Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Ok Jimmy, thanks, I think both sides of this are out there in enough detail to let others make their own judgements. What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Linki: I'd also like to say that my read of you is meta-independent. I think you have a few players who can only read you through the lens of your past games and expected behaviour, but I haven't played enough with you to have that baggage on my mind.

Your vote is yours to place, obviously. I think this is a very high standard to set for someone though. "I need to be 'convinced that it couldn't be' the way I interpreted it". Nothing I can say will ever meet that requirement, it's impossible.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Dom, I said I don't use appeal to emotion to progress a baddie strategy, not that I never express emotion in any game.

[Turnip Head]

HB, you felt that sig might have stopped a kill on night one, and said something about evidence pointing that way. Can you be more specific about what you were referring to?

It was Turnip's "At least there was only one death!" shortly followed by DFaraday's death, which seemed like a nod that the latter was for some unrelated reason. Additionally, if there's only one mafia team, it would imply that the intended mafia kill was blocked unless Zebra was forced to shoot herself or something like that.

Oh, I just took that as evil host being evil because he knew DFs death was about to be posted by SVS.

I am not evil this game. I am 100% civ, more or less.

[Draconus]

RIP everyone At least we have the silver lining of 2 lynches in a row.

[Dom]

Dom, I said I don't use appeal to emotion to progress a baddie strategy, not that I never express emotion in any game.

This is so subjective it hurts.

It also seemed like a shot at Bea, tbh.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

This is so subjective it hurts.

To people who are not me, sure. I don't fault anyone who doesn't believe me at face value. We're playing Mafia, people lie in Mafia. I'm not lying about this, but whatever this is the game we play.

Don't misrepresent me though.

It also seemed like a shot at Bea, tbh.

I wouldn't dream of that! I love bea, she's probably the kindest person I've seen on the whole Internet (and I do hope she is able to get through her difficulties in short order). I have no intention of taking a shot at anyone, y'all are super cool kats.

[thellama73]

It also seemed like a shot at Bea, tbh.

I wouldn't dream of that! I love bea, she's probably the kindest person I've seen on the whole Internet (and I do hope she is able to get through her difficulties in short order). I have no intention of taking a shot at anyone, y'all are super cool kats.

What, kinder than me?

[DharmaHelper]

OK now that I'm not tired out of my mind and watching 3 different things at once lets get cracking on what happened last night, shall we?

[Draconus]

I see a pile up starting on 3J. Is it really just his post count in question? I'm sure there's more to it, but I have a lot to catch up on.

[DharmaHelper]

What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.

Even her very first post regarding LoRab is actually one of suspicion built on agreeing with Rico's case on her, and as you have said yourself, Rico was spewing bullshit. BR's next post was basically (if indirectly) agreeing with your case on LoRab. She then said a couple things about wanting to see LoRab address points to her, and then ignored that LoRab actually did later. After that, she then proceeded to agree with Sorsha's post against LoRab. Sorry, not a one-two punch to me, it looks like for the better part of day 1, her only concern was agreeing with people that found LoRab suspicious.

In fact, in light of the Rico-LoRab thing I had overlooked before, what do you think of the possibility that Black Rock was bussing? I don't find BR's case on LoRab to be coming from anywhere genuine.

This ain't the first time ol' HB took up the fight for the Not Too Shabbi Rabbi. Is that offensive to say? LoRab. I'm referring to LoRab. Whom I adore.

For my part, I'm not sold on a case that in the course of Night 0 to Day 3 has not evolved past "I got the heebies"

[Boomslang]

What does me being a big advocate of the sig train have to do with anything?

Do you feel like you shouldn't have to explain your advocacy, especially as one of the earliest votes, for a train that turned out to be incorrect?

[DharmaHelper]

Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.

Still catching up on last night, but I got to this post and felt the need to address it, because it set off several red flags.

