Death Note Mafia [END]

#1751

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

It's a worthy goal.

#1752

FZ. wrote:
S~V~S wrote: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.

Actually I addressed this earlier. I am not a "baddie hunter", I am a watcher.

Not everyone plays the same game. I am not a case builder. I watch for things that get my attention, and then I build on those things. I don't go around pouncing on trivia (becasue that is what I think "baddie hunting" actually is).

You play your way, i will play mine, and judge me for how well I play MY game, not yours. What games can you think of where I have aggressively baddie hunted? I have barely been a baddie in the last few months, not since Fight Club. Tell me where you saw me aggressively baddie hunting in those games.

I judge you based on how I expect YOU to act, not on how much you are acting like me.

Linki, yeah, I do too, actually. I want to be ahead of the person who thinks I am not contributing

#1753

I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

#1754

AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

It's like we're brothers or something.

#1755

Llama, what do you think of Snowman's proper, long-awaited rebuttal? You did disagree right away with the way he viewed an argument or charge of yours, but you've pretty much been doing that with everybody today, so I still don't get much out of what you actually thought of his statement.

#1756

FZ. wrote: 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?

A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.

#1757

I'm starting to think Llama might not be bad after all ...

#1758

Ricochet wrote:Llama, what do you think of Snowman's proper, long-awaited rebuttal? You did disagree right away with the way he viewed an argument or charge of yours, but you've pretty much been doing that with everybody today, so I still don't get much out of what you actually thought of his statement.

Snowman didn't really rebut anything. He mischaracterized the arguments against him as "what's his deal?"

My initial argument, and I still think the strongest, is how he wanted votes to coalesce around one person before making up his own mind. His "rebuttal" did not address that. Then his actual vote did in fact come in at the end of a bandwagon. Why? He doesn't say or address that either.

Is that post supposed to make me change my mind?

#1759

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Llama, what do you think of Snowman's proper, long-awaited rebuttal? You did disagree right away with the way he viewed an argument or charge of yours, but you've pretty much been doing that with everybody today, so I still don't get much out of what you actually thought of his statement.
Snowman didn't really rebut anything. He mischaracterized the arguments against him as "what's his deal?"

My initial argument, and I still think the strongest, is how he wanted votes to coalesce around one person before making up his own mind. His "rebuttal" did not address that. Then his actual vote did in fact come in at the end of a bandwagon. Why? He doesn't say or address that either.

Is that post supposed to make me change my mind?

In case your question wasn't rhetorical, I did not ask you nor did I imply that.

#1760

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Llama, what do you think of Snowman's proper, long-awaited rebuttal? You did disagree right away with the way he viewed an argument or charge of yours, but you've pretty much been doing that with everybody today, so I still don't get much out of what you actually thought of his statement.
Snowman didn't really rebut anything. He mischaracterized the arguments against him as "what's his deal?"

My initial argument, and I still think the strongest, is how he wanted votes to coalesce around one person before making up his own mind. His "rebuttal" did not address that. Then his actual vote did in fact come in at the end of a bandwagon. Why? He doesn't say or address that either.

Is that post supposed to make me change my mind?
In case your question wasn't rhetorical, I did not ask you nor did I imply that.

Okay, cool.

#1761

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: 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?
A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.

This makes me nervous because we all know your track recored with people you made a case on flipping bad. lol

#1762

Bass_the_Clever wrote: This makes me nervous because we all know your track recored with people you made a case on flipping bad. lol

That's actually the best point anyone has made all day, lol.

#1763

thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote: This makes me nervous because we all know your track recored with people you made a case on flipping bad. lol
That's actually the best point anyone has made all day, lol.

I get why you voted snowman, you wanted to make a point. Do you feel like people are making it a bigger deal then it really is?

Did you guys get a ton of snow also?

#1764

AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

#1765

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote: This makes me nervous because we all know your track recored with people you made a case on flipping bad. lol
That's actually the best point anyone has made all day, lol.
I get why you voted snowman, you wanted to make a point. Do you feel like people are making it a bigger deal then it really is?

Did you guys get a ton of snow also?

It is snowing a lot.

I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.

#1766

Matahari wrote:
AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.
I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

I understand that, but it also mystifies me that if you think someone is bad, you would refrain from voting for them just because they are new-ish. New people are capable of getting baddie roles too.

