Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Prisoner 509378]

RACHEL

TS member
-initially not concerned with Horsemen
sus of Rebecca
sus of Paul
sus of Job
sus of Absolom
-not concerned with Gideons post
-said she would vote Rebecca, Job, or Absalom

DAY 2:
-warming up to BALAAM
-still sus of Job & Paul
-thinks I'm trying too hard w/ the lists

N2:
-still thinks Job is bad
-not crazy about Absalom & Mordecais N2 posts

DAY 3:
-picks right on up with Paul's sus of Job- quikcly becomes her case against him
-thinks i might be okay if a certain player
-sus of Job- not contributing or being helpful
-sus of Absalom- full of excuses
-wants to lynch Job or Abs
-not crazy about "kill Uzz so he's gone" plan


NIGHT 3
-starts pressing Job about his other prior suspects
-I posted his sus list, Rachel presses more
-also not thrilled by pessimism and odds
-agrees with Abs' argument against my pessimism despite sus of him

DAY 4
-starts appealing to me on her case against Job
-reminds folks that her case against Job is Paul's case
-reads bad on Job but neutral on Uzz
-called a hypocrite by Job for her tunnel vision on him; asks her why she changed to neutral on Uzz
-posts list of non-Job discussion to show she doesn't have tunnel vision
-draws ire and suspicion from Job- he says she might be an Uzz teammate if he is bad
-can only see first of Nic's 3 points on me
-also sus of Abs
-finds Jeph's repitition of "you're blinded by Job" sus
-accused by Lot of being teammates with Uzz

NIGHT 4
-still neutral on Uzz
-Agrees with Lot that Jeph may be bad
-questions Lot on some of his quick shifts in sus/attacks
-questions Abs' assertion that Uzz helped lead Job's lynch


DAY 5
-hinting she can only make one post?
-votes Uzz
-thinks Pilate has been sketchy all game

DAY 6
-asks what people think of Samuel
-wonders if Abs looks okay on D1
-concurs on Lot's analysis

[Prisoner 509378]

RAHAB

Not from TS?
-"baddies prolly hiding and laughing", wanted to hear more from Samson- nudge toward him?

DAY 2:
-makes a big deal about Samson's illegal vote
-weird that people consecutively wondered about Paul
-runs with Absalom's case on Cain

DAY3:
-asks if my lists are going to go anywhere- will I analyze or just dump data?
-admits to fence-sitting on Uzz
-thinks Bath has been blendy
-responds to Jonah soon after he votes her- asks what he wants to talk about
-says she's voting for Uzz based on previous comments (hers or someone else's?)


DAY 4
-thinks R&P's case on Job is sound
-agrees with Job's case on Uzz still though
-doesn't like Abs's case against me; Job's attitude; Laz coming out of nowhere
-says could vote Laz or Uzz
-votes Laz- not sus of Job or me

DAY 5
-questions Lots threat against those who find Laz sus
-wary on Malchus
-Pilate's post reminiscent of Uzz
-sees possible innocence in Jeph's posts and vote for me

[Prisoner 509378]

REBECCA

-not interested in lynching new peeps
sus of Jephthah
-votes Jeph for wishy washy and exagerating

DAY 2
-considering a self-vote
-still wary of Jeph


DAY 3:
-sympathizes with Deb on perpetual catchup
-sus of Rachel, Mary Mag, & Jeph
-votes for Mary Mag- uses Be;;sh's post for reason

DAY 4
-votes without posting

DAY 5
-sticks with her guns on Jeph being bad

[Prisoner 509378]

RUTH

sus of Paul- thinks he's faking being new
-jumps on Cain train because she doesn't think Samson is bad

N2:
-claims silenced D2
-high horse about lynching someone not posting
-clarification needed on "not able to vote"
-lurking but not posting fairly standard silenced activity??????


DAY 3:
-will vote Uzz if can't get caught up
-doesn't see case against Mary
-will prob vote Uzz- hung up over D1 antics

DAY 4
-apologizes for not being around
-responds to a mention or two with nothing really useful
-finally answers my question- she assumed she could not vote when she was silenced
-still thinks Uzz is bad
-defends her vote to Jeph- says she's voting who she thinks is guilty regardless of top 2 in vote
-sus of me for questioning her "no lynch if tie" comment- thinks I jumped on her (isn't she jumping on me now?
-wary of Pilate and Deb
-thinks Jeph just sounds frustrated (defend?)
-thinks Rachel believes in Job case- not sus of her


DAY 5
-wonders if FAMINE killed Barnabas instead of modkill
-curious about how Job votes took off after it was 6 for Job and 4 for me (could late Job votes be the pump for me?)
-doesn't think Jeph bad

[Prisoner 509378]

SAMUEL

sus of Ruth
backpedals on it

N2:
-makes a shame on me I missed vote post

DAY 3:
-calls the Paul kill interesting

DAY 4
-asks if anything happened last minute in poll results
-states will not do a re-read and will just work with the here and now
-doesn't trust Abs so he votes for Job because it counters Abs
-loves my lists


