Death Note Mafia [END]

#1801

Epignosis wrote:I also think Long Con is Yotsuba.

So your teammate then. I could see it.

#1802

#1803

boo wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I also think Long Con is Yotsuba.
So your teammate then. I could see it.

Sassy!

#1804

Boomslang wrote:
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.

I consider TH to be a player similar to me in style, and since I can change my mind based on one vote, this flip flopping doesn't concern me

#1805

Going to watch episodes 10 & 11 of (according to my five-year-old daughter) "That show with the book thingie."

I'll vote after that.

#1806

@ FZ - you're not the only one keeping an eye on teefies.

He's on my watch list too. Teefies, LC, Made - though his post does bring up a good point, he's still someone I keep forgetting is playing and that's really weird as Made is pretty unforgettable. BR not because I suspect her per say but because I'm still trying to figure out how to read her in general. Outside of saying she wouldn't mind seeing more discussion on Snowman has Zombra been back to offer any more insights in light of the new Snowman discussion?

#1807

FZ. wrote:
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

When I find a bone, I can be an aggressive chewer. I try to be nice, but it isn't always easy.

TBH, the person I am most pinged by at this point is Epignosis. He's arguing points more than people, which is not civvie Epis MO, imo. I am not seeing the Crusader. I am not planning on voting for either llama or Snowman (unless that smoking gun shows up). I have seen Llama do this one time too many, and I think a hell of a lot of people have said a lot less than Snowman, both numerically & content wise.

#1808

FZ. wrote: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.

I mentioned something related to this earlier. BWT first pressed Russ to provide a defense, but then didn't seem altogether that concerned if he got one or not. BWT did end up voting for him, which is at least consistent, but it does seem like he picked an easy target and one for which he wasn't very concerned about the quality of evidence.

Linki w/bea: That makes another of us

#1809

S~V~S wrote: TBH, the person I am most pinged by at this point is Epignosis. He's arguing points more than people, which is not civvie Epis MO, imo. I am not seeing the Crusader. I am not planning on voting for either llama or Snowman (unless that smoking gun shows up). I have seen Llama do this one time too many, and I think a hell of a lot of people have said a lot less than Snowman, both numerically & content wise.

Yeah, but just to remind everyone, my vote for Snowman was not based on him posting little, either numerically or content wise.

#1810

Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.

#1811

Last sentence should have been orange, that was not a challenge lol.

#1812

S~V~S wrote:Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.

No, it is for his eagerness to join a bandwagon on Day 1 and his subsequent joining of that same bandwagon.

Are you serious? I have said this over and over again. You are either not reading or you have a motive for misrepresenting my vote.

#1813

It's been posted at least half a dozen times, but since people keep ignoring it, here it is again. THIS is the motivation for my vote, combined with his subsequent vote, and then his refusal to defend himself.

thellama73 wrote:
Snowman wrote: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?

#1814

thellama73 wrote:
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.

Since we were both so sure on Vomps in the Film game, and were wrong, I wonder how it is you're so sure of yourself. Also, I asked who other than him you'd vote for.

#1815

thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.
No, it is for his eagerness to join a bandwagon on Day 1 and his subsequent joining of that same bandwagon.

Are you serious? I have said this over and over again. You are either not reading or you have a motive for misrepresenting my vote.

And the reason you voted so early is because you wanted to start a bandwagon on him.

#1816

I'm Voting for Snowman . I have to leave now and do other things.

#1817

boo wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.
No, it is for his eagerness to join a bandwagon on Day 1 and his subsequent joining of that same bandwagon.

Are you serious? I have said this over and over again. You are either not reading or you have a motive for misrepresenting my vote.
And the reason you voted so early is because you wanted to start a bandwagon on him.

Basically, yes. I want him lynched because I think he is bad. Just like you want me lynched because you think I am bad.

#1818

FZ. wrote: Since we were both so sure on Vomps in the Film game, and were wrong, I wonder how it is you're so sure of yourself. Also, I asked who other than him you'd vote for.

Is being wrong sometimes supposed to turn me into a quivering mass of indecision to be led by others? Nope.

Who would I vote for if I was unable to vote for Snowman? It's a difficult question. Certainly not you. Not boo. Not Epi. Not DH. Probably not even TH anymore. His behavior today is starting to change my opinion of him. I would consider a vote for SVS, based on her misrepresentation of my vote. I would consider a vote for bea. I would consider a vote for Ricochet.