#1767

thellama73 wrote:
I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.

To be honest, I don't fully understand why you felt the need to vote first, debate later. I mean I have read your reasoning for it, but I still don't fully understand why it was necessary. You did the same with your D0 vote: vote instantly, then subject yourself to all the potential counter-arguments, debates and so forth.

#1768

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.
To be honest, I don't fully understand why you felt the need to vote first, debate later. I mean I have read your reasoning for it, but I still don't fully understand why it was necessary. You did the same with your D0 vote: vote instantly, then subject yourself to all the potential counter-arguments, debates and so forth.

I come from a democratic republic. Enthusiasm for voting is in my blood.

#1769

thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote: This makes me nervous because we all know your track recored with people you made a case on flipping bad. lol
That's actually the best point anyone has made all day, lol.
I get why you voted snowman, you wanted to make a point. Do you feel like people are making it a bigger deal then it really is?

Did you guys get a ton of snow also?
It is snowing a lot.

I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.

You made a bigger deal out of it, plus your overconfidence makes people nervous.

Linki @Llama, that's just it, Llama, I don't necessarily think he is bad. That's you. I think sometimes some people, like you, tend to misconstrue nub behavior for bad behavior. Or behavior that YOU think doesn't make sense for bad behavior.

Linki @Rico, THIS^^^

Linki @Llama 2, plus you always make light of your suspicions yourself.

#1770

Turnip Head wrote:I'm starting to think Llama might not be bad after all ...

He says, conveniently, long after his vote has been cast. TH, I've been noting a number of cases where you pick up and then quickly drop suspicions (or vice versa), and I can't help but wonder if this is baddie butt-covering in the case that lynches go in undesirable ways.

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

Turnip Head wrote:The cases on FZ and Snowman seem pretty weak to me. I hope neither of them get lynched. But where's FZ? She has been pretty quiet...

followed almost immediately by

Turnip Head wrote: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?

There's a place where you question a Boo post, then retract your suspicion:

Turnip Head wrote:This is the snipped portion of the boo post I'm talking about. Yes, boo also mentions that Trice didn't need defending because he was defending himself. I still feel like something doesn't add up, but idk.

followed by

Turnip Head wrote:I have to agree BR, on reread I found it a lot less questionable than I originally thought

No shame in changing your opinions in light of new evidence, but many of these turnabouts happen pretty quickly, before the discussion has had a chance to progress altogether that much.

#1771

thellama73 wrote:
Matahari wrote:
AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.
I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.
I understand that, but it also mystifies me that if you think someone is bad, you would refrain from voting for them just because they are new-ish. New people are capable of getting baddie roles too.

I understand this, and I even did it once. I just didn't see your case as being very strong, or persuasive. It was handled in a way that caused me to be skeptical, as though you were just trying to draw votes on yourself.

linki, will read after

#1772

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.
To be honest, I don't fully understand why you felt the need to vote first, debate later. I mean I have read your reasoning for it, but I still don't fully understand why it was necessary. You did the same with your D0 vote: vote instantly, then subject yourself to all the potential counter-arguments, debates and so forth.
I come from a democratic republic. Enthusiasm for voting is in my blood.

That's right, Llama, give me a jokey reply, that will make me understand better.

#1773

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.
To be honest, I don't fully understand why you felt the need to vote first, debate later. I mean I have read your reasoning for it, but I still don't fully understand why it was necessary. You did the same with your D0 vote: vote instantly, then subject yourself to all the potential counter-arguments, debates and so forth.
I come from a democratic republic. Enthusiasm for voting is in my blood.
That's right, Llama, give me a jokey reply, that will make me understand better.

What do you expect me to ay? I have explained why I voted as I did, when I did, over and over again? Do you want me to keep quoting and requoting the same posts? I have explained myself, ou don't understand my explanation. What more can I do?

#1774

Boom, did you see my very reasonable answer? Would not want you to miss it and think I did not answer it.