1. Refusing to engage the person you suspect in discourse regarding those suspicions is pingy as Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. The reasoning you give here also doesn't make sense to me. You say her response was measured and careful in order to debunk the theory that she was being too measured and careful? Dunno, that doesn't click with me. I'm wary in general of anyone who outright refuses to back up their suspicions of someone. That tells me you know you're standing on thin ice and would rather ignore the person you suspect (in this case LoRab), than have your suspicion debunked. If a suspicion cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is either false in nature or faulty in nature.

2. This is fear mongering to me. You're not arguing the facts of the case, you're propping LoRab up as this "big scary boogie woman" as justification for why you refused to engage. Using a player's skill at the game as a reason to A) Want to lynch them and B) Ignore the holes in your suspicion does not sit well with me.


3. Explicit WIFOM. And especially faulty WIFOM as well.

4. I find this particularly amusing. There won't ever be a good case to build on LoRab ever in the whole game? That's just patently false. Anyone can build a "good case" on anyone given enough time and content and effort. But you don't want to put that effort forward because why? Because you know that if you do, your "gut read" starts to turn into something entirely different?

Looking at this post, I'm seeing a majority of emotional appeals rather than factual statements and evidence. That tells me that you have no evidence, and indeed no desire to acquire any such evidence. It comes down to you just wanting to lynch LoRab because she's a "good player", which is a motivation I'd associate with baddies.

[DharmaHelper]

BR I don't remember you being so committed in the previous games we played together. You on holidays or something?

I've been busy since June, January - April are my quiet months. I've been a pretty crappy player as of late. I joined this game promising myself I would get back to the true Mafia BR! At least for a game. There is folklore that surrounds that Black Rock that I feel I haven't been living up to. I once was so committed to Mafia that I even voted while in labour for my second born child?

Linki: ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Kid wasn't even out of the womb yet and you voted to lynch him/her? Brutal.

[DharmaHelper]

Here's why I suspect JJJ. He first became my suspect when Zebra was revealed as the curser. The theory is that Jimmy's belief that Llama was the one who cursed him was fake. JJJ is an experienced player, and I don't think an experienced player would jump to the conclusion that the person who he had some suspicion about would be his curser, with any certainty. JJJ's Smiley posts condemned Llama and might have gotten him lynched if not for Rico's shenanigans. No waiting to have a discourse, not consideration that it was a frame, just right to the idea that Llama cursed him, and here's why.

The way that JJJ dealt with it, coupled with the way that Zebra interacted with the idea, leads me to the belief that it was a plan. To put it another way - starting on a little thought journey into the baddie BTSC, discussing how to take advantage of a cursing role beyond the meagre reward of messing with someone... what I saw with the two of them looks a lot like a plan.

Going from this post:

Spoiler: show

JJJ, like HamburgerBoy already pointed out, despite the fact that you couldn't talk, you managed to easily convey that you believed Llama cursed you, and why you believed he cursed you. Saying "I couldn't bloody talk" is disingenuous.

The fact that Zebra didn't agree with you and pursue Llama as a suspect makes complete sense as a baddie teammate. If Llama is going to flip Civ, then it looks good on her that she wasn't after him with you.

Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words.

How can you say there's no value in it, when Llama was on par with Lorab as the top lynch candidate, without Rico in the equation?

Now you have torn your shirt open and gone to super-civ mode with your very helpful breakdown of zebra's interactions... after you have been accused. That looks like scrambling to me.

Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words.

This isn't the only time he has defended against my theory with the notion that being unable to clearly communicate for one phase makes the framing plan valueless. That makes no sense, and here's why I say that: First, JJJ quite capably made the case in Smiley talk that he thought Llama cursed him and wished to lynch him for it. Second, JJJ gets to talk after the curse is over, and so would have plenty of time to make the case later on, so "can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words" is not realistic. Zebra's unexpected death and reveal changed the plan irrevocably, does anyone believe that Jimmy would not have continued hunting for Llama's blood based on the idea Llama cursed him?

