Epignosis wrote:I read through FZ. on Day 2. She encouraged people to vote bwt instead of Snowman, as you may recall.
FZ. wrote:Anyone who hasn't voted, please consider a vote for BWT
linki: llama, show me later, but right now, it doesn't matter much, does it?
FZ. wrote:I just went back and read Snowman's posts. I don't like the votes for him. Stop it
When I refused to vote for one of the "alternatives," I believe I touched a nerve:
FZ. wrote:Let me tell you Epi, you're looking worse by the minute. I didn't ask you to vote Snowman. If anything, I asked you not to. I just asked you not to waste a vote, and you're giving me this shitty speech about how you're going to vote whoever you damn well please. Bravo
The testiness aside, I want to highlight the underlined. All of a sudden on Day 2, FZ. is concerned about me not wasting a vote (i.e., having to vote someone with a reasonable chance of getting lynched).
Read the underlined, and then compare it with what she said about me Night 1:
FZ. wrote:I don't know what to think about Epi and DH either. At least Dh is following his suspicions. Epi just talked forever about lynching Russ, and argued endlessly with DH, but ended up voting for me. Not sure exactly why.
I had four suspects Day 1 (not "just" Russ), and I didn't "just" argue with DH. That "just" can be a naughty word. It can make people think only A happened when A, B, C, D, and E happened. Ah well. My point, linked to the underlined, is that FZ. pressured me to vote someone who already had votes, but couldn't figure out why I voted her instead of Russ (even though I
posted my suspicion of FZ. the morning of the Day 1 lynch).
I defended Snowman strongly, and asked you to vote BWT because at that time, I started feeling Snowman was an easy target. I thought he was a civ, and BWT seemed a hell of a lot more suspicious to me than Snowman. Am I proud of it? No! Am I bad because of it? Hell no. When you try to look back at all the games you've ever played, how many times do you remember baddies defending other baddies so strongly? I'm not saying it hasn't been done, but it's a suicidal plan, because 9 out of 10 times, people are going to think you were connected. When I defend someone so strongly, it's cause I honestly believe he's going to get wrongly lynched. I admit I've defended people I believe are civvies, when I was a baddie myself, but only once have I defended a team mated, and naturally, it backfired. I asked you to look in K-site, because that's the only place you can go to see my style and compare. I didn't do it because I thought no one would go. It's not that hard
After bwt flipped, FZ. said this:
FZ. wrote:I'd love to say that this is a good lynch, and it's definitely better than the last lynch, but I would have much preferred if it was a known baddie. At this point, I'll say that I guess third parties alignments might depend on the person playing it. I know I, as an indie would most probably choose the civvie side, while others would choose the baddie. I hope BWT is the kind that would choose the latter. It would make me feel a lot better for pushing for that lynch.
I still don't think llama is bad, but not ruling out one of the non detective roles. Same goes for Snowman. I liked Russ' analysis as well. Thought it was very helpful.
This post alone rules out FZ. as Yotsuba if one were to assume that Eiichi Takahashi's win condition is the same as the other non-Kira Yotsuba, which I do, having watched almost all of the show and given the role powers regarding the meeting and the phone call.
I am a person that takes responsibility for lynching someone who is not bad (not sure what BWT is considered, but I agree that Snowman was the better choice), and I feel bad for it. Doesn't mean anything.
FZ. wrote:(you can always go on K-site and look at my baddie games).
Not as simple an invitation for those of us who do not visit K-Site and wouldn't know that you're not FZ. there. In addition, someone's "game" here cannot reasonably be compared to a forum in which Day phases last a week, votes are changeable, a poll is not readily available, roles are revealed in NKs, you can't post but once at Night, and there has to be a majority (or half) for a lynch to happen at all. Feel free to disagree with that. Finally, why would we be trying to look at your "baddie game" in order to see if you are bad here? Are you that transparent when you are bad? I don't think you would be.
Again, since you all keep using crappy reasons to call me bad, like me defending a baddie, I want to prove that it's something I never do. Where can you see it? On K-site. If you actually care to get rid of the Kiras, you'd be interested in not lynching someone who couldn't be farther from a Kira. That's the reason.
FZ. wrote:For me, I get suspicious, I attack, I read what the other person says. If I still think it's fishy, I attack again, and read their answer again. If I'm eased, I lay off for the time being and look for a new "victim". I do this until I decide either to vote for a person or not.
And sometimes I just go with my gut on a whim. I'm a complicated person. I don't always do the exact same thing.
So which is it? Can we go look at your "baddie game" on K-Site and decide, or are you a "complicated person" who doesn't always do the same thing?
