Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Snapshot]

All these prophecies about the antichrist occupied by time. I missed the ones about the anti-uzziah.

[Larry David]

1) Funny you mention mislynches coming from nowhere, because you started the train on Samson Day 1 with your vote. You dovetailed Paul's suspicion of him for voting so soon with your own reason. You said he was avoiding a question and the apparent active ignoring of a question pinged you. Thus, you added a second reason to suspect him. Then Jacob latched onto your reasoning a few posts later and he ended up voting for Samson later in the day. Worth noting that Jonathan also voted after the Cain Train started, giving the appearance of a save on Cain.

2) As I said before, I normally keep my vote until close to the end. I hate being wrong but I also hate being dead, so if it looks like I'm at risk of being railroaded, I'll vote to save my ass. He's worth saving because he can talk, you know.

3) As I said, I spent much of Day 5 and even a lot of Day 6 re-reading the thread. I really shouldn't have slacked off so much but other picked up the slack by going after Uzziah. I still maintain that I would have been the #1 suspect Day 5 had I been on the poll. Thank the Lord I was not on that poll, right? We needed a miracle to get back into the game and the Lord provided by keeping me off the poll. That allowed you guys to go in another direction- aka Uzziah.

4) As I mentioned earlier in the game, I voted Cain Day 1 because I wanted to give people the appearance of a choice. I didn't want Samson to get too much of a lead because we've seen some late voters just glom onto whatever they read in the last 10 posts or so before they vote. Unfortunately, I added to a vote tally that made Cain an easy leftovers vote the next day. Remember that he did not help his cause by being so defensive and dismissive. I wasn't 100% on Cain because I suck at reading people but he wasn't playing ball and we need players who are willing to conform at least somewhat.

5) I see what you're trying to do here but it's a stretch when you consider other aspects of my game. If people go back and look at your vote history, it's not exactly roses either.

Total wifom statement: If I were a baddie, why would I post all those lists, player recaps, and technicolor vote breakdowns that seem to piss a few people off? I see your point on my vote record, but do you also feel that I am acting so super-civ as a front? Have any baddies ever gone quite as far as I have in info dumping? You seem to think that I'm the anti-Uzziah. He admitted to being bad while I am acing all super-civ. Is that what you're basically saying?

1. So because I thought Samson was bad, I am responsible for the thoughts and decision of others? Interesting, and faulty.
2. I dont even think this is a reply to my second point? I am genuinely confused. Im talking about how you always are one of the last to vote, and you're talking about how someone is worth saving because they can talk. Please reiterate.
3. Im guessing you dont see the really weird connection between these 3 descriptors of you on Day 5. (Didnt vote) (Wasnt on the poll) (Same day a heathen was lynched). It's almost like you didnt need to vote because you couldnt die that day anyway. You say you were busy re-reading the thread, but then say you shouldnt have slacked off. Which is it? Additionally every time you click over to another page, that deadline on the poll is right there in your face. I think you chose not to vote on day 5. Unless you were painfully oblivious to the first thing you see on every page, which I doubt.
4. The appearance of a choice? Why are you concerned with that? I didnt know I was playing Bioshock. Would you kindly vote for who you think is a baddie instead of trying to make some kind of statement?
5. If you are going to draw attention to my vote history and throw my own strategy back at me, at least put forward the same amount of effort, and show me what is wrong with my vote history. I've been voting for people that I am looking at and suspect.

Do I feel like you're acting civ as a front? Maybe. If your defense is "A baddie wouldnt act as civ as me", then newsflash: Yes they would. The entire objective of a mafia is to blend in with the civs. To look like a civ themself so they arent killed and can win the game. And yes, I have seen baddies do the same level of info dumping.

Slightly off-topic, I do have issues with paranoia. I am never ok with calling somebody a civ until they are killed as one, or if they roleclaim, or are otherwise lock cleared due to game mechanics. The people that others think are civ, are the ones I suspect the most. All it takes is a thousand lies and a good disguise. It's nothing personal against you, it's just how I tick.

[Young Lady]

Belshazaar, this was the line I was questioning. I don't understand how we know he has been compelled to bring something against Lazarus from this Day onward. Aren't these curses only for a day? If not, do we know it because others have been cursed for longer than a day? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying here?

I'm a leader?

Jonathan, it's not so much about being appropriate to talk about that, although I think we're already way past subtleties about Lazarus' actions by now. It's just that Lot's theory can be debunked, however misfortunate, since he apparently was compelled to bring something against Lazarus from this Day onwards.

I don't think you are misunderstanding. Reading back, I think I actually misunderstood, thinking you were talking about past days when you said "every day", not every future day.

As to why I have the impression this affliction might not last just one phase, yeah, maybe I shouldn't say much more about it. But thinking back to Job, who went at Uzziah for days till his death (even though it was a mix of proper hunting, since Day 1, and likely forced relentless gunning), it's a possibility.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'll have to wrap my head a bit later around what Mordecai is suggesting.

Only nine players have posted so far this Day, wtf? Some are really taking the sabbatical to the extreme.