Here's another thing, read this one and then consider:

Spoiler: show

I did not suggest llama definitely cursed me or imply I was convinced of that. I said something completely different from that. I literally said "I don't know". The difference is not at all negligible.

But what you said was this:

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

Unless I'm reading it differently than you intended it, that's saying "I don't know if Llama did this or if one of his teammates did it".

The difference is negligible, because they both mean "Llama is a baddie on the cursing team".

You are. The word "maybe" should not be glossed over. It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad (this is me speaking within the perspective that "town" isn't a "team" in the same manner as a mafia team). I was clearly suspicious of llama and I said so both in text and in emojis. I thought there was a decent enough likelihood that either he cursed me or a mafia team mate of his cursed me.

I was not certain that's what happened. I'm not certain of anything at all.

Here's the actual quote by Jimmy. Does it read like he's proposing two different possibilities? One, where Llama is bad, and the other, where Llama is Civ?

Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.

Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.

That line in pink is what he claims meant "It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad". The claims are quite obviously false when you read the post. Note who is asking him as well.

Another vaguer ping: After he got accused of this, he began an impressive, 'really-Civvish' ISO of Zebra. It was very helpful, and I believe several people thanked him for it. It's just the kind of thing that's easy to look at and say "this is good, solid contribution, very helpful to the Civs." What I see is one trick in the bag of tricks that an experienced player like JJJ knows will buy some cred.

I think that's pretty much it. Maybe a few gut feelings to shore it up. That's my JJJ case.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Llama, what is your read on me?

[Golden]

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

Besides that, the case is a crock.

Long Con's case is around JJ's thing about llama. But JJ clarified that as soon as he was out of cursing, and what more was he supposed to do beyond the simplistic while cursed? In addition, the theory was good - he theorised llama didn't respond to his case effectively because he knew Jay would be cursed and so it wasn't an urgent priority. As far as day one theories go, it's as good as any.

JJ has claimed he won't be able to post as much (and he isn't posting as much) but the truth is that he has still contributed and the posts have had content.

I will use my vote to save JJ if I have to.

This is the line I like the least:

What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Like... I'm not convinced my theory is impossible, therefore I still think you are bad.

????

My strong preference is a lynch for Long Con, who I think has been pingworthy in just about everything he has done the entire game.

[Matt]

Mac, no, I'm not trying to create conflict. I have reason to believe Epig is a big bad and I wanted your thoughts on him. Which I'm not sure I even got, you pretty much just kept turning it back on me, I see. Just to be clear, though, you no longer suspect Lorab?

Llama - Thanks.

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

DH - If you think Black Rock is fibbing about Lorab, does that mean you also think Epig and others are BSing their cases on Lorab? Or is it just BR?

[Golden]

Actually, my ping on dom is a lot higher than that now. I just reread his interaction with JJJ and it is bad. Really bad. The guilt trips like 'that seems like a shot at bea' and criticising JJJ for doing what he has to to explain the difference in his post count. Ugh. It feels like a trap he is putting JJJ into.

[DharmaHelper]

Mac, no, I'm not trying to create conflict. I have reason to believe Epig is a big bad and I wanted your thoughts on him. Which I'm not sure I even got, you pretty much just kept turning it back on me, I see. Just to be clear, though, you no longer suspect Lorab?

Llama - Thanks.

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

DH - If you think Black Rock is fibbing about Lorab, does that mean you also think Epig and others are BSing their cases on Lorab? Or is it just BR?

How would that make sense? Black Rock's suspicion of LoRab to me looks disingenuous, but that has no bearing one way or the other on Epi or anyone else. My comment on Epi's side of things was that I don't hold much stock in a case that hasn't evolved in 3+ days of discussion beyond what I don't see as a smoking gun. I don't recall "anyone else" having thoughts drastically different from Epi or BR in the case of LoRab.

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

If you think he's bad then say so and explain why. You're not preventing "another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason", you're withholding a perspective you claim to have for no good reason.

