Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Ricochet]

Rico, you're obviously the most trustworthy player in the game. Everything you say can automatically be seen as a genuine perspective, and I value your reads significantly with that in mind. Who do you find suspicious right now from your undead roaming zombie abomination vantage point?

I have to get to bed. I'll leave a vote on LoRab. All three of my reds are vote-worthy, and I could probably be sold on some of the oranges.

I have to find time to work on genuine perspectives, for which only the weekend can work in my favor, this week at least. Until then, I don't want to influence the current proceedings, despite my godlike status and never-seen-before abilities to call out scum.

[juliets]

I just finished my read of LC and I do not see him as bad. He had the correct insight about sig which many of us missed the boat on. He also posted some things about JJJ which make me back up a little bit on my read of JJJ. I'm going to have to read Jimmy's posts again and see where I come out when I read him in total. I don't think I've seen a bad Jimmy (at least I don't remember it) so that may be part of why I have such a civ read on him.

[Golden]

Juliet, for your benefit

The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

Llama is retconning this to make it look like he was talking about buddying, but he wasn't. He was saying that calling someone a civ puts a target on his back. He also understood that was the point I was making, as seen in this response:

Um, I was asked. Do you want me to ignore the question? That's completely different than volunteering "Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!"

To now make out like I was comparing the concept of buddying with saying someone is a civ is disingenuous. I'm the one who has spent the whole game saying the two are different.

[thellama73]

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.

Anything that is not Zelda Mafia (Ocarina of Time)

Haha, yeah. I was so bad in that one.

[thellama73]

I never said calling someone civ is buddying, Golden, no matter how many times you accuse me of that.

[Golden]

I never said calling someone civ is buddying, Golden, no matter how many times you accuse me of that.

I suppose it's lucky I haven't accused you of that.

Want to address anything I HAVE accused you of? Like switching between the two depending on what suits you to make the point that you think makes me look worst?

[Golden]

(I have accused you of that. It's just really not the main point, and you keep focussing on that at the exclusion of all my other points)

[thellama73]

You're very confused, Golden, and I'm worried you will confuse others. I'm also bored of this same argument, so let me try to make my point clear here.

I think calling someone out, over and over again, as a civilian is dangerous, and puts a target on that person's back.
I think your reason for being so complimentary to RadicalFuzz was buddying.
I think you didn't really care whether Fuzz was a civ, because you are not yourself a civ, and were hence indifferent to the fact that highlighting his civvieness might get him killed, probably to the point of not even considering it.

[thellama73]

Want to address anything I HAVE accused you of? Like switching between the two depending on what suits you to make the point that you think makes me look worst?

See above. YOu seem to think it's impossible to suspect a person for two reasons, even when those reasons are related.

[MacDougall]

Dey terk errr jerbs.

[Golden]

You're very confused, Golden, and I'm worried you will confuse others. I'm also bored of this same argument, so let me try to make my point clear here.

I think calling someone out, over and over again, as a civilian is dangerous, and puts a target on that person's back.
I think your reason for being so complimentary to RadicalFuzz was buddying.
I think you didn't really care whether Fuzz was a civ, because you are not yourself a civ, and were hence indifferent to the fact that highlighting his civvieness might get him killed, probably to the point of not even considering it.

1) Lucky I didn't do it 'over and over again' then, eh?
2) I've made my defence to that.
3) I myself am a civ, but this bit is very important. NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.

People call people civs all the time. The whole game is based on a mix of reads.

If the mafia go 'oh, golden called someone a civ, therefore he must die' then honestly, that mafia is stupid.

Llama - I believe, and have believed from the start, that this entire thing (including Fuzz's death) is a very intentional character assassination against the whole idea of calling people civs.

But I'll keep doing it as long as I play mafia, and no-one telling me that I'm responsible for their death is going to make it true. Because it's just bullsuit.

[Golden]

Want to address anything I HAVE accused you of? Like switching between the two depending on what suits you to make the point that you think makes me look worst?

See above. YOu seem to think it's impossible to suspect a person for two reasons, even when those reasons are related.

No.

