Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Snapshot]

Very interesting posts today, Belshazzar. I very much appreciate them.

I also don't know what to make of the two kills. It certainly sounds as though the second one was the heathen kill, although at first reading I thought Nicodemus would be an understandable choice for a civvie ninja kill. The first one, then - famine is an interesting option, one that I certainly wouldn't rule out. But I also wouldn't be surprised at a modkill for someone who hasn't posted in four days. It's possible that the owner of the sock asked to be replaced and Epi simply hasn't found a replacement. If that was true, I'd think he was a less impactful role that Isaac or Stephen who have both been born again. Your explanation for Famine's ability sort of equates to an inbuilt modkill anyway, and if true it would be a very clever role that I approve of.

Your Jezebel/Pharaoah point. Very interesting indeed. Is it possible that Jezebel is dead? I looked through your analysis of who was killed, and the nightkill posts, and it doesn't seem very likely (unless Jezebel was Barnabas, of course). Possibly it's just who sent in the PM, possibly it's epi taking licence. It's worth bearing in mind, though.

I'm glad no-one has taken the wisdom of Solomon (sorry, I mean God's plan for us all). I am not sure what to make of it. Possibly he just wanted to see if there were opportunists who would actually do what he suggested.

Glad to see you off the poll. Glad to see me off the poll. Glad to see Balaam off the poll. Well done yesterday, Amorites.

The Nicodemus kill is an odd one, being that he is someone I would have thought could be a lynch candidate today.

[Snapshot]

So my thoughts on today.

My vote will probably go one of three ways. Jephthah, Uzziah, Absalom. If I had to drive by, my vote would have been Jephthah, but I am not on board for a drive by. Unlike Solomon, I believe drive-by shotgun lynches is exactly what we have already been experiencing, albeit at the latter end of the day not the beginning. It's a reasoned and careful lynch with a lot of discussion that we need.

[MartinWP69]

If we had done the quick vote today my vote would have gone to Deborah. She keeps saying she'll catch up but I still don't see her thoughts and the thread is really not that hard to catch up on.

Stephen, I know there was some talk about Jepth but i never did quite understand why he might be a vote candidate. Why have you chosen to vote for him?

Jeph has been contradicting himself. He caught my eye when I was first catching up post-HOUSE EXPLOSION when he issued two totally different statements on Paul, one suspecting him and one defending him.

He also defended Job yesterday and then backpedaled a bit, then said he was defending him because he didn't think he was bad. It all seemed too convenient to me.

[MartinWP69]

Then there's stuff like this:

Balaam, thanks for answering regarding Lazarus. Do you not see a possibility of explaining what he's doing?

Rachel, I get why you feel Job was rude, but I also think maybe he's frustrated. Doesn't excuse being rude, but we've all done things we wish we hadn't out of frustration.
I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to vote for Job. He seems genuine in his frustration. That said, I also feel good about you. I hope this is a civvie vs. civvie thing.

Not sure what to think of Balaam. Mostly, he's one of the most productive players in terms of talking about others, bringing up theories and questioning everyone. But this is what I really expect from a good baddie. A good baddie is never easy to find, so I realize I might be fooled by him. That said, I'm not at a point where I'm remotely ready to vote for him. He's too important to the civvies if he is one.

I'm pretty sure there has to be a moderate to high poster among the baddies. They can't all be low posters lurking in the shadows. I'd love to take out that baddie. Question is, who is it.

The most vocal people, at least the way I view the thread, are Ballam, Balshazar, Rachel and Absalom. None of them look baddie to me at the moment, but I could be wrong.

I don't want to lynch another civvie. I don't know who to vote for

And he ends up voting Balaam anyway:

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

Only after these posts:

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

I'm almost tempted to think Samuel voted with that awful reasoning in an attempt to save Balaam. If he was so suspicious of Absalom, why not vote for him? Job only had 4 votes and Balaam 3 when Samuel voted. And notice how Balaam never talks about Samuel

If you go back and look at his posts, his defenses of Job and other players throughout the game are strange.. he never really explains why Job "isn't bad" and seems to indicate knowledge outside of the thread that Job is NOT bad and is having a hard time covering it.

[MartinWP69]

Oops I messed that up by quoting the same post twice

That first quote after the "Only after these posts" should be:

If there's anyone who hasn't voted yet, how about we vote Samuel?

[Snapshot]

Exactly Stephen. Particular emphasis on this bit:

Not sure what to think of Balaam. Mostly, he's one of the most productive players in terms of talking about others, bringing up theories and questioning everyone. But this is what I really expect from a good baddie. A good baddie is never easy to find, so I realize I might be fooled by him. That said, I'm not at a point where I'm remotely ready to vote for him. He's too important to the civvies if he is one.

Is this not just the wishy-washiest post ever... He doesn't know what to think about Balaam. He isn't remotely ready to vote for him. He's too important to the civvies if he is one.... BUT, it's what he really expects from a good baddie....

And then, after being not remotely ready to vote for him and seeing him as important to the civvies if he is one...

He votes for him because he is suspicious of Samuel.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Hi, Real life has taken a turn lately, so I don't know how much I'll be here, but I'll do my best.