[DharmaHelper]

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

If you think he's bad then say so and explain why. You're not preventing "another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason", you're withholding a perspective you claim to have for no good reason.

I never said I think he's bad.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Actually, my ping on dom is a lot higher than that now. I just reread his interaction with JJJ and it is bad. Really bad. The guilt trips like 'that seems like a shot at bea' and criticising JJJ for doing what he has to to explain the difference in his post count. Ugh. It feels like a trap he is putting JJJ into.

I honestly read Dom in the town direction because of that. I don't know him as well as you do perhaps, but I don't know if he's the kind of person that'd go below the belt like that just to help get me lynched. I get the impression he really felt the way he claimed he felt.

I agree with you about LC and llama though. I agree with FZ about DH.

[Matt]

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

So you do think there are problems with Epi's play. But based on the underline, you think it's irrelevant to his affiliation, therefore "for no good reason" ?

Linki - Lol I think 3J is as confuzzled as I was by your statement, DH.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

If you think he's bad then say so and explain why. You're not preventing "another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason", you're withholding a perspective you claim to have for no good reason.

I never said I think he's bad.

If you don't think he's bad, then what is the purpose of insinuating you "see problems with his play"? That can do nothing but discredit him.

[Matt]

Got the whole day off, btw peeps, but I have to run some errands. Will be back in a few.

[Ricochet]

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

In defense of actual logic, how am I immune from being called out for word-twisting, simply because I am confirmed Papryco? Not that I consider doing any word-twisting of what FZ originally posted, but still, such accusations are usually part of basic argumentation, if felt necessary. Curious eyeballin' you did here, tbh.

[Golden]

Actually, my ping on dom is a lot higher than that now. I just reread his interaction with JJJ and it is bad. Really bad. The guilt trips like 'that seems like a shot at bea' and criticising JJJ for doing what he has to to explain the difference in his post count. Ugh. It feels like a trap he is putting JJJ into.

I honestly read Dom in the town direction because of that. I don't know him as well as you do perhaps, but I don't know if he's the kind of person that'd go below the belt like that just to help get me lynched. I get the impression he really felt the way he claimed he felt.

I agree with you about LC and llama though. I agree with FZ about DH.

I don't read dom well at all. He fits in that category (like juliets) of people that knowing them for a long time and playing with them a lot hasn't made me read them any better.

[DharmaHelper]

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

If you think he's bad then say so and explain why. You're not preventing "another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason", you're withholding a perspective you claim to have for no good reason.

I never said I think he's bad.

If you don't think he's bad, then what is the purpose of insinuating you "see problems with his play"? That can do nothing but discredit him.

JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?

[Golden]

Dom is always expressive of his emotions, civ or bad, and the bea thing could easily be genuine. That aspect was not really what pinged me about dom when I first read that exchange (it was previous content). The second read through that exchange something about it felt off. Can't put my finger on exactly what, though.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?

Disagreeing with his LoRab read is not an issue. Disagreement in general is not an issue.

You said you have numerous problems with his play, or at least multiple problems. You crapped in Epi's Corn Flakes. What purpose does that serve?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Dom is always expressive of his emotions, civ or bad, and the bea thing could easily be genuine. That aspect was not really what pinged me about dom when I first read that exchange (it was previous content). The second read through that exchange something about it felt off. Can't put my finger on exactly what, though.

I'd welcome others who know Dom better than I to share their perspectives on this, because I don't feel qualified to make any assertion with conviction. I have seen him as an emotionally expressive player from Recruitment when we were co-civs, but I don't have much else to work with.

[DharmaHelper]

JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?

Disagreeing with his LoRab read is not an issue. Disagreement in general is not an issue.

You said you have numerous problems with his play, or at least multiple problems. You crapped in Epi's Corn Flakes. What purpose does that serve?

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?

Disagreeing with his LoRab read is not an issue. Disagreement in general is not an issue.