[Prisoner 509378]

1. So because I thought Samson was bad, I am responsible for the thoughts and decision of others? Interesting, and faulty.
2. I dont even think this is a reply to my second point? I am genuinely confused. Im talking about how you always are one of the last to vote, and you're talking about how someone is worth saving because they can talk. Please reiterate.
3. Im guessing you dont see the really weird connection between these 3 descriptors of you on Day 5. (Didnt vote) (Wasnt on the poll) (Same day a heathen was lynched). It's almost like you didnt need to vote because you couldnt die that day anyway. You say you were busy re-reading the thread, but then say you shouldnt have slacked off. Which is it? Additionally every time you click over to another page, that deadline on the poll is right there in your face. I think you chose not to vote on day 5. Unless you were painfully oblivious to the first thing you see on every page, which I doubt.
4. The appearance of a choice? Why are you concerned with that? I didnt know I was playing Bioshock. Would you kindly vote for who you think is a baddie instead of trying to make some kind of statement?
5. If you are going to draw attention to my vote history and throw my own strategy back at me, at least put forward the same amount of effort, and show me what is wrong with my vote history. I've been voting for people that I am looking at and suspect.

Do I feel like you're acting civ as a front? Maybe. If your defense is "A baddie wouldnt act as civ as me", then newsflash: Yes they would. The entire objective of a mafia is to blend in with the civs. To look like a civ themself so they arent killed and can win the game. And yes, I have seen baddies do the same level of info dumping.

Slightly off-topic, I do have issues with paranoia. I am never ok with calling somebody a civ until they are killed as one, or if they roleclaim, or are otherwise lock cleared due to game mechanics. The people that others think are civ, are the ones I suspect the most. All it takes is a thousand lies and a good disguise. It's nothing personal against you, it's just how I tick.

1) If you are the start of the train, you must own that fact. You seem to dismiss it, which is shady. You may not have meant to start a Samson train but you certainly started it and added fuel to suspicion of him.

2) I've been making "ass" jokes all game because Balaam had a talking ass/donkey. I hold my vote in case I need to save myself from getting railroaded. If you vote early, there is always a chance a train may form against you and then you're powerless to do anything about it but talk. Talk is cheap. Votes have power. I've been burned enough times by this kind of thing to vote too early unless RL requires it.

3) Let me clear this one up better: I was removed from the Day 5 poll. Knowing that I wasn't at risk of getting lynched Day 5, I chose to re-read the whole game thread to expand upon the game notes I stopped taking during Day 2. I slacked off on re-reading with any kind of vigorous pace because I knew I wasn't at risk of getting lynched. Nobody had any expectations of me Day 5, so I dropped to ball on my own re-read. As the vote deadline approached, I skimmed the Day 5 actions but did not have a good feel for any of the suspects. Without the proper care and attention to detail I normally put into a vote, I skipped it. Shameful? Yes. Lazy? Yes. I feel dumb for not voting but I couldn't make my mind up based on a skim read. I know some people in this game feel comfortable doing that but I am not one of them.

4) How many times do I have to say that I suck at reading people before it sinks in? Barring a major slip-up, I never have solid baddie reads early in games. I didn't necessarily trust the Samson train but I also didn't think Cain was 100% bad either. Next day I voted Cain not because I thought he was bad but because he wasn't playing ball. It's nice taking out a baddie at lynches but taking out uncooperative, hostile civvies has some positives as well and it is sometimes necessary.

5) I'm not interested in analyzing your vote history today because I think this day needs to be a choice between Jacob and Jonathan.

[Prisoner 509378]

I'd like to hear input from Belshazzar, Rachel, and Absalom regarding the Jacob v. Jonathan issue. I think one of them (Jacob or Jonathan) needs to die today so we can move forward instead of sideways like we did Day 7.

[Rachel Green]

RIP Jeph.

I'm a little surprised at the late push on Geoff. All day it was all Jacob all the time and then Jacob takes one lousy vote? Where did the enthusiasm for a Geoff lynched come from?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, I know a couple of people have suspected Geoff for a while, but not nearly the number that voted for him. I will have to look into this carefully ere morning comes.

So are you thinking we ought to look at Jeph voters then? Ad do you think they were trying to save Jonathan?

I don't know yet. Give me the night to sleep and think about it. I still think Jonathan is bad news though.

I agree completely with Absalom. I still think Jonathan is bad. No idea why we lynched Jep yesterday.

votes Jonathan

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

[NurseWilgy]

I'd like to hear input from Belshazzar, Rachel, and Absalom regarding the Jacob v. Jonathan issue. I think one of them (Jacob or Jonathan) needs to die today so we can move forward instead of sideways like we did Day 7.

Here's my input. I think they both look bad, but I think Jonathan looks worse for the following reasons.
1. He has missed fewer votes than Jacob, giving him a more complete voting record to analyze, and the votes look worse, in my opinion. I also think that people with teammates are less likely to miss votes than people without, although I know some people disagree with me on this.
2. When I suggested voting for him the first time, he made the bizarre comeback of something like "if you lynch me, you'll get lynched next." This was directly after I led the Ruth lynch, so I find it a very strange line of defense to take.
3. I offered him the chance to present an alternative to his lynch, to persuade me that someone else looks worse than him. He hasn't done it. He just says "I am not bad" over and over, as if that is supposed to mean something.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I'd like to hear input from Belshazzar, Rachel, and Absalom regarding the Jacob v. Jonathan issue. I think one of them (Jacob or Jonathan) needs to die today so we can move forward instead of sideways like we did Day 7.