#1819

thellama73 wrote:
boo wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Yes, I know, it was for not responding to you in the time frame you felt suitable.

Tomorrow, should you live, I am hoping you put other quietish people to the same test.
No, it is for his eagerness to join a bandwagon on Day 1 and his subsequent joining of that same bandwagon.

Are you serious? I have said this over and over again. You are either not reading or you have a motive for misrepresenting my vote.
And the reason you voted so early is because you wanted to start a bandwagon on him.
Basically, yes. I want him lynched because I think he is bad. Just like you want me lynched because you think I am bad.

The difference being, I want people to vote for you after thinking about. I don't want people mindlessly follow obvious lies and spinning I've said and done to get what I want, and I'm not trying to have someone I don't actually believe is bad get lynched. One is a bandwagon, the other is not.

#1820

I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Snowman wrote:Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.

I'm not voting Snowman based on jumping onto bandwagons, but that is a factor, I'm voting Snowman because the underlined section worries me. This isn't Donner Party, there's no civ team per se. This terminology could be poor language selection by a new player or it could be a slip. Either way, he's got my vote because I just don't feel comfortable placing it anywhere else.

#1821

I am reading. And I don't think I am misrepresenting, this is just what it distills down to for me.

You have never voted for the popular choice as a civ?

But really, I read that as, all we're talking about is the option poll, and not suspects. He seems to think the option poll was not worth 20 pages of discussion.

You may be right; but I think your extrapolating this from one post (that could be read in more than one way) and his subsequent failure to reply to you in a timely manner is just more Llama. you do this stuff all the time.

I do not suspect you for it, nor do I plan to vote for you. So stop yelling at me, I am just trying to explain to you why you are taking votes.

Linki @ Llama, lol. Nice.

#1822

boo wrote: The difference being, I want people to vote for you after thinking about. I don't want people mindlessly follow obvious lies and spinning I've said and done to get what I want, and I'm not trying to have someone I don't actually believe is bad get lynched. One is a bandwagon, the other is not.

I do think Snowman is bad, and I do want people to think about him before voting for him. That's why I voted early. To force people to consider him. We've been over this.

#1823

Also, Llama, you are ALWAYS so sure, them make jokes about it. Lynching people is srs bsns. You are ending their game, don't make jokes about it.

#1824

S~V~S wrote:I am reading. And I don't think I am misrepresenting, this is just what it distills down to for me.

You have never voted for the popular choice as a civ?

But really, I read that as, all we're talking about is the option poll, and not suspects. He seems to think the option poll was not worth 20 pages of discussion.

You may be right; but I think your extrapolating this from one post (that could be read in more than one way) and his subsequent failure to reply to you in a timely manner is just more Llama. you do this stuff all the time.

I do not suspect you for it, nor do I plan to vote for you. So stop yelling at me, I am just trying to explain to you why you are taking votes.

Linki @ Llama, lol. Nice.

What do you mean "the option poll"? Snowman's comment, the one I suspect him for, was about the Day 1 lynch poll.

#1825

S~V~S wrote:Also, Llama, you are ALWAYS so sure, them make jokes about it. Lynching people is srs bsns. You are ending their game, don't make jokes about it.

This is a game. I am always going to make jokes.

#1826

thellama73 wrote:
boo wrote: The difference being, I want people to vote for you after thinking about. I don't want people mindlessly follow obvious lies and spinning I've said and done to get what I want, and I'm not trying to have someone I don't actually believe is bad get lynched. One is a bandwagon, the other is not.
I do think Snowman is bad, and I do want people to think about him before voting for him. That's why I voted early. To force people to consider him. We've been over this.

No, you don't. No you didn't, you've already agreed you voted early because you wanted people to bandwagon him.

#1827

bea wrote:@ FZ - you're not the only one keeping an eye on teefies. He's on my watch list too. Teefies, LC, Made - though his post does bring up a good point, he's still someone I keep forgetting is playing and that's really weird as Made is pretty unforgettable. BR not because I suspect her per say but because I'm still trying to figure out how to read her in general. Outside of saying she wouldn't mind seeing more discussion on Snowman has Zombra been back to offer any more insights in light of the new Snowman discussion?

Oh yeah, I mean to comment on your previous post. Since no one is seeing baddie Bea, and apparently, I'm out of my game this game, I'm willing to wait and see how this continues.

