Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[NurseWilgy]

Absalom the heathen, trying to lynch men of God.

Okay, well you seem pretty sure of yourself. Such clarity must be nice. The rest of us have no idea what you're talking about though.

This doesn't sound like a genuine defense. Why aren't you outraged over such a vague suspicion?

Defense? It wasn't meant to be a defense. Lot's attacks are hot and strong, based entirely upon vouching for someone he is certain s a civ. I'm not interested in defending against an attack like that. I'll just say that if he is telling the truth, and if he is correct about Balaam, then that has little to do with my alignment. How many lynches against civs have we had so far? How many were led by people other than me?

[dodo]

And the opposite is true. How hard you fight is not, nor has ever been, a good indicator of who is bad.

this tbqh

[Young Lady]

I have no idea about any of these tribes. I read the Amorites are mountaineers, so I'll go with them because I like going to the mountains.

[Snapshot]

Silver linings time - not much of one though.

Job wasn't an activated disciple, so there is no clear reason for his Uzziah fixation (since he appears to be vanilla). Doesn't mean Uzz is good - but Job didn't have a whole lot of time to get info about him through some non-role-related manner before he went after him. The horseman theory, then, isn't a terrible one. Although clearly his vote for Rachel proved he was not required to vote Uzziah.

@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

[Epignosis]

RIP Job

I am voting Jebusites. It sounds like "Jeebus" and I am in favor of that.

There's a reason for that! It comes from the word "Jebus."

[Ned Flanders]

RIP Job

I am voting Jebusites. It sounds like "Jeebus" and I am in favor of that.

There's a reason for that! It comes from the word "Jebus."

[Quokka]

I don't believe I'm doing it, but I think I'm voting Balaam. I am so freaking pinged by Samuel's vote

Why not vote Samuel?

Yeah, you were SO pinged by my actions that you did the EXACT SAME THING. I don't believe that for a second.

[Quokka]

I call shenanigans and my votes are going for Absalom and Jeph... If they don't kill me first.

[NurseWilgy]

Silver linings time - not much of one though.

Job wasn't an activated disciple, so there is no clear reason for his Uzziah fixation (since he appears to be vanilla). Doesn't mean Uzz is good - but Job didn't have a whole lot of time to get info about him through some non-role-related manner before he went after him. The horseman theory, then, isn't a terrible one. Although clearly his vote for Rachel proved he was not required to vote Uzziah.

@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

Well, it's a good thing I don't play mafia to earn your forgiveness.

Your logic that I have had suspicions and voice them and that sometimes the people I suspected died and sometimes they didn't, therefore I must be bad, is laughable.

Day 1: I voted for Cain, I expressed no suspicion of Samson. Somson was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 2: I voted for Cain, he was lynched and flipped civ. My bad.
Day 3: I voted for Uzziah, expressed no suspicion of Mary Magdalane. Mary was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 4: I voted for Balaam. I actively and repeatedly said I didn't think Job was bad. Job was lynched and flipped civ.

If you're going to make up lie about me, you could at least be a little more creative.

[Snapshot]

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

[Snapshot]

Also:

Your logic that I have had suspicions and voice them and that sometimes the people I suspected died and sometimes they didn't, therefore I must be bad, is laughable.

If ever there is a great misrepresentation of everything I have said against you, this is it.

[Snapshot]

But nice to see you have started falling in to the baddie tropes...

Calling my suspicion laughable...
Saying I'm making up lies...
Misrepresenting what I say...

Yeah, I recognise these things. The defence of the baddie.

[Grand Scheme]

But nice to see you have started falling in to the baddie tropes...

Calling my suspicion laughable...
Saying I'm making up lies...
Misrepresenting what I say...

Yeah, I recognise these things. The defence of the baddie.

Arguably you're guilty of 2 out of 3 of these sins yourself.

[Snapshot]

Argue it, then.

[dodo]

Lot, curious, why do you pick up and drop things so quickly?