Here's my input. I think they both look bad, but I think Jonathan looks worse for the following reasons.
1. He has missed fewer votes than Jacob, giving him a more complete voting record to analyze, and the votes look worse, in my opinion. I also think that people with teammates are less likely to miss votes than people without, although I know some people disagree with me on this.
2. When I suggested voting for him the first time, he made the bizarre comeback of something like "if you lynch me, you'll get lynched next." This was directly after I led the Ruth lynch, so I find it a very strange line of defense to take.
3. I offered him the chance to present an alternative to his lynch, to persuade me that someone else looks worse than him. He hasn't done it. He just says "I am not bad" over and over, as if that is supposed to mean something.

You offered me a chance to present an alternative that I saw last night. I am busy with family as I think I made obvious and have no time to present a case. Besides, and most importantly, many people have presented cases on many other people. Are you saying you didn't find any of those other cases compelling? I am your only suspicion? You are just trying to trap me by setting up something you know isn't necessary at best and knew i didn't have time for at worst.

I don't know what words I used but i didn't mean you would get lynched next. I already explained that to Rachel, surely you saw it.

[NurseWilgy]

I'd like to hear input from Belshazzar, Rachel, and Absalom regarding the Jacob v. Jonathan issue. I think one of them (Jacob or Jonathan) needs to die today so we can move forward instead of sideways like we did Day 7.

Here's my input. I think they both look bad, but I think Jonathan looks worse for the following reasons.
1. He has missed fewer votes than Jacob, giving him a more complete voting record to analyze, and the votes look worse, in my opinion. I also think that people with teammates are less likely to miss votes than people without, although I know some people disagree with me on this.
2. When I suggested voting for him the first time, he made the bizarre comeback of something like "if you lynch me, you'll get lynched next." This was directly after I led the Ruth lynch, so I find it a very strange line of defense to take.
3. I offered him the chance to present an alternative to his lynch, to persuade me that someone else looks worse than him. He hasn't done it. He just says "I am not bad" over and over, as if that is supposed to mean something.

You offered me a chance to present an alternative that I saw last night. I am busy with family as I think I made obvious and have no time to present a case. Besides, and most importantly, many people have presented cases on many other people. Are you saying you didn't find any of those other cases compelling? I am your only suspicion? You are just trying to trap me by setting up something you know isn't necessary at best and knew i didn't have time for at worst.

I don't know what words I used but i didn't mean you would get lynched next. I already explained that to Rachel, surely you saw it.

No, you are not my only suspicion, but you are my strongest suspicion, and you refuse to take any action to change my mind on that. How hard is it to understand that saying "I am not bad" is not a convincing defense?

You have been a major suspect for the better part of a week now, and the best defense you have is "read someone else's case and latch onto that"? Really?

I understand that you are busy today, but you knew this was coming, and you have had many days in which you could have offered a real defense. You have not done so.

[NurseWilgy]

Is this the Rachel post you reference?

I've looked at my past thoughts about Absalom and can't find anything that's a baddie read for me. But I know not everyone agrees with me on that. If he's good I don't know why he has chosen to attack me without reading my posts. There is a running diary of why I voted some people and not others and Uzziah is mentioned throughout the days - maybe not everyday I haven't checked that but his name pops up a lot in my thoughts about the game. He would get a fuller perspective if he would consider the two in concert.

So why would lynching you have any bearing on Absalom's alignment?

Sorry I missed this. Maybe I worded that wrong. Lynching me could have a bearing on his perceived alignment in that I am good and it could/would be seen as a black mark on his record. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe when I flip civ if I'm lynched people will forgive him for getting it wrong. I just don't want anyone to be able to say "she should have defended herself more".

Basically you are saying I shouldn't lynch you because it might make me look bad. I don't care whether I look bad. I care whether I do the best I can to catch baddies.

You know who worries a lot about whether they look bad? Guilty people.

[NurseWilgy]

You offered me a chance to present an alternative that I saw last night. I am busy with family as I think I made obvious and have no time to present a case. Besides, and most importantly, many people have presented cases on many other people. Are you saying you didn't find any of those other cases compelling? I am your only suspicion? You are just trying to trap me by setting up something you know isn't necessary at best and knew i didn't have time for at worst.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I just find this stunning. Is there any one of these "cases on many other people" you find particularly compelling, or all they all the same to you?

[Quokka]

RIP Jeph.

I'm a little surprised at the late push on Geoff. All day it was all Jacob all the time and then Jacob takes one lousy vote? Where did the enthusiasm for a Geoff lynched come from?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, I know a couple of people have suspected Geoff for a while, but not nearly the number that voted for him. I will have to look into this carefully ere morning comes.

So are you thinking we ought to look at Jeph voters then? Ad do you think they were trying to save Jonathan?

I don't know yet. Give me the night to sleep and think about it. I still think Jonathan is bad news though.

I agree completely with Absalom. I still think Jonathan is bad. No idea why we lynched Jep yesterday.

votes Jonathan

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I get voting for Jonathon but your theory regarding if he flips bad then there must be more baddies there seems ill conceived. How many civs have been lynched this game? Did youto through each one of them and kill everyone who voted them because hey, there must be baddies in there, right? Basing it entirely on this vote is silly, especially given the presence of Laz's vote in there. Baddies usually hold their votes to see if they need to save themselves or their teammates, once that clinching vote dropped on there they can safely distance themselves from a civ lynch. I voted Jeph, I suspected him for days for his behavior earlier in the game. I was wrong. But I am a civ. So this logic to me seems ludicrous because you are likely to waste lynches trying to find the baddie if you go simply on one vote when we have a whole game full of information.

