Death Note Mafia [END]

[bea]

tbh - it's on my to do list - I admit - I've not been doing the research I should. I've had a weird couple days of work + getting a car and doing the things I need to do so I can drive again - (very long story the thread does not need the deets here) - and also today is the hubby's birthday so I've been managing mafia in two games + birthday stuff.

I should now while they are distracted tbh.

[Turnip Head]

Yes I would love to hear your thoughts on him In fact I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on him.

[Turnip Head]

Happy birthday Diggs!!!!!!

[bea]

he says thank you!!!

and - omg - I just looked back -there are 13 pages of MM posts. I'd love to reread it but IDK where to start and day 1 feels daunting at that post count. Help a slightly drunk sista out maybe?

[Turnip Head]

Just skip all the pages of puzzle solving and you'll see there's very little content outside of that :P

[boo]

Boo strikes me as an intelligent player and when he posts, it usually makes a lot of sense, but it also seems like he's on the outskirts looking in, afraid to get his hands dirty. Don't know what to make of it, because I don't know how he usually plays.

I've quoted FZ's original post because it's important in relationship to boo.

And see what you did there boo? See it? It's why I have a hard time trusting you even when like in the Made lynch I agreed that a yoshiba isn't a detctive and therefore not so aweful.

It's because of the assumptions you make. DP said he agreed with that statement up there but never said what part of it.
In fact, FZ herself never said when "usually" applies. You took that all on yourself to mean that she meant that she suspects who you suspect.

Then you used an assumption of what posts you've made that FZ finds and thinks makes sense of to turn it around to make it look like DP is double talking when in fact - his meaning I think was pretty clear.

That he agrees - sometimes you make sense, but you suspect people he doesn't and that worries him.

And did you really think if you actually presented a case against me rather than your trip to imagination land that I'd really flip out all balls to the walls? Is that the impression you have of me?

I know what happened with MM and DH was aweful and I feel so very very bad about it.

All I can think of is bioshock when I was up for lynch for days and finally just said "I don't fucking care anymore, lynch me." I was a nilla civ in that - incarnation and I was calm and cool for DAYS about it. And for DAYS no one said I read genuine. Once I lost it - everyone gave me cred that fault isn't mine. I felt badly about loosing it tbh.

It's your misrepresentation - or unwillingnes to clarify why you think I'm bad in a way that's not a trip to imagination land - and now your twisting of both FZ's post and DF's posts that make me think you are up to no good. Prove me wrong boo. I want you to be civ, but man, you are making it so super hard for me to believe you have good intentions at all.

Not specifying a part means he agrees with all of it. And then he says he doesn't agree with all of it. So why say he agrees with it?

Usually means most of the time. Most of the time, my posts are about suspecting people. Most of the time, if my posts make sense, then FZ understands where I am coming from on my suspicions. I don't have to make assumptions about her use of the word usually, it's what the word means.

DP was double talking, and yes, I picked that up from his post, and I think most people will be able to, so yes, his meaning was clear. But he was trying to mask it, and that's the whole reason I find him suspicious.

And then again, if he agrees I usually (not sometimes, but nice trying to change the word there, very on the up and up bea) make sense, and most of my posts are about my suspicions and why I find people suspicious, but he doesn't agree with who I find suspicious - to the point he is paranoid about me - then he doesn't usually find that I make sense and agree with me. So why say that he does?

Just because I didn't frame my suspicions of you in my typical way does not make it 'imagination land'. I think you are the killer. I provided reasons why I think you're the killer. You still could have chose to respond to the things I actually said (which you have never made any real effort to do), but instead, you're trying to write it off as make believe. And yes, I left you that out, by discussing why I didn't build a case around you, and instead discussed who died, why I think you'd do, and why I think that makes you the killer. By the standards of most people, that is case building. It isn't by mine, so I didn't call it a case, and you're trying to turn my doing that into saying everything I said (that was still based on reason, and things from within the thread) is imaginary. \

No, I didn't think you'd 'flip out balls to the wall'. And I said that. I said that I think you do a version of that type of defense, where it isn't about defending based on countering the other person in a meaningful way, but defending by making posts that strike people as 'genuine' which makes go back to trusting you. And yes, I think that's absolutely how you defend yourself if it's a method of defense that is available. That isn't even about civ vs. mafia bea though, you can do it as either. I was trying to come at you in a way where the option wouldn't be open, so you'd have to defend yourself in a more transparent way. And I think you're ignoring the actual things I said, and downplaying it as me making things up, is that kind of transparency.

You were not a civvie in Bioshock. There weren't civvies in Bioshock. That whole argument is the reason I got lynched in that game. In Bioshock, you were a security bot. Then you replaced in as Fontaine. As a security bot, 1 player needed to die, and when they did, you had a last person standing win condition and a NK. You died before that happen (but it did happen, and in a game that size, the odds it didn't were always low), yes, but you were not a civvie. I assume that's the scenario you're referring to, because Fontaine was even less ambiguous and the closest to being a baddie that game had to offfer. You know my role in Bioshock, where I got lynched (for being right, to remind you. Again)? I was part of the 'civvies 2' group (the civvies in that game were in quotes - because they were not actually civvies), which was the group that was the closest to a standard idea of civvies, because their win conditions allowed for the greatest number of people alive at the end of the game.

So... bad example trying to pick Bioshock, is my point.

I gave reasons I think you're bad. I think you're the one killing. I made that clear. I also used language that allowed you to try and get out of my actual suspicions by dismissing them. Rather than make any attempt at reading my suspicions and addressing them (which I think civ bea would do), you're entire strategy for dealing with me has been 1) ignoring me when possible and 2) Focusing on the out I gave you that it wasn't my usual way of discussing my suspicions.

[boo]

Ahh the no u train arrived on time as expected.

Anyways, the point I was referring to was this:

but it also seems like he's on the outskirts looking in, afraid to get his hands dirty.

