Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Black Rock]

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

[DharmaHelper]

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

Some of you can read most of it.

[DrWilgy]

...

...

...Can I have a smiley?

[Ricochet]

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.

By me, the great Papryco.

[LoRab]

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

[Black Rock]

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.

By me, the great Papryco.

Oh my, what is a girl to do.

That can be read in monotone.

[Ricochet]

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

How can I deny and accept something at the same time? Doesn't make much sense. I have never done anything except deny there being anything to the idea of people mentioning me. It can't be waffly if I'm, in fact, very adamant about it. Eye me all you want.

Nobody said anything about my coin flip post. Is this, therefore, your own reason for suspecting me? Yet you previously said you don't have reasons of your own. And I am contributing, I caught four baddies. How many baddies do you have? Eye me all you want.

No idea what you mean. Eye me all you want.

Sounds good, but you'll find nothing in your re-read. I'm not bad and I've proven it.

[sig]

I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

So I read the back and forth between Ricohet, Mac, and Zebra and honestly most of it went in one ear and out the other. I think Llama raises an interesting point about Mac, Zebra seems to be acting like Zebra. Rico seems to be posting a good amount of stuff.

What does everyone think of JJJ? He posted those voice messages, but after I raised my concern of them I don't recall anymore of his posts.

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Mac has a role from the TH game, or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P

Zebra (who is a girl)

Zebra (who is a girl)

I think that you think that I take myself more seriously than I actually do. Yes, I identify as a girl, no, I'm not going to antagonize anyone that doesn't agree.[/quote
I'll be the judge of that.

Well I mean she hasn't threatened to sue you, or accuse you of using improper pronouns, or kidnap you, lock you in a hole, keep you there for about 3 to 5 days, hang you from her second story house when she tells you that she is taking you upstairs to get a shower, and then after hanging you skin you to make a man suit for her to wear. (I in no way mean to be offensive so I hope nobody takes it that way, I truly doubt Zebra is a Serial Killer, BUT if she is I just want you to know Zebra I wouldn't make a very good victim at all and I'd never turn you in to the police when Llama's skinned body turns up in a river with a cocoon shoved up his throat )

So I'd say she was okay.

Nice fluff post here, broseph.

It is a good fluff post isn't it? I'm quite proud of it one of my better jokey/fluff posts.

Right now I want to vote for SIg though, for that obvious fluff I pointed out earlier, and DH is pointing out now.

So I didn't take Dh post that serious, however know llama has also brought it up. What is wrong with some fluff day 1? I see lots of fluff day 1 this is quite suspicious to me. If I were to vote I'd consider Llama.

[DharmaHelper]

I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

So I read the back and forth between Ricohet, Mac, and Zebra and honestly most of it went in one ear and out the other. I think Llama raises an interesting point about Mac, Zebra seems to be acting like Zebra. Rico seems to be posting a good amount of stuff.

What does everyone think of JJJ? He posted those voice messages, but after I raised my concern of them I don't recall anymore of his posts.

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Mac has a role from the TH game, or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P

Zebra (who is a girl)

Zebra (who is a girl)

I think that you think that I take myself more seriously than I actually do. Yes, I identify as a girl, no, I'm not going to antagonize anyone that doesn't agree.[/quote
I'll be the judge of that.

Well I mean she hasn't threatened to sue you, or accuse you of using improper pronouns, or kidnap you, lock you in a hole, keep you there for about 3 to 5 days, hang you from her second story house when she tells you that she is taking you upstairs to get a shower, and then after hanging you skin you to make a man suit for her to wear. (I in no way mean to be offensive so I hope nobody takes it that way, I truly doubt Zebra is a Serial Killer, BUT if she is I just want you to know Zebra I wouldn't make a very good victim at all and I'd never turn you in to the police when Llama's skinned body turns up in a river with a cocoon shoved up his throat )

So I'd say she was okay.