NIGHT 4
-says shame on Jeph for his vote on me
-sus of Abs & Jeph
-says he agree with Lot

[Prisoner 509378]

STEPHEN

voted random D1

DAY 2:
-self-votes because he sucks at following game

DAY 4
-finds it odd that Paul killed after going after Job
-sses Uzz as unhelpful in solving game
-Uzz & Rachel look worse if Job turns civ
-noticed early sus of Ruth in thread but where did it go?
-wants to know why Ruth not sus of Job
-sus of Job for tunnel vision
-calls out Rebecca's vote w/o explanation
-likes Paul's / Rachel's case against Job
-sus of Jeph and Ruth
-calls attention to Jeph's wishy washy nature
-supports Rachel

NIGHT 4
-agrees with Lot
-late into N4 waffling on Lot
-thinks Abs & Nic are good

DAY 5
-thinks Abs & I are good
-calls out Laz, Malchus, Pilate, Uzz, Sam, Rebecca, Esther, Deb, & Bath for quietness
-says may vote Jeph
-thinks Jeph sus for being contradictory and wishy washy (especially on voting for me)
-thinks Ruth is flying perfectly at radar level- not too much, not too little, just right
-changs his mind on Jeph- thinks he's being genuine

[Prisoner 509378]

And for kicks and giggles,

UZZIAH

DAY 1
-confident that Job is baddie
-votes Cain anyway- also thinks he might be bad

DAY 2:
-doesn't like Job or Paul or Cain
-wants to see them lynched/dead before doing anything helpful

N2:
-questions whther the result indicated Absalom is bad


DAY 3:
-applauds Paul's death???

DAY 4
-posts sarcastic "excuse" response
-uncertain about Abs & Pilate
-if Job bad, he'll look at those not talked about yet


DAY 5
-suggests Abs and Pilate being framed by the baddies
-questions Pilate's post- "does this mean you're bad?"
-curious that Abs & Pilate vote for him after he defends them
-says Stephen acting sketchy- votes him
-claims being framed to make Abs look civ

[Prisoner 509378]

And now for something I like to call Balaam's Amazing Technicolor Vote Analysis!

Here's how it works, it's a list (gee, no kidding!) in chronological order of how the votes came in. Sometimes looking at the poll results is tricky because it's just a graph and it takes a lot of effort to find the vote order and keep the sequence fluid in your head. Each player getting votes has their own color. The stoning victim is in read and we go down through the colors based on the number of votes (2nd place = orange, 3rd = yellow, etc.). My notes should hopefully help find Plants and Pushes but these may help us find the Pivots. The player receiving the vote is in all caps. The player placing the vote is in parentheses.

Without further ado...

DAY 1 RESULTS:

1. SAMUEL (Paul)
2. SAMUEL (Samson)
3. LOT (Gideon)
4. UZZIAH (Pilate)
5. REBECCA (Rachel)
6. PAUL (Martha)
7. BARNABAS (Stephen)
8. UZZIAH (Job)
9. SAMSON (Mordecai)
10. SAMSON (Mary Mag)
11. ABSALOM (Cain)
12. CAIN (Deborah)
13. CAIN (Absalom)
14. SAMSON (Isaac)
15. SAMSON (Jacob)
16. JEPHTHA (Rebecca)
17. ABSALOM (Malchus)
18. SAMSON (Jonathan)
19. MARY MAG (Jonah)
20. SAMSON (Belshazzar)
21. SAMSON (Samuel)
22. CAIN (Uzziah)
23. JEPHTHAH (Lot)
24. PAUL (Nicodemus)
25. CAIN (Ruth)
26. GIDEON (Hagar)
27. MARY MAG (Jephthah)
28. UZZIAH (Rahab)
29. CAIN (Balaam)

Not Voting: Barnabas, Bathsheba, Esther, Judas, Lazarus

[Prisoner 509378]

Day 2 Results:

1. JOB (Uzziah)
2. UZZIAH (Job)
3. JOB (Rachel)
4. CAIN (Paul)
5. CAIN (Absalom)
6. CAIN (Belshazzar)
7. CAIN (Deborah)
8. CAIN (Malchus)
9. UZZIAH (Lot)
10. CAIN (Rahab)
11. STEPHEN (Stephen)
12. CAIN (Balaam)
13. JEPHTHAH (Rebecca)
14. ABSALOM (Lazarus)
15. UZZIAH (Jonathan)
16. CAIN (Bathsheba)

Not Voting: Barnabas (2), Cain, Esther (2), Gideon, Hagar, Isaac, Jacob, Jephthah, Jonah, Judah (2), Mary Mag, Mordecai, Nicodemus, Pilate, Ruth, Samuel

[Phoebe Buffay]

Balaam, sorry but I can't read this. I would have much rathered you did this on a sheet of paper fo your own benefit, and then gave us your conclusion. I applaud anyone who's going to read this.\

I skimmed though. Naturally, I skimmed through what you wrote about me. Apparently, you haven't done a good job, because you ask where is the evidence of me thinking MM was bad from day 1. How about my vote for her? Would that be considered evidence? And I kind of resent the whiny comments. And to answer your question, yes, I'm wishy washy all game. I call it thinking. I guess for you thinking is making endless and pointless lists. And forgive my sarcasm, but it just annoyed me.
I do wonder about you and Lot. You said you cut down on Lot because he knows you are a civvie. Do you know he's a civvie?