I see I'm the number one suspect. I find it laughable that defending Job and saying I wouldn't vote for him because I didn't feel he's bad, and then watching others come in and vote for him for very dubious reasons, making me believe that was an attempted save thus voting for the one I thought was being saved, makes me bad.
I'm a flip flopper, deal with it. I don't come into the day thinking x is bad, I'm going to vote for x and then do it no matter what happens. I judge by the minute and I watch interactions, and that's how I decide.

I'm going to argue with anyone who claims I did exactly what I accused Samuel of doing. I thought Samuel was saving Ballam, and was therefore bad, but I didn't vote for him because by that time Job already had 5 votes and I wanted to save him. By my judgement, if Balam and Samuel were both bad, voting for Balam who had 3 votes was more likely to save Job, because Samuel had none and most people had already voted.



Just to make it clear, when Samuel voted, Job had 4 votes, Balam had 3, Absalom had 1. Not that much of a difference, and if you notice, 10 people voted after Samuel had, so convincing people Absalom was bad and getting them to vote for him was not that far fetched. Yet he chose to vote for Job, thus making the difference between Job and Balaam bigger.
In contrast, when I voted, it was much later and closer to the end of the day. Only 4 people voted after I did. How was voting Samuel going to help Job and get a baddie?


linki: Sure, not being sold on a player and actually contemplating while you go, makes you bad. Good job Stephen, you caught me

[Phoebe Buffay]

I really don't want to be here now and do this, but it's annoying me.

I wanted to vote Samuel. People kept coming in and voting for other people. No one listened to me. I didn't want to waste my vote, so I ended up voting for Balaam who I thought Samuel was trying to save.

As for the Paul thing from the beginning of the game, I was trying to enjoy the game. I was not defending Paul, but rather questioning those going after him, as well as questioning Paul himself. Excuse me for doing what I think civvies should do in a game of mafia

[Phoebe Buffay]

And Lot, do I need to quote your flip floppiness where you start by thinking I'm bad and choose me as your top suspect, continue with saying you completely changed your mind, only to come back and accuse me again?
I thought changing your mind is not allowed. It's a baddie tell.


And now I'm really out.

[Echo]

Found this during my re-read:

I admit I may have been somewjat ambiguous on purpous. I'm just zany and fun like that! The above is the root meaning though, is it not?

So are you going to share any thoughts on anyone besides myself, Paul and Cain or are you going to continue to be unhelpful and further verify that you're bad? I don't believe you used that definition of the word for even a second.

I'd rather have one of you lynched first and go from there.

You got your wish and then some. They're all dead now, so where do you propose we go now? :P

I would suggest we pick a trustworthy leader (I nominate myself) who will randomize between everyone who is not Absalom or Pilate, for it seems to me that those two are being subtly framed by the baddies.

Incidentally I'm still glad that Job is dead, as he was clearly leading us into lynching each other. He may have had a civvie role but in actuality he was no better than Paul.

[Ned Flanders]

Stephen is here!

I'm going to trust my gut and declare that Balaam and Absalom are likely town because they are reading genuine to me. I also think the wolves have avoided attention for the most part, instead piling on a couple of major candidates each day (as Balaam pointed out).

What do players think of Ruth? Apparently I missed her when I left the thread the other day, and she asked me what I wanted to discuss like as if I hadn't said it. Paul had mentioned that MANY people declared an intention to vote for Ruth early on due to her trying to figure out everyone's identities, but then no one did, and NO ONE is talking about her. At all.

What's the deal? I don't even have reason to find her particularly suspicious, but her game is the epitome of flying just low enough to avoid major attention but not flying TOO low to seem as if she's not contributing.

What do you want to discuss with me? I recall a few people saying I was suspicious because I was curious about how obvious Paul was being, but I don't recall MANY saying they WERE going to vote for me. I think you're exagerrating just a wee bit there, hrm?

A lot of people are not being talked about, and quite a few are flying lower than I. Does it upset you that *I* am not being talked about because Paul wanted to talk about me? You keep wanting to talk about me, but all you have to say about me is that Paul thought I was suspicious, and that people should be talking about me more.

Start the conversation. Let's talk about me; I'm a fun topic

And Lot, do I need to quote your flip floppiness where you start by thinking I'm bad and choose me as your top suspect, continue with saying you completely changed your mind, only to come back and accuse me again?
I thought changing your mind is not allowed. It's a baddie tell.


And now I'm really out.

Since when is changing your mind always bad? As things change, new evidence comes to light, perhaps colored by night results as well. Or if someone puts up a good defense. Lots of valid reasons for mind changing. I get your point, flopping like a fish is not the same as just mind changing. Do you really think he's bad, or is this a No U sort of thing?

And wow, the WIFOM in Uzziahs post.

[Young Lady]

Sorry, Balaam, as I've said, Paul's posts and especially the posts about Paul were the most to process and I indeed didn't properly go through that post you pointed out. Although, to be fair, in the same paragraph of the same post, you actually propose that Paul be "tested" for his reads in order to tell if, should his suspects flip civ, he'd continue to hunt/fish/flip/stir his ways or moderate himself in the future. But I do get that you were more analytical of him than critical. Just to be clear, my listing was very broad, for instance the "suspected by" section always includes not just decisive "suss" calls and "scum-reads", but virtually any kind of questioning, uncertainty, disagreeing with.

