So, chronologically
1) "SVS", I appreciate your review of "BR"'s posts, but if the main conflict between us being trackers is real (as opposed to a misunderstanding of how many roles might exist or how some other effects might be at work), then I still feel, personally, that "BR" could have fabricated the whole thing, the way I've expressed it before: react to my rezz right away, seed those posts below a good pile of reads and such, switch back to the plan when the lynch opportunity arrived. Your conclusion is that someone like juliets would never go to so much trouble doing such an extensive read on "Cookie", but I actually wonder if her "Cookie" ISO is not the very definition of Too Much Work, hence a very dubious attempt to look involved. You and "Lipsticklacey" posit that these reads are the things she asked to go back and read, but I'm confident that she sent everyone back to her thoughts on my flip, way behind her entire wall of reads.
2)
Ricochet 2 wrote:I'm surprised to see so much doubt around a Golden lynch. I feel like it is the obvious thing to do, I can't understand why Juliet would get herself lynched and lie, but I also find a lot of the theories that have been put out there confusing.
If there is someone out there who genuinely thinks we should not vote golden today, could you give me a really clear summary of why I shouldn't assume he is bad?
The two of every role thing doesn't work to me because there are 25 of us which is not even.
I would still recommend putting me and juliets through the same lense. To me, the way she crafted ambivalence on the "LC" vs "Syn" matter until the boat finally rocked and flipped towards "LC", combined with the sequence of contesting my flip, resuming regular gameplay and then hinting back at it as soon as the lynching plead had grunds, makes me believe her posts could have been neatly put in place, instead of genuine.
As for juliets being the kind of person who would be sincere in her initiative, I believe someone else already pointed out that, if she's part of the baddie team, she can well adapt to the team's plan and even execute it masterfully.
3)
Reywas 2 wrote:Ricochet 2 wrote:OK, cookie, two questions
1) If Juliet is bad, can you think of a plausible motive for making the move?
2) If we give golden the benefit of the doubt, how are we to figure out his trustworthiness long term?
If Golden 2 is a civvie then we need to make him the baddie's problem. They'll either need to kill him because he's got a powerful role or else he'll start to figure things out.
If Golden 2 is a baddie then he'll need to help us lynch some baddies or we're gonna lose faith in him.
I'm uncomfortable making that judgment at this stage in the game. I don't think juliets was bad tbh. That's not a move she makes if she's a baddie. My concern is that it's possible there's 2 civvie trackers and I want to let it play out. Either way, Golden 2 owes us a baddie sooner rather than later.
I'd say I already am the baddies problem and it's obvious what they attempted, as soon as I was rezz'd. Disposing of me via another kill isn't the only option, when they can push for my disposal in a different way and preserve their kill for future victims.
I understand what you expect of me, but have to wonder if you'd expect the same without this tracker/seemer conflict? As in, do all outed roles that are brought back in the game (via a rezz) suddenly need to cough up results to prove worthiness? I'll do my best, for sure, but my role can still misfire, except if I locate a baddie whose moves were obvious in the results of a phase, since there are civvie and baddie targeters alike.
As for juliets not making such moves if a baddie, read above what I've pointed out to "Rico".
4)
Reywas 2 wrote:One problem I've got with Golden 2 is his kitschy posts leading up to the LC 2 flip. He posted those How I Met Your Mother memes and finished up with the classic "Dary!" as if he was already expecting the result. I mean what was Golden 2 gonna post if LC2 flipped civ? That was bizarre IMO.
Once again, I shouldn't have to point out what compelled me to do all those "kitschy posts" throughout the duration of a Day phase. What was it that was kitchy, anyway, considering that I implemented my regular thoughts into them instead of just fooling around (well, maybe a little)?
As for the HIMYM reference, it was a paraphrase to two things: a) the player I was referencing with the so called "kitschy posts", who did these HIMYM lynch flip shenanigans in a previous game and b) a lynch drama regarding "LC" that lasted for three Days and was still in effect, considering the talk that "LC" might be get another good roll, if a die-hard, and survive yet another Day. The "Dary" picture would have been adapted to a less enthusiastic one (well EDIT: you already asked for proof), should "LC" have flipped civ, but the whole thing in itself was nothing short of a reference gag.
5) I'm reading things again on civ win cons vs baddie win cons and I find some of the stuff head-scratching. Things like "Cookie" saying that, if civs have a dead-or-alive win con, it can't be known if baddies do too and that "baddies have to be alive". Like, WTF. In what universe does a *team of mafia* need to survive as a whole to win??
If I feel that there's sufficient evidence of a second baddie team and I'm unhappy with Syn 2's contributions (he's been resting on his laurels ever since the LC2 lynch IMO) then I'll look that way. But you trying to strongarm me into going that direction doesn't make me want to do it.