[Snapshot]

What am I dropping?

[Grand Scheme]

Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

[dodo]

What am I dropping?

Well, I can't remember who you suspected before me, but at the drop of a hat you suspected me... then you suspect Abs and Nic...


I am not sure you're right or wrong, I want to talk it out more, but it's strange how quick things change for you.

[Snapshot]

Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

1) It wasn't a suspicion of me, so it's not a defence. Completely different thing.
2) The idea that civilians scramble is bollocks and ridiculous - that doesn't mean you are lying about it (no, he definitely didn't scramble, you were truthful) or the fact you take that view is laughable (no, sometimes people don't think logic through). It just means the statement was utterly factually incorrect.
3) How exactly did I fundamentally misconstrue your point?

@Rachel - perhaps it looks like they change quick because I've been virtually unable to talk for so much of the last week.

FWIW, if you read me back, you'll notice my eye has been on both Jephthah and Absalom for a good while.

[Snapshot]

And I certainly suspected both of them before you.

I'm feeling pretty ok about you again. And you should go back and think about why I stated I voted for you, exactly, and see how consistent it is with what I've been saying today.

[Grand Scheme]

Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

1) It wasn't a suspicion of me, so it's not a defence. Completely different thing.
2) The idea that civilians scramble is bollocks and ridiculous - that doesn't mean you are lying about it (no, he definitely didn't scramble, you were truthful) or the fact you take that view is laughable (no, sometimes people don't think logic through). It just means the statement was utterly factually incorrect.
3) How exactly did I fundamentally misconstrue your point?

@Rachel - perhaps it looks like they change quick because I've been virtually unable to talk for so much of the last week.

FWIW, if you read me back, you'll notice my eye has been on both Jephthah and Absalom for a good while.

So because you were defending someone else, you get to do the things you associate with baddie behavior?

You fundamentally misunderstand my point RE: Balaam. The idea of "scrambling" is not the same as having some skin in the game.

Fact: Balaam was apt to point out that the continued lynching of civilians would likely wrap the game up in the Heathen's favor very soon.

Fact: Balaam was cavalier about the possibility of his own lynch.

If he was a civilian, he would have stood up for himself. That is not the same as scrambling, panicking, etc. He seemed completely content with his lynch from my point of view, and that does not jive if he is a civvie.

[Snapshot]

"He would have stood up for himself" is exactly the same as scrambling.

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

I haven't fundamentally misunderstood your point. Balaam has had a ton of skin in the game, and he put a ton of skin into the game responding to Absalom as well. You picked out a single post as not standing up for himself, after he had done all the rest.

The simple truth is this: Your statement 'if he was a civ, he would have,,,,' is simply untrue, from the point of all the evidence of all history of playing mafia.

PS, only your first fact is a fact. The second is your opinion.

[Grand Scheme]

"He would have stood up for himself" is exactly the same as scrambling.

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

I haven't fundamentally misunderstood your point. Balaam has had a ton of skin in the game, and he put a ton of skin into the game responding to Absalom as well. You picked out a single post as not standing up for himself, after he had done all the rest.

The simple truth is this: Your statement 'if he was a civ, he would have,,,,' is simply untrue, from the point of all the evidence of all history of playing mafia.

PS, only your first fact is a fact. The second is your opinion.

I disagree almost entirely with you.

[Snapshot]

Disagree away, but you are wrong - not only about Balaam, but also about your perceived view of civilian behaviour - so at some point I hope you wake up.

A good starting point might be responding to my second line in the last post.

[Grand Scheme]

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

Self preservation, the obvious vote given how things shook out, and the support he'd gathered vs. Job.

I don't agree with Job's vote. it wouldn't have saved him, though. Perhaps he was taking his last breath to point us in what he thought was the right direction.

[Snapshot]

Nicodemus, your entire response to me coming out swinging today does make me feel reasonably good about you. Your responses all feel genuine to me, and like you are defending views you genuinely held.