If that is indeed a usual thing I apologize. I've played so few games lately I forget lots of who does what. But sure, if you think you understand me that much, which I guess you don't, you can vote how you please. Assuming you're being genuine at least. :o

It isn't a no u. It's what an actual suspicion looks like. You should try posting more some time, made you'd discover it for yourself! You should also try posting more, because then your attempts at manipulation would show up sooner, and people could actually form thoughts on your alignment instead of having to keep you around until no one is really sure who should be lynched next.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

You accuse me of manipulation and yet you're living in a magical land where no one ever leaves anything up to implication. And your suspicion is literally entirely based on my suspicion of you, and you mis

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

Woops didn't finish that post and accidentally clicked. Here we go again:

You accuse me of manipulation and yet you're living in a magical land where no one ever leaves anything up to implication. And your suspicion is literally entirely based on my suspicion of you, and you misrepresenting what I said about it. I think you could be a little no u'y here. If I wasn't clear enough, I apologize. But how could you honestly think things are black and white as: "Not specifying a part means he agrees with all of it."

[boo]

You accuse me of manipulation and yet you're living in a magical land where no one ever leaves anything up to implication. And your suspicion is literally entirely based on my suspicion of you, and you mis

If you didn't want to agree with the whole thing (a couple of sentences), you shouldn't have agree with it. The implication is that you agree with all of it.

Claiming you just weren't clear, and then apologizing for it, is one way to try and downplay, I guess. Not a convincing one, but I guess you're committed to going for it. But oh wait, you're also trying to use your supposed lack of clarity to make it seem like you have more reasons to find me suspicious. After apologizing for the lack of clarity. So either you're bad, and were manipulating things, or you're good, and weren't clear. But you're trying to use the lack of clarity to further your claims for reasons to not trust me. Again, more ill-masked manipulation.

[bea]

Boo strikes me as an intelligent player and when he posts, it usually makes a lot of sense, but it also seems like he's on the outskirts looking in, afraid to get his hands dirty. Don't know what to make of it, because I don't know how he usually plays.

I've quoted FZ's original post because it's important in relationship to boo.

And see what you did there boo? See it? It's why I have a hard time trusting you even when like in the Made lynch I agreed that a yoshiba isn't a detctive and therefore not so aweful.

It's because of the assumptions you make. DP said he agreed with that statement up there but never said what part of it.
In fact, FZ herself never said when "usually" applies. You took that all on yourself to mean that she meant that she suspects who you suspect.

Then you used an assumption of what posts you've made that FZ finds and thinks makes sense of to turn it around to make it look like DP is double talking when in fact - his meaning I think was pretty clear.

That he agrees - sometimes you make sense, but you suspect people he doesn't and that worries him.

And did you really think if you actually presented a case against me rather than your trip to imagination land that I'd really flip out all balls to the walls? Is that the impression you have of me?

I know what happened with MM and DH was aweful and I feel so very very bad about it.

All I can think of is bioshock when I was up for lynch for days and finally just said "I don't fucking care anymore, lynch me." I was a nilla civ in that - incarnation and I was calm and cool for DAYS about it. And for DAYS no one said I read genuine. Once I lost it - everyone gave me cred that fault isn't mine. I felt badly about loosing it tbh.

It's your misrepresentation - or unwillingnes to clarify why you think I'm bad in a way that's not a trip to imagination land - and now your twisting of both FZ's post and DF's posts that make me think you are up to no good. Prove me wrong boo. I want you to be civ, but man, you are making it so super hard for me to believe you have good intentions at all.

Not specifying a part means he agrees with all of it. And then he says he doesn't agree with all of it. So why say he agrees with it?

Usually means most of the time. Most of the time, my posts are about suspecting people. Most of the time, if my posts make sense, then FZ understands where I am coming from on my suspicions. I don't have to make assumptions about her use of the word usually, it's what the word means.

DP was double talking, and yes, I picked that up from his post, and I think most people will be able to, so yes, his meaning was clear. But he was trying to mask it, and that's the whole reason I find him suspicious.

And then again, if he agrees I usually (not sometimes, but nice trying to change the word there, very on the up and up bea) make sense, and most of my posts are about my suspicions and why I find people suspicious, but he doesn't agree with who I find suspicious - to the point he is paranoid about me - then he doesn't usually find that I make sense and agree with me. So why say that he does?

Just because I didn't frame my suspicions of you in my typical way does not make it 'imagination land'. I think you are the killer. I provided reasons why I think you're the killer. You still could have chose to respond to the things I actually said (which you have never made any real effort to do), but instead, you're trying to write it off as make believe. And yes, I left you that out, by discussing why I didn't build a case around you, and instead discussed who died, why I think you'd do, and why I think that makes you the killer. By the standards of most people, that is case building. It isn't by mine, so I didn't call it a case, and you're trying to turn my doing that into saying everything I said (that was still based on reason, and things from within the thread) is imaginary. \

No, I didn't think you'd 'flip out balls to the wall'. And I said that. I said that I think you do a version of that type of defense, where it isn't about defending based on countering the other person in a meaningful way, but defending by making posts that strike people as 'genuine' which makes go back to trusting you. And yes, I think that's absolutely how you defend yourself if it's a method of defense that is available. That isn't even about civ vs. mafia bea though, you can do it as either. I was trying to come at you in a way where the option wouldn't be open, so you'd have to defend yourself in a more transparent way. And I think you're ignoring the actual things I said, and downplaying it as me making things up, is that kind of transparency.