Here is the thing llama...

1) Llama: I think golden is bad because he called Fuzz civ.
2) Llama: I think golden is bad because he is buddying Fuzz.
3) Llama: JJ is a civ.
4) golden: Hey, llama, what is the difference between (1) and (3)
5) Llama: Juliets - can't you see the big difference between (2) and (3)?'

That is what I'm saying you just did.

I understand you suspect me for (1) and (2). No problem with that.

But when I question the comparison between (1) and (3), you are making out like I'm comparing (2) and (3) when I'm not.

[motel room]

I'm running low on time before class, and I don't think I'll be able to vote after that. Quite disappointed in Drac's lack of posting today. I think the JJJ case is overblown; his effort with the smiley curse alone, when as a baddie he could have safely played it cool, makes me lean civ on him. Lorab's defense seems genuine, while sig is much more flippant. I don't like the games he played with smileys in a recent post, in particular; it's self-conscious, not natural. I'll put my vote *on sig* unless I find time on a class break to read more and change my mind.

Damn, a disappointing result. Sorry sig, RIP in peace. I was swayed by incorrect arguments, I suppose; had I been around for the late swell of support on the wagon, I might have changed. Rico might be on to something with the 2/2 mislynch club and Tranq's shifty behavior.

Here you said sig was being flippant which earned your vote for him. Later you said it was incorrect arguments and "swayed" means they weren't your own. Excuses are icky. Both of these posts seem so constructed and practiced too.

Linki w/Golden: Good illustration of the difference between civ read/buddying. Worth keeping in mind, imo.

also lol.

[motel room]

How many more "linki " must Draco do before he trademarks it? Compared to, like, posting anything significant about the game development.

TM pending. You're doing just fine keeping chatter up. I already know what I'm going to say for Day 1. Right now I'm just focusing on work while observing the thread.

Say it now. What's worth waiting 1 hour and a half?

I didn't want to distract from current discussion
Also, I just want to save it for my vote post.

Linki: That's quite the quote for 2 sentences

This rubbed me all the wrong ways when I was starting the catch up haul and only just got around to seeing how it played out. Cursed with questions then

Wow, cool result peeps.

Draconus, who do you think would curse you to ask questions?

Just scrolled the last page and saw this. Good question, Matt. I haven't the slightest clue. But it may have something to do with me saying "I already know what I'm going to say on Day 1" during Night 0. So maybe they wanted to make me look bad by preventing me from getting my thoughts across. Just speculating here

What were you holding out to say Drac? And seriously why not just say it?

[motel room]

someone slap me if Im covering old ground. My catch up has been.. choppy.

[Golden]

Llama, I went back to loo to see if I'd been misunderstanding you all along and you hadn't equated the two.

I never said calling someone civ is buddying, Golden, no matter how many times you accuse me of that.

The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.

Just a demonstration that although llama has now got a developed case that see the two as separate, there are legitimate reasons for me not seeing it this way, given that earlier on in his case he did use the two interchangeably.

linki @motel room - you see what I mean, I've been banging on about that for half the game. PS, my illustration in that case was that zebra had talked about 'reading the thread the same way as me'. In my discussion with Fuzz, I was busy telling him all the reasons I didn't agree with him and why I thought his positions were flawed.

I do think, though, that it is easy to confuse me being nice to people with buddying them, and I would agree that I was nice to Fuzz, especially as I don't think I've played with him before. I set out to try to be nice to everyone.

[Ricochet]

Llama, I went back to loo if I'd been misunderstanding you all along and you hadn't equated the two.

Why do you need to hide in the bathroom when playing Mafia?

[Golden]

Llama, I went back to loo if I'd been misunderstanding you all along and you hadn't equated the two.

Why do you need to hide in the bathroom when playing Mafia?

I was hoping no-one would notice that typo

[Ricochet]

Llama, I went back to loo if I'd been misunderstanding you all along and you hadn't equated the two.

Why do you need to hide in the bathroom when playing Mafia?

I was hoping no-one would notice that typo

[Long Con]

I agree. Someone being a trusted or proven Civ in the thread is extremely likely to be nightkilled in my experience.