How does self-preservation mesh with 'being content with your lynch'? I mean, I guess I just don't understand what it is you thought you should see from Balaam, if not scrambling. What does your idea of skin in the game look like? And my point on Job is this - he WAS a civilian, and he did literally nothing. No skin in the game, no scrambling, no self-preservation, nothing. So if one civilian can, how can you reasonably disagree with me that you can't judge affiliation by that behaviour?

[dodo]

And I certainly suspected both of them before you.

I'm feeling pretty ok about you again. And you should go back and think about why I stated I voted for you, exactly, and see how consistent it is with what I've been saying today.

OK. I will. Before I go to bed tonight.

[NurseWilgy]

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

[NurseWilgy]

Uzziah and Rachel led lynches against Job, a confirmed civ (which is exactly how many lynches I've led against confirmed civs). Does that make them bad too?

[NurseWilgy]

[quote="Lot"]Nicodemus, your entire response to me coming out swinging today does make me feel reasonably good about you. Your responses all feel genuine to me, and like you are defending views you genuinely held.
/quote]

Hypocrisy. "Civs don't scramble" "You scrambled, so I feel good about you." You're not being remotely consistent with your own rhetoric. Now sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Snapshot]

Hypocrisy. "Civs don't scramble" "You scrambled, so I feel good about you." You're not being remotely consistent with your own rhetoric. Now sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.

Now I'm embarrassing myself yeah, sure, this stuff isn't the kind of stuff baddies do

By the way, if you want me to pull quotes on you, why don't you pull the quote where I said 'civilians don't scramble'. Because I'm pretty sure this is what I said (emphasis added):

Baddies will fight to the end even when they have a team and could relax.
Civilians will take votes against them calmly and hope people see the truth of their words.

And the opposite is true. How hard you fight is not, nor has ever been, a good indicator of who is bad.

But in any event, Nicodemus and you could both be perceived, I guess, as scrambling right now. One of you has made me feel better, the other has made me feel worse. This IS my point, exactly. Scrambliness is no indicator.

[Snapshot]

So the list against me from Absalom today currently stands at:

I'm laughable
I'm embarrassing myself
I'm a hypocrite
I'm a liar

This is way better than aiming at the substantive aspects of what I've said about him. Let's see what's next, shall we!

[NurseWilgy]

So the list against me from Absalom today currently stands at:

I'm laughable
I'm embarrassing myself
I'm a hypocrite
I'm a liar

This is way better than aiming at the substantive aspects of what I've said about him. Let's see what's next, shall we!

I did address the substance of your posts. You're just choosing to ignore it. You're going to vote for me, so there's no point in continuing this, but for the benefit of everyone else watching, your entire case against me is that I voted for someone you claim is civ.

[Snapshot]

For everyone's ease, I shall pull some quotes from what I've said in the past to fully explain my case on Absalom, so it's all in one place.

This is the only time I will be talking in the thread today, so I'm going to make it count as much as I can. Expect a lot of words.

I was one of if not the first to suggest Martha was killed for being annoying. And I really did believe it. But then Paul died as well. And what should happen immediately afterwards?

Who do you think did so, Absalom, son of David.

Some idiot. The pattern seems to be killing people who are annoying, which is a foolish strategy for the baddies. I hate them. Bah.

Absalom, who calls the killing of Paul a 'pattern'. I find this incredibly interesting. I don't think baddies tend to go for patterns... unless they can hide their real intention behind one.

Absalom, the man called out by Martha on day one. Martha, who said Absalom was very linked with Paul, and that possibly they were baddie teammates...
Absalom, who lynched Cain when he couldn't talk, and remained proud of it even after Cain turned out to be a role checker...

Who might benefit most from a Paul kill?

Absalom had taken a little heat from the Martha kill. He had even more heat from the Cain lynch. What better way to get the heat to die down a little than for the Heathen to kill Absalom's 'teammate' Paul, and Absalom to be 'upset' about it...

