llama actually responded:

Crazy enough, I'm actually contemplating voting for llama. I don't feel like he's his usual self. I feel like he knows TH's reason for voting him can't be true baddie TH, because he wouldn't do that, yet he's going after him and trying to find something to justify it with. I also don't think that TH's indecisiveness regarding the D0 vote was fishy in any way, and I don't think llama really thought it was either.
Something about how llama is playing strikes me as not genuine

So you think it's totally cool that TH openly doesn't want to lynch baddies, and my pointing that out is not genuine. Good to know.

The emphasis is mine, and is what is important here. This is after llama has made the find fact, make theory to support fact post. FZ calls him out on not doing that. If that belief is so important to llama, if he truly believes that's how an honest civ should play the game, and if llama is a civ in this game, then why is llama not making any effort to address that point in this post? Think on it.

Now, people may not remember this next part. I quite like it. I'm not going to quote it, but please do go and read it, it's here. llama turns around, and right after taking some suspicion from FZ, turns around, builds a case against her (based almost entirely around her discussing TH), and then tries to play if all off by saying no one is buying what she is selling.

I have skipped posts again. Most of what I skipped was one sentence posts about FZ, and his PSA.

I might as well reciprocate while I'm here. I laid out my suspicion of TH earlier, and I maintain it.

*Votes Turnip Head*

llama- I missed your reasoning the first time around. Was it that he was wishy-washy with the day 0 vote? If you re-summed it between here and the end of the thread, I will catch it. Still reading up.....

At the time of my vote, there were three things that bothered me about TH (there are now four.)
1. Going back and forth and contradicting himself on the Day 0 vote. I felt like he was trying too hard to be reasonable and please everyone, which I think is baddie behavior.
2. When I called him on this, he barely reacted at all, offering no real defense or argument. I have done this many times as a baddie. Ignore a minor suspicion and it's more likely to go away than if you make a big thing of it.
3. He voted for me with no real reason. I assume the reason is that I am onto him and he wants to stop me knowing my reputation for leading lynches (even if I end up being wrong a lot, I am good at attracting followers as we saw in Film Director).

Now, 4. He basically admitted that he doesn't want to lynch a suspected baddie, which is crazy.

This is llama summing up his TH suspicion.
1. llama did that. llama did it after already voting, so unlike TH, he wasn't even an actual part of the conversation, he was just trying to please everyone.
2. When people have called llama on things, his reaction so far has been to try and blow them off, or no-u them. He says he has done this many times as a baddie. I agree.
3. llama has voted without real reasons.
4. That isn't what TH said, and is llama spinning things to make someone he has decided it bad seem more bad and take votes.

I'm here. Reading posts from today.

@Llama, so I think my assessment of your posting was based on length not number. I'm gonna have to reassess how I assess. Anyway, not voting for you today.

Brevity is the soul of wit, quoth the Bard.

I suppose that means he and I are both witless.

Not many Night 1 posts I want to bring up, but there is this one:

I think the FZ case is interesting. She stated she was thinking about voting for me and I hit her back hard. After that, she immediately backed off, which is not what I expected her to do. She's definitely someone I want to look at more going into Day 2.

He makes it sound like it isn't his case. Then he says hitting her back hard is the same thing as a case, then he says he want to look at her more during Day 2.

Then this:

I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

I guess when llama does it isn't baseless speculation?

And here's why the previous FZ comment is relevant:

I know who I'm voting for on Day 2 now. Spoiler alert: it's not FZ.

The time between the two posts was a few hours, the posts within the two are not helpful for discerning who llama is now going to be voting for, but he already knows. I'd bring up the fact-theory thing again, but it's just getting old at this point.

Then he establishes who he meant when he said he knows who he is voting for:

I definitely considered that the Eye deal could be in the game but didn't want to upset Llama by wildly speculating.

Why do you care whether you upset me? You shouldn't.

Welcome Russ!

I'm going to join the early voting crowd and vote Snowman, who I think is very, very bad.

Challenged on the vote:

why do you think snowman is very very bad llama?

His earlier comment about waiting for a consensus to emerge before voting, his humorous deflection when I called him on it, and his layig quite low indeed for this whole game. I feel very good about this vote.