You were not a civvie in Bioshock. There weren't civvies in Bioshock. That whole argument is the reason I got lynched in that game. In Bioshock, you were a security bot. Then you replaced in as Fontaine. As a security bot, 1 player needed to die, and when they did, you had a last person standing win condition and a NK. You died before that happen (but it did happen, and in a game that size, the odds it didn't were always low), yes, but you were not a civvie. I assume that's the scenario you're referring to, because Fontaine was even less ambiguous and the closest to being a baddie that game had to offfer. You know my role in Bioshock, where I got lynched (for being right, to remind you. Again)? I was part of the 'civvies 2' group (the civvies in that game were in quotes - because they were not actually civvies), which was the group that was the closest to a standard idea of civvies, because their win conditions allowed for the greatest number of people alive at the end of the game.

So... bad example trying to pick Bioshock, is my point.

I gave reasons I think you're bad. I think you're the one killing. I made that clear. I also used language that allowed you to try and get out of my actual suspicions by dismissing them. Rather than make any attempt at reading my suspicions and addressing them (which I think civ bea would do), you're entire strategy for dealing with me has been 1) ignoring me when possible and 2) Focusing on the out I gave you that it wasn't my usual way of discussing my suspicions.

boo -what have I not addressed?

You say I could have killed LC and SVS - and yes - I could have killed them. I could have even killed LC without remorse. But my history shows that I would most likely not have killed SVS. I could kill my own husband in a game before her. Killing her when she is bad and I am civ always feels like cheating to me. So I don't do it. Could I have done it? Sure. I could have done it.

But I didn't.

And that story hasn't changed from day the first time you started bringing it up.

I'm frustrated because you seem to think there is something here I should see and say and somehow that is going to make everything ok with you - but I don't see it and I don't understand it. You made up a believable story about how I could have been the killer. I agree - it's a beliveable story. If you don't look at the thread ever and it could be said of almost anyone in the game.

As far as Bioshock goes. I was speaking of Bea 1.0 not rezed Bea and you know that. And none of the things you talked about happening that would have made my security bot status change had happened at the time of my lynch so - yes - as I understood my role pm by my host - at that time, I was a vanilla civ.


What I truely don't understand is why me? what did I do? Why the witch hunt on me?

I can't magically say magic words when I don't know what they are. I'm a detective and every time you persue my lynch and every time you seem to go after people I have good feels about it disturbs me.

Play imagination land in my world for just a second - imagine I'm being truthful. (because I am) - imagine how you would feel if the tables were turned. At least understand that I'm trying to give you the botd even as you falsely call me evol and kira.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

I'm not trying to manipulate anything. I realize maybe I wasn't clear and if you were confused that's fine. It just feels you were trying to twist my supposed lack of clarity, especially with something so assuming as what I quoted.

[boo]

It isn't about any one thing you can say, it's about the option you chose to deal with what I had to say. I usually set people up to counter point what I say, I don't think you'd do that, that isn't an option I want to try and set up for you. I set you up to deal with it in a different way. The way you have chosen is to act like it's all make believe (even though in this post, you're now admitting it makes sense. But somehow, it's also been a lunatic theory in other posts you've made). We've touched on it being able to be said about anyone. This was tailored to you, building a case is what can be done with anyone. This was about you. Your response (and everything since) did not make me believe I am wrong, and, for the most part, has reinforced my not trusting you.

You weren't a vanilla civ, in the sense that in almost every scenario of how that game could play out, you'd never finish the game as a vanilla civ, but with a role that required you to be the last person standing. I think most people, in that role, would play the game setting up their options in the (very likely) event that they became a rogue indy. Which is why acting like you just spent the whole game thinking of yourself as a vanilla civ is a poor example.

You killed (at least) LC and SVS. I've been pretty up front about that one, haven't I?

You know the magic words. You've been advada-kedavraing people all up in this game. I want to put a stop to it. Obviously me trying to lynch you disturbs you. Is that supposed to make me believe you aren't Light? Is my going after people you say you trust supposed to make me feel better about you?

I've tried imagining you're truthful. More importantly, I've tried giving you the opportunity to make me actually believe it. You have not. You have done the opposite. I shouldn't have to imagine how it would feel if the tables were turned. If you don't trust me, and you think I am bad, you shouldn't be giving me the botd, you should be trying to get me lynched. You aren't making that effort, because you don't actually believe I am a kira, and you don't actually want me lynched, because it makes you look bad, and you know it. I am making an effort to get you lynched, because I do believe you're a kira, and I will pursue it, because that's what an actual detective who actually wants to catch actual Kira's actually does.

[bea]

you are incorrect.

Here let me help you show you how incorrect you are. Maybe if you aren't bad you'll wake up and see the rest of the game.

[Marmot]

you are incorrect.

Here let me help you show you how incorrect you are. Maybe if you aren't bad you'll wake up and see the rest of the game.

I really enjoyed reading this post.

[boo]

you are incorrect.

Here let me help you show you how incorrect you are. Maybe if you aren't bad you'll wake up and see the rest of the game.

In case anyone was wondering why I don't think offering points to be countered would have been an effective strategy, you can consider this Exhibit A.

[bea]

I advise EVERYONE who has ANY bit of doubt about where I stand this game to follow my vote.

linki - I'm glad boo. I want to be lynched now.

I want it soooo badly.

th - did you vote early? if not -please vote me.

I NEED my role to be revealed right now.

more linkie. I have nothing to hide. I'm a detective. I've always claimed to be a detective. When you lynch me my role will be revealed.

I'm curious as to how you act when you do indeed get me lynched and get my role revealed.

I'm actually excited for it.

[bea]

lol - I did it again - and thought boo made a post when it was MM - I'm glad you enjoyed my post too. lol.

[Matahari]

Wow, I was going to do a list tonight, but it looks like I have a lot of reading to do first. From skimming a few posts, I've already changed my thoughts a bit on 2 players. I'll try to read up on the first page, and reread all these posts from today, then get my thoughts in here either really late tonight, or tomorrow morning.

[boo]

I advise EVERYONE who has ANY bit of doubt about where I stand this game to follow my vote.

linki - I'm glad boo. I want to be lynched now.

I want it soooo badly.

th - did you vote early? if not -please vote me.