I'm not going to win this fight.

Needless to say, I read both Long Con and llama as bad, and think their key intent here is to discredit.

Llama calls RadicalFuzz 'unlynchable' which is obviously extreme given I think about three players called him civ.
Long Con brings in 'proven civs' which Fuzz was obviously not, and calls them 'extremely likely' to be NKed, which is a clear exaggeration.

There are a whole lot of people who I would say right now are, overall, trusted civs. RadicalFuzz was one. I wasn't even saying he wasn't killed because of the conversation about him being a top civ... I just find it much more likely he was killed for it deliberately to put heat on those who said it and not merely because he was a top civ. And Long Con, I very much doubt even you could deny that the 'extremely likely' kill is going to be based on far more than such a simplistic and (in llamas words) 'obvious' explanation.

Read my post again. Am I stating my opinion, or am I attempting to discredit you?

You're allowed to be wrong about the amount a Mafia team would need to kill a trusted Civ. I don't think you lose any credit for having the opinion you do about that. I think there's some main reasons I have seen the Mafia choose to kill: kill a player who is after one of them, kill a trusted player that is unlikely to be lynched, kill a player who is known to be dangerously effective in hunting you, kill someone to frame another player. Off the top of my head, these are some common reasons for choosing who to kill; these are reasons I have seen come up over and over. And yes, killing someone who is perceived as a 'trusted Civ' in the thread is commonly a reason.

To me, it seems like you are arguing the point because you don't want to be seen as responsible for putting a target on RFuzz's back. Beyond some debatably poor judgement, I'm not accusing you of anything or trying to discredit your opinions or your reputation. You have a thing going with Llama here, but I haven't been part of that at all. I don't want to be dragged into it either. I don't think that it inherently looks suspicious for a player to declare someone a Civ in the thread like you did to Fuzz. I don't think that a baddie specifically calls someone a Civ in order to get them nightkilled - maybe that's a ploy I haven't seen yet, or realized when it was happening.

There is the possibility that you are Mafia and you were buddying with Fuzz. At this point, that's not even enough to put you on my suspicion list.

[motel room]

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

[Golden]

I agree. Someone being a trusted or proven Civ in the thread is extremely likely to be nightkilled in my experience.

I'm not going to win this fight.

Needless to say, I read both Long Con and llama as bad, and think their key intent here is to discredit.

Llama calls RadicalFuzz 'unlynchable' which is obviously extreme given I think about three players called him civ.
Long Con brings in 'proven civs' which Fuzz was obviously not, and calls them 'extremely likely' to be NKed, which is a clear exaggeration.

There are a whole lot of people who I would say right now are, overall, trusted civs. RadicalFuzz was one. I wasn't even saying he wasn't killed because of the conversation about him being a top civ... I just find it much more likely he was killed for it deliberately to put heat on those who said it and not merely because he was a top civ. And Long Con, I very much doubt even you could deny that the 'extremely likely' kill is going to be based on far more than such a simplistic and (in llamas words) 'obvious' explanation.

Read my post again. Am I stating my opinion, or am I attempting to discredit you?

You're allowed to be wrong about the amount a Mafia team would need to kill a trusted Civ. I don't think you lose any credit for having the opinion you do about that. I think there's some main reasons I have seen the Mafia choose to kill: kill a player who is after one of them, kill a trusted player that is unlikely to be lynched, kill a player who is known to be dangerously effective in hunting you, kill someone to frame another player. Off the top of my head, these are some common reasons for choosing who to kill; these are reasons I have seen come up over and over. And yes, killing someone who is perceived as a 'trusted Civ' in the thread is commonly a reason.

To me, it seems like you are arguing the point because you don't want to be seen as responsible for putting a target on RFuzz's back. Beyond some debatably poor judgement, I'm not accusing you of anything or trying to discredit your opinions or your reputation. You have a thing going with Llama here, but I haven't been part of that at all. I don't want to be dragged into it either. I don't think that it inherently looks suspicious for a player to declare someone a Civ in the thread like you did to Fuzz. I don't think that a baddie specifically calls someone a Civ in order to get them nightkilled - maybe that's a ploy I haven't seen yet, or realized when it was happening.