Nice fluff post here, broseph.

It is a good fluff post isn't it? I'm quite proud of it one of my better jokey/fluff posts.

Right now I want to vote for SIg though, for that obvious fluff I pointed out earlier, and DH is pointing out now.

So I didn't take Dh post that serious, however know llama has also brought it up. What is wrong with some fluff day 1? I see lots of fluff day 1 this is quite suspicious to me. If I were to vote I'd consider Llama.

It's a very large post that says absolutely nothing. On the surface it appears contributory, but it is not contributory. Classic baddie.

[LoRab]

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

How can I deny and accept something at the same time? Doesn't make much sense. I have never done anything except deny there being anything to the idea of people mentioning me. It can't be waffly if I'm, in fact, very adamant about it. Eye me all you want.

Nobody said anything about my coin flip post. Is this, therefore, your own reason for suspecting me? Yet you previously said you don't have reasons of your own. And I am contributing, I caught four baddies. How many baddies do you have? Eye me all you want.

No idea what you mean. Eye me all you want.

Sounds good, but you'll find nothing in your re-read. I'm not bad and I've proven it.

You deny it in a way that doesn't sound like yo'ure not fully denying it. As if you are saying well, XY isn't true, when you are leaving open the possibility that Z is true. Like you're keeping to truth so that you can't be caught by a lie detector, but that something similar is true and you leave open that possibility. In short, your denial doesn't seem fully honest.

And my point about your coin flip post was the same point as the rainbow posts. So, not entirely my own reason, no. And how do you know you've caught any baddies?

And I will enjoy the reread. Also, cute to negate everything I say by poking at and teasing me by mocking an aspect of the way I defend. It truly is witty. And a great way to deflect accusations by hinting that they are not valid due to my using that line on accusations of me that are inaccurate assessments of my posts. It also doesn't feel like an honest rebuttal as a result. And, yeah, that one is an original thought.

[sig]

I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.

[Black Rock]

Too many twirly, can't read the post.

[DharmaHelper]

I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.

If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.

[Black Rock]

Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.

Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.

I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.

My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.

He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it?

[Black Rock]

I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.

If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.

Are you two arguing the same point?

[Marmot]

Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.

Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.

I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.

My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.

He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it?

Don't read it tbh.

[DharmaHelper]

I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.

If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.

Are you two arguing the same point?

I'm clarifying. Sig admits that the content of his post is not and does not look to be contributory. I'm saying that by virtue of it being a sizeable post, with quotes, etc, it looks contributory at first glance regardless of the actual content.

[sig]

I still disagree with this DH, even if a player skims my post which I'd say isn't that big they'd see the first line.

I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

This is obviously a starting fluff, if anything it would make people skip the rest of my post.

I had a few OT lines then this.

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Mac has a role from the TH game, or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P

Another obvious fluff portion. Anyone skimming would see the quotations breaking up the post and at the very least I'd think they would read what I was quoting. Then another quote this time from Llama, and his thing with Zebra, which was done in good fun.

So I highly doubt anyone skimming my post would think it had any OT stuff since the OT stuff was between much more noticeably fluff.
Not to mention like I said in my above post it was Night 0 and like many people I was messing around. I still find it very odd that you single out this post, and make it seem like a bigger deal then it is. Not to mention the fact that Llama quickly agrees with you about it.
I mean he could just be doing that since I made light of a post which he didn't want me to joke about and he was mad that I did this, however I don't know his personality enough to know if that is the case or not, and I doubt a mature adult would get pissy that I made a joke about how he was referring to Zebra. This leads me to think he is either budding up to you for an unknown reason, he is mafia and thought this was good to mention, or he wanted to appear like he was more involved in the game and this was a safe way to do so.

I think it is semi likely that either DH or Llama are mafia.
I also still have some reservations about DH/JJJ for the audio posts.