I NEED my role to be revealed right now.

more linkie. I have nothing to hide. I'm a detective. I've always claimed to be a detective. When you lynch me my role will be revealed.

I'm curious as to how you act when you do indeed get me lynched and get my role revealed.

I'm actually excited for it.

And here you can see The 'Genuine' Defense in its natural habitat.

[bea]

again lynch me.

I'm totes cool with it.

[Marmot]

Self-voting is a risky behavior and not recommended when playing mafia, because the goal is to lynch baddies. Since you have insight on your own role, you must know you are a baddie, so I will totes mcgoats go along with your vote bea.

[bea]

thanks mm - I appriciate your vote.

[Turnip Head]

th - did you vote early? if not -please vote me.

Yeah Bea I already voted. For MetalMarsh, in an attempt to drum up any discussion about him at all.

If you're telling the truth, I for one hope you don't get lynched :-/

[DharmaHelper]

Goodness me.

[Marmot]

th - did you vote early? if not -please vote me.

Yeah Bea I already voted. For MetalMarsh, in an attempt to drum up any discussion about him at all.

If you're telling the truth, I for one hope you don't get lynched :-/

You're allowed to bring points to the table you know. You don't have to bring up a name in the hopes someone else will bring something up for you.

[Turnip Head]

I've already made plenty of points about you on past Days, but they were mostly ignored.

[Black Rock]

Voted for Black Rock.

Shocking. You are very stubborn man. I thought I gave you enough to slap you in the face. Obviously you're more of the type that needs it spelled out for you. Too bad it's against the rules.

Bea, is there a good reason besides you want to prove yourself?

[Spacedaisy]

Ok today has gotten weird real fast.

[bea]

Voted for Black Rock.

Shocking. You are very stubborn man. I thought I gave you enough to slap you in the face. Obviously you're more of the type that needs it spelled out for you. Too bad it's against the rules.

Bea, is there a good reason besides you want to prove yourself?

nope. no good reason at all to vote me unless you think I am lying. I'm totes doing this to prove a point.

I'm trying to lay this to rest once and for all. And I'm willing to die to do it.

If you don't believe that what I've said or how I've played in this game is true and working to trying to help the detectives win then please vote me.

I gave you a new reason to vote me too - I voted myself. I know I'm a detective so clearly I'm working to not further the dective's win but to prove to boo he's flat out wrong about me. And if he's flat out wrong about me, he should see my role and think about why I have been skectched out by his going after the people he has.

[DharmaHelper]

Ok today has gotten weird real fast.

[Turnip Head]

I really think Bea is telling the truth here. I would rather people vote for TH than vote for Bea.

[FZ.]

My observations are definitely influenced by how I'm being viewed this game.
First of all, I just want to say that my cussing and emotional overreaction only began after I responded to every accusation that was thrown at me time after time, only to find it twisted and turned so it fit the initial perception. So whoever wants to just accuse me of going with the emotional "manipulation" or even civvie response has no idea what they are talking about.

So when looking at the back and forth between Boo and Bea, I can see it in two ways:
1. Bea is being falsely accused (either by a civ or a baddie). Yeah, I could see the case, but since things I say are wrongly used against me, so can hers.
2. Her voting for herself is an awesome bluff meant to make people think they shouldn't vote. But if that's the case, why keep encouraging them to do so?
I feel I'm more inclined to go with the former. Heck, I've thought of doing this a few times, just to prove the point. But I have my reasons not to.



I have been thinking about llama lately, especially after his crusade for lynching me. Here are my reasons and I'd like to hear others' thoughts:
1. The entire game, he's been displaying a one track mind. He's not looking into anything else. He's made up his mind about me, great. Does he comment on anything else? No! He's just sitting there telling people to vote for me. Say you get me lynched, what then? I'd expect civvie llama to want to further the discussion. Especially since he keeps saying that the puzzles are hindering the talk. I don't see him talking at all.
2. Did you all notice that Zombarella was not trusting him much? And she was one of the few who didn't. Did we ever stop to think that maybe that's the reason she's dead?
3. Since everyone is so trusting of llama, and he's so "amazingly on spot" this game, wouldn't you expect him to be dead at this point? He always says he's not NK because he's easily lynched. Well, he isn't this game and no one even considers him.

[bea]

My observations are definitely influenced by how I'm being viewed this game.
First of all, I just want to say that my cussing and emotional overreaction only began after I responded to every accusation that was thrown at me time after time, only to find it twisted and turned so it fit the initial perception. So whoever wants to just accuse me of going with the emotional "manipulation" or even civvie response has no idea what they are talking about.

So when looking at the back and forth between Boo and Bea, I can see it in two ways:
1. Bea is being falsely accused (either by a civ or a baddie). Yeah, I could see the case, but since things I say are wrongly used against me, so can hers.
2. Her voting for herself is an awesome bluff meant to make people think they shouldn't vote. But if that's the case, why keep encouraging them to do so?
I feel I'm more inclined to go with the former. Heck, I've thought of doing this a few times, just to prove the point. But I have my reasons not to.



I have been thinking about llama lately, especially after his crusade for lynching me. Here are my reasons and I'd like to hear others' thoughts:
1. The entire game, he's been displaying a one track mind. He's not looking into anything else. He's made up his mind about me, great. Does he comment on anything else? No! He's just sitting there telling people to vote for me. Say you get me lynched, what then? I'd expect civvie llama to want to further the discussion. Especially since he keeps saying that the puzzles are hindering the talk. I don't see him talking at all.
2. Did you all notice that Zombarella was not trusting him much? And she was one of the few who didn't. Did we ever stop to think that maybe that's the reason she's dead?
3. Since everyone is so trusting of llama, and he's so "amazingly on spot" this game, wouldn't you expect him to be dead at this point? He always says he's not NK because he's easily lynched. Well, he isn't this game and no one even considers him.

but see fz - that's the point - it isn't even what I've said. from boo -I"m not even allowed the opportunity to have a case built against me based on how I've acted in the thread because I will emotionally manipulate that to serve my baddie intentions as he sees it.

llama and others might suspect you and want to lynch you -but at least - at least they can say this is why -this is what you said.