All is forgiven for your triple, Brother. I actually found them helpful. At least the first 2. I have a headache and skimmed the 3rd one. But I like the gist of it.
First, a response to the host post with the most... toast....: Well shit. I guess this means that another person I suspected was good. Nic, Sorry

Belsh, I'm glad you bring up the boldness of the Heathens. I've suspected that someone being really outspoken and helpful this game could easily be bad. Do I think all of the Heathens are doing it? No. That would be too bold, imo. But I think a few of the more outspoken peeps need to be discussed more thoroughly. Also, I'd be down for a fairly analyzed shotgun vote today. I think we need one to get the ball rolling today. We've been stuck in a mighty big rut for too long now. Who do you think we should look at?

Also to clarify this, it's not so much the boldness of the Heathens in their presence (although, since I opinionated that most of them must be active, it's pretty much implicit that they're doing a fine, cunning job messing with us and avoiding lynches so far) - I don't expect all of them to play this same card, either - as much as the boldness in their night kills. As for your question, here are my pressing issues so far:

Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

What do we do about Uzziah? All the suspects he offered are now dead civvies (or, in Paul's case, at least certainly no Heathen) and other than that, he has not contributed at all and has only stirred shit up. Just as a side-note, Nicodemus, who pushed for his lynch Day 3 and was bitter about it failing, is now also dead. But strictly concerning Uzziah, Job's lynch doesn't fully unlock any truth about him being good or bad. He could still be under the "feud" curse, for once. He could still be shenanigans guy and just that. Or he could bad and mocking us all along. But that's really three options instead of one strong feeling. It feels like we need to decide more or less together how we feel about him.

Even if Nicodemus died, there were other players who agreed with him that Job's lynch would be revelatory. I'd ask them what leads they got out of it, in that case.

Job's lynch could still tell us a bit about his lynchers. Of the main perpetrators, Rachel felt immediate sorrow (which feels genuine to me), while Uzziah (as expected?) is "glad" about it (which makes me wish we'd be playing this live somehow, so I can show him both my middle fingers). When I re-read Job, another player who stood out for me was Lot, even if there is now some distance in time from his suspicious regarding Job's obstinate hunt for Uzziah (due to not getting to talk about him from Day 2 onwards and never actually voted for him either...not once). His post that sort of pinged me may well be, I think, the first to put Job in the "tunnel vision" category, which further fueled the debate on him a lot during the next days:

Why wouldn't Uzziah be doing it for future game set up? All will be revealed at the end... you think he can't say in a future game 'When I was Uzziah in Biblical mafia I did that'?

I hate that I'm defending this guy, but a lot of the stuff being said about him just doesn't make any sense. Job has tunnel vision, but no his reasoning is not good. The only thing about it that is true is that Uzziah is refusing to be helpful in the thread, but mostly I think Job has tunnel vision because the person Uzziah has been looking at for a lynch is Job.

And I think "Job has tunnel vision because Uzziah called Job a suspect" is the wrong angle at how things happened, because Job was pinged by Uzziah's behaviour in the first place, before Uzziah offered any suspects. It is quite serious for this whole "tunnel vision" debate and lynch factor to have stemmed from a misinterpretation of Job's suspicion on Uzziah (whilst also being in defence of such a suspicious player as Uzziah), but I admit I still have to mull over whether it's misfortunate or a very subtle build up.

Plus, strictly in this context, Lot never addressed Job's lynch, but instead launched right away into a tirade about Nicodemus and Absalom conducting Balaam's lynch. This would normally give me great pause, if only for the fact that I agree almost completely with his ultimate interpretation of how things went down.

I have to weight in on others, but I need more time. Also, if I were to accept a shotgun lynch for a low poster, I probably wouldn't be able to take anymore of Deborah's "I'll try to catch up, cross my heart guys" and Pilate's defiant "Rachel's bad because I picked it up from Belsh and I know so and I stick to it, knowingly so", but it's so little to be sure they're bad, given our piss poor lynch results based on pretty much the same reasons.

[Young Lady]

Very interesting posts today, Belshazzar. I very much appreciate them.

I also don't know what to make of the two kills. It certainly sounds as though the second one was the heathen kill, although at first reading I thought Nicodemus would be an understandable choice for a civvie ninja kill.

Why's that? Why do you think a civ ninja would (have) pick(ed) Nicodemus for his one shot kill, after last Day's/Night's events?

bit of snip, sorry

Your Jezebel/Pharaoah point. Very interesting indeed. Is it possible that Jezebel is dead? I looked through your analysis of who was killed, and the nightkill posts, and it doesn't seem very likely (unless Jezebel was Barnabas, of course). Possibly it's just who sent in the PM, possibly it's epi taking licence. It's worth bearing in mind, though.

Doubt it. Even if Barnabas would have been Jezebel and fallen pray to another force, it's still three straight Nights since the Pharaoh executed the kill. It rather brings me back to how much confidence the Heathens must be having right now. The Pharaoh player has literally taken upon himself to execute the kills since Night 2 and he hasn't been blocked or stopped so far.

bit of snip, again

The Nicodemus kill is an odd one, being that he is someone I would have thought could be a lynch candidate today.