Is this the Rachel post you reference?

I've looked at my past thoughts about Absalom and can't find anything that's a baddie read for me. But I know not everyone agrees with me on that. If he's good I don't know why he has chosen to attack me without reading my posts. There is a running diary of why I voted some people and not others and Uzziah is mentioned throughout the days - maybe not everyday I haven't checked that but his name pops up a lot in my thoughts about the game. He would get a fuller perspective if he would consider the two in concert.

So why would lynching you have any bearing on Absalom's alignment?

Sorry I missed this. Maybe I worded that wrong. Lynching me could have a bearing on his perceived alignment in that I am good and it could/would be seen as a black mark on his record. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe when I flip civ if I'm lynched people will forgive him for getting it wrong. I just don't want anyone to be able to say "she should have defended herself more".

Basically you are saying I shouldn't lynch you because it might make me look bad. I don't care whether I look bad. I care whether I do the best I can to catch baddies.

You know who worries a lot about whether they look bad? Guilty people.

Absalom, I would humbly say here that I feel sure at this point I was wrong about you earlier. This is so very true. People who worry about how they will appear to the rest of the voters always seem guilty to me because a civ is less concerned with how they look and more concerned with trying to sort out the truth.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I'd like to hear input from Belshazzar, Rachel, and Absalom regarding the Jacob v. Jonathan issue. I think one of them (Jacob or Jonathan) needs to die today so we can move forward instead of sideways like we did Day 7.

Here's my input. I think they both look bad, but I think Jonathan looks worse for the following reasons.
1. He has missed fewer votes than Jacob, giving him a more complete voting record to analyze, and the votes look worse, in my opinion. I also think that people with teammates are less likely to miss votes than people without, although I know some people disagree with me on this.
2. When I suggested voting for him the first time, he made the bizarre comeback of something like "if you lynch me, you'll get lynched next." This was directly after I led the Ruth lynch, so I find it a very strange line of defense to take.
3. I offered him the chance to present an alternative to his lynch, to persuade me that someone else looks worse than him. He hasn't done it. He just says "I am not bad" over and over, as if that is supposed to mean something.

You offered me a chance to present an alternative that I saw last night. I am busy with family as I think I made obvious and have no time to present a case. Besides, and most importantly, many people have presented cases on many other people. Are you saying you didn't find any of those other cases compelling? I am your only suspicion? You are just trying to trap me by setting up something you know isn't necessary at best and knew i didn't have time for at worst.

I don't know what words I used but i didn't mean you would get lynched next. I already explained that to Rachel, surely you saw it.

No, you are not my only suspicion, but you are my strongest suspicion, and you refuse to take any action to change my mind on that. How hard is it to understand that saying "I am not bad" is not a convincing defense?

You have been a major suspect for the better part of a week now, and the best defense you have is "read someone else's case and latch onto that"? Really?

I understand that you are busy today, but you knew this was coming, and you have had many days in which you could have offered a real defense. You have not done so.

I have defended everything that has been brought up which to my knowledge is just my voting record which is no worse than some others who even readily admit there's is terrible. If you think about it that's whats at the crux of this suspicion. If there is anything I missed which I did not explain I will be happy to do so. But I'm not going round and round in circles today with things I have already addressed. I have spent the last few days defending myself or trying to convince people that a decision to vote for me is just the wrong decision if you are a civ. I am not in the position to be able to convince you someone else is worse than me without just repeating what others have already said.

[Snapshot]

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I can see your point here in that it could have some votes to save Jonathan. It's also a fairly small pool of options given I'm certain of two it isn't.

I definitely think Jonathan is a better bet than Jacob, given Jeph's virtual vouching and the role hint that seems to be flying around.

[Snapshot]

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I get voting for Jonathon but your theory regarding if he flips bad then there must be more baddies there seems ill conceived. How many civs have been lynched this game? Did youto through each one of them and kill everyone who voted them because hey, there must be baddies in there, right? Basing it entirely on this vote is silly, especially given the presence of Laz's vote in there. Baddies usually hold their votes to see if they need to save themselves or their teammates, once that clinching vote dropped on there they can safely distance themselves from a civ lynch. I voted Jeph, I suspected him for days for his behavior earlier in the game. I was wrong. But I am a civ. So this logic to me seems ludicrous because you are likely to waste lynches trying to find the baddie if you go simply on one vote when we have a whole game full of information.

And my alert goes off.

If Jonathan was bad, then there was a massive lynch train on Jeph when Jonathan had the lead in votes. Even if none of them are bad, why would it be 'ludicrous' and 'likely to waste lynches' to consider someone else might be helping to save him?

I agree that basing it on one vote is silly, but Esther did make a good point. And I say that knowing that me and my friend Balaam's ass are both in that train.

What does the presence of Lazarus vote in there have to do with it?

[Prisoner 509378]

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

At most, I can see there being one other Heathen in the cluster that voted for Jeph. The four non-Jonathan votes before the Jeph train are by no means exempt from scrutiny if Jonathan flips Heathen. If the Heathens always piled on the same civvie train to save one of their own, we civvie would have this thing locked up by now. Also, Jonathan was the 13th overall vote (if you ignore the host/dead/non-;player option).

I'd like to hear input from Belshazzar, Rachel, and Absalom regarding the Jacob v. Jonathan issue. I think one of them (Jacob or Jonathan) needs to die today so we can move forward instead of sideways like we did Day 7.