They may be right - they may be wrong -but at least they can point to *something* - don't you see how different boo's case on me is? Doesn't anyone?

[Tangrowth]

FYI I have updated the wording in Teru Mikami (X Kira)'s additional secrets to be more clear. I realized the description regarding the conditions of his suicide was too vague. It was not clear whether his ending the day or night early would also result in the lynchee or night target's death as normal. He dies in the lynchee or night target(s)'s place; the normal lynchee or night target(s) will not die.

[FZ.]

Bea, I get what you're saying, but it's not as if he hasn't said anything that's reasonable. Yeah, I agree with him that you're someone who could have killed those two, especially after watching SVS ask for your thoughts a few times.

For what it's worth, if someone builds a case on you and you know it's wrong, but no matter what you say, it gets used to further the case, it just frustrates you more. If anything, the fact that Boo hasn't built a "solid" case on you, should have made you laugh at his face and not just want to prove to him. In that sense, I do think you're being a little over defensive. It's not like most people suspected you, nor did you have to defend yourself for days. Why'd you even let him get to you if you thought it was BS? That's what makes me a bit hesitant to trust you.


What are your thoughts on what I said about llama?


linki: Going to read. Go to sleep MP

[Tangrowth]

Socks don't need sleep.

[Tangrowth]

Daylight Savings Time:

In order to reflect Daylight Savings Time (if it applies to you), be sure to change your settings in your User Control Panel -- Board Preferences -- Summer/DST is in effect (Yes).

[boo]

My observations are definitely influenced by how I'm being viewed this game.
First of all, I just want to say that my cussing and emotional overreaction only began after I responded to every accusation that was thrown at me time after time, only to find it twisted and turned so it fit the initial perception. So whoever wants to just accuse me of going with the emotional "manipulation" or even civvie response has no idea what they are talking about.

So when looking at the back and forth between Boo and Bea, I can see it in two ways:
1. Bea is being falsely accused (either by a civ or a baddie). Yeah, I could see the case, but since things I say are wrongly used against me, so can hers.
2. Her voting for herself is an awesome bluff meant to make people think they shouldn't vote. But if that's the case, why keep encouraging them to do so?
I feel I'm more inclined to go with the former. Heck, I've thought of doing this a few times, just to prove the point. But I have my reasons not to.



I have been thinking about llama lately, especially after his crusade for lynching me. Here are my reasons and I'd like to hear others' thoughts:
1. The entire game, he's been displaying a one track mind. He's not looking into anything else. He's made up his mind about me, great. Does he comment on anything else? No! He's just sitting there telling people to vote for me. Say you get me lynched, what then? I'd expect civvie llama to want to further the discussion. Especially since he keeps saying that the puzzles are hindering the talk. I don't see him talking at all.
2. Did you all notice that Zombarella was not trusting him much? And she was one of the few who didn't. Did we ever stop to think that maybe that's the reason she's dead?
3. Since everyone is so trusting of llama, and he's so "amazingly on spot" this game, wouldn't you expect him to be dead at this point? He always says he's not NK because he's easily lynched. Well, he isn't this game and no one even considers him.

but see fz - that's the point - it isn't even what I've said. from boo -I"m not even allowed the opportunity to have a case built against me based on how I've acted in the thread because I will emotionally manipulate that to serve my baddie intentions as he sees it.

llama and others might suspect you and want to lynch you -but at least - at least they can say this is why -this is what you said.

They may be right - they may be wrong -but at least they can point to *something* - don't you see how different boo's case on me is? Doesn't anyone?

This complaint would make more sense if I were even trying to talk people into voting for you. I think you're Light. I have said that. I think Mikami and Higuchi should be killed before an attempt is spent trying to lynch Light, to box Light into having the death note and not being able to get rid of so that we can actually lynch them. I've said that.

You're the one going on a paranoid defensive - to the point you voted for yourself as if people are lining up to lynch you and it isn't just me, a bit of Epi (who let's face it, isn't a detective, so what he says can hardly be trusted), and a few people who have basically voiced their opinion on the matter as being 'that isn't necessarily wrong'.

And yet, for some reason, you can't see why you acting like that earns suspicion, and generates discussion? You aren't fighting back, you aren't going on the offensive, you aren't even proving me wrong by trying to defend. You're picking up your ball and going home, or at least, you're trying to. And then you think that suspicion feeding into suspicion is unreasonable, and you see that as me looking to pick apart everything you do in some crazy and unfair way? I'm doing what I'm doing because I think you're bad, and your reaction, as if I'm somehow being mean and unfair and persecuting you for no reason, is what is actually unreasonable.

But hey, go ahead and keep acting like I'm doing nothing but relentlessly and pointlessly attacking you, because that for sure doesn't prove my point.

[FZ.]

My observations are definitely influenced by how I'm being viewed this game.
First of all, I just want to say that my cussing and emotional overreaction only began after I responded to every accusation that was thrown at me time after time, only to find it twisted and turned so it fit the initial perception. So whoever wants to just accuse me of going with the emotional "manipulation" or even civvie response has no idea what they are talking about.

So when looking at the back and forth between Boo and Bea, I can see it in two ways:
1. Bea is being falsely accused (either by a civ or a baddie). Yeah, I could see the case, but since things I say are wrongly used against me, so can hers.
2. Her voting for herself is an awesome bluff meant to make people think they shouldn't vote. But if that's the case, why keep encouraging them to do so?
I feel I'm more inclined to go with the former. Heck, I've thought of doing this a few times, just to prove the point. But I have my reasons not to.