You said you have numerous problems with his play, or at least multiple problems. You crapped in Epi's Corn Flakes. What purpose does that serve?

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

What were you saying?

[FZ.]

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

Besides that, the case is a crock.

Long Con's case is around JJ's thing about llama. But JJ clarified that as soon as he was out of cursing, and what more was he supposed to do beyond the simplistic while cursed? In addition, the theory was good - he theorised llama didn't respond to his case effectively because he knew Jay would be cursed and so it wasn't an urgent priority. As far as day one theories go, it's as good as any.

JJ has claimed he won't be able to post as much (and he isn't posting as much) but the truth is that he has still contributed and the posts have had content.

I will use my vote to save JJ if I have to.

This is the line I like the least:

What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Like... I'm not convinced my theory is impossible, therefore I still think you are bad.

????

My strong preference is a lynch for Long Con, who I think has been pingworthy in just about everything he has done the entire game.

I think I feel similar to you on this. The more he talks, the more genuine he comes off to me. I don't know yet what I feel of the others pushing for him, but I don't see him as bad yet. I'll be honest and say I didn't read LC's case, because it was just too damn long. I just read the person and decide what I feel. I don't feel he's that bad as everyone is painting him. I'm not sure he's a civ, but am at a 60-40 for a civ vs. mafia on him.


And can someone please tell me what they think of DH? His posts make me so uneasy. I'll go and quote the last one that pinged me now.

[DharmaHelper]

JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?

Disagreeing with his LoRab read is not an issue. Disagreement in general is not an issue.

You said you have numerous problems with his play, or at least multiple problems. You crapped in Epi's Corn Flakes. What purpose does that serve?

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

What were you saying?

Epi and I have two distinct, different styles of playing. What he finds suspicious and what I find suspicious differ in almost every game we play. I also clash frequently with his methods of going after his suspects. I don't want to get into another pitfall of me and Epi talking through each other for 50 pages.

Matt asked me what my thoughts were regarding Epi and the other, non-BR people who suspect LoRab. I gave him an answer and added that, while I disagree with how Epi is handling the case, I'd rather not get bogged into exactly what you're bogging me down into. :P

[DharmaHelper]

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

Besides that, the case is a crock.

Long Con's case is around JJ's thing about llama. But JJ clarified that as soon as he was out of cursing, and what more was he supposed to do beyond the simplistic while cursed? In addition, the theory was good - he theorised llama didn't respond to his case effectively because he knew Jay would be cursed and so it wasn't an urgent priority. As far as day one theories go, it's as good as any.

JJ has claimed he won't be able to post as much (and he isn't posting as much) but the truth is that he has still contributed and the posts have had content.

I will use my vote to save JJ if I have to.

This is the line I like the least:

What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Like... I'm not convinced my theory is impossible, therefore I still think you are bad.

????

My strong preference is a lynch for Long Con, who I think has been pingworthy in just about everything he has done the entire game.

I think I feel similar to you on this. The more he talks, the more genuine he comes off to me. I don't know yet what I feel of the others pushing for him, but I don't see him as bad yet. I'll be honest and say I didn't read LC's case, because it was just too damn long. I just read the person and decide what I feel. I don't feel he's that bad as everyone is painting him. I'm not sure he's a civ, but am at a 60-40 for a civ vs. mafia on him.


And can someone please tell me what they think of DH? His posts make me so uneasy. I'll go and quote the last one that pinged me now.

I'd urge you to at least read the post LC made on JJJ before you come to any conclusions. He made some really good points.

[Ricochet]

Epi and I have two distinct, different styles of playing. What he finds suspicious and what I find suspicious differ in almost every game we play. I also clash frequently with his methods of going after his suspects. I don't want to get into another pitfall of me and Epi talking through each other for 50 pages.

You should still do it at least once per year.