Again, why?
You yourself found Nicodemus genuine in his replies and defense last Night, despite challenging him heavily, but now think he would have been a more likely lynch or civ ninja kill candidate then a night kill?

[Saito]

Then there's the group of players that aren't contributing at all: Lazarus, Malchus, Pilate, Uzziah, Samuel, Rebecca, Esther, Deborah, and Bathsheba.

I looked at our options today and literally remember almost no contributions from these players.

I'm actively reading back as we speak! I finally have some time

[Saito]

I'm concentrating my time on people who are eligible to be lynched. The first name is Absalom. I've read back through his posts and I don't see anything ping-y there, he's been actively baddie hunting. Lot's accusations against him are weird, I'd like to hear more from him about that. The comments about Absalom pushing civ lynches hard, etc, Lot is using some Big words with little to back them up.

[Saito]

Bathsheba has few posts, but what I see is not crying out "civ". There is a general "just talkin' here" quality to them that sounds like someone just trying to post, and Bath popped onto the Cain bandwagon with the e

[Saito]

Bathsheba has few posts, but what I see is not crying out "civ". There is a general "just talkin' here" quality to them that sounds like someone just trying to post, and Bath popped onto the Cain bandwagon with the equivalent of a shrug.

[Young Lady]

Feeling good about Jeph's defense, to be honest, particularly these two fragments. Sure, we could have used more of these arguments during the end of the lynch itself, rather than post-factum, but still...

I'm going to argue with anyone who claims I did exactly what I accused Samuel of doing. I thought Samuel was saving Ballam, and was therefore bad, but I didn't vote for him because by that time Job already had 5 votes and I wanted to save him. By my judgement, if Balam and Samuel were both bad, voting for Balam who had 3 votes was more likely to save Job, because Samuel had none and most people had already voted.

Just to make it clear, when Samuel voted, Job had 4 votes, Balam had 3, Absalom had 1. Not that much of a difference, and if you notice, 10 people voted after Samuel had, so convincing people Absalom was bad and getting them to vote for him was not that far fetched. Yet he chose to vote for Job, thus making the difference between Job and Balaam bigger.
In contrast, when I voted, it was much later and closer to the end of the day. Only 4 people voted after I did. How was voting Samuel going to help Job and get a baddie?

By contrast, Samuel's clarification is still totally wtf.

He didn't trust Absalom, so he didn't want to acknowledge Absalom's case.
He felt voting Absalom would be throwing his vote away, although, as Jeph pointed out, the lynch situation was far from clear.
He didn't want to vote the same way as Absalom, so he picked, without having any views on Job, the lynch train on him instead, simply because he wanted his vote to count (aka be part of a lynch train, except not the one Absalom contributed to).
He didn't have any view on Balaam either and didn't vote in defense of him.
Despite the lynch situation being statistically far from clear, he considered it clear enough to vote for one of two options, neither of which he had any views on, as long as it's not the one Absalom vote for.

coo coo ca choo

[Saito]

A read of Esther didn't take very long. Not many posts, not a ton of suspicions, but no sense of hanging back and coasting, either. It's a neutral read.

[Nicol Bolas]

Found this during my re-read:

I admit I may have been somewjat ambiguous on purpous. I'm just zany and fun like that! The above is the root meaning though, is it not?

So are you going to share any thoughts on anyone besides myself, Paul and Cain or are you going to continue to be unhelpful and further verify that you're bad? I don't believe you used that definition of the word for even a second.

I'd rather have one of you lynched first and go from there.

You got your wish and then some. They're all dead now, so where do you propose we go now? :P

I would suggest we pick a trustworthy leader (I nominate myself) who will randomize between everyone who is not Absalom or Pilate, for it seems to me that those two are being subtly framed by the baddies.

Incidentally I'm still glad that Job is dead, as he was clearly leading us into lynching each other. He may have had a civvie role but in actuality he was no better than Paul.

You're a baddie who is trying to frame me. Absalom is your baddie teammate. You're hedging here for when you turn up bad. Then they lynch me, and I turn up Civ. Then they leave Absalom alone.

*votes Uzziah*

Rachel is right, I've been phoning it in. But I read the last few pages and this is what really caught my eye. Uzziah has no reason at all to think I'm Civ, unless he's bad.

[Saito]

Isaac (both 1.0 and 2.0) read as civ, to me. I won't be looking in that direction today.

@Pilate, I'm still catching up, but can you expand on your vote post? So Uzziah says he thinks you and Absalom are civvie, so you think they are bad for it? That's quite confusing, tbh.

[Saito]

I'll try to smush more than 1 person in so I'm not posting constantly...

Jeph seems civ to me, he is actively voicing suspicions and commenting on everythin going on.

Jonah is likely a civ, but there is a weirdness to his set of posts. He posted a ton on Day 1 and then dropped off the game for 6 days. Then he says "sorry, I forgot about the game"? I can understand a low poster somehow forgetting, but Jonah posted a lot at the start and was very invested. Unless this was a host player switch and this is really a Jonah 2.0 in which case the comment makes sense? There is also a sort of flippancy to Jonah's posts that feels weird, but it's the kind of thing that generally gets jodged when you know the player posting it, so it's kind of null atm, I guess.