Here's my input. I think they both look bad, but I think Jonathan looks worse for the following reasons.
1. He has missed fewer votes than Jacob, giving him a more complete voting record to analyze, and the votes look worse, in my opinion. I also think that people with teammates are less likely to miss votes than people without, although I know some people disagree with me on this.
2. When I suggested voting for him the first time, he made the bizarre comeback of something like "if you lynch me, you'll get lynched next." This was directly after I led the Ruth lynch, so I find it a very strange line of defense to take.
3. I offered him the chance to present an alternative to his lynch, to persuade me that someone else looks worse than him. He hasn't done it. He just says "I am not bad" over and over, as if that is supposed to mean something.

I see your points but I still feel like Jacob looks worse. I wouldn't be surprised if both of them flip Heathen but it wouldn't be a total shock to me if only one of them does. We're approaching that level of certainty that calls to mind "pride cometh before a great fall." Once we nab our third Heathen, I think the other two shouldn't be too hard to track down. The elusive fifth one may surprise us or they're just playing a very commendable game.

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I get voting for Jonathon but your theory regarding if he flips bad then there must be more baddies there seems ill conceived. How many civs have been lynched this game? Did youto through each one of them and kill everyone who voted them because hey, there must be baddies in there, right? Basing it entirely on this vote is silly, especially given the presence of Laz's vote in there. Baddies usually hold their votes to see if they need to save themselves or their teammates, once that clinching vote dropped on there they can safely distance themselves from a civ lynch. I voted Jeph, I suspected him for days for his behavior earlier in the game. I was wrong. But I am a civ. So this logic to me seems ludicrous because you are likely to waste lynches trying to find the baddie if you go simply on one vote when we have a whole game full of information.

Some baddies vote early to try and derail momentum on a teammate's train. Others wait and either seal the fate of a rival civvie train to save their teammate or they go for a cred grab and vote their teammate if the lead seems insurmountable. Sometimes they'll even vote for a teammate if the vote is tied or their teammate only leads by 1 if they think that it would look too obvious of a derailment to put the civvie in the lead or to tie the vote up. If the early efforts of a teammate to derail a baddie lynch don't stick with the rest of the day's discussion, the late-voting baddies won't glom on to it. Esther's point isn't totally off base but it is 100% short-sighted. We're no longer at the point of focusing on one day's vote. We have to try to examine the entire game with the knowledge of which players were baddie & civvie and see if we can crack the strategy being used by the Heathens.

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I can see your point here in that it could have some votes to save Jonathan. It's also a fairly small pool of options given I'm certain of two it isn't.

I definitely think Jonathan is a better bet than Jacob, given Jeph's virtual vouching and the role hint that seems to be flying around.

Yes, Esther's short list is a little too dangerously short. I wonder what she thinks we should do if Jonathan flips civvie. Kind of interesting that she doesn't offer any suggestions the other way.

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I get voting for Jonathon but your theory regarding if he flips bad then there must be more baddies there seems ill conceived. How many civs have been lynched this game? Did youto through each one of them and kill everyone who voted them because hey, there must be baddies in there, right? Basing it entirely on this vote is silly, especially given the presence of Laz's vote in there. Baddies usually hold their votes to see if they need to save themselves or their teammates, once that clinching vote dropped on there they can safely distance themselves from a civ lynch. I voted Jeph, I suspected him for days for his behavior earlier in the game. I was wrong. But I am a civ. So this logic to me seems ludicrous because you are likely to waste lynches trying to find the baddie if you go simply on one vote when we have a whole game full of information.

And my alert goes off.

If Jonathan was bad, then there was a massive lynch train on Jeph when Jonathan had the lead in votes. Even if none of them are bad, why would it be 'ludicrous' and 'likely to waste lynches' to consider someone else might be helping to save him?

I agree that basing it on one vote is silly, but Esther did make a good point. And I say that knowing that me and my friend Balaam's ass are both in that train.

What does the presence of Lazarus vote in there have to do with it?

Calm down there buddy. I agree that the presence of Lazarus's vote doesn't necessarily mean anything. See what I explained above. ^

[Prisoner 509378]

Oh, and Noah? If you're still alive and we stone a civvie again, please don't protect the following players:
-Bathsheba
-Deborah
-Esther
-Jacob
-Judah
-Lazarus
-Malchus
-Pilate
-Rahab
-Rebecca
-Samuel

They haven't been carrying their own weight and will probably let the animals on the ark starve or eat each other.

[Young Lady]

So here's a basic comparison of Jacob vs. Jonathan, if it's any help. The "civ/bad read" beneath each Day vote statistic means precisely to try to read their votes both ways and maybe figure out which one is more plausibile.

If you ask me, Jacob still looks worse in all chapters except his hint, which is certainly having its effect on most of us.

[Joe Who?]

Hey, got a few free moments and some wifi! I'll go ahead and vote now since I'm not sure if I'll be back again closer to the poll end. The cases on Jacob and Jonathan look extremely similar to me, except Jonathan missed more votes, yet people aren't as apt to vote Jacob today because he sounds "genuine" and convinced people otherwise. I still don't see what's so convincing with him besides the role hinting, and I already went on my mini-tirade regarding that. While the cases look similar in my read-through, I've got Jacob on the mind more strongly and I think I'll go in that direction today.

