Hmmm... never mind, I think I was confused. It might be in the other game I'm in, please pardon me. Why am I on your list?a2thezebra wrote:Excuse me? What was the first time?Long Con wrote:Also, Zebra, that's another time you have made an assertion that I don't see how you could know. About curse roles.
My recent post indicated my reasons for suspecting him.Draconus wrote:Is there a case on llama that I missed?
It looks pretty arbitrary does it not?Golden wrote:Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.
If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.
That's what makes it a guess? And good to know.MacDougall wrote:You haven't even made mention of some of these players so I'm not sure how we were supposed to guess.a2thezebra wrote:Boomslang
sig
Long Con
MacDougall
Matt
juliets
Also I share suspicion of your main two suspects for what it's worth.
That's what I was thinking of, Z. Just mixing up my questioning of you in two separate games.Long Con from the current Heist game 'LOST Again' wrote:How do you KNOW that one of the two Day 1 lynch guys was bad, Zebra?
You're pardoned...but not from my suspicion! DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUNLong Con wrote:Hmmm... never mind, I think I was confused. It might be in the other game I'm in, please pardon me. Why am I on your list?a2thezebra wrote:Excuse me? What was the first time?Long Con wrote:Also, Zebra, that's another time you have made an assertion that I don't see how you could know. About curse roles.
...and I think your other posts in general have come across as disingenuous.Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.Epignosis wrote:It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.Boomslang wrote: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.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Lol wotLong Con wrote:OK thanks!
Normally, you'd be correct. But at the moment, and at the start of the day when I declared the six other potential candidates, I still have Ricochet as by far and away my top suspicion, and since you and some others are hesitant about lynching him, I am/was reluctant to share my other suspicions directly because I don't want the day to result in a wild goose chase when I think we've got a clear baddie target that we can focus on. Make no mistake, I do want discussion, I just feel it necessary to demonstrate that Rico is by far and away the top of my kill list mothafucka.MacDougall wrote:It looks pretty arbitrary does it not?Golden wrote:Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.
If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.
I'm not convinced she didn't just pick some of those names right then and there.
I'm not sure Zebra is the sort of player who has suspicions of players for as long as she apparently has had here without engaging them or even mentioning it.
Lol "kill list"a2thezebra wrote:Normally, you'd be correct. But at the moment, and at the start of the day when I declared the six other potential candidates, I still have Ricochet as by far and away my top suspicion, and since you and some others are hesitant about lynching him, I am/was reluctant to share my other suspicions directly because I don't want the day to result in a wild goose chase when I think we've got a clear baddie target that we can focus on. Make no mistake, I do want discussion, I just feel it necessary to demonstrate that Rico is by far and away the top of my kill list mothafucka.MacDougall wrote:It looks pretty arbitrary does it not?Golden wrote:Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.
If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.
I'm not convinced she didn't just pick some of those names right then and there.
I'm not sure Zebra is the sort of player who has suspicions of players for as long as she apparently has had here without engaging them or even mentioning it.
Ah, makes sense.Long Con wrote:That's what I was thinking of, Z. Just mixing up my questioning of you in two separate games.Long Con from the current Heist game 'LOST Again' wrote:How do you KNOW that one of the two Day 1 lynch guys was bad, Zebra?
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
inb4 "not worth reading"nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy
Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.
24 hours makes you uneasy?juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.
I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
To lynch is to kill.Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.
oh for God's sake, i thought the deadline was tonight. Thank you for the correction.MacDougall wrote:24 hours makes you uneasy?juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.
I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
A civvie's mentality is to lynch, whilst a baddie's is to kill.a2thezebra wrote:To lynch is to kill.Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.
I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.
I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
What about vigilantes?Ricochet wrote:A civvie's mentality is to lynch, whilst a baddie's is to kill.a2thezebra wrote:To lynch is to kill.Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.