[Saito]

Not a fan of Lazarus. His posts regarding Absalom don't make sense to me. He has one fact about Absalom that constitutes his case; Absalom voted for a player who was silenced. Every post since then has amounted to a variation of "still suspecting Absalom for being shady". But that's a horrid case. First, Absalom was not even the first person to vote for Cain, Paul was. Second, while I see that people were questioning whether Cain was silenced, no one seems to have mentioned that he was lurking until after Absalom had voted (correct me if I'm wrong here, I did a quick skim). So Laz has pushed against Absalom for a very lame reason (a ton of people voted for Cain, why just him? Why never mention Paul, or me, or any of the other 4-5 people at least who voted him?) and this has spanned multiple days.

[Saito]

Malchus, holy shit, this is not a civ.

Here is his reasons for voting Cain:

I think things point more to Cain being bad than Uzz.

No explanation. He's never mentioned Cain as bad before this. But he's supported Uzziah quite a bit. But thinking one person is civvie isn't a valid case voting calling someone else bad.

this was followed, after Cain's death, with:

"

How do you defend day 2 suspicion away?

Besides I assumed someone was faking being silenced.

I'm sorry, but this cries out bad, to me. A vote with no reason followed by a shrug.

Pilate reads more as a neutral read... more posts mentioning topics than a lot of players including myself, but they feel a bit like commenting on topics rather than engaging with them. Like, Pilate mentions suspicions and people of interest without really getting in there and contributing real thoughts. And this last post is WTF to me. I await a reply about it, as it's bizarre.

[Saito]

I'll get the other half of the poll later, must head to work.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Deborah, good point about Malchus. He has been completely off my radar but the vote post and post lynch post are definitely suspect. I'll give him a read too - I don't remember him saying much during the game.

Also, thank you for your contributions. You are no longer on my quick vote list (not that it really matters because we didn't quick vote!).

[Echo]

Found this during my re-read:

I admit I may have been somewjat ambiguous on purpous. I'm just zany and fun like that! The above is the root meaning though, is it not?

So are you going to share any thoughts on anyone besides myself, Paul and Cain or are you going to continue to be unhelpful and further verify that you're bad? I don't believe you used that definition of the word for even a second.

I'd rather have one of you lynched first and go from there.

You got your wish and then some. They're all dead now, so where do you propose we go now? :P

I would suggest we pick a trustworthy leader (I nominate myself) who will randomize between everyone who is not Absalom or Pilate, for it seems to me that those two are being subtly framed by the baddies.

Incidentally I'm still glad that Job is dead, as he was clearly leading us into lynching each other. He may have had a civvie role but in actuality he was no better than Paul.

You're a baddie who is trying to frame me. Absalom is your baddie teammate. You're hedging here for when you turn up bad. Then they lynch me, and I turn up Civ. Then they leave Absalom alone.

*votes Uzziah*

Rachel is right, I've been phoning it in. But I read the last few pages and this is what really caught my eye. Uzziah has no reason at all to think I'm Civ, unless he's bad.

Are you saying you're not a civ then? I'd vote for you for this nonsense if I didn't think you're good.

[Paul Stevens]

This ^ I don't like the way that Pilate's been voting at all. Could just be me, though. I half agree with Deborah saying that he could be neutral. But voting Pilate just because is sooooo tempting.

[Paul Stevens]

Isaac (both 1.0 and 2.0) read as civ, to me. I won't be looking in that direction today.

Sorry to be piggy-backing. I'm trying to be invested, but this is more than I'm used to.
I mention piggy-backing because I totally agree with you on Malchus. I believe I replaced in right around when this was happening or right after, and totally missed it. This could definitely be one of our baddies laying low and I'd be totally willing to put a vote there if others are.

[Paul Stevens]

Looking at the poll now, I'm shocked that Pilate hasn't cast his vote yet. Can you be suaded breh?

[Celeste]

Jonah is likely a civ, but there is a weirdness to his set of posts. He posted a ton on Day 1 and then dropped off the game for 6 days. Then he says "sorry, I forgot about the game"? I can understand a low poster somehow forgetting, but Jonah posted a lot at the start and was very invested. Unless this was a host player switch and this is really a Jonah 2.0 in which case the comment makes sense? There is also a sort of flippancy to Jonah's posts that feels weird, but it's the kind of thing that generally gets jodged when you know the player posting it, so it's kind of null atm, I guess.

What does "likely a civ" mean Deb? My name is Jonah and I am the first of my name. I'm a tad demoralized about how this games going so far and I'm having trouble staying invested. I want to be more involved I just gotta get into the game.
Jeph sounds bad to me and if I had to vote right now like Solomon Says it would be for him
I don't think Malchus is bad I think hes just absent
Balaam seems cool to me
Not sure what to think about Lot
I'm over everything about Uzziah I don't know what to make of it any more
Pilate is brash and tyrannical and I wonder if hes washing his hands of all of this
And something feels really off to me about Rahab... darkhorse candidate for my vote. it's all just vibes if you must know.
That's about all Ive got for now.......