There is the possibility that you are Mafia and you were buddying with Fuzz. At this point, that's not even enough to put you on my suspicion list.

Fair enough, LC.

At this point, llama has gone far past you in my order of suspicion. I could see a world in which the pair of you are teammates... but the impact of your statement, I agree, is not in your words, but only in the fact that it was support for llama's perspective at that time. And you make fair points about the nature of your post.

I'm arguing the point because I believe llama is bad, and I think the choice of Fuzz was deliberately to make me look responsible for putting a target on Fuzz's back. I'm arguing the point because I think I'm just as much a part of the mafia's intended plan of targetting as Fuzz was. I care about being seen as responsible insofar as llama is arguing this is an indicator that I am mafia. But I don't care about the fact of whether the actual behaviour was part of the mafias choice processes. I'd do the same thing again tomorrow. In fact, I did the same thing today (I said I'd use my vote to save JJJ) and I have no fear of either a) it causing JJJs nightkill tomorrow or b) if JJJ is nightkilled, being responsible. Anything you do or say in the game thread could make you or someone else the mafia target. You can't avoid it. All you can do is play the best game you can, as a civ, to unmask the baddies. When I read people as civ, thats what I'm doing.

If people want to see 'declaring someone as a civ read' as being poor judgment, that's up to them. I disagree on many levels. I think the town figuring out who other members of the town are makes a town win more likely. Most of the town wins I've been a part of, there have been so many civs that seem so townie or are so confirmed that the mafia simply cannot kill them all.

[Long Con]

Fair enough, LC.

At this point, llama has gone far past you in my order of suspicion. I could see a world in which the pair of you are teammates... but the impact of your statement, I agree, is not in your words, but only in the fact that it was support for llama's perspective at that time. And you make fair points about the nature of your post.

I'm arguing the point because I believe llama is bad, and I think the choice of Fuzz was deliberately to make me look responsible for putting a target on Fuzz's back. I'm arguing the point because I think I'm just as much a part of the mafia's intended plan of targetting as Fuzz was. I care about being seen as responsible insofar as llama is arguing this is an indicator that I am mafia. But I don't care about the fact of whether the actual behaviour was part of the mafias choice processes. I'd do the same thing again tomorrow. In fact, I did the same thing today (I said I'd use my vote to save JJJ) and I have no fear of either a) it causing JJJs nightkill tomorrow or b) if JJJ is nightkilled, being responsible. Anything you do or say in the game thread could make you or someone else the mafia target. You can't avoid it. All you can do is play the best game you can, as a civ, to unmask the baddies. When I read people as civ, thats what I'm doing.

If people want to see 'declaring someone as a civ read' as being poor judgment, that's up to them. I disagree on many levels. I think the town figuring out who other members of the town are makes a town win more likely. Most of the town wins I've been a part of, there have been so many civs that seem so townie or are so confirmed that the mafia simply cannot kill them all.

I don't think your subjective level of responsibility for Fuzz's nightkill has any bearing on your likelihood of being bad.

So, the idea here is that the baddies look at Golden's declaration of Fuzz as Civ, and they choose to kill Fuzz in order for __________ to happen to Golden as a result.

I don't know what the blank is being filled in as. I don't feel like "a lynch" or "extra suspicion" fits in that sentence. Help me out here, I think I'm failing to understand the issue.

[LoRab]

A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

Can't help the way you read my posts, but my response was honest. I generally read posts of one player saying, more than once, that another player is civ as being suspish. When it is about me, even more so.

And I disagree with your analysis of his posts about me. He said, several times and in several ways, that he thought I was civ--at times softening that, but keeping to that general theme. His posts focus too close to comfort for me to think that they are innocuous.

Also, curious how you would imagine a civie would respond to that direct question, since you say that's how you'd expect a baddie to respond. Since I was responding as a civie and honestly, I'm curious what you would have expected.

I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts.