I have been thinking about llama lately, especially after his crusade for lynching me. Here are my reasons and I'd like to hear others' thoughts:
1. The entire game, he's been displaying a one track mind. He's not looking into anything else. He's made up his mind about me, great. Does he comment on anything else? No! He's just sitting there telling people to vote for me. Say you get me lynched, what then? I'd expect civvie llama to want to further the discussion. Especially since he keeps saying that the puzzles are hindering the talk. I don't see him talking at all.
2. Did you all notice that Zombarella was not trusting him much? And she was one of the few who didn't. Did we ever stop to think that maybe that's the reason she's dead?
3. Since everyone is so trusting of llama, and he's so "amazingly on spot" this game, wouldn't you expect him to be dead at this point? He always says he's not NK because he's easily lynched. Well, he isn't this game and no one even considers him.

but see fz - that's the point - it isn't even what I've said. from boo -I"m not even allowed the opportunity to have a case built against me based on how I've acted in the thread because I will emotionally manipulate that to serve my baddie intentions as he sees it.

llama and others might suspect you and want to lynch you -but at least - at least they can say this is why -this is what you said.

They may be right - they may be wrong -but at least they can point to *something* - don't you see how different boo's case on me is? Doesn't anyone?

This complaint would make more sense if I were even trying to talk people into voting for you. I think you're Light. I have said that. I think Mikami and Higuchi should be killed before an attempt is spent trying to lynch Light, to box Light into having the death note and not being able to get rid of so that we can actually lynch them. I've said that.

You're the one going on a paranoid defensive - to the point you voted for yourself as if people are lining up to lynch you and it isn't just me, a bit of Epi (who let's face it, isn't a detective, so what he says can hardly be trusted), and a few people who have basically voiced their opinion on the matter as being 'that isn't necessarily wrong'.

And yet, for some reason, you can't see why you acting like that earns suspicion, and generates discussion? You aren't fighting back, you aren't going on the offensive, you aren't even proving me wrong by trying to defend. You're picking up your ball and going home, or at least, you're trying to. And then you think that suspicion feeding into suspicion is unreasonable, and you see that as me looking to pick apart everything you do in some crazy and unfair way? I'm doing what I'm doing because I think you're bad, and your reaction, as if I'm somehow being mean and unfair and persecuting you for no reason, is what is actually unreasonable.

But hey, go ahead and keep acting like I'm doing nothing but relentlessly and pointlessly attacking you, because that for sure doesn't prove my point.

Yeah, this is what I mean.
Boo, can you tell me what you think of llama again and why?

[boo]

I think he's bad. I think he's a Shingami (probably Ryuk, because I think he and bea have BTSC).

This is my original llama suspicion post.

Nothing since that has changed in why I thought he was bad, a few things have added to it (for example, he hasn't been NKed, and if llama is to be believed, he is often lynched early, if he doesn't get lynched he gets NKed as a civ, and most of his wins are when he is bad. If he hasn't been lynched and hasn't been a serious contender, why hasn't he been NKed? Because he's part of the group doing the killing, and is therefore bad, and following the claim he has made about winning more as a baddie, I guess that means he's on track to win the game). But, it's like with bea. Yes, there was a point in my initial suspicion I actually wanted to see him lynched (lasted longer with llama than with bea), but once I placed llama in the shingami spot, I haven't been as interested. Would it be nice to confirm it? Yes, of course. Do I think that's a good use of a lynch? No.

I'm looking primarily for 2 roles. Mikami and Higuchi. I'm suspicious of a bunch of people, but unless I can place a person in one of those two, I'm less inclined to want to lynch them.

Now, for Higuchi, I've thought for a while that it's Epi. At the very least, I see almost no scenario where he isn't Yotsuba. TH also fits as Higuchi. I'd be pretty ok with voting for either of them, but unless Higuchi has the note, that's also a wasted lynch, so I'm less inclined to look there just yet.

Which means for me, I'm the most focused on Mikami. That was my problem last lynch, you and made both fit that for me, and it wasn't Made. It could be you, and I haven't ruled out voting for you today as a result, but I'm also looking to see if there's anyone I can find, or someone else anyone can make a good argument for. But that's what makes voting hard this game. I'm not looking to lynch a specific player, I'm looking to lynch a specific role, and there are only a few other roles that are still a really great lynch and not just an ok result. It's harder in this game, because usually you can just suspect someone and try and lynch them because you think they're a baddie. That doesn't have the same kind of pay off in this game. It's something I myself missed for a long time, and it's something I think a lot of other people are still missing when they're deciding who to vote for.

Outside of those 2, finding the other sympathizers is the next priority for me (I still think non-Higuchi Yotsuba are an acceptable lynch, but they've never been the priority). But there's still to many possibilities in my mind to narrow that down. I wasn't really sure about DP, but based on recent events, I'm leaning towards thinking he's a fit for a role in there, but he just joins the list with a bunch of other people I don't remotely trust, but am not confident enough to actually vote for.

[FZ.]

I think he's bad. I think he's a Shingami (probably Ryuk, because I think he and bea have BTSC).

This is my original llama suspicion post.

Nothing since that has changed in why I thought he was bad, a few things have added to it (for example, he hasn't been NKed, and if llama is to be believed, he is often lynched early, if he doesn't get lynched he gets NKed as a civ, and most of his wins are when he is bad. If he hasn't been lynched and hasn't been a serious contender, why hasn't he been NKed? Because he's part of the group doing the killing, and is therefore bad, and following the claim he has made about winning more as a baddie, I guess that means he's on track to win the game). But, it's like with bea. Yes, there was a point in my initial suspicion I actually wanted to see him lynched (lasted longer with llama than with bea), but once I placed llama in the shingami spot, I haven't been as interested. Would it be nice to confirm it? Yes, of course. Do I think that's a good use of a lynch? No.

I'm looking primarily for 2 roles. Mikami and Higuchi. I'm suspicious of a bunch of people, but unless I can place a person in one of those two, I'm less inclined to want to lynch them.