On break so I'm gonna keep this short. Jeph I didn't vote Uzziah yesterday because he was a sure lynch. I votes him because Job flipping civ made be second guess my opinion on Uzziah. I've explained my opinion on Uzziah numerous times before then.

If I wanted to vote Uzziah because he was a sure lynch, I could've done that practically every day this game. Job being civ was the turning point. And as I agreed with others on day one, Uzziah wasn't actually contributing to civs. Just being a smartass and ab overall antagonist. Vote analysis on my laptop later.

How is that true when he wasn't lynched any day before? Sure lynch means actually lynched.

linki: great. Can you give us your bottom line?
I can't post with your tons of posts

[Prisoner 509378]

DAY 3 Results:

1. UZZIAH (Job)
2. JOB (Uzziah)
3. RACHEL (Lot)
4. RACHEL (Mary Mag)
5. UZZIAH (Nicodemus)
6. LAZARUS (Mordecai)
7. JOB (Isaac)
8. RAHAB (Jonah)
9. UZZIAH (Absalom)
10. MARY MAG (Rebecca)
11. LAZARUS (Jonathan)
12. LAZARUS (Gideon)
13. MARY MAG (Jacob)
14. MARY MAG (Belshazzar)
15. MARY MAG (Jephthah)
16. MARY MAG (Deborah)
17. JOB (Rachel)
18. JOB (Esther)
19. ABSALOM (Lazarus)
20. UZZIAH (Rahab)
21. MARY MAG (Ruth)
22. MARY MAG (Balaam)

Not Voting:

[Prisoner 509378]

Day 3 Not Voting: Barnabas (3), Bathsheba (2), Hagar (2), Judah (3), Malchus, Pilate (2), Samuel (2), Stephen

[Jack Shephard]

My record doesn't look so great does it I really am so sorry about missing so many votes. I keep getting distracted within the last hour of the poll. I'm surprised the host hasn't punished me yet.

Lot jumped to some unnecessary conclusions from my voting pattern though. Maybe from the numbers/vote orders alone it looks like I was trying to save Uzziah but the truth is I didn't even notice the Uzziah votes for the most part. I remember people looking at him funny on D1, maybe into D2, but like I said discussion of him seemed to always be on the backburner and felt like the easy fallback suspicion for some people -- surely this trend is at least partially thanks to Uzziah's teammates, they probably contributed to a lot of the other discussion that directed away from him. At the times that I voted, on the days that I did, I was voting for my strongest suspect at the time, based on the thread. Yesterday, I was fine with Uzziah finally being lynched and might have voted for him if I hadn't been an airhead and missed the deadline. Now that he flipped bad I'm kinda frustrated that we didn't lynch him earlier, but other stuff always comes up and I tend to vote for whoever is acting the most suspicious at the time rather than mild suspicions that haven't been stirred up in current discussion. There's nothing really to read into the order/timing of my votes, they were just when I happened to vote.

I agree more with Jeph's assessment of what voting patterns can tell us, and Mordecai looks interesting now. His quick defense feels somewhat genuine though, and I'll have to look back at his posts to recall his earlier attitudes toward Uzziah, but if they're as he says, again vote patterns may be a red herring.

My record may look sketchy, and I'm really sorry I haven't been giving this game the attention it deserves, but I really am civvie and my role actually significantly increases our chance of winning. As long as we don't waste another lynch. I'm interested in looking more closely into Mordecai and Rachel, and maybe still Jephthah.

linki: Ugh, again, Balaam with the useless lists... really dude I don't suspect you anymore, but you're not really helping by posting all this unreadable summarizing that drowns out real discussion and doesn't really contribute thoughts.

[Prisoner 509378]

DAY 4 Results:

1. RACHEL (Pilate)
2. JOB (Uzziah)
3. BALAAM (Absalom)
4. BALAAM (Nicodemus)
5. ABSALOM (Lazarus)
6. JOB (Rachel)
7. BALAAM (Rebecca)
8. JOB (Stephen)
9. JOB (Jonah)
10. JOB (Samuel)
11. LAZARUS (Mordecai)
12. JOB (Balaam)
13. UZZIAH (Ruth)
14. LAZARUS (Rahab)
15. RACHEL (Job)
16. BALAAM (Jephthah)
17. JOB (Esther)
18. JOB (Jonathan)
19. BALAAM (Judah)
20. DEBORAH (Deborah)
21. JOB (Belshazzar)

Not Voting: Barnabas (4), Bathsheba (3), Isaac (2), Jacob (2), Lot, Malchus (2)

[Paul Stevens]

People who I think look particularly bad based on that vote...

Mordecai, Isaac, Jacob, Deborah, Absalom. Possibly Jonathan and Ruth.