[DharmaHelper]

Epi and I have two distinct, different styles of playing. What he finds suspicious and what I find suspicious differ in almost every game we play. I also clash frequently with his methods of going after his suspects. I don't want to get into another pitfall of me and Epi talking through each other for 50 pages.

You should still do it at least once per year.

It's played out. And more often than not just leads us both in a circle with adverse effects on everyone else

[FZ.]

Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.

Still catching up on last night, but I got to this post and felt the need to address it, because it set off several red flags.

1. Refusing to engage the person you suspect in discourse regarding those suspicions is pingy as Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. The reasoning you give here also doesn't make sense to me. You say her response was measured and careful in order to debunk the theory that she was being too measured and careful? Dunno, that doesn't click with me. I'm wary in general of anyone who outright refuses to back up their suspicions of someone. That tells me you know you're standing on thin ice and would rather ignore the person you suspect (in this case LoRab), than have your suspicion debunked. If a suspicion cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is either false in nature or faulty in nature.

2. This is fear mongering to me. You're not arguing the facts of the case, you're propping LoRab up as this "big scary boogie woman" as justification for why you refused to engage. Using a player's skill at the game as a reason to A) Want to lynch them and B) Ignore the holes in your suspicion does not sit well with me.


3. Explicit WIFOM. And especially faulty WIFOM as well.

4. I find this particularly amusing. There won't ever be a good case to build on LoRab ever in the whole game? That's just patently false. Anyone can build a "good case" on anyone given enough time and content and effort. But you don't want to put that effort forward because why? Because you know that if you do, your "gut read" starts to turn into something entirely different?

Looking at this post, I'm seeing a majority of emotional appeals rather than factual statements and evidence. That tells me that you have no evidence, and indeed no desire to acquire any such evidence. It comes down to you just wanting to lynch LoRab because she's a "good player", which is a motivation I'd associate with baddies.

This. DH's colour posts really bug me. Not because of the colouring. Because I find myself thinking his attempts feel blown up to seem like he's so engaged in scum hunting. And I find myself disagreeing with his reasons for suspecting people. For example, if someone can't back up their suspicion with a great "case" like people expect, it doesn't make them bad. If anything, when I'm bad, I try to really back up my suspicions as much as I can. Just like he's doing here. It's so easy to find these easy reasons to suspect people. By easy I mean, not doing what is expected by the book (like backing up suspicion).

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Quick question for anyone who cares to answer:

What Syndicate game comes to mind first when you think "civilian llama"? I'll use this information to check some gut suspicions of mine against meta.

[FZ.]

Mac, no, I'm not trying to create conflict. I have reason to believe Epig is a big bad and I wanted your thoughts on him. Which I'm not sure I even got, you pretty much just kept turning it back on me, I see. Just to be clear, though, you no longer suspect Lorab?

Llama - Thanks.

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

DH - If you think Black Rock is fibbing about Lorab, does that mean you also think Epig and others are BSing their cases on Lorab? Or is it just BR?

LOL, seriously? Can't someone just twist someone's words without being bad? I didn't think he was bad. I said he twisted my words because he interpreted in a very different way than what I meant.

As for Sig, you're right, I didn't remember him in that game. Since it was one of my worst games, I probably repressed it :P Come on Matt, why would I lie about not remembering him as bad?


linki: JJJ, that would be my first mafia game on the site. I think it was Shawshank redemption or something like that. I was so impressed with his game. I'm not even sure whether he was a civ or an indie, but if he was indie, he was trying to help the town.

[FZ.]

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

In defense of actual logic, how am I immune from being called out for word-twisting, simply because I am confirmed Papryco? Not that I consider doing any word-twisting of what FZ originally posted, but still, such accusations are usually part of basic argumentation, if felt necessary. Curious eyeballin' you did here, tbh.

You beat me to it.

[FZ.]

I think that my top suspects currently are DH, Juliets and Lorab. Lorab, mostly for that post where she answered BR. Boomslang is another one I'm looking at. There are a few others that I find myself curious about, but not as much as these at the moment.