He adds nothing new to why he thinks he's bad, but during the night, he apparently got information that he felt no need to conceal his receiving of, that made him decide to vote for Snowman. Or he just doesn't care who he votes for and thought he found someone he could start an easier bandwagon on than FZ and swapped to that.

Now, I know what you're thinking. I left out the consideration of llama's vote being forced. You a damn fool.

Is there a vote-forcer in the roles? I don't think TH and Llama are forced-votes.

If my vote were forced, I would never cast it early to signal that it was forced. Bad form.

Whether casting it early or not is true, talking about the possibility of your vote being forced when your vote is being forced IS bad form, and often against the rules when your vote is forced.

And now we're nearing the end, where llama spins things I say and outright lies.

This is the tl:dr of that conversation, for anyone who wants it as simple as possible:

Boo, you said that Snowman hasn't had a chance to defend himself. I disagree. It has been more than 24 hours since the Day has started.

How long do you consider to be an adequate "chance to defend oneself" before you would be comfortable voting for someone (not necessarily Snowman)?

A reasonable person would wait until they have to actually vote or risk missing the vote before deciding the person isn't going to respond.

So your contention is that Snowman "has not had the chance to respond" until the very moment of the poll closing? Surely you can see that this is madness.

I said a reasonable person waits until they need to vote before voting. llama takes that to mean every single person can wait until the poll closes to vote, and that I am saying they must do so. I know llama knows that isn't what I said. I think llama is bad, not because he was wrong this one time, but that he then began trying to use this situation to get me on tilt, which is why the rest of our discussion happened.

As for the rest of, you can go ahead and read the first page of in topic (and probably some of the 2nd since llama will be undoubtedly continuing to post), but I think it's recent enough that I don't need to pull more quotes, and that first post from it really sums it all up for me.

And that is why you should vote to lynch llama.

[Turnip Head]

[FZ.]

Lol, that was a very short post Boo, but thanks, and I completely agree, at least with the early vote part. As for the not playing how you say you play, I think we all like to think we play in a different way, and we fault others for doing something we do. I guess I've done it this game as well, so at least in that regard, I can't fault him. That said, his actions themselves, even without how he claims he plays and the early vote, to that specific player, might be enough for me to vote for him. I'm still going to continue catching up before making up my mind.

[DharmaHelper]

I will have some things to say soon.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

Hahaha I was thinking about that post too in relation to llama's behaviour lately. I'll most likely end up voting him.

[FZ.]

What's up with boo defending Snowman, a low poster, despite his earlier insistence that we lynch his kind? Boo, where does Snowman fall in your Thinker rankings? Who's below him? Who do you think is worthy of your vote so far?

I don't much care if Snowman is a low poster or not, what is interesting is the not so subtle defense. Many people have weighed in on this subject but have moved on. Boo tweaked me day one and has now again today.

This is what bothers me with how people here think. If someone is strongly defending someone, is it more likely that he just believes that person is being wrongfully accused (or at least that the reasons are lame), or that they are two baddies working together? While both are possible, experience tells me the former is a lot more plausible (the defender being a baddie instead of the accused is also a possibility, but less likely here), because it automatically gets them connected and people start looking at the defender badly. Especially if the accused really does turn out bad. And I've tried as a baddie to do the WIFOM and once defended a team mate strongly, and not surprisingly, it got people to look at me more closely. So for me, most time someone defends someone strongly, it's because they actually believe in what they're saying

Like Epi said, it's odd that Boo didn't feel comfortable defending Trice on the chance that he flipped bad, but has no qualms defending Snowman, after he says he wants to lynch low posters.

I don't feel comfortable with someone attributing an oversimplification to me, especially if that someone has voted already.

If I had another non-llama vote to cast today, it might be going to Boo. I thought I understood and agreed with your point, please clarify if you'd like.

Linki: it's the TH version, but I can find it.

Seriously? This is surprising coming from you. I didn't see it coming. While I can't rule out Boo being bad, this is definitely the last reason I think he should take flak for

[Turnip Head]

FZ, if you keep reading I dropped I dropped the Boo thing as quickly as I picked it up

[S~V~S]

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

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

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

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

[Turnip Head]

Definitely intrigued!!!