I notice DH mentions my fluff post after I brought up the points about the audio posts, I don't recall him ever directly answering me about my theory on this while I do remember JJJ doing so. This is another ping for DH in my book.

[MacDougall]

You do not. You are making that shit up. What is "semi likely" ffs. And how the hell is making vocaroo posts suspicious?

[DharmaHelper]

I still disagree with this DH, even if a player skims my post which I'd say isn't that big they'd see the first line.

I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!

This is obviously a starting fluff, if anything it would make people skip the rest of my post.

I had a few OT lines then this.

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Mac has a role from the TH game, or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P

Another obvious fluff portion. Anyone skimming would see the quotations breaking up the post and at the very least I'd think they would read what I was quoting. Then another quote this time from Llama, and his thing with Zebra, which was done in good fun.

So I highly doubt anyone skimming my post would think it had any OT stuff since the OT stuff was between much more noticeably fluff.
Not to mention like I said in my above post it was Night 0 and like many people I was messing around. I still find it very odd that you single out this post, and make it seem like a bigger deal then it is. Not to mention the fact that Llama quickly agrees with you about it.
I mean he could just be doing that since I made light of a post which he didn't want me to joke about and he was mad that I did this, however I don't know his personality enough to know if that is the case or not, and I doubt a mature adult would get pissy that I made a joke about how he was referring to Zebra. This leads me to think he is either budding up to you for an unknown reason, he is mafia and thought this was good to mention, or he wanted to appear like he was more involved in the game and this was a safe way to do so.

I think it is semi likely that either DH or Llama are mafia.
I also still have some reservations about DH/JJJ for the audio posts.

I notice DH mentions my fluff post after I brought up the points about the audio posts, I don't recall him ever directly answering me about my theory on this while I do remember JJJ doing so. This is another ping for DH in my book.

Two can play at this game, you fart.

I don't remember sig going so hard after me until after I mentioned that his post was suspect.

[Epignosis]

I'll go BTSC him to show his face. He's checked in there.

Hey guys, since kneel2justice complained about we focusing too much on the same few players, and I kind of agree with him, I propose a little exercise.

Anyone who has time for it: tell us what you think of the following people. Those are all people I have seen little talk about in this game, so they could potentially be slipping under everyone's radars.

Drwilgy - He is only mentioned when people are referring to the Sig/Simon debacle, but what do people actually think about him?
FZ. - Epi said he thought she was town. Does anybody else have any opinion about FZ?
kneel4justice - Ironically, he is a good example of what he said himself. I don't think anyone has said anything about him in this game. Come on, people.
Metalmarsh - Okay this is Metalmarsh so people ignore him and his antics by default... but maybe we shouldn't?

I've skipped the ones who have little to no posts, since not talking about them is excusable, but all those players I mentioned have a lot of game presence but very little discussion about them.

Supatown (red)
Boss
Boss
Top bloke, good egg

I'll take a look at them though.

:P

[Epignosis]

Guys, I think 3J's trying to tell us something.

[sig]

semi as in I'm not quite certain, but am more certain then just a scum lean. I already said in an early post why I found making vocaroo posts suspicious, based around my own thoughts and the recent game I played on RYM.

linki: I wasn't going as hard at you until you mentioned my post that is true. However, I found that both you and then Llama said my post were suspicious to be suspicious. So I organized my thoughts about you and recalled my early ping about the audio post. I might vote for you in spirit, but I don't I'll actually vote for you. Especially since I really don't have a case just a few pings.

and I'm not a fart YOU'RE A FART :P

[Dom]

Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

So you admit it!

No one tell him....

Wow, okay, there is a lot of noise to cut through in this thread. Weirdly, I don't have bad feeling about Ricochet this game, although I do enjoy the back and forth between him and Zebra (who is a girl).