In those seven, I guarantee there are heathen. Probably more than one.

Do you think we could eliminate Absalom from that?

Do you think we could eliminate Isaac from that?

Day 4 Uzz didn't need saving, so I've analysed only if they voted for Job or not (an Uzz opponent)

Isaac

Day one - third vote on Samson, 2 votes on Uzz
Day two - no vote
Day three - second vote on Job, 2 on Uzz
Day four - no vote
Day five - fourth vote for Jephthah, 7 on Uzz (possibly only 6 when he looked).

I want to be completely fair on this one. I can't personally vouch Isaac1.0's actions on Day 1 and Day 2. However, I did state that I would have voted for Job on Day 4 if I had not missed the vote. As I said before, he was my first suspicion. I was clearly wrong about the entirety of the Job and Uzzi back-and-forth.

[Prisoner 509378]

DAY 5 Results:

1. UZZIAH (Pilate)
2. JEPHTHAH (Rebecca)
3. UZZIAH (Stephen)
4. UZZIAH (Absalom)
5. SAMUEL (Jephthah)
6. UZZIAH (Jonathan)
7. STEPHEN (Uzziah)
8. JEPHTHAH (Lot)
9. UZZIAH (Esther)
10. JEPHTHAH (Samuel)
11. SAMUEL (Belshazzar)
12. UZZIAH (Ruth)
13. ABSALOM (Lazarus)
14. UZZIAH (Rahab)
15. JEPHTHAH (Isaac)
16. UZZIAH (Rachel)
17. UZZIAH (Mordecai)
18. MALCHUS (Deborah)
19. JEPHTHAH (Jonah)


Not Voting: Balaam, Bathsheba (4), Jacob (3), Judah (4), Malchus (3)

[Paul Stevens]

Jacob and Isaac look really very very very bad, to me. Both of their day one and day three votes both feel like they came at critical junctures. Day two and four, days when Uzz was less under pressure, neither of them voted at all. I'd gladly see us take out these two the next two days, and feel like we could comfortably say there is a high chance that each of them is heathen.

That's a bit extreme

[Paul Stevens]

Now for my re-read of Isaac.

Going with Job because of reasons discussed between myself and Rachel. Publicly, I might add

This read strangely to me because Isaac has been buddying up to me for a while now. This shows it. The publicly line could be trying to set me up to be lynched if he is as well.

The difference is that Uzziah's focus on Job is revenge, for lack of a better term.

Now, the rationalization of Uzziah's actions never made sense to me. I just assumed we had a non-rational player on our hands that would have to be caught another way if they were truly bad. Saying that Uzziah's posts and actions had a certain logic to them is strange and overly defensive of the Heathen, if you ask me.

But this is what stood out. That's it? Jesz....

I've never tried to lynch you, Rachel. I've even defended you.

I also never said Uzziah's actions were logical, either. Far from it actually. I simply stated that his focus on Job began as soon as Job focused in on him. That's all

[Prisoner 509378]

Sorry if you feel slighted Jeph. I admit that I wrote some opinionated comments in there. I'm sure others would have some nasty words to say about me on their lists. I've seen the word "useless" thrown around often enough in the thread in regards to me already to know there are some stronger words for me than that out there.

No one said you had to read my recaps but it's your loss if you don't. I'm exhausted now and need to get some work done. Catch you on the flip-flop! :P

[Paul Stevens]

Good job!! I'm glad people chose him over me. I'm sorry I didn't vote for him, but honestly, I hate those kind of players, no offense, and I've lynched them before only to find out they were civvies. So knowing that my emotions influence my judgement, I tend to stay away from voting them unless I don't have a choice.

Precisely.

[Larry David]

Balaam, sorry but I can't read this. I would have much rathered you did this on a sheet of paper fo your own benefit, and then gave us your conclusion. I applaud anyone who's going to read this.\

I skimmed though. Naturally, I skimmed through what you wrote about me. Apparently, you haven't done a good job, because you ask where is the evidence of me thinking MM was bad from day 1. How about my vote for her? Would that be considered evidence? And I kind of resent the whiny comments. And to answer your question, yes, I'm wishy washy all game. I call it thinking. I guess for you thinking is making endless and pointless lists. And forgive my sarcasm, but it just annoyed me.
I do wonder about you and Lot. You said you cut down on Lot because he knows you are a civvie. Do you know he's a civvie?

On break so I'm gonna keep this short. Jeph I didn't vote Uzziah yesterday because he was a sure lynch. I votes him because Job flipping civ made be second guess my opinion on Uzziah. I've explained my opinion on Uzziah numerous times before then.

If I wanted to vote Uzziah because he was a sure lynch, I could've done that practically every day this game. Job being civ was the turning point. And as I agreed with others on day one, Uzziah wasn't actually contributing to civs. Just being a smartass and ab overall antagonist. Vote analysis on my laptop later.

How is that true when he wasn't lynched any day before? Sure lynch means actually lynched.

linki: great. Can you give us your bottom line?
I can't post with your tons of posts

Replying to the bottom portion. Cutting out the rest would be a hassle on my phone.