[thellama73]

None of the characterizations boo makes of me in that post are true. Anyone with a brain can see that.

[FZ.]

I was going under the impression we had all realized but decided not discuss the obvious TH being a baddie thing, but it seems like people are still taking him seriously for some reason, so I'm just going to put it out there.

Ryuk – A shinigami who appears to Light shortly after he discovers his Death Note, Ryuk explains that he has to stay with Light until he either dies or the Death Note is destroyed, and that he ‘dropped’ the Death Note into the human world because he was bored. As a shinigami, he cannot be harmed by humans, nor can he be seen by humans who have not made contact with his Death Note. Oh, and he loves apples. Has BTSC with Light Yagami. Because he is a shinigami, votes by humans in lynches do not affect him, and writing his name down in a Death Note will not kill him. Thus, he cannot be lynched or night killed. However, if he is about to be killed for the second time, although he will still not die, his existence will be made aware to everyone, outing him. Even though Ryuk refuses to take sides and often finds pleasure at Light’s misfortunes, he accompanies Light, and even may assist him. Once Raye Penber has started following Light, Ryuk offers Light the Shinigami Eye deal. If Light takes the offer, Light can role check two players every night but he must kill one of those two players. If Light currently cannot kill with a Death Note, he cannot role check anyone. Because the Eye Deal cuts his lifespan, all votes against Light in lynches will be doubled for the remainder of the game. If Light refuses the Eye Deal, he still may change his mind and accept it later at any time.

There's an unkillable baddie. No win condition actually includes needing this role (or there other two shinigami's, assuming they are also both unkillable), so I guess them being unkillable sort of makes sense.

But... I mean come on, does anyone really want to argue that this isn't TH's role and that he's already made it obvious? I imagine he began acting like he did D1 hoping to waste a lynch or two as we tried to kill him and failed, but with the role reveal it seems pretty obvious that this is his role (or one similar to it).

Of course, I'd be 100% ok with lynching him today to test it, but I'm also almost certain it would be a waste of a lynch so what's the point?

Anyways, there seem to be people still taking what he says seriously, so I figured the easiest way to explain why I won't be is to just put it out there.

So what does it mean? He wins no matter what? He doesn't have to do anything? Not sure I get this. Sorry if I'm dense here, but I admit to not exactly following all the roles and stuff. This is too overwhelming and I'm trying to play as I play any mafia game


linki: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[FZ.]

FZ, if you keep reading I dropped I dropped the Boo thing as quickly as I picked it up

Yeah, I saw it. Damn, I hate having to be behind all the time.

[S~V~S]

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

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

That's not correct, semantics boy.

Semantics Boy, the plucky sidekick of Fallacy Man!

I love this post

You're right Epi and llama. My bad. *skulks away cookieless*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A LOT OF WORDS

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

[FZ.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those who cannot see TH's avatar

Ha ha ha sometimes you are my favorite person

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

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

Then how did you see your name mentioned so quickly?

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

You know nothing, Llama Seventy-Three.

It is known

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

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

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

NO HER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, well...keep reading.

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

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

Because it's a pointless distraction.

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

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

Good Point.

boo is 75% boob.

Just pointing that out.

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

Wow, this was suck a long post, yet you said nothing (no offence), and then you left. Do you think this post contributed to the discussion in any way?

[Turnip Head]

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

[S~V~S]

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

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

[S~V~S]

@FZ< yes I think it did. It was my reaction as I read in real time to what has been going on. Sorry if you think it is not helpful.

I enjoy doing it

[S~V~S]

I just reread it, and I think I said quite a lot. Normally I do this in a number of posts, I can do that instead if you like.

[boo]

I was going under the impression we had all realized but decided not discuss the obvious TH being a baddie thing, but it seems like people are still taking him seriously for some reason, so I'm just going to put it out there.