Linki - Ah, agreement! Except that the hint makes the case even stronger for me.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Hey, got a few free moments and some wifi! I'll go ahead and vote now since I'm not sure if I'll be back again closer to the poll end. The cases on Jacob and Jonathan look extremely similar to me, except Jonathan missed more votes, yet people aren't as apt to vote Jacob today because he sounds "genuine" and convinced people otherwise. I still don't see what's so convincing with him besides the role hinting, and I already went on my mini-tirade regarding that. While the cases look similar in my read-through, I've got Jacob on the mind more strongly and I think I'll go in that direction today.

Linki - Ah, agreement! Except that the hint makes the case even stronger for me.

You may have our names backwards. I haven't missed any votes.

[Larry David]

I was starting to have a change of heart regarding Balaam, and then I remembered this little excerpt while I was at the store earlier.

You seem to think that I'm the anti-Uzziah. He admitted to being bad while I am acting all super-civ. Is that what you're basically saying?

Balaam, are you familiar with the concept of a Freudian Slip?

The problem here being that you couldve just said that you "are super-civ" or are "being super-civ", yet you chose to state that you were ACTING super civ. Implication meaning that you are putting on a show, or trying to appear as something other than what you are.

I'm gonna double down here, and I'm not going to wait till the end of the phase to do it. I am voting Balaam today.

[Young Lady]

I'm sorry, but doesn't that quote you pulled from Balaam read like he's asking you if that's what you're implying of him, not a statement (or slip) he's making himself.

[Larry David]

I'm sorry, but doesn't that quote you pulled from Balaam read like he's asking you if that's what you're implying of him, not a statement (or slip) he's making himself.

I interpreted that part as thought he was describing himself and Uzziah in contrast.

[Snapshot]

I am voting Balaam today.

I'm really beginning to wonder about you. You seem to be bona fide intentionally ignoring the thread to go on your Balaam tirade. You are doing nothing but hurting the civilian cause.

I don't even see the Jacob 'rolehint', and I feel none the wiser. When I asked if others had, all I've seen is Belshazzar and Jephthah. I still don't know what it is. I will say, however, that I made an assumption as to what role he must be rolehinting from the fact other say 'the role must still be alive'. There was only one I could see that fits that bill, maybe two at a stretch. And even with those names, I still don't see the rolehint...

I do feel like Jacob and Isaac still, even now, have the worst looking vote records and despite the fact they seem genuine it could be very informative to lynch one of them. I don't know why Isaac has vanished so far from the radar, though, and as I said yesterday it's interesting that he was here and about when his name was genuinely on the chopping block but as soon as it's not he vanishes again...

[dodo]

I am voting Jacob because I have been suspicious o him for days.

I am unable to be playing in the capacity I was at the moment. Hopefully that will change.


Mordecai and Jonathan are next on my list.

[Young Lady]

I still have my read on Isaac from the previous Day, but I don't think much has changed about it since. He only argued against my idea that he's buddying with Rachel excessively, followed bit a few more posts, missing the vote and apologetic post-lynch post.

linki: Oh, Rachel! I was starting to think you were silenced.

[Jack Shephard]

Lot, you just said you trusted me

Rahab, why does the hint make you more suspicious? Again, my role is known to be alive, so I can't be fake-claiming. Anyway, I've already defended my admittedly poor voting record. Eye me all you want, but lynching me would just slow down the baddie hunting.

I would also like to see Isaac participate more.

What happened to discussion of Rebecca and Pilate? I think they, along with Mordecai, are our best bets.

[Larry David]

I am voting Balaam today.

I'm really beginning to wonder about you. You seem to be bona fide intentionally ignoring the thread to go on your Balaam tirade. You are doing nothing but hurting the civilian cause.

Im not ignoring the thread. Im pressing the person I think is bad right now.

But oh yeah, right, you think he's civ for reasons you wont really say, and so Im hurting the civ cause


I'm not even going to announce my vote anymore. This game is pissing me off.

[Snapshot]

Lot, you just said you trusted me

I trust you vicariously, because others appear to have understood your role hint, and I don't like to be the idiot who goes after someone everyone else knows is town. I feel out of the loop on you. But if those vouching for you change their minds, my opinion changes. It's like how I expect that rational civvies wouldn't go after Balaam because of how heavily I'm defending him. Sometimes you don't know why everyone thinks someone is civ but you are better off trusting them in your own cluelessness.

Anyway, I still think it a little suspicious that Isaac only really turns up when pressed. If anything is consistent with the concept of 'behaviour when you have teammates', only arriving in the thread when your name is bandied about is one symptom.

And also, lynching Jonathan could tell us some stuff, although I'll go against my own statements here and say 'Jonathan feels genuine'.

[NurseWilgy]

Jonathan: "Don't lynch me!"
Absalom: "Who should we lynch instead?"
Jonathan: "There are lots of cases out there."
Absalom: "Okay, which one looks good to you?"
Jonathan: "Doesn't matter. Just not me."

Voting Jonathan.

[Snapshot]

Good luck guys, lets hope Jonathan is bad since it looks like he is the call.

Oh, also, I don't think I mentioned this so sorry if I did. But I'm assuming from looking through the roles that it is more likely that Aaron targetted the heathen's victim, than that the giant was blocked. Epi's post reads like a block to me, but I can't see anything in the roles that would account for that.