IIRC Uzziah was was almost lynched 3 straight days and narrowly avoided it. I can't remember how close the polls were off the top of my head, but I don't think there was that big of a gap between the people that got lynched and Uzziah.

I interpreted "sure Lynch" as "highly likely to be lynched". Apologies for that miscommunication.

[Paul Stevens]

Thanks, Balaam, for making realize just how useless I've been this game :P I know I've been super flip-floppy (I'm about to do it again, for crying out loud!) and unsure of my votes and reads on people. I haven't been as invested in this game as I'd like to be.

After reading Jeph's post (I think it was Jeph), I realize I may have been played. I trusted Rachel fully from the beginning, and now she turns around and says I tried to get her lynched because of my wording and based on my vote patterns? You slyyy devil, you. I don't care if I'm lynched today. If I am, it will certainly help the cause. But when I am lynched I really hope that people analyze yours and Lot's voting patterns until you're on the chopping block. It took no time at all for you 2 to put me there.

Whichever way this goes, there are no hard feelings, Rachel. You've played a mighty fine game. votes

[Paul Stevens]

Your move.

[Young Lady]

Balaam, I think your general scan of the players' reads and votes should normally be correlated with their reads and votes on Uzziah specifically. This is something I might pursue. Just from a quick glance, the Day 3 vote presents the greatest possible shift from the opportunity to lynch Uzziah to Mary ending up lynched - how can it not be after all, Uzziah was basically leading wagon for a while, ending up second wagon, albeit at a few votes' distance. Also at a quick re-read, Jacob and Ruth have damning statements:

Jacob - 2nd vote on Mary, Uzziah leading with 3

I feel like Uzziah is too much of an easy target. He could turn out to be bad, but for now it doesn't seem all that worthwhile to go after him.

Ruth - 6th vote on Mary, Uzziah behind with 4

caught up some today, but don't totally get the Mary suspish. I am going to try to figure out the case there, but will likely vote for Uzziah; can someone give me the Mary Mag cliff notes? I am having problems getting past his Day One antics, tbh.

and 11 minutes and one other post later

OK, gonna vote Mary. I would rather not tie it up which a vote for Uzziah would do.

[Snapshot]

I was looking at the voting pattern too, and I think you're going about this the wrong way. For example, if a person voted for Uzziah when it was sure he wasn't going to be the one lynched, not only wouldn't I count that as a sure civvie vote, but would even be a little suspicious. So if you look at Mordecai's votes in light of that, his vote for Uzziha this day came when it was sure Uzziah would be the one to go. Here is Mordecai's voting record:

day 1: when Uzziah had 2 votes, Mordecai came in right after and voted for Smason. And if I recall correctly, you me and Absalom thought the reasons for voting Samson were as bad as it got.
Day 2: Uzziah had 2 votes and so did Rachel, and then Mordecai comes in and votes for Lazarus. On a side note, this plus a few others things make me view Rachel in a whole new light, and I think she's another person we should be looking into.
Day 3: Uzziah didn't get any votes when Mordecai voted, yet Job looked to be the top candidate for a lynch. I think Mordecai didn't want to be looked at when Job would be gone, so he voted again for Lazarus, to at least look consistent. I think we all know what Lazarus is doing, so a Lazarus vote is probably not aimed to take out a baddie.
Day 4: Mordecai votes for Uzziah when Uzziah is a sure lynch.

I say Mordecai is bad

I definitely agree about Mordecai's day 5 vote being something that could be baddie tactics. But what about day 3? Wouldn't a vote on Job or Rachel make sense right then? What about day one, when he was the FIRST vote on Samson, rather than waiting to see where others went and jumping on. Mordecai could be bad, but his voting pattern doesn't scream bad in the way some others do. I'll definitely be going back and rereading Mordecai, but I tihnk his vote record suggests more likely to be good than bad.

The fact that you say 'I'm going about this the wrong way' does not make me feel good about you. So you pick on one thing?

Boy, and then you go after Rachel...

Jephthah, you are looking snakier and snakier.

[Snapshot]

I agree with Jeph that Lot may be analyzing the votes in the wrong way. Much as re-reading an individual's posts out of context of everything else, analyzing peoples' votes out of context is probably not a good idea either.

That's why Rachel started looking at posts, and why I intend to go back and do a reread of the people I'm suspicious of myself.

But honestly, voting records do not lie. You've just added an awful lot of content, but no amount of post analysis will ever surpass a vote analysis. It only adds to it.

Good baddies can hide absolutely everything... except their voting records.

As for your 'plant, push, pivot' - civvies plant and push. I think the only real indicator is a pivot away from Uzziah.

[Paul Stevens]

But honestly, voting records do not lie. You've just added an awful lot of content, but no amount of post analysis will ever surpass a vote analysis. It only adds to it.

Good baddies can hide absolutely everything... except their voting records.

As for your 'plant, push, pivot' - civvies plant and push. I think the only real indicator is a pivot away from Uzziah.