The baddies can make it look like they are just playing shits and giggles, after Paul did his whole 'I don't like posting at night' spiel. It gives them the perfect alibi to make out like they were taking out someone they find annoying, or just liked the irony of it.

Now Absalom feels soooo closely linked with three out of four deaths. For me there are really only two possibilities - either Absalom is bad, or the heathen really have it in for him and are trying to set him up to look bad.

@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

At the moment you dispute you've pushed for them hard, so I'll review your posting record to consider that tomorrow. You never know - if you are right about that, I might even reconsider.

[Snapshot]

Oh, Absalom - you didn't know I was about to do that, but what poor timing for you to claim that was the entire substance of my case. I had a feeling that was going to be your angle. Now THAT, above, is the entire substance of my case.

[Gunther]

Ouf I totally forgot about the vote. I suck these past few days...

[NurseWilgy]

Oh, Absalom - you didn't know I was about to do that, but what poor timing for you to claim that was the entire substance of my case. I had a feeling that was going to be your angle. Now THAT, above, is the entire substance of my case.

Fine, and here's my refutation.

Day 1: I voted for Cain, I expressed no suspicion of Samson. Somson was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 2: I voted for Cain, he was lynched and flipped civ. My bad.
Day 3: I voted for Uzziah, expressed no suspicion of Mary Magdalane. Mary was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 4: I voted for Balaam. I actively and repeatedly said I didn't think Job was bad. Job was lynched and flipped civ.

I didn't push hard for the Cain lynch or the Balaam lynch (and we don't know Balaam is good, we only have your word for that.) So I have had ONE bad suspicion so far, and actively defended Job when people were talking about him.

The whole first part of your post about Paul... I don't even know how to respond to that. Paul was not my teammate, I never tried to imply that he was my teammate. I defended him because I thought he was good. It turns out, he was at the very least not a Heathen, so I was probably right.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to step away from the game for a while and get some sleep. I'm sorry if I was short with you, but it kind of sucks to have someone explode out of nowhere calling for your blood, and I was angry. I'm sure you would feel the same way if our positions were reversed. I don't think you're bad, I think you're annoyed that I picked on Balaam and it's making you see things that aren't there.

[Snapshot]

Silver linings time - not much of one though.

Job wasn't an activated disciple, so there is no clear reason for his Uzziah fixation (since he appears to be vanilla). Doesn't mean Uzz is good - but Job didn't have a whole lot of time to get info about him through some non-role-related manner before he went after him. The horseman theory, then, isn't a terrible one. Although clearly his vote for Rachel proved he was not required to vote Uzziah.

@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

Well, it's a good thing I don't play mafia to earn your forgiveness.

Your logic that I have had suspicions and voice them and that sometimes the people I suspected died and sometimes they didn't, therefore I must be bad, is laughable.

Day 1: I voted for Cain, I expressed no suspicion of Samson. Somson was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 2: I voted for Cain, he was lynched and flipped civ. My bad.
Day 3: I voted for Uzziah, expressed no suspicion of Mary Magdalane. Mary was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 4: I voted for Balaam. I actively and repeatedly said I didn't think Job was bad. Job was lynched and flipped civ.

If you're going to make up lie about me, you could at least be a little more creative.

But clearly this is what you call 'addressing my substantive case', since you claim that's what you did. So, if this is you addressing my substantive case, and even if you only thought my case was the one post you responded to...

Why did you ignore it when I said 'either the first or second highest vote getter'? Why did you only mention who was actually lynched?

Why did you ignore what I said about NKs.. it even implied the rest of my case about you from the day before?

Why is it relevant that the people you didn't suspect flipped civ, and that you made no mention of them being bad? How does that add in any way to my statement that on three of those days, you voted for a civ? When the highest two vote getters are civ/civ, why should it be a virtue you didn't vote for the person who actually got lynched?