The person I a starting to have bad feelings about is MacDougall. He started off basically accusing a bunch of people of being bad, including Ricochet, in a jokey fashion, which felt like a distractionary tactic, and then he allowed his jokey attack on Rico to morph into a real one, joining Zebra (who is a girl). It feels like opportunism to try to eliminate a dangerous rival early, and I'm not reading his attacks as wholly sincere.

But then again, it's not even day one yet, so all this could change.

Still catching up and this post jumped out at me

1. aGREENed, lots of crap to trudge through for what is essentially a waiting period.

2. Orange you certain this is what you meant? Sounds like you got those two players confused.

3. YELLOW? Anyone home? This is exactly what Rico has been doing. Seriously, take Mac's name out and put Rico's in and tell me that doesn't fit.



3.

The cool thing about these games is that different people can interpret the same text differently

The cool thing about this post is that it did nothing to address the content of the post and only served to rebuff the accusation and discredit DH.

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

Don't read it. I wish I hadn't.



I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.

[Epignosis]

My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.

I would lynch him just to spare myself the bullshit of reading about coin flips. If he wants to flip coins, let him sign up for Arkham in a few days and hope he draws Two Face.

[DharmaHelper]

Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

So you admit it!

No one tell him....

Wow, okay, there is a lot of noise to cut through in this thread. Weirdly, I don't have bad feeling about Ricochet this game, although I do enjoy the back and forth between him and Zebra (who is a girl).

The person I a starting to have bad feelings about is MacDougall. He started off basically accusing a bunch of people of being bad, including Ricochet, in a jokey fashion, which felt like a distractionary tactic, and then he allowed his jokey attack on Rico to morph into a real one, joining Zebra (who is a girl). It feels like opportunism to try to eliminate a dangerous rival early, and I'm not reading his attacks as wholly sincere.

But then again, it's not even day one yet, so all this could change.

Still catching up and this post jumped out at me

1. aGREENed, lots of crap to trudge through for what is essentially a waiting period.

2. Orange you certain this is what you meant? Sounds like you got those two players confused.

3. YELLOW? Anyone home? This is exactly what Rico has been doing. Seriously, take Mac's name out and put Rico's in and tell me that doesn't fit.



3.

The cool thing about these games is that different people can interpret the same text differently

The cool thing about this post is that it did nothing to address the content of the post and only served to rebuff the accusation and discredit DH.

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

Don't read it. I wish I hadn't.



I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.

I believe you meant "half-heartedly try to" rebuff and discredit, etc.

[MacDougall]

semi as in I'm not quite certain, but am more certain then just a scum lean. I already said in an early post why I found making vocaroo posts suspicious, based around my own thoughts and the recent game I played on RYM.

linki: I wasn't going as hard at you until you mentioned my post that is true. However, I found that both you and then Llama said my post were suspicious to be suspicious. So I organized my thoughts about you and recalled my early ping about the audio post. I might vote for you in spirit, but I don't I'll actually vote for you. Especially since I really don't have a case just a few pings.

and I'm not a fart YOU'RE A FART :P

I don't believe that you think vocaroo posts are suspicious for the reason you insinuate. It seems like a made up reason. It's too weak.

[bcornett24]

Haha, this is what I get for going to work another pages to read!

[bcornett24]

7

[Long Con]

Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.

But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.

Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

Question: Does anyone think this is too defensive? Follow up question: Does anyone remember any other contribution Tranq made to Night 0? Anything at all?

I had a criticism of Boomslang's post much earlier, and he's who I'm casting a vote for right now.

*votes Boomslang*

[Epignosis]

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

Lorab says "seem," which is a strange word choice.

For example, this sentence:

"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing."

I would have phrased it this way:

"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post are bullshit, and aren't contributing anything. Please stop cluttering the thread that everyone is expected to read in order to be informed."

There's nothing "seeming" about it. Ricochet is flooding the thread with bullshit.

But Lorab's phrasing is hedging her stance, which is ordinarily something Mafia do. Like here:

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

What is it about Ricochet that others have pointed out that Lorab "definitely" sees? With Ricochet being the author of almost a quarter (!) of the thread's posts, this is as unspecific as it gets.

Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.

[RadicalFuzz]

Wilgy

Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."

Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.

[Long Con]

I am seeing what Epi is saying here about Lorab. It does look hedgey.

[MacDougall]

Wilgy

Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."

Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.

What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?

[Dom]

Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.

This is a good point.

I await LoRab's response.

[RadicalFuzz]

Wilgy

Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."

Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.

What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?

I don't know.

[Long Con]

Wilgy

Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."

Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.

What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?

I don't know.

It doesn't seem familiar to you?

[Sorsha]

Ditto in the LoRab suspishion! I'm at work right now and can't make the post I want to atm but it goes back to the post about roles that Mac had issue with up to the points epi made here. Not feeling like the civ LoRab I'm used to.

[RadicalFuzz]

Wilgy

Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."

Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.

What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?

I don't know.

It doesn't seem familiar to you?

It's common on JTM for players to vote for me, whether jokingly or with intent to lynch, for no reason. His doing it here doesn't really tell me anything aside from he wants this to be an issue this game. He usually manipulates me well, which might lean towards scum, but it's Wilgy so his tendency to screw with people cancels that out. I'm content to reciprocate his vote and mostly ignore him aside from that.

I mean, it's entirely possible he's peeved at me for implying that we would hang out over the holidays and then promptly dropping off the face of the earth, but I find it unlikely. He wouldn't think being teased with the carrot of companionship only to get the stick of loneliness would be worth harboring any grudges.

[Sorsha]

Ok I snuck a little time in here for my LoRab posts.

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

So this is the post that started my suspicion of you LoRab. I did have to read through it more than once to actually understand what you meant here. I think your posts are usually well thought out, easy to follow and I can pretty much see what you mean or how you came to your conclusions. This post isn't so much like that. After reading it a second time I could figure out what I think you meant, but its not really as clear as I'd expect some theory from you to be.

Spoiler: show

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.

I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.

I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.

It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.

When you're misunderstood you're usually pretty pleasant about clearing it up. This post has a tone that I don't remember seeing from you... I can't remember the last time I played with you when you were bad but I know this isn't how you are as a civ. I don't really expect to see you completely denying that something in your post might have been misunderstood.

So some of my suspicion is what you've said and some is just a tone thing. I also agree with the point about you sounding disingenuous that Epi presented.

[Ricochet]

HIIIIIIIIIIIIIII so few posts in the past seven hours? Disappoint.

You deny it in a way that doesn't sound like yo'ure not fully denying it. As if you are saying well, XY isn't true, when you are leaving open the possibility that Z is true. Like you're keeping to truth so that you can't be caught by a lie detector, but that something similar is true and you leave open that possibility. In short, your denial doesn't seem fully honest.

And my point about your coin flip post was the same point as the rainbow posts. So, not entirely my own reason, no. And how do you know you've caught any baddies?

And I will enjoy the reread. Also, cute to negate everything I say by poking at and teasing me by mocking an aspect of the way I defend. It truly is witty. And a great way to deflect accusations by hinting that they are not valid due to my using that line on accusations of me that are inaccurate assessments of my posts. It also doesn't feel like an honest rebuttal as a result. And, yeah, that one is an original thought.

Well, I can't be blamed for not covering every possible extension of the accusation in this universe of concepts. I work with what material I have. Epignosis brought up my "sad, poor attempts" at getting a high post count, I dismissed it. JJJ (and Golden?) brought up the mention count side of things, I dismissed it. I haven't left any opening. Furthermore, I wrote nothing in the style of evading any lie detection; I don't even worry about such a thing, when I post/play Mafia. In short, your suspicion here is a bit extreme, unfounded and not my problem, since I'm not bad.

I know I caught them baddies, because my cases are out of the box, yet 100% solid and I trust my judgement the most.