[Saito]

Jonathan: "Don't lynch me!"
Absalom: "Who should we lynch instead?"
Jonathan: "There are lots of cases out there."
Absalom: "Okay, which one looks good to you?"
Jonathan: "Doesn't matter. Just not me."

Voting Jonathan.

I will go along with this and vote Jonathan. I haven't had a chance to re-catch up.

[Young Lady]

Jonathan: "Don't lynch me!"
Absalom: "Who should we lynch instead?"
Jonathan: "There are lots of cases out there."
Absalom: "Okay, which one looks good to you?"
Jonathan: "Doesn't matter. Just not me."

Voting Jonathan.

I will go along with this and vote Jonathan. I haven't had a chance to re-catch up.

Do you ever?

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Jonathan: "Don't lynch me!"
Absalom: "Who should we lynch instead?"
Jonathan: "There are lots of cases out there."
Absalom: "Okay, which one looks good to you?"
Jonathan: "Doesn't matter. Just not me."

Voting Jonathan.

I never said "Doesn't matter. Just not me." You totally made that up. Is that what you do now to make sure someone is lynched?

I probably won't be back on before the lynch so all I can say is I hope you all learn something from this lynch. One thing that I think is important is you just can't look at someone's vote record and say look at the mistakes here, here and here. They must be heathen. My vote record was really not that bad for a civ who doesn't know who is bad when they are voting. I voted Uzziah once and I voted him again when he was lynched - 4th I might remind you - and somehow those two votes got turned into something bad. You are going to lose this game if you continue on this track. Lot, thank you for looking at your gut and realizing I didn't feel guilty on a gut level. I think you were the only one but I say going forward people should look a lot closer at what you have to say. Enjoy the build up to the lynch because you won't enjoy the aftermath.

[Saito]

Do you ever?

I do apologize. I just have stretched my life out too far and genuinely have trouble keeping current. I know that at some point I'll be lynched for it, it's inevitable, but in the meantime I'm doing my best to try to participate!

[NurseWilgy]

Jonathan: "Don't lynch me!"
Absalom: "Who should we lynch instead?"
Jonathan: "There are lots of cases out there."
Absalom: "Okay, which one looks good to you?"
Jonathan: "Doesn't matter. Just not me."

Voting Jonathan.

I never said "Doesn't matter. Just not me." You totally made that up. Is that what you do now to make sure someone is lynched?

It's not an exact quote, but it was the implication of your reply. You want an exact quote? Fine. After I asked you which case looked the best to you, you said:

I am not in the position to be able to convince you someone else is worse than me without just repeating what others have already said.

You've had days to defend yourself and you could not give me one single name that you thought was bad? You have ZERO suspects?

I probably won't be back on before the lynch so all I can say is I hope you all learn something from this lynch. One thing that I think is important is you just can't look at someone's vote record and say look at the mistakes here, here and here. They must be heathen.

Yes you can. It worked for Ruth, and I think it will work for you.

[NurseWilgy]

Jonathan, I have given you chance after chance to convince me I was wrong about you, and be honest, you never even tried.

You said "I'm not bad" and "my votes were reasonable at the time" but that is not a defense. Anyone would say they are not bad, and baddies' votes always look reasonable at the time. It's the big picture that reveals their patterns to be suspect. I gave you multiple opportunities to say who you thought should be lynched in your stead, and you couldn't name One. Single. Name.

It's very frustrating when you ask someone to defend themselves, they refuse, and then they get mad at you for lynching them. What am I supposed to do, just refrain from lynching anyone who asks me not to?

[Young Lady]

I can't stay until the deadline today, so decision time. Jacob's hint is really the only thing keeping him from being lynched, tbh, but, uggh, it's too significant to disconsider it and I'd really hate myself if it would prove true upon his lynch. (On the other hand, a well deserved post-game Balls Award for him, if he tricked us with this thing the whole time ). So I'll go with Jonathan. Hope we're right about him.

[Bass_the_Clever]

Sorry folks must have hit that when I was scrolling down on my phone. I really did mean to vote as bass I just hit the wrong thing.

[Jack Shephard]

Okay, I have been wary of a Jonathan lynch but his last couple posts have brought me around to not trusting him. He really sounded genuine at first, and I think Absalom is a little extreme in saying that he hasn't at all defended himself, but his tone as well as his refusal to bring up other suspicions is really pinging me now. He's not even trying to help or contribute, he's just trying to save himself. I've been generous in accepting his "don't lynch me you'll regret it" rhetoric because of my own use of that defense, but I am not finding it believable anymore. Also, he referred to civvies in the second person. That's really the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.

Still not feeling 100% confident about this, but definitely less worried than I was. That last post just reeks. Sorry Jonathan, I am hoping Absalom is right about this one.

[Quokka]

I really think Jonathan is a good bet. He was 6th to vote for Jeph but 19th to vote overall. If he turns out bad, it will give us a small number of people (Jeph voters - Lot, Rebecca, Balaam, Sam, Laz) to look at next and and we are sure to catch at least one more baddie right away. Obviously they are not all bad, but if Jonathan is bad, I bet at least one of the others is too. I am going to go ahead and place my vote on Jonathan today.