This is such a far fetched astronomical theory. You think that the mods would intentionally unbalance their own championship game? It's so crazy it makes me think you're trying too hard to consider the kills weird.

I fully agree with this statement.

A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

I agree. I don't like this post by LoRab either.

LoRab- why would HB need to "suck up" to you? Have you guys played together so much that he would see you as an influence that he'd want to get on your good side in this game? I thought the only other game you've been in together was a world reborn.

What this post sounds like to me is you sucking up to BR in hopes that she will change her mind and stop suspecting you.

In other news.. I'm not going to quote it because it was really big, but I like the case that LC made on jjj. I've been shit at keeping up with the game but I remember agreeing with it when LC brought it up after zebra was killed and I'm not sure if I said anything at the time about it.

I'm not really sure I'm seeing civvie golden here either but I need to go back over his posts before I'm solid on that suspicion. His signature has that quote about civvie golden being a hurricane of self assurance and that is not what I'm seeing from him.

I don't know why he'd want to suck up to me. I haven't played with him a lot. But I also can't figure out why he'd have several posts about his civ read of me for civ reasons--sucking up to me is one reason (it's something I defintiely do with people I read as civ). Putting a target on my back is another. But there were enough posts that it felt more like buttering me up in my read.

Okay, I read Lorab, and while I'm not sold on her being bad, the thing that stuck out to me in her posts was the way she quickly got defensive, and then suddenly switched to "suspect me all you like, I don't care! I'm civ and have nothing to hide!" It's a course correction worth noting.

I was trying to move away from my twirling, as ws discussed in the thread. But old habits are hard to break, lol.

I said earlier that I agreed with FZ's commentary about LoRab. I'll expand.

A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

I think LoRab's comments about HamburgerBoy's defenses are not truly representative of his posts -- he has encouraged people to broaden their voting horizons beyond just her, but he hasn't abjectly defended her or "been too nice" by my observation. This does not look like a genuine read of Burger, and I agree with FZ that she appears to be appealing to BR's mindset more than developing an honest response. This looks like forced suspicion generated by a player who feels it's what she's supposed to do.

Epignosis: I might be willing to join your LoRab crusade. I'd also like to know what you think of other matters in the game though, your read on her is the only one of yours that I could state without checking.

Maybe I read his posts differently because they're about me, but that's how I read them. And I was answering a question that BR asked, so yes it was addressed to her. I don't suspect people because I'm supposed to--not as a civie and not as a baddie. I suspect people because I suspect them. I can't really explain any better than I already have why...I can try to reword to better explain myself, but I'm not sure how.

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"

Not too shabbi rabbi...I kind of like it.

[Sorsha]

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

[DharmaHelper]

Nailed another pun.

[Sorsha]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

[DharmaHelper]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?

[LoRab]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

I was simply answering BR. And noting that I don't suspect her for suspecting me. I guess that you could see that as buttering up, but that wasn't my intent. I was just responding. And, really, my buttering up is much more overt--ask LC. He's often been the recipient of it (enough times that it stopped being effective, lol).

And I can't speak for HB, but I know I'm not on a baddie team. I suspect him, but on a low level--it's more what you say. I don't trust his intentions and think something is up with his posts about me. I can't speak to the motivations on kills, as I'm not on a baddie team and I don't have a kill.

[Dom]

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.

So why is your moving situation any less emotionally manipulative?

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.

More of a response to Golden, but I'm not sure why me seeing a bit of hypocrisy is "pingy".

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.

TBH I think Llama might have been civvie in the Hobbit, but can't really remember.

Did you read my post. He said he read my ISO to deduce something that was in a post I wrote directly to him. He also referenced that I had cooled on Lorab suspicion in the same post as asking me if I disagree with Epignosis which considering Epignosis has a mafia read on her goes without saying. He's just pushing shit around and trying to act like he's contributing. He's bad, and you are probably his teammate.

So just to be clear, your main issue is that you feel he's just saying the obvious and throwing what you already said right back at you, under the guise of making novel content?

Spoiler: show

In other words, what I'm doing right now to your post if I've read it correctly.

Was timmer not on our team?