Ryuk – A shinigami who appears to Light shortly after he discovers his Death Note, Ryuk explains that he has to stay with Light until he either dies or the Death Note is destroyed, and that he ‘dropped’ the Death Note into the human world because he was bored. As a shinigami, he cannot be harmed by humans, nor can he be seen by humans who have not made contact with his Death Note. Oh, and he loves apples. Has BTSC with Light Yagami. Because he is a shinigami, votes by humans in lynches do not affect him, and writing his name down in a Death Note will not kill him. Thus, he cannot be lynched or night killed. However, if he is about to be killed for the second time, although he will still not die, his existence will be made aware to everyone, outing him. Even though Ryuk refuses to take sides and often finds pleasure at Light’s misfortunes, he accompanies Light, and even may assist him. Once Raye Penber has started following Light, Ryuk offers Light the Shinigami Eye deal. If Light takes the offer, Light can role check two players every night but he must kill one of those two players. If Light currently cannot kill with a Death Note, he cannot role check anyone. Because the Eye Deal cuts his lifespan, all votes against Light in lynches will be doubled for the remainder of the game. If Light refuses the Eye Deal, he still may change his mind and accept it later at any time.

There's an unkillable baddie. No win condition actually includes needing this role (or there other two shinigami's, assuming they are also both unkillable), so I guess them being unkillable sort of makes sense.

But... I mean come on, does anyone really want to argue that this isn't TH's role and that he's already made it obvious? I imagine he began acting like he did D1 hoping to waste a lynch or two as we tried to kill him and failed, but with the role reveal it seems pretty obvious that this is his role (or one similar to it).

Of course, I'd be 100% ok with lynching him today to test it, but I'm also almost certain it would be a waste of a lynch so what's the point?

Anyways, there seem to be people still taking what he says seriously, so I figured the easiest way to explain why I won't be is to just put it out there.

So what does it mean? He wins no matter what? He doesn't have to do anything? Not sure I get this. Sorry if I'm dense here, but I admit to not exactly following all the roles and stuff. This is too overwhelming and I'm trying to play as I play any mafia game


linki: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Detectives only need the Kira's dead to win. He's part of the baddie team, but he doesn't need to die for anyone to win. So I don't pay attention to what he has to say, but I don't see the point of trying to kill him, unless we're going to do it all together to test the theory.

[juliets]

I came out of last night with a strong opinion that boo was being antagonized for his question about why snowman that someone just quoted and his opinion that people need a chance to respond before they take votes. I totally agree with boo about that and agree that to the end of the mafia day is the appropriate amount of time, though sometimes i vote earlier than that if the person has not been around for days. llama you tried to make it seem like boo said you should wait forever until you hear from them and I did not see that that's what boo said. If he did say that can you point it out? It just seems like the things he said were misinterpreted.

I'm going back and if I possibly can I'm going to re-read the Epi/llama/boo interaction about Snowflake to see if I come out with the same impression I did when I was watching it live.

Nicely written case boo.

[thellama73]

Not playing is a playstyle now? Wow. There's a stretch.

Anyways...

For example:

Trice Llama posted Day 0. Trice Llama posted Day 1. Trice Llama got lynched, a direct result of his posting. Clearly a terrible strategy, sorry Trice, Llama maybe try the one that actually works next time?

Next game, Trice Llama doesn't post Day 0. Trice doesn't post Day 1. Trice Llama doesn't get lynched Day 1! What a great strategy Trice! Llama So, instead of playing the actual game, lets play 'How Far Can You Push Your Luck?'. Trice Llama doesn't post Night 1. Do we lynch him Day 2? Nah, still wouldn't be fair. Trice continues not to post during Day 2. Trice Llama doesn't post Night 2. Trice Llama still hasn't posted during Day 3. Maybe we're finally getting ready to lynch him? Ahh, but then he realizes that, and comes and starts posting (letting him get away with nothing while 2 people have been lynched and another person has been NKed). Or gets replaced (burning a replacement for someone who may actually have something come up irl and need a replacement, and cannot get one and either has to stick it out or be host-killed). Wow, good thing we didn't lynch him, he sure added a ton of helpful stuff to the game so far.


As for your point of MP punishing non-participants... that really isn't something that should have to happen, and I don't think it would happen if players would stop letting it happen and would just work to bring an end to the behaviour by not allowing it.

And yes, the point is to lynch baddies. Someone who isn't playing can just as easily be a baddie as someone who is (another absurd argument people like to bring up, but I'll try and move past that one), and Day 1 suspicions (as was the case with Trice) rarely pan out anyways.

Hypocrisy, thy name is boo.