What I did ask was this:

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You could put this another way - I effectively asked "tell me how what you just wrote is a defence against my substantive case..."

Your response:

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So, at the moment, your entire substantive response to my posts is that you didn't push for the lynches HARD. So I'll go back and look at that, happily.

[Snapshot]

Nah Absalom - I don't feel you've been short. I do think you've used tactics to paint me as unreliable and not worth listening to, but I take no offence from it. Get some sleep. Mafia is just a game

[Snapshot]

One thing I would be interested in, though, Absalom - is your views on Jephthah.

[NurseWilgy]

One more before bed. I will try to answer all your questions.

But clearly this is what you call 'addressing my substantive case', since you claim that's what you did. So, if this is you addressing my substantive case, and even if you only thought my case was the one post you responded to...

Why did you ignore it when I said 'either the first or second highest vote getter'? Why did you only mention who was actually lynched?

I don't understand what the second highest vote getter has to do with anything.

Why did you ignore what I said about NKs.. it even implied the rest of my case about you from the day before?

I actually forgot about that part of your case, since it was several days ago. I addressed it above after you reposted it.

Why is it relevant that the people you didn't suspect flipped civ, and that you made no mention of them being bad? How does that add in any way to my statement that on three of those days, you voted for a civ? When the highest two vote getters are civ/civ, why should it be a virtue you didn't vote for the person who actually got lynched?

"On three of those days" I voted for a civ is untrue, or at least unproven. You claim Balaam is a civ. I have no particular reason to believe you. Yes, I voted for a civ on two days, but it was the same civ. I don't see how that is so damning, to make have one wrong suspicion.
And it's relevant because you were trying to represent me as leading a bunch of lynches on civs (maybe you didn't outright say htat, but it was implied). I was showing that I didn't lead those lynches.

What I did ask was this:

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You could put this another way - I effectively asked "tell me how what you just wrote is a defence against my substantive case..."

Your response:

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So, at the moment, your entire substantive response to my posts is that you didn't push for the lynches HARD. So I'll go back and look at that, happily.

That wasn't my entire response. I posted several times after that, as you well know.

I answered your questions. Now how about answering mine in the quoted post?

[Grand Scheme]

Nicodemus, your entire response to me coming out swinging today does make me feel reasonably good about you. Your responses all feel genuine to me, and like you are defending views you genuinely held.

How does self-preservation mesh with 'being content with your lynch'? I mean, I guess I just don't understand what it is you thought you should see from Balaam, if not scrambling. What does your idea of skin in the game look like? And my point on Job is this - he WAS a civilian, and he did literally nothing. No skin in the game, no scrambling, no self-preservation, nothing. So if one civilian can, how can you reasonably disagree with me that you can't judge affiliation by that behaviour?

I guess I see it this way:

Like you said, I would have felt more comfortable with Balaam had he come out swinging from the get-go. That would have felt more genuine to me. What I saw was a "wait and see" evolution of "Oh hey I guess its cool you suspect me" and then what we saw later, when Job was getting hit, and things were looking up for Balaam.

[Snapshot]

One more before bed. I will try to answer all your questions.

Responses in pink!

But clearly this is what you call 'addressing my substantive case', since you claim that's what you did. So, if this is you addressing my substantive case, and even if you only thought my case was the one post you responded to...

Why did you ignore it when I said 'either the first or second highest vote getter'? Why did you only mention who was actually lynched?

I don't understand what the second highest vote getter has to do with anything.

It's not about whether or not you succeeded. It's about how hard you pushed on each day, and the fact the people you pushed against I know that three out of four days they were civs. Which is why I'm willing to look and reconsider whether or not you really did push hard or not, and whether or not you pushed Uzziah hard on day three.

Why did you ignore what I said about NKs.. it even implied the rest of my case about you from the day before?

I actually forgot about that part of your case, since it was several days ago. I addressed it above after you reposted it.