[Long Con]

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

Besides that, the case is a crock.

Long Con's case is around JJ's thing about llama. But JJ clarified that as soon as he was out of cursing, and what more was he supposed to do beyond the simplistic while cursed? In addition, the theory was good - he theorised llama didn't respond to his case effectively because he knew Jay would be cursed and so it wasn't an urgent priority. As far as day one theories go, it's as good as any.

JJ has claimed he won't be able to post as much (and he isn't posting as much) but the truth is that he has still contributed and the posts have had content.

I will use my vote to save JJ if I have to.

This is the line I like the least:

What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Like... I'm not convinced my theory is impossible, therefore I still think you are bad.

????

I can see that you are confused. I'll try to put it in a more clear way for you. JJJ had an interpretation for everything I found suspicious that put himself in a Civ light. Looking at the two viewpoints, I still find mine to be more likely. If JJJ had said something that renders my point of view less likely, instead of just offering an alternate perspective, then maybe I'd feel differently. Like "things didn't happen like you say, because this was said first, proving blah blah blah"... some defenses soundly prove the accusation is much more unlikely to be true.

I think that's a very clear way of putting the line that you liked the least. Perhaps you will like a different line least now.

My strong preference is a lynch for Long Con, who I think has been pingworthy in just about everything he has done the entire game.

I agree with you about LC and llama though. I agree with FZ about DH.

In much the same way as the Appeal To Emotion and the Not Much Time Right Now statements added fringe pingy garnishes to a case I already believed in... the OMGUS (or "No U") also just does NOTHING to make me suspect JJ less. I don't recall him suspecting me before I came out with a case against him.

[DharmaHelper]

Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.

Still catching up on last night, but I got to this post and felt the need to address it, because it set off several red flags.

1. Refusing to engage the person you suspect in discourse regarding those suspicions is pingy as Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. The reasoning you give here also doesn't make sense to me. You say her response was measured and careful in order to debunk the theory that she was being too measured and careful? Dunno, that doesn't click with me. I'm wary in general of anyone who outright refuses to back up their suspicions of someone. That tells me you know you're standing on thin ice and would rather ignore the person you suspect (in this case LoRab), than have your suspicion debunked. If a suspicion cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is either false in nature or faulty in nature.

2. This is fear mongering to me. You're not arguing the facts of the case, you're propping LoRab up as this "big scary boogie woman" as justification for why you refused to engage. Using a player's skill at the game as a reason to A) Want to lynch them and B) Ignore the holes in your suspicion does not sit well with me.


3. Explicit WIFOM. And especially faulty WIFOM as well.

4. I find this particularly amusing. There won't ever be a good case to build on LoRab ever in the whole game? That's just patently false. Anyone can build a "good case" on anyone given enough time and content and effort. But you don't want to put that effort forward because why? Because you know that if you do, your "gut read" starts to turn into something entirely different?

Looking at this post, I'm seeing a majority of emotional appeals rather than factual statements and evidence. That tells me that you have no evidence, and indeed no desire to acquire any such evidence. It comes down to you just wanting to lynch LoRab because she's a "good player", which is a motivation I'd associate with baddies.

This. DH's colour posts really bug me. Not because of the colouring. Because I find myself thinking his attempts feel blown up to seem like he's so engaged in scum hunting. And I find myself disagreeing with his reasons for suspecting people. For example, if someone can't back up their suspicion with a great "case" like people expect, it doesn't make them bad. If anything, when I'm bad, I try to really back up my suspicions as much as I can. Just like he's doing here. It's so easy to find these easy reasons to suspect people. By easy I mean, not doing what is expected by the book (like backing up suspicion).

1. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you haven't read the rest of the thread apparently. I am not "attempting to seem like I'm scum hunting." I'd like to know what gave you that vibe. I try in every game I play to be verbose and thorough in who I suspect.