[Prisoner 509378]

Halfway through my re-read. Been in and out all day.

Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

Do you believe in miracles?

[Celeste]

Halfway through my re-read. Been in and out all day.

Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

Do you believe in miracles?

Balaam I can tell you're just the chillest sock here. let's talk. who do you think is bad brother?

[Prisoner 509378]

Halfway through my re-read. Been in and out all day.

Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

Do you believe in miracles?

Balaam I can tell you're just the chillest sock here. let's talk. who do you think is bad brother?

Hard to say. I'm taking notes during my re-read and I plan to review my notes on each person. That probably means a big grand list of mine is coming your way sometime in the near future.

At the halfway point (somewhere in the midst of Day 2) I am surprised to see how wishy washy Jeph has been the whole game. For some reason he seemed so genuine to me before but he's been firmly on the fence on a lot of what's happened. That doesn't mean anything though until I finish my re-read. I don't want to contribute to another ADHD idea that takes off and stones another civvie. Not sure when I'll finish my re-read though, so you may be on your own this vote. Sorry.

[Celeste]

Nah it's cool balaam you know its cool. I suspect Jep myself so I look forward to whatever data you can find from the Old Texts

[Nicol Bolas]

Go ahead and vote me, Isaac, if you wish. I'm a Civ.

@Pilate, I'm still catching up, but can you expand on your vote post? So Uzziah says he thinks you and Absalom are civvie, so you think they are bad for it? That's quite confusing, tbh.

Uzziah has no reason to think I'm Civ. How could anyone "read" me as Civ with the way I've been playing. Hardly here, and when I am here, I say sketchy things.

He knows I'm Civ because he is bad. He's planting seeds so that if I get lynched and flip Civ, he looks good... and if he gets lynched and flips bad, I look bad.

If Uzziah were lynched and flipped bad, the intention is for people to return to this post and read it with the knowledge that he's bad. So then Absalom and I look bad. I'm more likely to be lynched than Absalom, that's my opinion anyway. So then I flip Civ, and Absalom isn't an instant target anymore. Maybe even thought of as Civ for it. Could be a distancing thing between Uzziah and Absalom, both baddies. Maybe not, it's my theory.

And yeah, I forgot to vote in the poll earlier. I saw the 'suaded post, and I was like "damn, I forgot!" and went and completed the vote as I had intended to.

[Saito]

@Pilate, I just read through your posts. You seem a bit scattered to me, not very on point, but there is nothing there that says baddie, to me. I can see from your tone that you aren't happy with your own play, and i'vebeen there myself, but it doesn't mean you read like a baddie, so I'm not understanding your black & white issues with Uzzi's post.

Like, if Uzziah is lynched and is good OR bad, I don't think in either case I would think of you? No offence, I hope? A declaration of thinking someone is civ isn't a sign of baddieness, I think in my catchup posts today I said that about at least 3 people so far. If they get lynched, will people instantly think of me?

I don't have any real conclusion to pull fro your thoughts on this, I'm just really confused by it all.

[Snapshot]

A lot going on here. Which I think is fantastic! Time for me to get stuck into some things...

And Lot, do I need to quote your flip floppiness where you start by thinking I'm bad and choose me as your top suspect, continue with saying you completely changed your mind, only to come back and accuse me again?
I thought changing your mind is not allowed. It's a baddie tell.

And now I'm really out.

Quickly into the no u, I see. I did say in the middle that I was becoming for comfortable with you again, but then you exhibited on a much more extreme level the exact kind of schizophrenic thinking you had on day one. On a small scale, happening once, I might accept that I'm reading too much into it. On a much larger scale, happening for a second time, it makes me think my gut was right the first time.

You know as well as I do that I was not arguing that 'changing your mind is a baddie tell', and I have to say I really don't like it when someone turns my case into a single, obviously false, statement to try to make the case look like it holds less weight. Just like Absalom, you call me a hypocrite in fewer words.

Changing your mind, though, from "I'm not at a point where I'm remotely ready to vote for him" to voting for him in a couple of hours is far from 'changing your mind'. It's flipping around all over the place. Especially when your reasoning is because of the actions of Samuel.

Samuel said 'I think Absalom is bad, therefore I'm going to vote to (effectively) save the person Absalom voted for, since I think they are civ'. You said 'I think Samuel is bad, therefore I'm going to vote to (effectively) save the person Samuel voted for, since I think they are civ'. I don't know how you can possibly distinguish your two different approaches as you are claiming to. The only difference is, Samuel didn't say he 'wasn't remotely ready to vote Job' just a couple of hours before.

Not only that, but then you bring out when you voted to distinguish it... really? So Samuel voted when he could have lynched Absalom and impacted the outcome. Then why DIDN'T you vote when you had a chance to impact the outcome against the person you thought was bad. It doesn't help your case, to me, to say you held on to your vote until it was too late. Why not vote for Samuel earlier when you had time?

See, the whole thing here is, I just don't buy your flip flop on Balaam, not one bit. Your whole first comment, about how you 'weren't remotely ready to vote Balaam', actually set you up to do exactly that. You could point back to it and say, 'oh, but I did say it would make for a good baddie'. Look at it!