S~V~S wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Finally, there's one other thing that stood out that I don't think has been readdressed:

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

S~V~S wrote:
Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?
I am not voting for boo unless he says something really amazingly bad. While we have some philosophical differences re low posting and whether it's better to get rid of low posters from the perspective of PLAYERS v. ROLES, I am seeing his points more so than I am seeing yours or Llamas regarding Snowman.
What would boo have to do that's amazingly bad to get you to vote for him?
SVS still hasn't given a good answer to that reasonable sounding but very vague claim, which pings me.
What would be amazingly bad? Saying something like, "My kill failed last night" or something of that sort. Really, it was just a remark basically saying it would take a lot of convincing for me to vote for boo. And it would. It would have to be one hell of a smoking gun, becasue I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he is bad. I won't say he's GOOD, but I certainly don't suspect him any more than anyone else at this stage.

#1775

I was struck by FZ.'s thrust at S~V~S for not contributing to discussion. I might vote there again.

#1776

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I just think it is odd my early vote, which I thought was well explained, is getting such scrutiny, and TH's is not.
To be honest, I don't fully understand why you felt the need to vote first, debate later. I mean I have read your reasoning for it, but I still don't fully understand why it was necessary. You did the same with your D0 vote: vote instantly, then subject yourself to all the potential counter-arguments, debates and so forth.
I come from a democratic republic. Enthusiasm for voting is in my blood.
That's right, Llama, give me a jokey reply, that will make me understand better.
What do you expect me to ay? I have explained why I voted as I did, when I did, over and over again? Do you want me to keep quoting and requoting the same posts? I have explained myself, ou don't understand my explanation. What more can I do?

I don't understand the need to do it, not why you did it, and especially the need to do it after a precedent such as your D0 vote.

#1777

Boomslang, a civvie is entitled to changing his opinion.

#1778

I'm still not sure why MM decided to vote Epig. I guess its something he'll have to answer when he comes back

#1779

One more time, Rico. I hope this satisfies you.

thellama73 wrote: I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

There is no NEED to do anything. I wanted to do it, for the reasons explained above. Why does it bother you so much? I don't understand the NEED to wait until the last minute to vote if you know who you want to vote for.

#1780

S~V~S wrote:Boom, did you see my very reasonable answer? Would not want you to miss it and think I did not answer it.

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.

Duly noted. I can't say I'm fully satisfied with that answer, because the example you're giving is basically an example of (forbidden) role outing. I do understand that you have a high standard of proof, and I just hope that carries forward to everyone else in the game.

linki w/TH: Yes, but changing multiple opinions without the presence of significant changes to the available evidence? I've pointed out a pattern of behavior here, not an isolated instance.

#1781

Turnip Head wrote:Boomslang, a civvie is entitled to changing his opinion.

What about Shinigami?

#1782

Epignosis wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Boomslang, a civvie is entitled to changing his opinion.
What about Shinigami?

They are probably entitled to their own opinions, but you wouldn't be able to hear them.

#1783

Catching up, page 30/45. But I felt the need to comment on this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Looking back Epi, you suspected FZ because of her absence as well, saying she is probably bad with SD. But FZ has since contributed quite a bit (though she did miss the lynch), and you never updated your suspicion to something current. If you did, then I can't find it.
I don't share your assessment of FZ. I think she has since posted a lot, but the content is not what I associate with good FZ. Good FZ. has a certain tenacity and assurance. She is a focused civilian, one that has proven dangerous to Mafia. I am not seeing that here.
We're definitely not on the same page. Whether or not it's constructive, FZ has contributed of late. Whether you think she's bad or good, you put her in a tough spot by suspecting her for 'being absent'. Same with Russ. Their continued absence will increase the suspicion of them. Also, if they do get around to talking, they'll be under the magnifying glass for being a previous target. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

Now, I do agree with your current observations of FZ. I also earlier missed this post on her, so your vote is more clear to me.

Now, if I may ask. Why do you think it is not foolish to vote someone on Day 1 who does not post on Day 1, but you still wanted to wait until Russ posted to vote for him?

Here's the thing-- and call this whatever you want, even if i were saying this with ulterior motives i'm still right-- I would be in the perfect position if i were a baddie this game. In the last 8 pages I read catching up, i was mentioned once, and it was a joke in passing. We need to make sure players like me or FZ seen above aren't slipping through the cracks. I'm not saying to vote low poster, but maybe general mindfulness of low post to content ratio?

Continuing to catch up...