Typical baddie slip. RIP
If you're not a vigi, then you slipped.a2thezebra wrote:What about vigilantes?Ricochet wrote:A civvie's mentality is to lynch, whilst a baddie's is to kill.a2thezebra wrote:To lynch is to kill.Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.
Typical baddie slip. RIP
not saying I'm a vigilante or anything
Also, that's simply not true. Killing is killing.
I understand what you are saying here. At the beginning of games regardless of my affiliation I am not very confident about lynching people. Some people are comfortable with that ambiguity but I am not. Therefore I come off as always following. As the game goes on I become more confident and i think you will see a change in my demeanor (if I make it that far). I will do my best to expose myself more earlier in the game than normal for me regardless of the consequences. Usually that comes out in the form of questions, one of which I've already asked and it hasn't been answered. My questions tell you where I am suspicious.a2thezebra wrote:I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.
I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
I disagree with this. If there has been a lot of productive, useful stuff posted, one has to wade through a lot of nonsense to get through it, and frankly, it's tiresome. I like to analyze people's posts, especially when I do have the time to do so like I will for the next week or so without much work to bring home, but when I come back after a day and there's literally about 15 pages of just STUFF to glean "useful" bits from, I don't call that productive on the whole. I'll come back to this.MacDougall wrote:There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.thellama73 wrote:They are not really worth reading.Tranq wrote:25 pages already?
I agree with this so hard. Rico, I love ya, but the game you're pulling is not civilian, whether or not you're a civ. It's distracting to a point I've never experienced here, and I don't see a civ reason for it, unless there's some insane role power I don't know about. But I can't imagine a ridiculous post-number power would be civilian. Which brings me to someone mentioning the possibility of your being indy, and to this I agree with:DharmaHelper wrote:Your behavior tells me that one of two things is true:Ricochet wrote:Now why did you go an' vote me? You only said I look least civvie, not that I'm bad.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Ricochet
Either you don't care enough to further the civvie cause or you have reason to deter the civvie cause. In either case, a vote for you at this stage is my best option.
I have been indy in the last two games I've played, and it was fantastic since I straight up didn't have to worry about a civilian or baddie cause - I did whatever I could to keep my own win conditions. Indies can be dangerous as fuck (especially near the end when it really counts) if you let them slide.DharmaHelper wrote:Also, since when is "Indy" synonymous with "Better let this person win the game"
So, for probably the first or second time ever (and what the hell, votes are changeable), I'll vote early, and for Rico.a2thezebra wrote:I think he wants us to think that he wants to be lynched so he can cruise his baddieness all the way to endgame. Fuck that.
Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So aRicochet wrote:inb4 "not worth reading"nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy
Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.
...yeah, you'll hate me
for that; you do you. Yes for you having to read it all in one big chunk it's not going to be the same as me having been able to stay on top of it all by virtue of having nothing better to do with my time. As I was able to analyse everything in context I feel like lots of players (Ricochet aside) have been putting up quite a good amount of positive contributions, more than I'm used to seeing.nijuukyugou wrote:That...was a miserable read. It was like watching a horrible episode of a horribly drawn cartoon that may have been amusing/understandable in the right state of mind, but I just wanted to fast forward through it. And I did. I've tabbed things I want to mention, and really the only things that I managed to follow.
I disagree with this. If there has been a lot of productive, useful stuff posted, one has to wade through a lot of nonsense to get through it, and frankly, it's tiresome. I like to analyze people's posts, especially when I do have the time to do so like I will for the next week or so without much work to bring home, but when I come back after a day and there's literally about 15 pages of just STUFF to glean "useful" bits from, I don't call that productive on the whole. I'll come back to this.[/ot]MacDougall wrote:There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.thellama73 wrote:They are not really worth reading.Tranq wrote:25 pages already?
You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.Boomslang wrote:Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So aRicochet wrote:inb4 "not worth reading"nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy
Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.
...yeah, you'll hate me
Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.
I agree.MacDougall wrote:You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.Boomslang wrote:Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So aRicochet wrote:inb4 "not worth reading"nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy
Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.