2. If we disagree, we disagree.

3. Let me be absolutely clear. not being able to back up your suspicions and not being willing to back up your suspicions are two different things. Building and presenting a poor case does not make a person bad, I agree. What I found suspicious was not that BR built and presented a poor case though. What I said was that BR did not build a case, she did not engage LoRab, and she did not make an effort to pursue her suspicion of LoRab. In my view, this means that she knew that if she did, the case would fall apart and not be as strong as what she'd presented. Two different things.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Gotta run for a while. I'll throw up a rainbow. Most of it's pure gut, somewhat influenced by Zebra interactions. The colors are ordered, but the names within the colors aren't. White means there's pretty much no read at all, not even neutral.

FZ.
Golden
Hamburger Boy
Dom
Epignosis

Juliets
MacDougall
Matt
Draconus

motel room
nijuukyugou
Spacedaisy
Tranq

Dr. Wilgy
Sorsha
Metalmarsh
Black Rock
DharmaHelper
Boomslang

Long Con
LoRab
thellama73

linki for LC: long story short, I think you're manipulating your case against me and giving my responses no real thought. You've made up your mind and have shown no interest in really exploring my alignment -- instead you've merely declared it. I've given you ample content to consider contrary to your suspicions and you've not shown me any evidence that you really care.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Also, LC, I called you one of my top four suspects when prompted by Burger just after posting my interactive reviews. This isn't new.

[FZ.]

DH, to spare us all another long post quote, I'm answering without it.

It's not that I don't think you're not attempting, I'm just not sure I buy the sincerity of your suspicions. Yeah it could just be disagreeing I guess, but I'm not sold on it yet. You seem like a logic person and the way you play as a civ, from what I've seen, is something I find easy to relate. The fact that I find myself disagreeing with you so much bothers me.

I get how that's different, but in what way did she not pursue her suspicion? She voted for her twice. I perceived it as a gut feeling more than a solid reason, thus her answer that she can't really build a case. Again, I can only judge by how I play when I think of what a baddie would do (unless I know that person's bad game really well), but if I were a baddie, I would try to build the case, just so I look like I can back up my votes and not look bad.

[DharmaHelper]

DH, to spare us all another long post quote, I'm answering without it.

It's not that I don't think you're not attempting, I'm just not sure I buy the sincerity of your suspicions. Yeah it could just be disagreeing I guess, but I'm not sold on it yet. You seem like a logic person and the way you play as a civ, from what I've seen, is something I find easy to relate. The fact that I find myself disagreeing with you so much bothers me.

I get how that's different, but in what way did she not pursue her suspicion? She voted for her twice. I perceived it as a gut feeling more than a solid reason, thus her answer that she can't really build a case. Again, I can only judge by how I play when I think of what a baddie would do (unless I know that person's bad game really well), but if I were a baddie, I would try to build the case, just so I look like I can back up my votes and not look bad.

Uhm, she literally said "I won't bother to respond to LoRab's defense because it's too perfect."

[DharmaHelper]

I hope I snipped these quotes correctly. Anyway, FZ since you haven't read LC's case on JJJ because it was too long, I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on this particular aspect of it, at least?

Spoiler: show

I did not suggest llama definitely cursed me or imply I was convinced of that. I said something completely different from that. I literally said "I don't know". The difference is not at all negligible.

But what you said was this:

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

Unless I'm reading it differently than you intended it, that's saying "I don't know if Llama did this or if one of his teammates did it".

The difference is negligible, because they both mean "Llama is a baddie on the cursing team".

You are. The word "maybe" should not be glossed over. It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad (this is me speaking within the perspective that "town" isn't a "team" in the same manner as a mafia team). I was clearly suspicious of llama and I said so both in text and in emojis. I thought there was a decent enough likelihood that either he cursed me or a mafia team mate of his cursed me.

I was not certain that's what happened. I'm not certain of anything at all.

Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.

Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.

That line in pink is what he claims meant "It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad". The claims are quite obviously false when you read the post. Note who is asking him as well.