Sure. You're absolutely right, Lot. Go ahead and vote for me. You've got nothing to lose, right? You're 110% correct

[Snapshot]

Jacob and Isaac look really very very very bad, to me. Both of their day one and day three votes both feel like they came at critical junctures. Day two and four, days when Uzz was less under pressure, neither of them voted at all. I'd gladly see us take out these two the next two days, and feel like we could comfortably say there is a high chance that each of them is heathen.

That's a bit extreme

I would be very comfortable lynching you today, no second thoughts. It's easy to say 'it looks bad', but the simple truth is, voting analysis speaks the truth more often than the thread.

[Paul Stevens]

Well now I wish I could switch my vote to help you out. I'm perfectly fine with dying today

[Snapshot]

Well now I wish I could switch my vote to help you out. I'm perfectly fine with dying today

Don't tell Nicodemus that you don't want to put any skin in the game.

But honestly, I don't like this gambit from anyone - civ, baddie, whoever. If you don't want to play, go ask the host for a replacement. If you do want to play, leave the martyr card at the door. Baddies use that line all the time to give people second thoughts. If you are a civilian using it, then honestly proving a point is not more important than trying to get us the win. If you were to be lynched and come back civilian - sorry that you voted poorly, on to Jacob. I honestly am not the kind of person to give sympathy to the martyr. Sometimes you just get voted out in this game because your record looks bad.

Also, not sure where Balaam got the idea I'm not from TS?

[Phoebe Buffay]

I was looking at the voting pattern too, and I think you're going about this the wrong way. For example, if a person voted for Uzziah when it was sure he wasn't going to be the one lynched, not only wouldn't I count that as a sure civvie vote, but would even be a little suspicious. So if you look at Mordecai's votes in light of that, his vote for Uzziha this day came when it was sure Uzziah would be the one to go. Here is Mordecai's voting record:

day 1: when Uzziah had 2 votes, Mordecai came in right after and voted for Smason. And if I recall correctly, you me and Absalom thought the reasons for voting Samson were as bad as it got.
Day 2: Uzziah had 2 votes and so did Rachel, and then Mordecai comes in and votes for Lazarus. On a side note, this plus a few others things make me view Rachel in a whole new light, and I think she's another person we should be looking into.
Day 3: Uzziah didn't get any votes when Mordecai voted, yet Job looked to be the top candidate for a lynch. I think Mordecai didn't want to be looked at when Job would be gone, so he voted again for Lazarus, to at least look consistent. I think we all know what Lazarus is doing, so a Lazarus vote is probably not aimed to take out a baddie.
Day 4: Mordecai votes for Uzziah when Uzziah is a sure lynch.

I say Mordecai is bad

I definitely agree about Mordecai's day 5 vote being something that could be baddie tactics. But what about day 3? Wouldn't a vote on Job or Rachel make sense right then? What about day one, when he was the FIRST vote on Samson, rather than waiting to see where others went and jumping on. Mordecai could be bad, but his voting pattern doesn't scream bad in the way some others do. I'll definitely be going back and rereading Mordecai, but I tihnk his vote record suggests more likely to be good than bad.

The fact that you say 'I'm going about this the wrong way' does not make me feel good about you. So you pick on one thing?

Boy, and then you go after Rachel...

Jephthah, you are looking snakier and snakier.

Day 3 is when Job had plenty of votes. If Mordecai knew Job was a civvie, why put himself in a situation that would be analyzed later by voting for a lynched civvie? Why not lie low and make it look like he's not part of that bandwagon? And if Rachel is bad as I think she is, voting for her would not work for him

Day 1, Uzziah has 2 votes, Samuel, which I'm still wondering about, has 2 votes. If both are bad, he had to find a new person, and I think he found the easiest target, hence why everyone followed.

As for me picking one thing, it was an example, like I said. The important thing was you can't just count how many times a person voted and who. You have to view it in a more complicated way, because baddies are tricky like that.
And yeah, Rachel feels bad to me after last day's lynch. I guess I have nothing to add. You've got it all figured out. Me bad, Rachel good. Balaam good. I'm surprised that with all your knowledge, you don't already know what I am

[Paul Stevens]

Well now I wish I could switch my vote to help you out. I'm perfectly fine with dying today

Don't tell Nicodemus that you don't want to put any skin in the game.

But honestly, I don't like this gambit from anyone - civ, baddie, whoever. If you don't want to play, go ask the host for a replacement. If you do want to play, leave the martyr card at the door. Baddies use that line all the time to give people second thoughts. If you are a civilian using it, then honestly proving a point is not more important than trying to get us the win. If you were to be lynched and come back civilian - sorry that you voted poorly, on to Jacob. I honestly am not the kind of person to give sympathy to the martyr. Sometimes you just get voted out in this game because your record looks bad.

Also, not sure where Balaam got the idea I'm not from TS?

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

[Snapshot]

No. Day 4 is when Job was lynched. Day three was Mary Mag. But who was lynched is not important. The fact was that at the time there were two votes on each of Uzz, Job and Rachel. Voting Lazarus would be an odd thing to do right at that point in time if bad. I could understand him voting Job or Rachel right then, or holding his vote till later and voting Lazarus a little later. But right then, voting Lazarus seems like an unlikely move when Uzz might need saving.