Why are you keeping an eye on BWT, and is it enough for a vote? What has Made said that has got you worried other than you forgetting he's even playing?
As for LC, I started thinking he's acting very not like him, but lately, he feels more genuine and trying.

linki: I'll address these later

#1828

Nobody reads my posts

#1829

boo wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
boo wrote: The difference being, I want people to vote for you after thinking about. I don't want people mindlessly follow obvious lies and spinning I've said and done to get what I want, and I'm not trying to have someone I don't actually believe is bad get lynched. One is a bandwagon, the other is not.
I do think Snowman is bad, and I do want people to think about him before voting for him. That's why I voted early. To force people to consider him. We've been over this.
No, you don't. No you didn't, you've already agreed you voted early because you wanted people to bandwagon him.

You're wrong.

#1830

zeek wrote:Nobody reads my posts

I did. And I think you're wrong. The detectives are a civ team. I think you're the first person to try and make the argument that they are not.

#1831

zeek wrote:Nobody reads my posts

I read your post, Zeek. I actually noticed that "my team" line earlier, but after thinking about it, I didn't think it meant anything. The civ team is still a team. SO I appreciate the vote for Snowman, but I disagree with your reasoning.

#1832

zeek wrote:Nobody reads my posts

I read your post and it pinged the hell out of me

what do you mean there's no civ team?

#1833

thellama73 wrote:It's been posted at least half a dozen times, but since people keep ignoring it, here it is again. THIS is the motivation for my vote, combined with his subsequent vote, and then his refusal to defend himself.

thellama73 wrote:
Snowman wrote: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. [/b]

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?

Linki, don't make jokes about your reasons for lynching people. Like I said, you are ending their game. That is serious to them, just like this is serious to you now that you are under suspicion.

Linki, I have seen the "He said team" think" lots of times. In this case, though, there is only limited BTS, that includes a civ BTS team.

#1834

Zeek voted Snowman for implying there was a civ team. What.

#1835

S~V~S wrote:

When I find a bone, I can be an aggressive chewer. I try to be nice, but it isn't always easy.

TBH, the person I am most pinged by at this point is Epignosis. He's arguing points more than people, which is not civvie Epis MO, imo. I am not seeing the Crusader. I am not planning on voting for either llama or Snowman (unless that smoking gun shows up). I have seen Llama do this one time too many, and I think a hell of a lot of people have said a lot less than Snowman, both numerically & content wise.[/quote]
You actually bring up a good point on Epi, one I didn't think about. Though he keeps saying he might vote for me (I'm a person), but it's not what I expect of him in terms of building a case, and he does seem to talk a lot about the roles. I don't see him setting up people or "trapping" them like he usually does. Hmm.

I'm starting to think llama isn't getting my vote either. Any thoughts on BWT?

#1836

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:It's been posted at least half a dozen times, but since people keep ignoring it, here it is again. THIS is the motivation for my vote, combined with his subsequent vote, and then his refusal to defend himself.

thellama73 wrote:
Snowman wrote: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. [/b]

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?
Linki, don't make jokes about your reasons for lynching people. Like I said, you are ending their game. That is serious to them, just like this is serious to you now that you are under suspicion.

Linki, I have seen the "He said team" think" lots of times. In this case, though, there is only limited BTS, that includes a civ BTS team.

Oh I see. His comment did come on Day 1 though.

#1837

I don't recall making a joke about my reasons for voting for Snowman. I recall having to repeat those suspicions ad nauseum. If I made one I'm forgetting about that offended you, I apologize.

#1838

Boomslang wrote:
FZ. wrote: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.
I mentioned something related to this earlier. BWT first pressed Russ to provide a defense, but then didn't seem altogether that concerned if he got one or not. BWT did end up voting for him, which is at least consistent, but it does seem like he picked an easy target and one for which he wasn't very concerned about the quality of evidence.

Linki w/bea: That makes another of us

A good baddie would at least be consistent. Means nothing to me. I think he knew Russ wouldn't answer and it made it even easier for him to vote for him based on that. He's not even trying to convince others, he just voted, and went on his way. Feels like he just wants to appear like he did what he's expected to, but it feels like BS to me

AceofSpaces wrote:I'm Voting for Snowman . I have to leave now and do other things.

Did we get any explanations for this?