#1784

thellama73 wrote:
juliets wrote: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.

llama,
First you ask the question:

thellama73 wrote: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)?

Then in the next post boo says this:

boo wrote: 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 I'm not understanding why you think he hasn't answered. I feel like we've been over this before but I still don't understand.

#1785

Boomslang, we'll have to agree to disagree. All my changes in opinion have been genuine, whether that's the way you read it or not.

#1786

OMG! You guys! you are making my head hurty again and it was only just starting to feel better from yesterday.

So, snowman came back in and said something more substantial. I did get the feeling reading that he was struggling to keep up more than he didn't care.

So to answer your question TH -yea that does help. I was 3 beers in last night and this thread literally caused a mental breakdown. I'm glad I waited till the morning to make up my mind. I believe SVS has said I "get bitchy" or something of the sort when I'm a civ - I chalk that up to beer Bea. I try to balance beer Bea with coffee Bea.

Boo. Wow. That's a heck of a well written case.

llama troubles me because llama always troubles me. I often don't see what he sees and I have no idea when he's being stubborn and obsitnate (I say that lovingly llama) because if he's bad or if he's good. He always just reads that way and I seem to remember him being good more than bad. So yea.

Troubling llama is troubling.

FZ - believe it or not - you bringing up a case against me - as well as your posts today - feel much more like the FZ I know and love. I've even agreed with you a couple times during my catch up. I do disagree with your assesment of SVS - I'm not seeing anything shadey from her at this moment. I'm willing to admit my heebiejeebies may have been preemptive. How bout we both keep an eye on each other and also everyone keeps an eye on LC because that cat is shifty. Not necessarily in a this game sense - but in an always sense.

I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out who to vote for you guys. There's been so much hair splitting that my split end's split ends have split ends. I'm starting to wish the DP option for Day 0 won.

#1787

I have skimmed and gleamed what I can in the available time I have at the moment. I feel bad voting right now because I'm not where I should be with the thread but I don't want to abstain because I don't believe that helps anyone.

llama - He does get called out early and sometimes lynched because of it. I believe he's being helpful and I won't be voting that way today.
Epi - Personally didn't see him as bad, but the Shingami Eye Deal cricked my brow. I considered it a possibility myself, which is why I'm hesitant about voting for him. Still, seems like normal Epi to me.
FZ - Not sure how I feel about her, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing in equal measure.
bea - not feeling the case against her, seems like normal bea to me.
TH - Not been super-talkative or helpful, and he usually is. I love the list though and I may make one at the start of the new week. Don't like him voting so early and then saying he doesn't think llama is bad anymore. Seems like an easy way to avoid responsibility for his vote.
Snowman - Following Donner Party, he doesn't seem that big of a talker to me but you have to be when people challenge you on things. I'd like to hear more from him.
boo - Seemed the voice of reason along with Epi on D0 - full disclosure is I would have voted for the safe standard lynches as well - however the back and forth with llama has made me question this.
Zomberella - One thing I noticed is she used the term "lunched" instead of lynched. Carry over from Donner obviously. She has since said she likes the idea of "lynching" Snowman. Not enough to garner a vote, however nobody corrected her in-thread I believe. Pure speculation but BTSC teammate could have corrected her. Just want it noted.

Did I miss any of the apparent candidates?

All in all, I don't feel comfortable voting for anybody right now.

Linki linki linki

#1788

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
- After Snowman gave his argument, I feel a bit better about that whole situation.

You do? I most certainly do not. I was not in Donner Mafia to know how he played there, but this post still seemed very jokey to me like, "Haha, oh no, am I gonna be lynched? Haha, don't lynch me. I can be helpful." Yeah, helpful to who?

Many people seem to have a hard time keeping up with the thread this game. As I was catching up (the past two times) for every page I would read, another would be formed. Maybe MP should lock the thread for an hour here and there

Turnip Head wrote: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

TH where do you find the time?

thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote: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.

I agree, lets give poor llama a break. He was (I think) first to be lynched in Game of Champions. He's contributing a whole lot, he's making cases, he's responding to questions/others' posts.

Okay...I can't believe I have finally caught up. I've been reading for over 2 hours!

I am voting snowman. I think he is the most suspicious today.