Not sure what to think of Balaam. Mostly, he's one of the most productive players in terms of talking about others, bringing up theories and questioning everyone. But this is what I really expect from a good baddie. A good baddie is never easy to find, so I realize I might be fooled by him. That said, I'm not at a point where I'm remotely ready to vote for him. He's too important to the civvies if he is one.

That's such a common baddie play. Saying one thing, but setting yourself up to go for the other.

It's very different from 'changing your mind'.

[Snapshot]

When I re-read Job, another player who stood out for me was Lot, even if there is now some distance in time from his suspicious regarding Job's obstinate hunt for Uzziah (due to not getting to talk about him from Day 2 onwards and never actually voted for him either...not once). His post that sort of pinged me may well be, I think, the first to put Job in the "tunnel vision" category, which further fueled the debate on him a lot during the next days:

Why wouldn't Uzziah be doing it for future game set up? All will be revealed at the end... you think he can't say in a future game 'When I was Uzziah in Biblical mafia I did that'?

I hate that I'm defending this guy, but a lot of the stuff being said about him just doesn't make any sense. Job has tunnel vision, but no his reasoning is not good. The only thing about it that is true is that Uzziah is refusing to be helpful in the thread, but mostly I think Job has tunnel vision because the person Uzziah has been looking at for a lynch is Job.

And I think "Job has tunnel vision because Uzziah called Job a suspect" is the wrong angle at how things happened, because Job was pinged by Uzziah's behaviour in the first place, before Uzziah offered any suspects. It is quite serious for this whole "tunnel vision" debate and lynch factor to have stemmed from a misinterpretation of Job's suspicion on Uzziah (whilst also being in defence of such a suspicious player as Uzziah), but I admit I still have to mull over whether it's misfortunate or a very subtle build up.

It's true I did accuse Job of tunnel vision. Because Job had tunnel vision. I don't think you can really dispute that as true (even though he tried to). But I had stopped thinking Job was bad by the time he was lynched. I only would have voted him this time because I'd rather vote the guy who might be bad to save the guy I feel sure isn't. I couldn't remember any more which of them cast the first stone, so I went back and read it. You are right, Job suspected Uzziah first. But it's not really who threw the stone first that mattered to me. It was the fact Job didn't let up, and I thought it was at least in part because Uzziah was after him - because I didn't think his logical reasoning was solid. To be fair, this also happened in the context of me not being able to understand why Job thought Uzziah had confessed to being bad until I posted the 'root' definition and it clicked into place. I was having trouble deciding about all of what was going on until I really got to the bottom of that. Afterwards, my views changed - particularly because Uzziah admitted to a double meaning, and intending people to read his 'root' post that way. It made me feel differently about both Job and Uzziah, to the point I voted Uzziah.

And I notice it bothers you slightly that I didn't say RIP or seem aggrieved at Job's death. It's because I didn't. It's hard to feel aggrieved at someones death (even a civilian's) when you feel like the outcome was your preferable one (Balaam not dying). This was simply the truth of my emotion showing, nothing more. Nothing against Job, either. I don't like "RIP" as a convention, otherwise it's meaningless - it's something baddies can say easily, no skin off their nose. I only do it when I mean it (or, of course, when I'm bad and faking it).

[Snapshot]

Very interesting posts today, Belshazzar. I very much appreciate them.

I also don't know what to make of the two kills. It certainly sounds as though the second one was the heathen kill, although at first reading I thought Nicodemus would be an understandable choice for a civvie ninja kill.

Why's that? Why do you think a civ ninja would (have) pick(ed) Nicodemus for his one shot kill, after last Day's/Night's events?

It just didn't (doesn't, really) make sense to me as a baddie kill, I was surprised by the choice. It became obvious that it was the baddie kill when I read properly, but that it might be a civilian kill was my first instinct. I don't keep track of the roles so I didn't even know there was a civ ninja, but there are other ways and means, like winning contests.

[Snapshot]

I'm also going to look sideways at anyone who thinks Lazarus is shady, tbqh. That means you, right now, Deborah.

Not that Lazarus must be good. But he certainly looks better after Job's death.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Lot, you're right, I was calling you a heypocrit, but I sure as hell wasn't doing a NO U.
If it's not changing my mind or showing a "schizophrenic" behaviour like you call it, what exactly is it that you're accusing me of?

If like you say, I knew they were both civvies, which is something I still don't know, why appear so wishy washy?
Yes, I said I wasn't ready to vote Balaam, and if I were a baddie, why the hell would I do something that was so conradicting? Why not just put my vote on Samuel who had no votes and appear much better to everyone?

Why? Because I genuinely thought it was an attempted save. I wrote the post you quoted about Ballam because while he seemed good to me most of the times, I've been fooled by those doing and saying exactly the "right" things, and I thought Absalom and especially Nico were bringing up logical points. I was acknoledging that this might be the case, yet I wasn't ready to vote him. But then, when Samuel did what he did, it was like an alarm went off, and I saw things differently.

