Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Marmot]

I'm gonna go take a bath. Need to look my very best for my date with Death.

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll be spotty on and off probably up to the deadline, just replying as I go.

So you seem to be hesitant to vote for Rico because of the great uncertainty that surrounds them. I can understand that.

What I can't understand is how you would interpret some of his ideas such as me and b24 being teammates by posting near each other as a genuine case. Am I misreading here? You really think that it's possible that Rico has been genuine with all of their opinions and volume so far and that they're just having an off day regarding winning others over with their logic? Tell me I'm misreading that you're really suggesting that.

linki - You lost me.

Not just an off day, I was saying that even being deliberately misleading can have its purposes as long as it isn't done for too long. I agree that the bcornett/zebra connection is weak and disagree with his case; I don't agree that it makes him bad. A lot of people commented that this game's day 0 had a lot more activity than usual, and that was largely thanks to him (and you, and Mac). His vote is still on himself so it looks like he's given up, so at the same time I can't give him credit for going after real cases anymore, but at least he seemed to be trying different stuff.

I don't care that he's not winning people over; a lot of people just seem bothered that he's not playing up to par and/or is being a distraction.

[Black Rock]

Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.

She is building the case herself. As far as I'm concerned she is making excuses and avoiding answering anyone's questions or concerns. That sounds like baddie LoRab to me.

Although I enjoyed your twirlaholic funs, LoRab. I'm not impressed that you didn't address anything last night. It's been a long time since I have had such strong baddie vibes from you.

[Black Rock]

Now I see you have posted. I have run out of time to give your posts my full attention. When I get home I will read them all.

[LoRab]

Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.

She is building the case herself. As far as I'm concerned she is making excuses and avoiding answering anyone's questions or concerns. That sounds like baddie LoRab to me.

Although I enjoyed your twirlaholic funs, LoRab. I'm not impressed that you didn't address anything last night. It's been a long time since I have had such strong baddie vibes from you.

I fell asleep last night. Did I miss questions in my post a little while ago? What haven't I addressed? Seriously, please let me know so I can answer. I answered the posts I saw that had specific things to say about me. I didn't see any other posts that raised anything else. What else can I address?

Your vibes about me are wrong.

linkitis: Fair enough. I was a bit confused that you said I didn't answer anything.

[HamburgerBoy]

Going to break this one up quickly...

Unfathomable as a civilian. Fathomable as indy. Fathomable as scum.

What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

What does this have to do with searching MY post history?

I was searching your history just for posts containing the term 'Rico' to get a better grasp on your case against him. Didn't mean to give an impression that I gave your entire history a thorough ISO.

Is this you setting up the end point of your post? I'm unclear, but are you saying that 'if rico flips scum, golden is his teammate'? Because thats how this post is reading to me.

Feel free to interpret it this way; for a lynch like this, I'm not going to award many townie points simply for having the right vote. That you were the very first person means you'll still get some points, but since nearly everyone at least acknowledges that he is playing weird this game, and has been since before day 1, it gives scum plenty of incentive to bus early.

I gave Fuzz four numbered reasons why I specifically found him so townie, so this is blatantly incorrect and demonstrates that you haven't read my iso very carefully at all.

Just checked through your post history again quickly and saw that you quoted the reasons; I'll have to give everything a much more thorough re-read later, but right now it looks like I was mistaken regarding you and Fuzz.

I'll continue later.

[sig]

Sorry lower activity I was quite busy. The game is moving really fast and even reading it I'm a little lost.

Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it. Depends on how unwaveringly honest you think Mac is intent on being. The implication here is that he didn't want to lie about his baddieness, he preferred to flaunt it instead? "Mwa ha ha, you will NEVER find the evidence you need to defeat Me! Foolish Civ!"

Is this like A Few Good Men, where Col. Jessup wanted to claim proud responsibility for the Code Red?