Fair enough. Sorry to people reading, things get a bit out of synch because the long posts take a while. For me the NK links are the more damning thing - I think they all work in your favour. If you wanted Balaam out with minimal fuss, Gideon would have been a good kill, and I would have been a good choice to silence.

Why is it relevant that the people you didn't suspect flipped civ, and that you made no mention of them being bad? How does that add in any way to my statement that on three of those days, you voted for a civ? When the highest two vote getters are civ/civ, why should it be a virtue you didn't vote for the person who actually got lynched?

"On three of those days" I voted for a civ is untrue, or at least unproven. You claim Balaam is a civ. I have no particular reason to believe you. Yes, I voted for a civ on two days, but it was the same civ. I don't see how that is so damning, to make have one wrong suspicion.
And it's relevant because you were trying to represent me as leading a bunch of lynches on civs (maybe you didn't outright say htat, but it was implied). I was showing that I didn't lead those lynches.

It is neither untrue nor unproven to me. I know it to be fact. I was saying you were trying to lead lynches on people - I wasn't saying you were successful. That comes back to why it is important that I note often they came in with the second most votes. Again, it comes back to whether or not it is true that you 'led' them. I agree with you that who you suspect is not too relevant. All civvies are going to suspect other civvies. Someone could suspect nothing but civs all game and still be civ. So it's not about WHO you suspect, to me it's about the approach to that suspicion.

What I did ask was this:

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You could put this another way - I effectively asked "tell me how what you just wrote is a defence against my substantive case..."

Your response:

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So, at the moment, your entire substantive response to my posts is that you didn't push for the lynches HARD. So I'll go back and look at that, happily.

That wasn't my entire response. I posted several times after that, as you well know.

I answered your questions. Now how about answering mine in the quoted post?

The rest of your responses did not feel like they addressed my substantive points, but if you feel otherwise feel free to explain how they did.

[Jack Shephard]

Shit, I screwed up and missed the vote again, I'm so sorry I would have voted for Balaam. Though it's odd how strongly Lot is vouching for him

[Snapshot]

OK Nicodemus. I'll show you why I read it differently

You guys, I can't help it, I am all pinged out over Balaam. I just don't trust the guy. I know I'm alone on this, but it's how I feel.

At this point, even Absalom suggests he is alone on this. What reason is there for Balaam to swing?

Balaam shows up and asks:

I'm sorry you feel that way. What can I do to ease your mind?

It takes a long time for Absalom to get back to him. In the mean time, noone really picks up on Balaam. Absalom says around 11 hours before the lynch:

I'm going to have to give my vote to Balaam today. Here's why:

1. His lists, while they have become more helpful, initially read to me as a way of saying "look at me! I'm helping! I must be good because I am helping!"
2. His comment about the Heathens having the game all sewed up, besides being untrue, felt a little like wishful thinking on his part.
3. My gut is just screaming at me to vote for him, and I like to listen to me gut.

I'll hold off on actually voting to see if anything else comes up today, but thta is probably what I will do.

Balaam replies:

I'll ask the question again, Absalom- is there anything you want to hear from me that might help ease your mind about me? Fire away- I'll answer any question you like. I'd much rather be voted for due to concrete evidence than for tone reads and gut intuitions, neither of which have proven to be very successful thus far.

I think I can stop narrating, let me post the rest of what I see...

I'm sure you see the problem. If I said "Balaam, old buddy, if you say X I'll believe you're good" and then you say X, it proves nothing, because anyone can say what they are told to say regardless of alignment. It's an impossible request that seems to make you look reasonable, and make me look unreasonable by failing to comply with it. Very cleverly crafted, but in fact that question makes me feel worse about you.

Fine, I'll simplify the question so you don't end up over-analyzing it: Hey Absalom, got any questions for me? Fire away- I'll answer anything. I've got nothing to hide.

Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

I notice you didn't say "no".

Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

I notice you didn't say "no".