But very well. I took the time to find a game in which you were bad (Star Trek) and I read through the thread. All 69 pages.
++++
What follows is my read of that game. If you are not interested in accepting FZ.'s invitation to read one of her "baddie games" on K-Site, you can safely ignore what follows.
The first thing that popped out at me was that you are
too easily dissuaded, which matches your behavior here, I think.
Another thing that caught my attention was
this post, in which you said the following: "The last time I remember calling out someone for saying something pointless in his first post in the game, it was TH in a game I just played with him on TS (are you being served), and he was scum. No one wanted to vote for him for almost the entire game, and I was right. It doesn't make me right this time, but that's how I play. You don't have to follow. I'll still call out what I find scummy." The importance here is you are justifying backing off of a suspicion (in this case, baking off of Laura) by showing how you were right one time at The Syndicate.
Here, FZ. wants to remove the focus off of her by getting others to talk about other people.
Again, you excuse your accusation of Laura by saying that it wasn't really much of a suspicion. Later, your teammate (k4j) would support you in backpedaling, even going so far as to say "I'm not trying to take heat of FZ."
You also
threw out a lot of names early on, which is
what you also did here.
Was Laura bad??? Was she my team mate? Sure, I go after civvies, and I back off. These are things I do both when a civ and a baddie. It's how we all play the game, isn't it?
Like k4j, you don't shy away from
defending teammates.
This maybe the one and only thing I'm having a problem with. I forgot about this, but it does have an explanation. Me and K4J always trust each other fairly quickly when we are both civvies, and when we start off bad, it almost always means one of us is bad. We talked about how we couldn't start suspecting one another because there's no coming back from that, so we decided to play the relatively trusting each other. But he's the only player. I know this doesn't sound sincere, but it is.
This post implied an irritation at fingersplints only saying "No, I am not scum."
What exactly is your problem with that? I do try to look like I'm actually baddie hunting no matter what alignment I have. When someone just says I'm not bad and doesn't give anything more, you can bet I'll call them out on it.
Also, you don't have a problem correcting a teammate in the thread, and you did so
in this case in under 25 minutes.
Ha? What's wrong with correcting a teammate? I thought the problem is that I'm trusting one, which regarding K4J, I explained.
You
talk about teammates when others bring them up and then make excuses for them based on past experiences.
I never said I just go and vote for a team mate and screw him. Of course, when it's not too obvious, I try to stir the talk away from them. But I never do the "I don't like the votes on Snowman, stop it" like I did this game. I'll never stop a team mate's lynch like that. If anything, when I'm bad and a team mate has been caught, I'm one of the first to vote for them (like second or something).
Knowing that Laura (the emo cop) checked FZ. Night 0, I found
this interesting because FZ. is declaring what somebody else (who was dead, incidentally) would do as a
defense of herself. In the former post, FZ. demonstrates an ability to turn suspicion around against a civilian. I'm taking note of the phrase, "If you really are a townie..."
Defending a teammate and suspecting him at the same time. Again, offering her teammate an out ("Either...")
First, I'm glad you're taking notes :P once again, if I defend a team mate, you just prove again and again that it's very subttle, not like what's been happening here
Again, FZ. finds a
way to weasel out of her suspicion by citing past games AND cites the actions of other people piling on him as evidence that she could be wrong about him. So an interesting point:
FZ. is okay with her suspect if she's the only one voting that person by the end of the Day, but if others agree and vote earlier, then she starts feeling that she could be wrong. Bear in mind that, in this context, she is bad.
Has it happened here, or did I encourage people to vote for BWT? You're just proving that I'm not bad. I'm doing nothing like I did in that game
FZ.'s reaction to a civilian lynch she led is that she should be lynched next, but she is ready to point fingers again in post
666.
Notice that with BWT, I took responsibility but I did not say, just lynch me, or whatever. Very different. There are nuances, because I like to think I do try to act the same when I'm bad, but when I'm good, I just feel crappy for lynching a civ, and when I'm bad, apparently I overreact. Thanks for this, I'll try not to do it in the future.
And at this point, bea replaces FZ. due to harrowing real life events.
++++
That's the end of that reading scenario.
In summary, FZ. invites us to accept comparing her playing here with her playing elsewhere. I think she said that because she didn't actually believe anybody would do it, and I further believe the invitation was a ruse to make us think she has a "civilian game" and a "baddie game," when in fact she implied that she doesn't:
FZ. wrote:I'm a complicated person. I don't always do the exact same thing.
Maybe she was the First Kira and can't be lynched atm.