Before you were recruited, birdswithteeth was on our team, but he had to leave so timmer rejoined as a replacement.

Got it. Forgot that.

[Golden]

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?

[Black Rock]

You guys have had a busy little day haven't you. Just catching up now.

[Golden]

Fair enough, LC.

At this point, llama has gone far past you in my order of suspicion. I could see a world in which the pair of you are teammates... but the impact of your statement, I agree, is not in your words, but only in the fact that it was support for llama's perspective at that time. And you make fair points about the nature of your post.

I'm arguing the point because I believe llama is bad, and I think the choice of Fuzz was deliberately to make me look responsible for putting a target on Fuzz's back. I'm arguing the point because I think I'm just as much a part of the mafia's intended plan of targetting as Fuzz was. I care about being seen as responsible insofar as llama is arguing this is an indicator that I am mafia. But I don't care about the fact of whether the actual behaviour was part of the mafias choice processes. I'd do the same thing again tomorrow. In fact, I did the same thing today (I said I'd use my vote to save JJJ) and I have no fear of either a) it causing JJJs nightkill tomorrow or b) if JJJ is nightkilled, being responsible. Anything you do or say in the game thread could make you or someone else the mafia target. You can't avoid it. All you can do is play the best game you can, as a civ, to unmask the baddies. When I read people as civ, thats what I'm doing.

If people want to see 'declaring someone as a civ read' as being poor judgment, that's up to them. I disagree on many levels. I think the town figuring out who other members of the town are makes a town win more likely. Most of the town wins I've been a part of, there have been so many civs that seem so townie or are so confirmed that the mafia simply cannot kill them all.

I don't think your subjective level of responsibility for Fuzz's nightkill has any bearing on your likelihood of being bad.

So, the idea here is that the baddies look at Golden's declaration of Fuzz as Civ, and they choose to kill Fuzz in order for __________ to happen to Golden as a result.

I don't know what the blank is being filled in as. I don't feel like "a lynch" or "extra suspicion" fits in that sentence. Help me out here, I think I'm failing to understand the issue.

Well, the bits you have put in the quotation marks are exactly what I'd put in the blank.

[Golden]

Honestly, this is kind of besides even this game or anything going on, but I guess its on topic.

The idea that a civ should not call out other people as civs just does not compute with me, no matter what angle you are coming from. I just can't even begin to fathom why anyone would genuinely hold this opinion.

The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will try my utter hardest to get the civs the win this game. If that means I get lynched or NKed, then so be it... but I'll do it while doing my best to expose baddies, and to help the town figure out who the civilians are.

I have proven over and over in many games that I have no problem dying if it means getting the town over the line.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Llama's buddying case - that case against me has a lot more merit, objectively speaking. It's wrong, but at least it isn't trading in a mafia-friendly ideology. So at least if people see that side, I can see it as genuine. But people who suspect me for 'painting a target on his back' - Sorsha being the most recent - are getting two big eyes from me because, as I said from when llama first raised that theory, the whole theory has no real merit.

[Long Con]

Well, the bits you have put in the quotation marks are exactly what I'd put in the blank.

Huh. Ok, then I guess we'll see. I do see that Sorsha is leaning toward just that possibility. Is she saying the same thing Llama is saying?

[Long Con]

Llama is saying "buddying", and Sorsha is saying "intentional NK target". Pretty different accusations for the same thing. I just don't think Sorsha's is a thing.

[Golden]

Well, the bits you have put in the quotation marks are exactly what I'd put in the blank.

Huh. Ok, then I guess we'll see. I do see that Sorsha is leaning toward just that possibility. Is she saying the same thing Llama is saying?

I'll go a step further, LC...

I think Fuzz was killed expressly by people who are anti rainbow lists and similar specifically to try to damage their credibility and usefulness. It's why I was waiting for someone to posit the theory that llama posited. Only about three people actually called Fuzz civ, and other than me I think the only place anyone else said it was... in a rainbow list. My exact thought at the moment Fuzz was killed, was that the only reason I could see to kill him was to specifically discredit those people. And then someone came along and proposed exactly that.