Maye someday you guys will be able to remember past a single game and realize that just because I am aggressive, it doesn't necessarily make me bad. I wouldn't count on it though, since you have had over a year and have apparently learned nothing.

I'm not going to respond to boo's megapost about me. I'm sure he will concede that I haven't had the chance/the time to do so. Anyway, if Snowman isn't expected to defend himself, I don't see why I should be.

See you guys next mafia, the only game (other than global thermonuclear war) you can win by not playing!

[Turnip Head]

It's time for my Day 2 Updated Pointless Distraction Rankings!!!!!!

Case Makers
1. boo - shot up to the top spot for his glorious case against Llama
2. Epignosis - for his case against boo
3. thellama73 - for his attacks on Snowman and Boo
4. birdwithteeth11 - for his rantings against TH and Russ
5. FZ - not because of quantity but quality of her cases
6. DharmaHelper - took a backseat in today's precedings
7. AceofSpaces - took a backseat in today's precedings

Thinkers
1. boo - he rises to the top of the Thinker rankings as well. boo's got his mafia hat on for sure.
2. FZ. - continues to contribute to all discussions
3. S~V~S - continues to contribute to all discussions
4. Epignosis - continues to contribute to all discussions
5. Turnip Head - continues to contribute to all discussions
6. Black Rock - continues to contribute to all discussions
7. juliets - a little quieter today than normal
8. bea - down a few spots as I only see bea considering one POV re: Snowman
9. Ricochet - steadfast in his Snowman suspicion
10. thellama73 - steadfast in his Snowman suspicion
11. birdwithteeth11 - has his thinking cap on but appears set in his suspicions to the point where he doesn't discuss other options
12. Matahari - continues to contribute, albeit on a small scale
13. Elohcin - continues to contribute, albeit on a small scale
14. Boomslang - continues to contribute, albeit on a small scale
15. MetalMarsh89 - posting consists mostly of jokes and jabs, not much gameplay analysis today
16. DharmaHelper - did not contribute much to Day 2's discussion
17. Long Con - posting is scarce and appears selective in content
18. AceofSpaces - did not contribute much to Day 2's discussion
19. Snowman - he's trying
20. Zomberella12 - down a few spots as she hasn't been around
21. Spacedaisy - RL takes precedence
22. Bass_the_clever - RL takes precedence
23. Made - his absence is glaring
24. Zeek - (not enough data tbh)
25. Disgruntled Porcupine - he's here, barely
26. Russtifinko - down to the bottom you go, Russ.

Elusive
1. Russtifinko - unwilling to talk about much of anything
2. DisgruntledPorcupine - general low level of participation
3. Turnip Head - a degree of unwillingness to explain his votes
4. Snowman - alleged by some to be avoiding the thread

[Matahari]

I'm a bit surprised that Metalmarsh voted for Epig. I hadn't seen anything in his posts to indicate he was thinking about that, but I might have missed it. I'll reread him again, but after his sparring with Llama, I thought it odd that he would vote Epig.

[thellama73]

19. Snowman - he's trying

He's not. Even a little bit.

[Turnip Head]

Well he is at least trying more than the people below him on my list

[boo]

And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

[thellama73]

And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

Nope. I get the difference. My point is I could have avoided this by not posting at all. I could have been a non-particiapnt for the first two days and gotten a free pass. I chose to play the game, which was clearly a mistake.

[DharmaHelper]

My back seat taking is intentional. I understand I can be bullheaded and uncompromisingly ruthless, as well as my ability to take much of the spotlight for myself. So I didn't do that today, instead opting to allow discussion to be had by/about others.

[boo]

And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

Nope. I get the difference. My point is I could have avoided this by not posting at all. I could have been a non-particiapnt for the first two days and gotten a free pass. I chose to play the game, which was clearly a mistake.

Yes, you could have. My point about non-participants is that I still wouldn't have given you a free pass, and that the problem is, as you and I both dislike, there are people who would have given you that free pass.

And as I have said many times, and you have intentionally taken out of context many times, being a non-participant would not have been the same as being a low poster, which is why you call me a hypocrite, even though we both know, and anyone who reads what I've said knows, that is not true.