Now, for Higuchi, I've thought for a while that it's Epi. At the very least, I see almost no scenario where he isn't Yotsuba. TH also fits as Higuchi. I'd be pretty ok with voting for either of them, but unless Higuchi has the note, that's also a wasted lynch, so I'm less inclined to look there just yet.

Which means for me, I'm the most focused on Mikami. That was my problem last lynch, you and made both fit that for me, and it wasn't Made. It could be you, and I haven't ruled out voting for you today as a result, but I'm also looking to see if there's anyone I can find, or someone else anyone can make a good argument for. But that's what makes voting hard this game. I'm not looking to lynch a specific player, I'm looking to lynch a specific role, and there are only a few other roles that are still a really great lynch and not just an ok result. It's harder in this game, because usually you can just suspect someone and try and lynch them because you think they're a baddie. That doesn't have the same kind of pay off in this game. It's something I myself missed for a long time, and it's something I think a lot of other people are still missing when they're deciding who to vote for.

Outside of those 2, finding the other sympathizers is the next priority for me (I still think non-Higuchi Yotsuba are an acceptable lynch, but they've never been the priority). But there's still to many possibilities in my mind to narrow that down. I wasn't really sure about DP, but based on recent events, I'm leaning towards thinking he's a fit for a role in there, but he just joins the list with a bunch of other people I don't remotely trust, but am not confident enough to actually vote for.

Thank you for this. I think your analysis is very good. To be honest, I haven't really considered all the likelihoods of actually succeeding in the lynch, I just think of who I think is bad. If we go by this, then I think the likelihood of lynching a civ are greater than lynching a baddie, so if we think someone is bad, maybe we should try to lynch them anyway, or at least talk about them more for a few reasons: a. to get L to look at them. B. to get a blocker or someone with a role similar to that, to use it against them.
I know you won't take my work, but I am not an of those roles, and lynching me will do nothing to further the detectives' cause

I don't get the Ryuk role. Does he have a win condition? Can he ever be NK or lynched? I don't really understand how he can lose

[zeek]

Why can't I ever come back and normal stuff has happened?

bea, I really wished you hadn't voted for yourself as I really don't consider that detective behaviour - I consider it secret win condition behaviour - and I really didn't have you high on my suspiciometer. There's a good chance you'll be lynched as well, given how polarizing ballsy moves like that can be.

I'm most likely just going to wait and see which people look like they'll be lynched, and see who I want to vote from them. I don't have time to review posts at length atm, nor can I address every player, so that's unfortunately how I'm going to have to play it today.

[Boomslang]

Bea, when you vote for yourself, you're either giving up on the game, in which case you should be lynched, or you're trying a massive WIFOM with secret win conditions, which is not a civ move. This is a no-brainer for me. *votes bea*

[DharmaHelper]

Bea, when you vote for yourself, you're either giving up on the game, in which case you should be lynched, or you're trying a massive WIFOM with secret win conditions, which is not a civ move. This is a no-brainer for me. *votes bea*

[juliets]

bea, I really don't understand why you voted for yourself and are encouraging others to do it. If you are a detective it is absolutely the wrong thing to do, good way to lose a detective and would be bad for the entire team. I don't know that I've seen a civ vote for themselves unless its been one of those "I don't know who to vote" things. If you are bad well then, go ahead and keep calling for more votes. Maybe you're trying to turn the vote toward you and away from someone like FZ.

[Turnip Head]

It's cool how people can justify their votes for Bea while ignoring the underlying context of why she's asking for votes... really well done guys.

[zeek]

For the record, I won't be voting bea today.

[juliets]

It's cool how people can justify their votes for Bea while ignoring the underlying context of why she's asking for votes... really well done guys.

TH I haven't voted for bea and I am trying to figure out the underlying context. She seems desperate to tell us who she is but it seems like that is just to show boo up. I know as a civ i have been that fed up before but before i put my finger on that button I realize it's my duty to try and make it through so I won't hurt my team (unless its already a done deal). What exactly is the underlying context you are talking about?

[Matahari]

I'm going to bed.
For those of you who vote early, if you're really interested in taking Kiras down, voting for me will not achieve that.

What evidence is there to support that? Like it or not, Mafia is a game of evidence. When it becomes a game of "gut" is the day it comes a game of chance.

I have no idea what Epi's role is and whether it's deliberate or not, but I do know he's wrong. I am not a baddie.

Yeah, everybody says that. Suppose you are bad. Would you say, "Hey, I don't know Epi's role, but I am a baddie!"

Since I'm sick of defending myself, I will likely stop doing it. If you have any specific question, I'll answer. If not, I'm just going to ignore posts asking you to lynch me or saying how this is something that has to be done, because it's a lie

I called you out Day 1 as bad. Do you remember why?

++++

I can't be assed to format this, so I'm going to respond 1 2 3.

Don't forget that if he did role check me out of everyone (why not do Made if he was relatively trusting me?), he had 50% chance of getting something else, so this "facts" you seem to be using to make me look bad, are rubbish.

"Rubbish" eh?

I anticipated this reply from you, but not such strong terminology. Let me ask you this: If you were Mogi, and you checked someone, would you dismiss it as "rubbish" because it was a 50% check? Would you refrain from using your ability and effectively be a vanilla civilian instead?I would use it, but I would be very hesitant in drawing conclusions that could lead to very bad actions. And my terminology is harsh, because I'm sick of defending myself. There's just so much fun a person can have in the game, when all they do is defend themselves. Don't worry,it's what you're supposed to do if you think I'm bad, but since I'm not, I don't have to like it.

And if your gut tells you something, you should obviously ignore it, because god forbid we use facts. You're such and incredible baddie hunter that you don't need facts. You've got the whole game pinned down

Yeah, about things we have pinned down...