Llama is saying "buddying", and Sorsha is saying "intentional NK target". Pretty different accusations for the same thing. I just don't think Sorsha's is a thing.

I agree.

[Long Con]

I am a big fan of thinking through likely baddie behaviour scenarios and then watching to see whose behaviour matches my prediction. So, I understand your motivation in pursuing this on Llama... I feel like this is the part of the sentence where there's a "but", except I don't have anything to say on that front. I'll be very happy if this works out for you.

There was a game this year where the baddies seemed to be specifically targeting the players at the Civ end of rainbow lists. Perhaps the same baddies are involved. I don't remember which game, unfortunately.

[Golden]

I am a big fan of thinking through likely baddie behaviour scenarios and then watching to see whose behaviour matches my prediction. So, I understand your motivation in pursuing this on Llama... I feel like this is the part of the sentence where there's a "but", except I don't have anything to say on that front. I'll be very happy if this works out for you.

There was a game this year where the baddies seemed to be specifically targeting the players at the Civ end of rainbow lists. Perhaps the same baddies are involved. I don't remember which game, unfortunately.

I'll be honest, my suspicion of llama isn't just because he conformed to that.

It was my original ping and vote for that.

My suspicion now is because of some of the points I've made about the way he has built his posts and case in wake of that.

But... I will give him that my posts could read like buddying. Not because of calling Fuzz civ. Not because of agreeing with his perspective (because I didn't much). But just because I was complimentary of the fact that someone who I don't know at all was being a good contributor.

Also, it will be interesting if you remember what game. I bet it won't be anyone who actively does rainbow lists, because in doing them you quickly come to understand their usefulness and limitations and you don't get hung up on them. I think it is a very flawed way to run a mafia team, because people who will run rainbow lists also tend to be very happy to raise or drop people at will (My top town read today could well be the person I want to lynch tomorrow - I had no suspicion of llama or sorsha yesterday and right now they would be 1 and 2, on the other hand you are working your way off the bottom). It's very much a snapshot of how one is feeling in the moment. But, ultimately, if that became common here I'd start exploiting it and guiding mafia kills on to people I don't trust by sticking them at the top. If mafia let civilians control their kill targets, they are creating their own risks. When I'm an info role, I do often deliberately set out to put the mafia target on people whose identity I don't know, and keep it off those who I know are civ.

[Sorsha]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?

I'm not sure what Goldens intent was but I think it's possible. And Fuzz is dead now.

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?

If I think someone is civ I don't try to draw attention to their civviness, no. At least I try not to... if someone is trying to drum up some suspicion on them then I'd speak up to defend, but not for no reason.

[Golden]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?

I'm not sure what Goldens intent was but I think it's possible. And Fuzz is dead now.

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?

If I think someone is civ I don't try to draw attention to their civviness, no. At least I try not to... if someone is trying to drum up some suspicion on them then I'd speak up to defend, but not for no reason.

What about your answer to the first question? I've explained above why I think calling people civs is inherently to the civs advantage. Why do you see it as bad?

[Sorsha]

Honestly, this is kind of besides even this game or anything going on, but I guess its on topic.

The idea that a civ should not call out other people as civs just does not compute with me, no matter what angle you are coming from. I just can't even begin to fathom why anyone would genuinely hold this opinion.

The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will try my utter hardest to get the civs the win this game. If that means I get lynched or NKed, then so be it... but I'll do it while doing my best to expose baddies, and to help the town figure out who the civilians are.

I have proven over and over in many games that I have no problem dying if it means getting the town over the line.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Llama's buddying case - that case against me has a lot more merit, objectively speaking. It's wrong, but at least it isn't trading in a mafia-friendly ideology. So at least if people see that side, I can see it as genuine. But people who suspect me for 'painting a target on his back' - Sorsha being the most recent - are getting two big eyes from me because, as I said from when llama first raised that theory, the whole theory has no real merit.

I guess this is something that might be throwing a hitch in my thinking. This whole "team win" thing is still relatively new to me. I played for years with the caveat that you had to be alive at the end of the game to win. I'd rather have a bit of suspicion on me to keep the baddies from killing me personally. Getting NKed, especially early in a game, but still "winning" isn't as sweet as making it alive to the end of the game to win.