Like when you attacked sig for his use of the word "interesting", among other things, this feels to me like you are opportunistically jumping on things to cast suspicion on people... as opposed to stating a genuine suspicion. Like a predator that senses weakness.

This is familiar to what happened to me in World Reborn.

Right know I don't have many reads however, I'm leaning civ on Zebra and LC.
I'm unsure of Rico but would rather not have him lynched today.

My preferred lynch for today would be Llama.
I've got a slightly off gut read of Dom and DH, but nothing beyond a gut read at this time.
Know for Night 0 JJJ was talking about not caring as much. Is this a genuine thing, or a strategy he is using for whatever reason?

[HamburgerBoy]

sig, let's eat llama today.

[Ricochet]

I will not be voting for llama, even if I have to pay with my life. He is my friend.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I will not be voting for llama, even if I have to pay with my life. He is my friend.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I will not be voting for llama, even if I have to pay with my life. He is my friend.

[Draconus]

I will not be voting for llama, even if I have to pay with my life. He is my friend.

Have you had successful reads on llama before?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Have you had successful reads on llama before?

[HamburgerBoy]

Why did you call me out for apparently 'not answering a question', while not answering the question I asked you? What is your civ motivation for rico's behaviour?

Because I felt it was a loaded question; I'd have to find Rico's behavior disagreeable to begin with to answer it, beyond what I already told Zebra regarding day 0/1 content being a good thing in general. I'm not that familiar with Rico and he was one of the people I most most ambiguous on during Talking Heads, especially early game.

Where is your mindset, in which you defend rico over several posts, but also appear to set me up in this post as his teammate bussing him?

Everything HBoy has said regarding Rico is leading me to believe he's desperately trying to save his teammate.

Am I really defending him so strongly? The lynch looks like it was already set before I even started playing. My first post in the game was just to say that the Mac/Zebra/Ricochet lovefest looked meaningless to me. I don't think he looks better than those other two, nor do I think he looks worse. After that, I just asked for a reference to Rico's scum game because I admitted I wasn't convinced like others, and realize that my ignorance of his playstyle (in contrast to Mac and Zebra both of whom I know from RYM) may be a contributing factor.

Also, golden, one of your points involving Fuzz and his towniness...

3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.

What do I have to gain by defending Rico?

[Ricochet]

I will not be voting for llama, even if I have to pay with my life. He is my friend.

Sorry, I don't have a golden decoder.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Sorry, I don't have a golden decoder.

[Ricochet]

Sorry, I don't have a golden decoder.

Why llama disappoints mafia?

How am I doing?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Why llama

disappoints

mafia?

[Sorsha]

I read your response LoRab (not quoting because it is so huge) you always have a way of making things seem so rational and I usually can be swayed to see things how you see them. I'm going to stick with my gut for today though and vote for you.

I've not had enough time (and won't before poll closes) to catch up over the past few pages but I'll be able to over the weekend and hopefully have some stronger suspicions then.

votes LoRab

[HamburgerBoy]

HBB's statements about non wagon votes was pingy.

I'd like your elaboration on this. I definitely remember spectating during the Talking Heads, seeing one of your large analyses on bandwagon jumping and assigning various values to determine who looked best and worst, thinking at first "Wow I love that post", then moving to "Wait a sec, I disagree with his logic here on at least one major point". I forgot what that point was (iirc it had to do with early voters rather than tie-breakers), and in any case I had you as a town read that game up until Mac told us his teammates, but I'd love for you to to tell me specifically why you don't agree.

[Ricochet]

I prefer Lorab to llama.

[Draconus]

Why llama

disappoints

mafia?

Did I not already decode this for him with my previous question?

[Ricochet]

Why llama

disappoints

mafia?

Did I not already decode this for him with my previous question?

Did you?

[Draconus]

Why llama

disappoints

mafia?

Did I not already decode this for him with my previous question?

Did you?

Did I?

[Draconus]

Are we there yet?

[Golden]

I'm still not caught up, because this thread is longer than a Tolstoy novel, but this caught my attention.