[thellama73]

I came out of last night with a strong opinion that boo was being antagonized for his question about why snowman that someone just quoted and his opinion that people need a chance to respond before they take votes. I totally agree with boo about that and agree that to the end of the mafia day is the appropriate amount of time, though sometimes i vote earlier than that if the person has not been around for days. llama you tried to make it seem like boo said you should wait forever until you hear from them and I did not see that that's what boo said. If he did say that can you point it out? It just seems like the things he said were misinterpreted.

I'm going back and if I possibly can I'm going to re-read the Epi/llama/boo interaction about Snowflake to see if I come out with the same impression I did when I was watching it live.

Nicely written case boo.

Juliets, boo never answered my question of how long is adequate time for someone to defend themselves, so I interpreted that to mean there was no limit. We can have different interpretations, but that is where I am coming from.

[thellama73]

And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

Nope. I get the difference. My point is I could have avoided this by not posting at all. I could have been a non-particiapnt for the first two days and gotten a free pass. I chose to play the game, which was clearly a mistake.

Yes, you could have. My point about non-participants is that I still wouldn't have given you a free pass, and that the problem is, as you and I both dislike, there are people who would have given you that free pass.

And as I have said many times, and you have intentionally taken out of context many times, being a non-participant would not have been the same as being a low poster, which is why you call me a hypocrite, even though we both know, and anyone who reads what I've said knows, that is not true.

I don't understand why you consider Russ a non-participant but not Snowman. I have never understood this. They have both posted, but neither has posted very much or really been willing to say anything.

[Bass_the_Clever]

Is it just me or does llama get called out early every game like this?

[juliets]

I'm a bit surprised that Metalmarsh voted for Epig. I hadn't seen anything in his posts to indicate he was thinking about that, but I might have missed it. I'll reread him again, but after his sparring with Llama, I thought it odd that he would vote Epig.

Ditto Mata.

TH, I think as I get more well you will see more of my opinions.

llama, maybe i am mistaken - I'll catch it one way or another in my readback.

[thellama73]

Is it just me or does llama get called out early every game like this?

It's not just you. And it gets more frustrating each time.

[Turnip Head]

TH, I think as I get more well you will see more of my opinions.

I'm sure that is the case juliets, I also believe DH that his quieter behavior today was intentional. The rankings will continue to change as the game goes on

[AceofSpaces]

It's time for my Day 2 Updated Pointless Distraction Rankings!!!!!!

Case Makers
1. boo - shot up to the top spot for his glorious case against Llama
2. Epignosis - for his case against boo
3. thellama73 - for his attacks on Snowman and Boo
4. birdwithteeth11 - for his rantings against TH and Russ
5. FZ - not because of quantity but quality of her cases
6. DharmaHelper - took a backseat in today's precedings
7. AceofSpaces - took a backseat in today's precedings

Thinkers
1. boo - he rises to the top of the Thinker rankings as well. boo's got his mafia hat on for sure.
2. FZ. - continues to contribute to all discussions
3. S~V~S - continues to contribute to all discussions
4. Epignosis - continues to contribute to all discussions
5. Turnip Head - continues to contribute to all discussions
6. Black Rock - continues to contribute to all discussions
7. juliets - a little quieter today than normal
8. bea - down a few spots as I only see bea considering one POV re: Snowman
9. Ricochet - steadfast in his Snowman suspicion
10. thellama73 - steadfast in his Snowman suspicion
11. birdwithteeth11 - has his thinking cap on but appears set in his suspicions to the point where he doesn't discuss other options
12. Matahari - continues to contribute, albeit on a small scale
13. Elohcin - continues to contribute, albeit on a small scale
14. Boomslang - continues to contribute, albeit on a small scale
15. MetalMarsh89 - posting consists mostly of jokes and jabs, not much gameplay analysis today
16. DharmaHelper - did not contribute much to Day 2's discussion
17. Long Con - posting is scarce and appears selective in content
18. AceofSpaces - did not contribute much to Day 2's discussion
19. Snowman - he's trying
20. Zomberella12 - down a few spots as she hasn't been around
21. Spacedaisy - RL takes precedence
22. Bass_the_clever - RL takes precedence
23. Made - his absence is glaring
24. Zeek - (not enough data tbh)
25. Disgruntled Porcupine - he's here, barely
26. Russtifinko - down to the bottom you go, Russ.