#1839

A final thought before I'm gone for a while.

llama began his Snowman suspicion, and mostly rests it on, Snowman looking for a bandwagon to join.

llama has admitted to wanting to bandwagon Snowman.

You vote Snowman, you're probably bandwagoning.

And then D3, llama will lead a bandwagon against you.

Just something to consider.

#1840

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: Since we were both so sure on Vomps in the Film game, and were wrong, I wonder how it is you're so sure of yourself. Also, I asked who other than him you'd vote for.
Is being wrong sometimes supposed to turn me into a quivering mass of indecision to be led by others? Nope.

Who would I vote for if I was unable to vote for Snowman? It's a difficult question. Certainly not you. Not boo. Not Epi. Not DH. Probably not even TH anymore. His behavior today is starting to change my opinion of him. I would consider a vote for SVS, based on her misrepresentation of my vote. I would consider a vote for bea. I would consider a vote for Ricochet.

When I wrongfully lynch a civvie, and when I know how I hate when it happens to me, I'm more careful in following games. Not to mention the fact you did it so early. I guess we play differently, but I'm not going to vote for you after all. Like the end of last day, your answers made me feel better. We'll see what happens next day, assuming you'll still be here.

#1841

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: Since we were both so sure on Vomps in the Film game, and were wrong, I wonder how it is you're so sure of yourself. Also, I asked who other than him you'd vote for.
Is being wrong sometimes supposed to turn me into a quivering mass of indecision to be led by others? Nope.

Who would I vote for if I was unable to vote for Snowman? It's a difficult question. Certainly not you. Not boo. Not Epi. Not DH. Probably not even TH anymore. His behavior today is starting to change my opinion of him. I would consider a vote for SVS, based on her misrepresentation of my vote. I would consider a vote for bea. I would consider a vote for Ricochet.
When I wrongfully lynch a civvie, and when I know how I hate when it happens to me, I'm more careful in following games. Not to mention the fact you did it so early. I guess we play differently, but I'm not going to vote for you after all. Like the end of last day, your answers made me feel better. We'll see what happens next day, assuming you'll still be here.

The fact that I was wrong last time does not make me more likely to be wrong this time. If anything, it makes me less likely to be wrong this time, because there is something to learn from every lynch.

#1842

S~V~S wrote:TBH, the person I am most pinged by at this point is Epignosis. He's arguing points more than people, which is not civvie Epis MO, imo. I am not seeing the Crusader.

People make points. People are points. Lots of little points.

And I will never fall into a "play style." I will constantly do different things so that no one can assign me one. Have you noticed how many people have said I've been behaving normally and how many people have said I've been acting weird?

I have. That's reassuring to me. It means I'm doing it right.

FZ. wrote:You actually bring up a good point on Epi, one I didn't think about. Though he keeps saying he might vote for me (I'm a person), but it's not what I expect of him in terms of building a case, and he does seem to talk a lot about the roles. I don't see him setting up people or "trapping" them like he usually does. Hmm.

Ain't that cute. FZ. is now agreeing with someone who voted her Day 1 about someone who voted her Day 1.

I need to change my position in my chair to improve my deductive reasoning skills 40%.

#1843

No FZ. You aren't the only one. I mentioned BWT earlier and I am seriously considering him for a vote. Though boo's case on llama merits some consideration I think, I just get scared voting llama because I usually am wrong when I do find him suspicious. It makes me nervous. As far as BWT though, his level of engagement is making me feel suspicious and the thing is I remember in GoC I was not at all surprised by his engagement there, I was in fact surprised by the fact he got lynched for it, but for some reason in this game it feels insincere to me, but I can't put my finger on why.

#1844

FZ. what do you think of Zeek's vote?

#1845

I am posting from my phone from the hospital, which is really difficult. I will make sure to for before the poll closes but I doubt I will last again until I am home tonight.

#1846

I'm really torn this vote. I don't want to vote Snowman because i just don't think there is enough there to give him my vote. I'm thinking about voting llama but the things SVS has said about this just being llama has me paused on that vote. BWT is a possibility others have brought up but I don't think i fully understand the case on him. And there is only about 2 hours left.

linky,linky,linky POST PLEASE GO THROUGH

#1847

boo wrote:A final thought before I'm gone for a while.

llama began his Snowman suspicion, and mostly rests it on, Snowman looking for a bandwagon to join.

llama has admitted to wanting to bandwagon Snowman.