I get voting for Jonathon but your theory regarding if he flips bad then there must be more baddies there seems ill conceived. How many civs have been lynched this game? Did youto through each one of them and kill everyone who voted them because hey, there must be baddies in there, right? Basing it entirely on this vote is silly, especially given the presence of Laz's vote in there. Baddies usually hold their votes to see if they need to save themselves or their teammates, once that clinching vote dropped on there they can safely distance themselves from a civ lynch. I voted Jeph, I suspected him for days for his behavior earlier in the game. I was wrong. But I am a civ. So this logic to me seems ludicrous because you are likely to waste lynches trying to find the baddie if you go simply on one vote when we have a whole game full of information.

And my alert goes off.

If Jonathan was bad, then there was a massive lynch train on Jeph when Jonathan had the lead in votes. Even if none of them are bad, why would it be 'ludicrous' and 'likely to waste lynches' to consider someone else might be helping to save him?

I agree that basing it on one vote is silly, but Esther did make a good point. And I say that knowing that me and my friend Balaam's ass are both in that train.

What does the presence of Lazarus vote in there have to do with it?

If I have to explain that then either I have misunderstood something or I understood right but not everyone understood in which case it's better that I say nothing else IMO. So I'm leaving that alone.

Considering I know I am a civ and I fully believe you are too, and you seem pretty damn sure Balaam is too, that leaves only two others aside from Jonathon. But you don't know I'm not so I could easily be lynched based on that alone given this idea and it would be a mistake. And I think it would be a mistake to ignore the final three votes placed as well. Don't underestimate the power of being able to cast your vote off to avoid being involved in a civ lynch train.

So I think it could easily result in wasted civ lynches and ignore people who need to be considered. Basing future lynches on one lynch vote when we have this many days of information is foolish if you ask me. Lynch me if you want and you will see just how well this line of thing serves you.

I'm voting Jonathon.

[Prisoner 509378]

And to the surprise of nobody, Bathsheba, Judah, and Malchus missed yet another vote.

[Snapshot]

My alarm was going off for dismissing Esther. She made a valid point - if Jonathan is bad, it's reasonable to expect the possibility a teammate could be in there somewhere.

Actually my first thought on Esther was 'what sense does that make' but of course it does make sense when you consider Jonathan was in the lead when the Jeph train came in.

Rebecca would be my first bet for a teammate if Jonathan is bad, but this isn't about who it would be, this is about your response to Esther, particularly the bits I have highlighted in red...

I get voting for Jonathon but your theory regarding if he flips bad then there must be more baddies there seems ill conceived. How many civs have been lynched this game? Did youto through each one of them and kill everyone who voted them because hey, there must be baddies in there, right? Basing it entirely on this vote is silly, especially given the presence of Laz's vote in there. Baddies usually hold their votes to see if they need to save themselves or their teammates, once that clinching vote dropped on there they can safely distance themselves from a civ lynch. I voted Jeph, I suspected him for days for his behavior earlier in the game. I was wrong. But I am a civ. So this logic to me seems ludicrousbecause you are likely to waste lynchestrying to find the baddie if you go simply on one vote when we have a whole game full of information.

Of course, none of this matters if Jonathan isn't bad.

linki - I'm pretty sure those three are empty socks, waiting for feet.

[Epignosis]

Who slew no one?

Poll ended at Sun May 24, 2015 9:47 pm

Absalom
0
No votes

Balaam
1
Mordecai (11)
5%

Bathsheba
0
No votes

Belshazzar
0
No votes

Deborah
0
No votes

Esther
0
No votes

Isaac
0
No votes

Jacob
2
Rahab (9), Rachel (12)
10%

Jonah
0
No votes

Jonathan
12
Pilate (4), Stephen (5), Esther (7), Balaam (8), Absalom (13), Deborah (14), Belshazzar (15), Bass_the_Clever (16), Jacob (17), Jonah (18), Spacedaisy (20), Samuel (21)
57%

Judah
0
No votes

Lazarus
2
Lot (2), Lazarus (19)
10%

Lot
0
No votes

Malchus
0
No votes

Mordecai
0
No votes

Pilate
0
No votes

Rachel
0
No votes

Rahab
0
No votes

Rebecca
0
No votes

Samuel
0
No votes

Stephen
0
No votes

The Spirit of Confusion (The Host, the Non, the Dead)
4
Epignosis (1), Metalmarsh89 (3), MovingPictures07 (6), S~V~S (10)
19%


Total votes : 21

[Epignosis]

First Mafioso

Chapter VIII

1 There was a man named Jonathan in those days who was a righteous man. He sought to live in peace. 2 He was also called Andrew, and was a fisherman with his brothers. 3 One day he was falsely accused of worshiping the false god Juliets, who was said to speak through Jonathan many times. 4 But others said, “No, Juliets was only speaking by accident.” 5 They cast lots and determined that Jonathan should be put to death, for his words from Juliets they determined were false prophecies. 6 And they took him out on a boat into lake near the Ratey’ourm-usicians, a region despised to this day for their devious ways. 7 And taking Jonathan out there, they stoned him on the boat and cast his body overboard so that it could not be found. 8 And God’s wrath burned against the people of Sin-d’kaht for such wickedness.

[Epignosis]

Please note that Chapter VIII ends at 8pm EST tomorrow evening.

[NurseWilgy]

Well, that is somewhat less than ideal.

[Snapshot]

Well, that is somewhat less than ideal.

Yeah

RIP Jonathan.

[Prisoner 509378]

Well, that is somewhat less than ideal.

Yeah

RIP Jonathan.

Ditto. Technicolor vote breakdowns in the morning.

[NurseWilgy]

I clearly need to reevaluate before tomorrow.