Not an impossible move, just that it would definitely have been to the detriment of the heathen team in that moment.

[Snapshot]

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

[Phoebe Buffay]

No. Day 4 is when Job was lynched. Day three was Mary Mag. But who was lynched is not important. The fact was that at the time there were two votes on each of Uzz, Job and Rachel. Voting Lazarus would be an odd thing to do right at that point in time if bad. I could understand him voting Job or Rachel right then, or holding his vote till later and voting Lazarus a little later. But right then, voting Lazarus seems like an unlikely move when Uzz might need saving.

Not an impossible move, just that it would definitely have been to the detriment of the heathen team in that moment.

Sorry, I mixed them up. But the important thing is MM's first voter was 14th out of the voters. If Rachel is bad, then giving her the vote was not an option. But I agree that giving it to Job would make sense. Still, he had only one vote. If it was just Job against Uzziah who were fighting each other, bandwagoning on Job would look bad later. Why not introduce an new suspect, one that is easy to frame. He's voting without good reason.

That said, I, the wish washy person, just read Mordecai's post and it felt on the genuine side. Not sure if I should be fooled by it.

[Paul Stevens]

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

Well, I did vote for someone I firmly believe is a baddie. And I sincerely hope that others vote for her, too.
I just find it hilarious that you seem to think that your "voting patterns do not lie" theory is 100% accurate. I have just been a severely misguided, vanilla civ this whole game. But my eyes are wide open now. And I have 2 goals in mind: Kill baddie Rachel. And prove you wrong. I've already made my vote, though. So the question is, Why haven't you voted for me yet?

[Phoebe Buffay]

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your ego

[Marmot]

No. Day 4 is when Job was lynched. Day three was Mary Mag. But who was lynched is not important. The fact was that at the time there were two votes on each of Uzz, Job and Rachel. Voting Lazarus would be an odd thing to do right at that point in time if bad. I could understand him voting Job or Rachel right then, or holding his vote till later and voting Lazarus a little later. But right then, voting Lazarus seems like an unlikely move when Uzz might need saving.

Not an impossible move, just that it would definitely have been to the detriment of the heathen team in that moment.

Sorry, I mixed them up. But the important thing is MM's first voter was 14th out of the voters. If Rachel is bad, then giving her the vote was not an option. But I agree that giving it to Job would make sense. Still, he had only one vote. If it was just Job against Uzziah who were fighting each other, bandwagoning on Job would look bad later. Why not introduce an new suspect, one that is easy to frame. He's voting without good reason.

That said, I, the wish washy person, just read Mordecai's post and it felt on the genuine side. Not sure if I should be fooled by it.

Come again?

[Phoebe Buffay]

Mary Magdalene.

[Paul Stevens]

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your ego

And this is what has pushed me over the edge

[Marmot]

Mary Magdalene.

I bet she's never met a marmot.

[Snapshot]

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your ego

I have no time for ego. I don't care if I'm better or Isaac is better. If you and Isaac want to kamikaze because you'll get satisfaction out of proving me wrong, go ahead. It's your choice to read whatever in you want. But what both of you should know is, I have no pegs to be knocked down. I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.

All civvies are wrong in the game of mafia. So what? Apologies if to you it's about who knows better. To me it's about who's bad. End of story.

I don't have time to play the game by saying 'I think you might be bad', or 'this is just my perspective, you can have your own'. That should be taken as read. What is even the value of those kind of sentences? None. It's obviously my opinion.

[Phoebe Buffay]

What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?

Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your ego

I have no time for ego. I don't care if I'm better or Isaac is better. If you and Isaac want to kamikaze because you'll get satisfaction out of proving me wrong, go ahead. It's your choice to read whatever in you want. But what both of you should know is, I have no pegs to be knocked down. I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.

All civvies are wrong in the game of mafia. So what? Apologies if to you it's about who knows better. To me it's about who's bad. End of story.

I don't have time to play the game by saying 'I think you might be bad', or 'this is just my perspective, you can have your own'. That should be taken as read. What is even the value of those kind of sentences? None. It's obviously my opinion.

I know it's your opinion, and I haven't told you to lynch me. I'm fighting this for the civvies just as much as you, if you really are, that is. And no, it's not about who is right and who is wrong, but for some reason, there are people here who think that if you change your mind a lot, it's a baddie tell. Why? Why is my wishy washiness, or flip floppiness, or mixy moxiness or whatever, means I'm bad? It means I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on, and I raise and toss new theories. The fact that you don't hesitate is what annoys me. But whatever, keep going. I had a very bad day at the end of last day, and I didn't feel like continuing. I'm here now, and I'm trying again.

[Paul Stevens]

I have no time for ego. I don't care if I'm better or Isaac is better. If you and Isaac want to kamikaze because you'll get satisfaction out of proving me wrong, go ahead. It's your choice to read whatever in you want. But what both of you should know is, I have no pegs to be knocked down. Is there some RL situation bringing on this attitude?
I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.
But you are wrong. And it will push the civies closer to losing, contradicting the second half of your sentence.