You vote Snowman, you're probably bandwagoning.

And then D3, llama will lead a bandwagon against you.

Just something to consider.

Haha, while that might be true, I'm not going to vote just based on that. I feel like most of your suspicion of him relies on the fact he doesn't meet his own standards of playing. But I think almost none of us do. The only thing I was really really bothered by, was his early vote, and he's managed to convince me it was genuine. At least for now

linki: Glad you find it cute. I'm a human being, I change my mind constantly. Just move to the floor, so you don't have to change positions in your chair. It's so confining.

linki: post now, answer later

#1848

FZ. wrote:
bea wrote:@ FZ - you're not the only one keeping an eye on teefies. He's on my watch list too. Teefies, LC, Made - though his post does bring up a good point, he's still someone I keep forgetting is playing and that's really weird as Made is pretty unforgettable. BR not because I suspect her per say but because I'm still trying to figure out how to read her in general. Outside of saying she wouldn't mind seeing more discussion on Snowman has Zombra been back to offer any more insights in light of the new Snowman discussion?
Oh yeah, I mean to comment on your previous post. Since no one is seeing baddie Bea, and apparently, I'm out of my game this game, I'm willing to wait and see how this continues.

Why are you keeping an eye on BWT, and is it enough for a vote? What has Made said that has got you worried other than you forgetting he's even playing?
As for LC, I started thinking he's acting very not like him, but lately, he feels more genuine and trying.

linki: I'll address these later

BWT - he's really really good at doing the "see all sides of the arguments" posts. He looks like he's concidering options and sometimes they feel genuine and sometimes they don't. I totally see what you are seeing in regards to his wanting answers from TH and Russ - saying he doesn't need them from Rusty and voting anyway. Feels like he knew how he wanted to vote and just set up a circumstance to make it look like he was giving Rusty a chance. TH never did answer his question like at all. I guess the thing that worries me most with Teefies is why did Rusty earn the vote but TH didn't? (Sorry TH - I was gonna sum up the question at some point today but tbh after a few pages, I don't remember it exactly anymore. It had something to do with your early vote for Llama though I think.) Compounded by not again asking he question when TH specificlly asked him to feels a lot like that was just pomp and cirucmstances to find a reason to vote the way he wanted to vote. Not sure if it's enough for a vote, but it may be where I end up going.

LC - So for most players I tend to run with the idea that they are all on the up and up and look for things that seem odd. This is not the case for LC. My meta experience with LC has left me just kinda always thinking he's bad and him having to work very hard to earn my trust. He knows this. We've post game talked a lot. Even when I think LC is civ, I'm always waiting for the other shoe to drop. He's as good of a mafia player as he is a civ, he's great at switching sides which makes him a prime candidate for recruitment any time that sort of mechanic is in play. I agree his posts read genuine. I also believe that this is an easy game to fall behind in and easy for players to hide in that "I'm super busy, I'm trying really!!" sort of posting. His posts tend to - much like svs said of epi - follow points of the game rather than players. It gives the appearance of contributing without contributing. Especially in a game with so much hair splitting.

Made - It's kinda the opposite reason for LC. Again, I get that RL is busy. He probably is swapped with school. My meta with him is that he tends to flounder a bit when he's bad but he's pretty ballz out right in the thick of things when he's a civ and figures he's got nothing to loose. The particular structures of this game (IE - the lack of baddie bts) seem taylor made for Made to shine, and I'm not really seeing that yet - which is a bit troubling.

linki - more linki -

Daisy.

#1849

Bea, I am going to read BWT now.

#1850

FZ. 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.
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.

I was a bit suspicious of BWT, because of the way he was posting at first. Seems like I remember him posting a lot of 'and yeahs' when he is bad. But then he started to sound a bit more involved and expressed a few opinions, so I am bb-ing him for now. I also felt a bit wary of you, for your posts, and then you made a post about Bea that made me laugh, because it was how I was thinking about your posts. I don't think you would have called Bea out as possibly bad for that if you were bad and using the same tactic. Therefore, I am more relaxed about you.

I can see what you were saying though about Bea, and I don't know if I agree as far as her posting style goes. Bea is always like that, it seems to me, and its really hard for me to know when she's bad or not.

I'm getting ready to vote soon, and have a post coming up about Llama, Russ, Epig and Metal. So the rest of my suspicions will be in that.

holy shit at the linkis