Aaaaannnnnd of course linki. Wow....I think I forgot you were even playing Made.

#1789

I missed Russ. I'm worried about Russ because he's been a lot more quiet than usual and doesn't seem to be as engaged as civ Russ would be. The silent treatment always puts me on edge when you expect good discussion from certain players.

#1790

juliets wrote: llama,
First you ask the question:
thellama73 wrote: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)?
Then in the next post boo says this:
boo wrote: 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 I'm not understanding why you think he hasn't answered. I feel like we've been over this before but I still don't understand.

Because that is not the answer to the question I asked. I wanted to know how long would be an adequate chance to respond (24 hours? 48? 72?) In other words, after what length of time would boo concede that Snowman has had an adequate chance to defend himself, but has not taken it? I never received an answer to this, so I assumed it to be indefinite.

#1791

I want to make it clear that, despite boo's novel, I have no intention of voting llama today.

#1792

thellama73 wrote:One more time, Rico. I hope this satisfies you.

thellama73 wrote: I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.
There is no NEED to do anything. I wanted to do it, for the reasons explained above. Why does it bother you so much? I don't understand the NEED to wait until the last minute to vote if you know who you want to vote for.

And you GOT discussion going, now that it is not going the way you had hoped, you are saying, "Why are you all picking on me".

We're discussing. As you wished

@ Boom, yes it does extend across the board

#1793

S~V~S wrote:
FZ. wrote:
S~V~S wrote: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.
Actually I addressed this earlier. I am not a "baddie hunter", I am a watcher.

Not everyone plays the same game. I am not a case builder. I watch for things that get my attention, and then I build on those things. I don't go around pouncing on trivia (becasue that is what I think "baddie hunting" actually is).

You play your way, i will play mine, and judge me for how well I play MY game, not yours. What games can you think of where I have aggressively baddie hunted? I have barely been a baddie in the last few months, not since Fight Club. Tell me where you saw me aggressively baddie hunting in those games.

I judge you based on how I expect YOU to act, not on how much you are acting like me.

Linki, yeah, I do too, actually. I want to be ahead of the person who thinks I am not contributing

I don't see you as the aggressive type, more like the really nice type

I was just catching up and I was reading your big post and ended up thinking that after that, it didn't give me any clue to what you are thinking in terms of any of the players. Maybe I was wrong. Did you give any thoughts on people you suspect other than me last day? Not even in terms of building a case, but rather who is pinging you at the moment. Sorry if you did and I missed it.

By the way, am I the only one pinged by BWT, his vote for Russ, and his whole behaviour surrounding TH and Russ? Just seems like the easiest suspicion ever. If it's role related, Russ is the last person to talk about it because it's infodumping, and BWT knows it

By the way, am I the only one pinged by BWT, his vote for Russ, and his whole behaviour surrounding TH and Russ? Just seems like the easiest suspicion ever. If it's role related, Russ is the last person to talk about it because it's infodumping, and BWT knows it

#1794

I'mma vote for Snowy now since today was kind of a shitty day in terms of productivity for me and I have to go do other stuff.

#1795

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: 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?
A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.

I like your answer here, but if you hadn't voted yet, would he still be your top suspect? If not him, who would you have voted for, and why?

#1796

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: 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?
A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.
I like your answer here, but if you hadn't voted yet, would he still be your top suspect? If not him, who would you have voted for, and why?

If I hadn't voted yet, I would still vote for Snowman. Nothing he or anyone else has said has changed my mind about him since yesterday.

#1797

Well, I have to go to work, I'm not entirely caught up yet, but I must vote. My vote has gone again to Llama, because I think he was deliberately twisting boo's arguments to show an inconsistency that was not that relevant. I think each player has the right to cast their vote how they want, if boo wants to give more time to Snowman, then he has at least clearly laid out the reasons why. Also, I voted him yesterday, so I must have seen something then, too.

Good luck, lynch!

#1798

Matahari wrote:
AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.
I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

Who is your top suspect Mata?
I feel like you're skating by a little. Giving input and thought into things (a thinker, like TH calls it), but I don't think I actually know what you think.

#1799

I also think Long Con is Yotsuba.

#1800

Epignosis wrote:I also think Long Con is Yotsuba.

So what you're saying is you don't want to lynch him