All civvies are wrong in the game of mafia. So what? Apologies if to you it's about who knows better. To me it's about who's bad. End of story.
Well, I'm not bad. I've made major mistakes, as have a lot of the other civs. We only just lynched our first baddie this past Day period. Not trying to include myself here. I know I didn't vote Uzziah and so do you. The rest is WIFOM, I realize that. But hear me out. We've lynched plenty of other civs, Job included, because of their play style and because of their voting pattern. So do I need to die next because I made mistakes?

I don't have time to play the game by saying 'I think you might be bad', or 'this is just my perspective, you can have your own'. That should be taken as read. What is even the value of those kind of sentences? None. It's obviously my opinion.

[Paul Stevens]

Believe it or not, I think you're a legit civ, Lot. I'm pretty confident that Rachel is a baddie, though.
I'm also inclined to trust Jep at this point. But I'm not going full on "here, hold my knife while I lace my sandals up" level of trust. I did that with Rachel, and got shanked.

[Snapshot]

Jeph. I do not think changing your mind is a baddie tell. Sorry if that's been misunderstood.

What I meant by wishy-washy is that you set yourself up to go either way. Like that post you made on Balaam, where you said you weren't remotely ready to vote for him but were also talking about him potentially being a very good baddie. A post like that sets you up to jump in either direction and point back at it and say 'well, look, I did suggest that I thought he could be bad' or 'look, I did say I wasn't ready to vote for him'. It was a post that allowed you to defend your action as consistent whichever way you went.

Call it gut, if you will. I personally find that when I am bad I have trouble with having convictions and being genuine. To me, that is what I was seeing in your posts on that day

For what its worth, the moment I have evidence I prefer it to gut. That's why I'm interested in Isaac and Jacob today. I wish I could provide an example, but it turns out I can't find polls from previous games in the archives. But day one in Roger Rabbit, bass and ninja vote around the 3rd to 5th votes on a civilian to save their teammate who had about two or three votes. Sorry for the vagueness, without the poll I don't know, I just know that they were right in the same zone as Isaac and Jacob were on day one this time. That's just one example of a pattern I have seen again and again and in my experience it's a pretty good way of finding baddies.

That said...

Isaac, if you think I'm not listening to you, you are wrong. I consider your posts, even if I don't appear to. I have no idea where the Rachel thing is coming from, could you explain? She seems legit civ to me, but I've also seen odd things from her in the past (hence my day three vote). But right now, I have no idea what you are seeing and she otherwise seems like such a clear civ.

[Snapshot]

I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.
But you are wrong. And it will push the civies closer to losing, contradicting the second half of your sentence.

I'm talking as a matter of ego, or 'wanting to prove a point'. As a matter of winning the game, naturally I care. I just mean it doesn't prove any point to me, I acknowledge I'm not always right.

[Paul Stevens]

RE: the post before last: I appreciate the little tidbit on the end I wasn't concerned. I mainly want you to know that I still take this game seriously despite my tone in trying to prove you wrong.

This is the Rachel post I was reacting to:

Now for my re-read of Isaac.

Going with Job because of reasons discussed between myself and Rachel. Publicly, I might add

This read strangely to me because Isaac has been buddying up to me for a while now. This shows it. The publicly line could be trying to set me up to be lynched if he is as well.

The difference is that Uzziah's focus on Job is revenge, for lack of a better term.

Now, the rationalization of Uzziah's actions never made sense to me. I just assumed we had a non-rational player on our hands that would have to be caught another way if they were truly bad. Saying that Uzziah's posts and actions had a certain logic to them is strange and overly defensive of the Heathen, if you ask me.

But this is what stood out. That's it? Jesz....

I may have slightly overreacted, however, she is right. I was buddying up to her because I thought I found a definite civ that I could trust and whose opinions I could rely on. My "publicly" statement was half a jest. I didn't want someone saying that they went back through the thread and didn't find our discussion of why we thought Job was suspicious, and then claiming that we had btsc or some bs. Colour me paranoid.

In the second portion of her quote, I felt like she was putting words in my mouth. I most certainly never said that Uzziah's actions were logical. But I've seen plenty of civs play this way (myself included) and get lynched for it. I just didn't want to see that happen again so early on in the game. I wanted to see if anything else happened with Uzziah that would sway me in either direction. I'm glad others called his antics, though. Easy to say, yes. But I made a mistake there. I also don't think I was "overly defensive" of him, but that could just be me

I have no idea what Rachel means by that last line, though.

[Paul Stevens]

I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.
But you are wrong. And it will push the civies closer to losing, contradicting the second half of your sentence.

I'm talking as a matter of ego, or 'wanting to prove a point'. As a matter of winning the game, naturally I care. I just mean it doesn't prove any point to me, I acknowledge I'm not always right.

I get ya

[Paul Stevens]

As I said I feel pretty good about you, Lot. I'm not trying to call you out on anything other than your read on me. Naturally