Oh now you done did it, Absalom. Just for you, buddy, here's Balaam's list of responses to your question:

Are you bad?

No.
I am not bad.
I am not a baddie.
I am not a Heathen.
I am not a Horseman.
I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.
I am not a civvie role that can turn against other civvies.
The Heathens need to kill or outnumber me and the rest of the civvies to win.
I personally believe the same is true about the Horsemen.
I am trying to help my fellow civvies win the game.
I want to stone Heathens and Horsemen.
I am good.
I am a C.
I am a C-I.
I am a C-I-V-I-L-L-I-A-N.
And I have C-I-V-V-I-E in my H-E-A-R-T
And I will L-I-V-E E-T-E-R-N-A-L-L-Y.*

* actually I will only continue to live so long as I am not stoned or NK'ed

Thank you for your answer Balaam. II give you credit for your responsiveness. What I learn from this is that you really don't want to be lynched (I don't think you're in danger since I am the only one talking about voting for you.) What I infer from that... remains to be seen. Rest assured that I will think about my vote before I cast it.

(At this point I note that Absalom is still saying he doesn't think Balaam is in danger since he was the only one voting for him. This is now only 6 hours before the lynch).

In fact, more or less all the other posts talking about Balaam see his contributions as useful and see him as civilian.

So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

Now, Balaam says that about three and a half hours before a lynch in which literally not a single person other than Absalom has indicated any desire to vote Balaam (still at that point). He has tried very hard to do whatever he could to give Absalom some comfort and failed, Absalom voted for him anyway.

18 minutes later, still noone but Absalom voted for Balaam...

Linki w/ Balaam - dude, you're reading too far into it. Cupid didn't shoot an anti-arrow at me. Uzziah is scummy and I want to lynch him. Ever heard of occams razor? Cute theory but not what is happening.

That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.

Not just vote. That would be the Pharaoh's doing. Jonah said "feud" and I think that's the better word. It can encompass voting, of course.

Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.

I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :P

So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

Scummy post.

You are the second person to even MENTION Balaam as possibly bad.

And, having gone back through that, it only makes me think about you again because now I think you might be bad again - because what part of that is not Balaam putting skin in the game? He tried to change Absalom's mind and failed. Again, I want to know - what was he supposed to do differently in your eyes?

[Snapshot]

Shit, I screwed up and missed the vote again, I'm so sorry I would have voted for Balaam. Though it's odd how strongly Lot is vouching for him

Primarily, I'm pissed at what was very nearly yet another drive by at the eleventh hour - no-one talks about someone at all, and then in the last four hours of the lynch they die or nearly die. I can't fathom it at all. Balaam's lists seem to me to be the most civvie thing in the game right now.

I'll be astonished if they weren't a handful of baddies in there (from both camps) who thought 'oh, yeah, an opportunity to take Balaam out wouldn't hurt, lets take it'.

[Snapshot]

Anyway, I think I need a break - so many words - thats my four days of missed posts about my thinking all coming out at once.

[Snapshot]

And, having read back the whole thing...

Absalom, you actually didn't really seem to push Balaam, it's true. After voting for him, you hardly mentioned him (just a couple of not overly pushy posts, agreeing with Nicodemus, etc).

Nicodemus:

A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

For someone saying I misrepresented your point by calling it scrambling, I don't know how I'm supposed to have taken 'fight tooth and nail'.

[Grand Scheme]

And, having read back the whole thing...

Absalom, you actually didn't really seem to push Balaam, it's true. After voting for him, you hardly mentioned him (just a couple of not overly pushy posts, agreeing with Nicodemus, etc).

Nicodemus:

A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

For someone saying I misrepresented your point by calling it scrambling, I don't know how I'm supposed to have taken 'fight tooth and nail'.

I associate "scramble" with panic, over-react, being illogical and grabbing onto whatever flimsy defense one can. I associate fighting back with being concentrated, logical, and direct.

[Quokka]

I cannot express enough how much I agree with You, Lot.