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.

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.

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.

I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The point of Mafia, if one is civ, is to find and vote for baddies. If you have reason to believe another player is bad, you should vote for them, and owe nothing to the bandwagons, as if you need approval from the majority opinion to dissent. If you don't think a wagon is legitimate, that should be enough. I really don't like Mafia tactics which try to force anything out of players, then insisting that they are suspicious if they don't comply with these arbitrary commands from other players. It comes across as demanding and trying to force other players to fit a particular paradigm, and as a libertarian, I'm against that.

Having said that, I agree with DH that Rico's behavior is not helpful to the civ cause at all, so he is most likely bad or un-civvie-friendly Indy.

I don't think explaining why you voted in a way that you know will make no impact is either 'an arbitrary command' or particularly demanding.

I find people who choose to vote off-wagon inherently suspicious if they don't provide a good explanation for doing so, and yes if they don't give that reason I may find them suspicious and ask them what their reasons were. If they choose not to answer my question thats up to them, but it isn't going to make me feel good about them.

[Golden]

What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

[Golden]

Feel free to interpret it this way; for a lynch like this, I'm not going to award many townie points simply for having the right vote. That you were the very first person means you'll still get some points, but since nearly everyone at least acknowledges that he is playing weird this game, and has been since before day 1, it gives scum plenty of incentive to bus early.

In a closed set up, where we don't even know how many baddie teams there are, I'm not going to go giving townie points for who people lynch, at least in the early running. I think it is a sensible approach not to give townie points if rico comes back bad. Someone/more than one someone bussing him is entirely likely in that scenario.

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll just say that based on A World Reborn, I'm not seeing a different LoRab this game. Her argument with Rico seems reasonable and in line with what I've seen from others, even though I disagree (regarding rainbows and coin flips and other silliness). Epi went hard after her and started that wagon from what I can tell, but it's really based on LoRab having a safer/waffley tone. I'm ambivalent on that case. I also don't like Sorsha's post against LoRab, basically saying LoRab made a confusing post and that LoRab is usually clear. The subject matter (day 0/the poll/old roles) seemed inherently a little confusing and I don't see Sorsha's attack there as reasonable, and that pings me a bit more because during Talking Heads, Sorsha was one of the players I found myself agreeing with more strongly. During A World Reborn, Sorsha also used Matt's predilection towards wild/confusing theories against him; different target, different case, but together I think Sorsha doesn't look good.

I'll read more on LoRab in a bit, but not really liking that as an alternative to Rico.

[Ricochet]

What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.

[Golden]

3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.

What do I have to gain by defending Rico?

Well, thats exactly why I said I was torn and that this was a point in your favour.

I think that, particularly when you posted, there was (and perhaps still is) no certainty of rico's lynch. In addition, it's possible rico won't actually be lynched at all, or there is low risk to you for other reasons (for example, Rico or a teammate is Trickster from World Reborn). So I don't think defending Rico necessarily absolves you, but I also think there is an extent to which it is genuine.

Honestly, if you hadn't made that one sentence where you said, basically, 'you could see him as bad if he was being bussed', I would probably read the whole thing as civ. It's just that feels like a sort of opportunistic wishy-washiness and that bothers me, and it's probably the only bit of the stuff you said that really bothers me.

[DharmaHelper]

Quite a lot to do today and I've not read up to current goings on but I'll pop in later.

[Golden]

In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.

In Recruitment I was a neutral who pulled off a gambit to get Epi dead solely because he was trying to get me lynched, in a game where I had no idea what team I could end up on. Why does this help me see your behaviour from a civ perspective?

You've been completely unwilling to actually engage people on the purpose of your behaviour, or to provide any civ angles for it. Having 'full confidence' that you had exposed four baddies on night zero is, frankly, one of two things: Nonsense, or self-deception. Coming from you I have to assume the former.