Honestly, I'm not even sure llama and Epi are really working for the good side. I think they're not even trying to look at things from all sides. When I'm a baddie, I often stick to my suspicions to not look like I'm flip flopping and to not get called out for "contradicting" back-pedalling" and all that.

I read your Star Trek game. You were a fish on hot pier. See? Here is how you "use" facts. You ignore the word "often" and then twist it so it fits your theory. You have to remember that on K-site, people are a lot more familiar with me in both alignments, so I have to get out of my comfort zone and try and switch it and do things that people don't recognize as my baddie behaviour. The game you read is my last game as a baddie there. But of course, whatever fits your "facts"

The first thing that popped out at me was that you are too easily dissuaded, which matches your behavior here, I think.

You also threw out a lot of names early on, which is what you also did here. Again, did you compare this to my civvie game? Do I not throw a lot of names out there?

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?

You don't even have your story pinned down about your game as a villain, so it discredits your commentary regarding it. I think we already established that what people believe about themselves is not always what they really do. But won't you enlighten me here. Do you have your game as a villain pinned down?

A fish on a hot pier, yes sir.

And like a fish on a hot pier, you are slippery, don't smell right, and should be filleted.

At least I'm not taking the whole civvies down, which is what you're doing by keeping twisting things the way you're doing. I'd rather be inconsistent, contradictory and what not instead of being narrow minded, and wrong

1. I would use it, but I would be very hesitant in drawing conclusions that could lead to very bad actions. And my terminology is harsh, because I'm sick of defending myself. There's just so much fun a person can have in the game, when all they do is defend themselves. Don't worry,it's what you're supposed to do if you think I'm bad, but since I'm not, I don't have to like it.

This is why I know you aren't a detective. You know why I know that? You drew conclusions about Snowman. He was bad, and you defended him hard. Yet given a role that could inform you of someone's role, you cite caution. This is important- you weren't wishy-washy about Snowman. You were adamant. According to your answer above, you would be hesitant (not adamant) trusting your role power, but when Snowman was up for lynch, you were adamant he was good.

By the way, everyone watching: If you are a detective and given a 50% chance of knowing someone's role, you should initially assume that information is true and act accordingly. I'm serious. Read the Monty Hall Paradox if you don't believe me on this. It's not the same problem, but it's the same principle. And hell, even if your info is bad, you will generate more info in the form of reactions, so there's even more of an incentive.

2. See? Here is how you "use" facts. You ignore the word "often" and then twist it so it fits your theory. You have to remember that on K-site, people are a lot more familiar with me in both alignments, so I have to get out of my comfort zone and try and switch it and do things that people don't recognize as my baddie behaviour. The game you read is my last game as a baddie there. But of course, whatever fits your "facts"

Hahaha. Want to know something funny? I thought about omitting the word "often" just to see what you would say. So no, I didn't ignore it. I thought long and hard about it. In the end, I chose to be straightforward. What you are doing is telling us this: "I am X Y Z when I am bad" and also saying "I am not X Y Z when I am bad." That's duplicity. You want us to believe you regarding one set of facts, but you want us to ignore the other set of facts.

"Often" doesn't mean anything to me when you say it. It's an out. It's politician speak. It's how you get away with lying without actually lying. It's a fucking adverb.

3. I think we already established that what people believe about themselves is not always what they really do. But won't you enlighten me here. Do you have your game as a villain pinned down?

Yes. It's called "Win." And when I am bad, I rock at it. Look at my signature. Those are just wins here, and all of them save one are evil wins. So yes, I know what I do as a villain. But nobody else will know what that is. Do you want to know why? It's because when I am bad, I don't know what I will do. I do what has to be done to win.

That's why people who come in here yakking about "play style" this and "baddie game" that gain no trust from me. Those things are phantoms. If everybody had a civilian game and a bad game, everything would be obvious. But it ain't obvious, is it?

In your case, I actually read an entire game you were bad in. You know what you said now? Look at #2. You said this:

" You have to remember that on K-site, people are a lot more familiar with me in both alignments, so I have to get out of my comfort zone and try and switch it and do things that people don't recognize as my baddie behaviour. The game you read is my last game as a baddie there. But of course, whatever fits your "facts""

Now my read of you on your evil game isn't valid because I have to remember this and that about K-Site? What do you mean "remember?" I've never been on K-Site to play. You are creating excuses. I did exactly what you said to do. Go to K-Site and look at your "baddie game." I did it. And now there's stipulations?

You, madam, are evil, vile, and some other anagram of those letters, and worthy of a lynch.

I have flip-flopped a bit on FZ for various reasons, and was ready to go ahead and vote for her today, until Epi posted this. I disagree with most of his comments here. They smack of old-school baddie.

Civvies rarely have 'evidence' to clear themselves and baddies know this. They push that advantage. When is the last time a cop questioned your whereabouts, and you couldn't prove you were at home alone when such and such happened, because innocent people don't know they might need an alibi.

I still believe that baddies will defend themselves harder and longer than a civvie is able to, but thats not exactly the golden rule. I think indys and neutrals will defend hard too. And, for the time being, I'm seeing the Yotsubas as possibly neutral. Anyway, ya lost me Epi, I think you are just pulling out all the stops to get someone lynched, but using traditional baddie tactics to do it.

I am trying to rethink Bea now. The only thing I noticed before was that (after 8 months away from playing, people change up their style) Bea was still Bea, only more so. Like Bea on steroids I could never 'read' her anyway, when I thought she was bad, she'd be good, and vice-versa. But she is more vocal, and has defended players, and I have to wonder why. She seems to be very sure of the players she has defended, as though she feels reasonably safe defending them. This gives me pause, and I still don't know what to make of it. But the vote on herself, I don't understand. It did not remind me of an emotional decision, rather more of a planned one. I'm wondering if she knows that she won't be lynched.

ok, I have to stop for a store run, but when I post later, I want to discuss TH and DH, and a few others. Back in an hour or two.