And again, Samuel didn't try to save the person Absalom voted for. He voted for someone he never said he was suspicious of, so when the person Absalom voted for had only 3 votes, and all was open, why vote for Job? Why not look for a better option? All it would take is 2 more votes to tie it, not to mention there was Job who already had 4 votes. So Balaam at that time wasn't at such a risk of being lynched.
Why didn't I vote earlier? If you look at all my posts before the lynch, you will see that I tried talking about it ever since Samuel voted. I was even annoyed with people voting without addressing what I said and wasting their votes. So don't you dare tell me this was the same as Samuel, who just came in, threw out his ridiculous reason and voted without waiting a second to discuss this with others.


And whoever reads it, don't read 2 sentences and then take them out of context to try to manipulate it like someone who I'll find in a minute did.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Sorry for the typos in my last post, my spellchecker isn't working for some reason and I'm writing fast, so I miss letters
Here it is, I wasn't sure it was Deborah or Ruth

And Lot, do I need to quote your flip floppiness where you start by thinking I'm bad and choose me as your top suspect, continue with saying you completely changed your mind, only to come back and accuse me again?
I thought changing your mind is not allowed. It's a baddie tell.


And now I'm really out.

Since when is changing your mind always bad? As things change, new evidence comes to light, perhaps colored by night results as well. Or if someone puts up a good defense. Lots of valid reasons for mind changing. I get your point, flopping like a fish is not the same as just mind changing. Do you really think he's bad, or is this a No U sort of thing?

And wow, the WIFOM in Uzziahs post.

Here Ruth takes one part of my post and ignores the context which it was said in. Maybe I should have used Saecastic orange, but if you read the entire post, you wouldn't make that mistake. I was sarcastically replying to Lot who accused me of changing my mind by reminding him that he went back and forth on me as well.

Could Ruth be subtly adding another bad thing to paint me as a baddie? I wonder

[Young Lady]

I'm also going to look sideways at anyone who thinks Lazarus is shady, tbqh. That means you, right now, Deborah.

Not that Lazarus must be good. But he certainly looks better after Job's death.

What's the connection? Lazarus picked on Absalom and sticked with suspecting him. Even assuming he would have given an "anti-Absalom vote", just like Samuel, which he didn't, how does Job's death make him look better?

I have a project to finish in the next two days, which makes me wish there'd be a third day to this Chapter, but I'll try to contribute as much as possible. So far I wish I'd have heard from more players, not just Jonah and Pilate, how they feel about Uzziah nowadays.

Pilate's argument intrigues me. He seems (or is acting) very self-aware that he should be regarded as suspicious by most, if not all, for his behaviour. To which Uzziah either expressed his usual affection for baddies (although this wouldn't make sense, because he didn't actually phrase it that way, he specifically said Pilate is civvie) or accidentally let it be known that Pilate is not part of his wolfpack. Or he's trying to frame Pilate by distancing from him - if we lynch Uzziah and he's bad, we'll interpret it as distancing and want to lynch Pilate next; if we lynch Pilate and he's bad, Uzziah would have some cred. At least I think that's what Pilate is trying to say...

...although, on its own, Pilate's "how can you guys possibly think I'm a civ" is still a very confusing way to try to say "oh I'm a civ alright, but I'm well aware what I've posted makes me look bad", in case he is civ. But...maybe he isn't...

[Paul Stevens]

Belsh, to answer your question re Uzzi. I have felt completely in the dark here. I started out kind of defending him, but now ijdk.

Also, Pilate's latest post feels like a major gambit. The wifom is strong with this one. hooooooo purhhhhhhh.

[Larry David]

One of these days I'll actually get to spend my weekend at home

Gonna read through now, but I dont like Solomon's "shotgun vote" idea. I feel like all that will do is force a big multiway tie in the poll

[Young Lady]

Given that she hasn't posted since Night 4, I assume Rachel is silenced or imprisoned.

[Saito]

I'm also going to look sideways at anyone who thinks Lazarus is shady, tbqh. That means you, right now, Deborah.

Not that Lazarus must be good. But he certainly looks better after Job's death.

Could you explain this a bit, please? Why does Job's death mean Laz looks civvie, to the point that you will eye those thinking he is not?

[Young Lady]

Also without a single post so far during Day 5 (sometimes even earlier than that): Absalom (he excused himself, I think), Bathsheba, Esther, Judah, Lazarus, Malchus, Rahab, Rebecca, Samuel. Judah is the only one exempt from the lynch poll. Apologies if I'm mistaken about any of these.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Belshazzar are there any of those people you listed who have been quiet people you are thinking about voting for? I had thought about taking a leap and voting for Malchus because of the quotes Deborah found but since he hasn't spoken all day I don't know whether he has been silenced or not. I don't remember him participating very much so I may be ok with it.

I've also thought about Jepth and uzziah for votes. I don't know what to make of uzziah really but his intent seems to be to sow seeds of confusion and that doesn't strike me as a very civ behavior. Then there is your post about Jepth which brought to light some things I hadn't thought of regarding him.

I also second the request - or 3rd it maybe - for an explanation as to the connection between Lazarus and Job that would make a vote for Lazarus a bad thing.

Anyway, I haven't decided anything yet and it could be someone else comes up suspicious more so than any of these. Just looking for your input on those you found silent.