Your entire game has been nonsense. I'm waiting for you to come to the party (with posts like this one 'in all seriousness...' about time, rico, about time! Now why don't you continue posting in all seriousness, and there might be just a possibility that you might avoid the lynch. Or is avoiding the lynch what you are trying to avoid?

[Long Con]

I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

[Ricochet]

In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.

In Recruitment I was a neutral who pulled off a gambit to get Epi dead solely because he was trying to get me lynched, in a game where I had no idea what team I could end up on. Why does this help me see your behaviour from a civ perspective?

You've been completely unwilling to actually engage people on the purpose of your behaviour, or to provide any civ angles for it. Having 'full confidence' that you had exposed four baddies on night zero is, frankly, one of two things: Nonsense, or self-deception. Coming from you I have to assume the former.

Your entire game has been nonsense. I'm waiting for you to come to the party (with posts like this one 'in all seriousness...' about time, rico, about time! Now why don't you continue posting in all seriousness, and there might be just a possibility that you might avoid the lynch. Or is avoiding the lynch what you are trying to avoid?

My civ perspective is having caught the baddies.

I've been serious all my game, it was 29 plaayers who didn't treat me seriously once.

[Ricochet]

I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

[sig]

I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

If you really want to save yourself I'd switch and hope two others join to tie it.

I don't see the Lorab wagon at all I'd suggest the people on it switch to llama

@HB I would eat Llama, but I think it would give me indigestion

[a2thezebra]

I find both the LoRab AND the llama wagons fishy as fuck.

[sig]

I find both the LoRab AND the llama wagons fishy as fuck.

Why?

[Ricochet]

I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

If you really want to save yourself I'd switch and hope two others join to tie it.

I don't see the Lorab wagon at all I'd suggest the people on it switch to llama

@HB I would eat Llama, but I think it would give me indigestion

How many times must I say I won't be voting my friend? What's the case on him? Highly doubtful, I presume.

Hmmmmm\mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[a2thezebra]

I find both the LoRab AND the llama wagons fishy as fuck.

Why?

Because Ricochet isn't dead yet.

[thellama73]

I will not be voting for llama, even if I have to pay with my life. He is my friend.

Right back at ya, buddy!

(Although I'm starting to fear a lynch switch given that I'm in second place.)

[DharmaHelper]

Ay wait why is llama getting votes lmao

[thellama73]

Sorry, I don't have a golden decoder.

Why llama disappoints mafia?

How am I doing?

Llama Disappoints Mafia - also known as Minimalism Mafia.

[Draconus]

Is he not the supatown?

[Ricochet]

Ay wait why is llama getting votes lmao

He's tasty to some, apparently

[thellama73]

I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

If you really want to save yourself I'd switch and hope two others join to tie it.

I don't see the Lorab wagon at all I'd suggest the people on it switch to llama

@HB I would eat Llama, but I think it would give me indigestion

Why do you suspect me apart from that I suspect you, Sig? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

[sig]

Well he is voting for me isn't that enough?

Yeah, I'm voting for Sig after that crazy misrepresentation of my point.

I don't particularly want to see Ricochet lynched, but I guess it will at least make reading the thread easier.

I don't like his reasoning for voting for me, especially since it seems like he agrees with me here.

Stop with the vocaroo. This is not a vocaroo Mafia.

This. Some of us are in places where we can't play sound, and it's not fair to hide your content from us in that way. Very suspish.

Yet he doesn't mention my post about vocaroo, only my fluffy post. This is suspicious.

He mentions Mac once as suspicious yet hasn't mentioned it again and has said a few times he doesn't think Rico is mafia yet hasn't tried to defend him or switch his vote to himself to try and save Rico

These are all small reasons, but those along with my gut read makes me think he would be a better day 1 lynch then Rico.


linki: I'm pretty sure I mentioned being suspicious of you before, but maybe I didn't.

What are your current thoughts on Mac?

[a2thezebra]

Well he is voting for me isn't that enough?

No actually, it's not.