I don't get what I'm poking at or mocking, it's certainly not my intention. At the very best, I'm paraphrasing or, better yet, adopting a sound defending strategy (which I'm sure you regard it to be, since you're doing it so often, btw). Why shouldn't it work when somebody else is doing, if it's such a solid strategy for you? As for structure, I didn't find my posts as lacking as you did. I assessed every line of your posts, followed by reassuring you that I am not bad and you can feel free to suss me further, at your own expense of time. Because I'm not bad.

[Ricochet]

Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.

Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.

I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.

My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.

He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it?

Baddie Empress please. Everything I posted was with purpose for the civvie cause. It just doesn't suit you, because you're bad. Don't go calling my contribution crap, k?

[Ricochet]

Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

So you admit it!

No one tell him....

You should eat more Iron E, your levels seem low today.

I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.

Don't vote llama, he civ.

[Ricochet]

To wrap up for now:

I don't care much about sig vs Dharma. Seems civ on civ. Or pleb on pleb.

I wish Fuzz and Wilgy would stop fighting and be friends, like I asked in my vocaroo. Your votes are going to waste, if you keep it up.

I don't agree with Epignosis dismissing my valuable work that ended up with four (4) confirmed baddies, but that seems (oops) like a cool post he wrote. I'mma follow his vote on LoRab...

Then again, I don't know if LoRab is bad, so...

If anything, Dom looks the opportunistic one now, because with only 4 posts, his comeback was "ew catching up" and coattailing Epig's case.

[a2thezebra]

What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.

In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.

By me, the great Papryco.

Oh my, what is a girl to do.

That can be read in monotone.

Also, Ricochet.

However, shockingly enough I've got my eye on six others who may end up with my vote by the end of the day. Can you guess who they are?

[Ricochet]

Your teammates?

And why are you voting me? I don't remember you making a case on me. I'll do the same, maybe I'll find out that way.

[a2thezebra]

I'm voting for you because you're using your post count to control the direction of the thread, and you're using your attitude as an excuse for any suspicious things you might happen to say. Your wrap-up post above seems like a genuine effort, but in the greater context of your ISO it can't be trusted as genuine. And your gimmick seems to have even fooled some of the players. Black Rock for instance made the point that as a baddie you wouldn't have a decent reason to call so much attention to yourself. I know the reason. To get as many people as possible to think just that, that you wouldn't be so "reckless" as a baddie to perform the way you have. I'm not perfect but I like to think I'm pretty decent at being able to tell the difference between civ WIFOM and mafia WIFOM, and you reek of the latter.

[Ricochet]

I'm voting for you because you're using your post count to control the direction of the thread, and you're using your attitude as an excuse for any suspicious things you might happen to say. Your wrap-up post above seems like a genuine effort, but in the greater context of your ISO it can't be trusted as genuine. And your gimmick seems to have even fooled some of the players. Black Rock for instance made the point that as a baddie you wouldn't have a decent reason to call so much attention to yourself. I know the reason. To get as many people as possible to think just that, that you wouldn't be so "reckless" as a baddie to perform the way you have. I'm not perfect but I like to think I'm pretty decent at being able to tell the difference between civ WIFOM and mafia WIFOM, and you reek of the latter.

Nothing you said is true, but hey



How am I controlling the thread? Not even a third of the players are paying attention to my exchanges. Not to mention nobody is paying attention to or voting any of the baddies I caught. But okay, I "control the direction".

I don't get the attitude thing, is this not how I regularly play? Hunting baddies, making cases? Must have gotten out of practice this past month or so.

What players have I "fooled" with the "gimmick" (which I also repeatedly said there isn't one)? Again, a third etc., nobody etc. See above?

[a2thezebra]

Nope, we're done for now. We spammed enough Night 0, we don't need to continue Day 1. There's my case, there's your rebuttal, I'm leaving the rest up to whoever gives a damn.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Don't vote llama, he civ.