...yeah, you'll hate me
Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.
No, not a curse, Rico told me not to call his contributions crap. So I did, I didn't want him to miss it.Sorsha wrote:BR was also underlining the word "crap" when she used it in her posts today also.. Another curse?a2thezebra wrote:I'm fairly certain there are two curse roles, even if Draconus and/or JJJ is faking their curse.
I looked at the night 0 poll to see if they all voted the same and they did, but I also voted the same option as they did and I'm not cursed so
@Matt- that was the same thing I noticed about MM but I'm not convinced that assuming there is more than one baddie team in a 30 player game is enough to convince me he's guilty.
Ricochet wrote:Boomslang wrote:
Linki @Rico: What makes you say that? There have certainly been indie roles in the games from which this one is drawing.
I wouldn't want any win-grab or special-powered mofo indy to win either. But right now I'm focused on rooting for the baddies.
You're going to follow Wilgy who is following me who is following J3 with your vote, more specifically.Gonna follow MM and Wilgy with their votes.
Ah ok... Thanks for clearing that up!Black Rock wrote:No, not a curse, Rico told me not to call his contributions crap. So I did, I didn't want him to miss it.Sorsha wrote:BR was also underlining the word "crap" when she used it in her posts today also.. Another curse?a2thezebra wrote:I'm fairly certain there are two curse roles, even if Draconus and/or JJJ is faking their curse.
I looked at the night 0 poll to see if they all voted the same and they did, but I also voted the same option as they did and I'm not cursed so
@Matt- that was the same thing I noticed about MM but I'm not convinced that assuming there is more than one baddie team in a 30 player game is enough to convince me he's guilty.
I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.
LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*
But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.
The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying.MacDougall wrote:You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.Boomslang wrote:Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So aRicochet wrote:inb4 "not worth reading"nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy
Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.
...yeah, you'll hate me
Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.
So you'd prefer every off-wagon voter to, whether directly asked or not, give information about which of the main wagons they'd rather see succeed? The issue I have with that is that you're forcing opinions from people. If a player is indecisive or split on the main wagons then pulling an opinion from them will inevitably cause a contradiction. When that player happens to be scum all is right in the world, however if that player is a townie then it creates a rabbit hole out of a mole hill, so to speak.Golden wrote:The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.
That is not even close to what I said, inferred, intended, or any other possible conclusion you could realistically have drawn from what I said. Please don't put things that aren't even close to what I said in quotation marks and try to pass them off as my thoughts.Boomslang wrote:The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying.MacDougall wrote:You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.Boomslang wrote:Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So aRicochet wrote:inb4 "not worth reading"nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy
Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.
...yeah, you'll hate me
Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.
Do you even read your own posts? This is just pure "he's bad because I feel like it, it doesn't matter what he says." You'll also notice I didn't compliment his content, I said it was at least on topic.
The two of you repeatedly said "2 major wagons" which indicates to me that you are overlooking the case on Llama being as strong and as supported as it is. That's worth mentioning.RadicalFuzz wrote:So you'd prefer every off-wagon voter to, whether directly asked or not, give information about which of the main wagons they'd rather see succeed? The issue I have with that is that you're forcing opinions from people. If a player is indecisive or split on the main wagons then pulling an opinion from them will inevitably cause a contradiction. When that player happens to be scum all is right in the world, however if that player is a townie then it creates a rabbit hole out of a mole hill, so to speak.Golden wrote:The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.
Mac the number of main wagons is irrelevant in this discussion, as far as I can tell. If there are 5 wagons with the same number of votes then the conversation would be the same.
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:33 pm Just how many days of "let's yeet them tomorrow" can a mafioso survive?
The answer: all of them, if you are a marmot.
Ricochet wrote:Christ, I can't even go to sleep already and this is how I'm treated.
Stop being rued and lynch the baddies I caught. Even a semblance of hunting them down.
Fiddler on the Roof