Elusive
1. Russtifinko - unwilling to talk about much of anything
2. DisgruntledPorcupine - general low level of participation
3. Turnip Head - a degree of unwillingness to explain his votes
4. Snowman - alleged by some to be avoiding the thread

Is it weird that I want to be at the top of your leader board? Because I kinda do.

[Black Rock]

My back seat taking is intentional. I understand I can be bullheaded and uncompromisingly ruthless, as well as my ability to take much of the spotlight for myself. So I didn't do that today, instead opting to allow discussion to be had by/about others.

and that is breathtaking

FZ came in here swinging.

I am not really seeing a baddie SVS at this point. I guess she has slightly changed her style but with her explanation and the number of posts in this game I can understand.

Llama, why do you think of him as a non-participator and not just a low poster? I am going back and forth trying to make heads or tails of why you aren't more understanding of a newer player. You are aggressive, everyone knows that, this is why I don't suspect you at this point. I just see why you seem to be so harsh concerning Snowman. Am I reading it on the sensitive side?

That's all from me for now. It's hard to type with a baby on your lap.

[FZ.]

I just reread it, and I think I said quite a lot. Normally I do this in a number of posts, I can do that instead if you like.

I meant in terms of hunting for baddies. Can you point me to one thing you said that actually resembled something like that? Again, no offence, I'm not trying to insult you.

[thellama73]

Llama, why do you think of him as a non-participator and not just a low poster? I am going back and forth trying to make heads or tails of why you aren't more understanding of a newer player. You are aggressive, everyone knows that, this is why I don't suspect you at this point. I just see why you seem to be so harsh concerning Snowman. Am I reading it on the sensitive side?

That's all from me for now. It's hard to type with a baby on your lap.

Again, for the millionth time, my suspicion and vote for Snowman are not based on his level of participation, but the content of his posts.

Unlike boo, I don't see very much distinction between someone who doesn't post at all and someone who doesn't post anything of substance. Neither is trying to baddie hunt. Neither is contributing to the discussion. Neither is really playing the game.

But again, that's not why I am voting Snowman. I just think boo is hypocrite for saying we should lynch people who don't contribute and then defending Snowman so hard.

[FZ.]

And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

Nope. I get the difference. My point is I could have avoided this by not posting at all. I could have been a non-particiapnt for the first two days and gotten a free pass. I chose to play the game, which was clearly a mistake.

Yes, you could have. My point about non-participants is that I still wouldn't have given you a free pass, and that the problem is, as you and I both dislike, there are people who would have given you that free pass.

And as I have said many times, and you have intentionally taken out of context many times, being a non-participant would not have been the same as being a low poster, which is why you call me a hypocrite, even though we both know, and anyone who reads what I've said knows, that is not true.

I don't understand why you consider Russ a non-participant but not Snowman. I have never understood this. They have both posted, but neither has posted very much or really been willing to say anything.

You still haven't answered why of all people, it was Snowman that you felt the need to bring to the table that much that you went and voted for him the first chance you had. Why not just keep saying, I think Snowman is bad because a,b, and c, and then again and again? Why just vote? Why not let him defend himself? It's not like were were in a rush? If the votes were changeable, I'd get it, but I don't now


linki: So you think Boo is a hypocrite or a baddie?

[DharmaHelper]

To be honest I'm not even fully caught up. I hope to be by the time I have to vote though. As it stands now, having not fully read/digested the Llama/Boo discussion, I'm likely to vote either Snowman or Zombrella. I understand this might seem like a cop out, but my suspicion of Zombrella lingers, and Snowman has been pinging me as well. I'm at the point in my reading where Epi discusses his suspicion of Snowman, and I agree with it. I do not agree with any of the "He's new" defenses people have been posting

I will form an opinion on the boo/llama stuff once I've read it all.

FZ. vs Bea - Bea is like this a lot, but she's also very good at doing what she does and being bad. FZ has struck me so far as moderately more suspect than the people she is bringing up.

TH is not someone I want to waste any more time on right now. If he is a Shinigami, it would be pointless. If he's not one, mathematically speaking, eventually we'd figure this out by way of either the other Shinigami revealing themselves or by TH dieing. So.

Is there anything anyone wants my two cents on?