If someone is a civ and to be a great asset to the civ cause I still don't see why drawing attention to their civviness is a good thing. I'd rather have Fuzz alive.

[Sorsha]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?

I'm not sure what Goldens intent was but I think it's possible. And Fuzz is dead now.

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?

If I think someone is civ I don't try to draw attention to their civviness, no. At least I try not to... if someone is trying to drum up some suspicion on them then I'd speak up to defend, but not for no reason.

What about your answer to the first question? I've explained above why I think calling people civs is inherently to the civs advantage. Why do you see it as bad?

I already have... it makes them a target.

[Golden]

@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?

I'm not sure what Goldens intent was but I think it's possible. And Fuzz is dead now.

Why is JJJ's lynch tally so well hung right now? His apathy?

Long Con made a case on him

Golden- I have to say I feel like I'm agreeing with llama over you on this one. Whether you put the civvie target on fuzz to draw a nk to him or avoid suspicion after he was killed by your team, neither of those two options look good for you imo.

Neither of those two options do look good for me, but neither are they the only two options on the table.

There is also the truth. I didn't put a target on Fuzz's back.

Question for you, sorsha - why does saying someone is civ look bad, to you? Do you never say that someone reads civ to you?

If I think someone is civ I don't try to draw attention to their civviness, no. At least I try not to... if someone is trying to drum up some suspicion on them then I'd speak up to defend, but not for no reason.

What about your answer to the first question? I've explained above why I think calling people civs is inherently to the civs advantage. Why do you see it as bad?

I already have... it makes them a target.

And this is bad because...

[Sorsha]

Llama is saying "buddying", and Sorsha is saying "intentional NK target". Pretty different accusations for the same thing. I just don't think Sorsha's is a thing.

You don't think baddies will paint targets on civs? Try to make them look like super civs so the other team might take them out?

linki- Why is it bad to make a civ a NK target? Why isn't it bad?

[Golden]

I'd rather have Fuzz alive.

OK, but say you are civ Sorsha... which you may well be.

Fuzz being alive might be you being dead. For all we know, your power is more important than Fuzz's power.

Besides that, Fuzz might not even be civ. You only have my gut feeling that he is to show for it. If the baddies kill him just because I say he is civ, then I'm dictating their kill targets for them. They might take out a baddie from the other team just as equally.

And if there is only one team... then they know everyone else is civ, so we are going to be losing a civ either way. If someone really is a consensus civ option, then they are just as likely to get the benefit of positive civ abilities as they are to get killed. It increases the likelihood of using civ abilities well.

[Golden]

Did that post answer your question to me, Sorsha?

[Sorsha]

I'd rather have Fuzz alive.

OK, but say you are civ Sorsha... which you may well be.

Fuzz being alive might be you being dead. For all we know, your power is more important than Fuzz's power.

Besides that, Fuzz might not even be civ. You only have my gut feeling that he is to show for it. If the baddies kill him just because I say he is civ, then I'm dictating their kill targets for them. They might take out a baddie from the other team just as equally.

And if there is only one team... then they know everyone else is civ, so we are going to be losing a civ either way. If someone really is a consensus civ option, then they are just as likely to get the benefit of positive civ abilities as they are to get killed. It increases the likelihood of using civ abilities well.

Which is why I don't mind being suspected. They won't NK me if they think they can get me lynched.

The fact that they killed him makes me think they believed he was civ. Unless they are trying to take out the other baddie team, but I don't see them choosing him if that were the case.

linki- Yes I guess it does. I wouldn't say you are, or were my top suspect but I do see llamas side of this too.

[Dom]

I understand Sorshas point to an extent but do not think Golden is guilty of her accusations. I don't think golden tried to get fuzz killed

[Long Con]

Llama is saying "buddying", and Sorsha is saying "intentional NK target". Pretty different accusations for the same thing. I just don't think Sorsha's is a thing.

You don't think baddies will paint targets on civs? Try to make them look like super civs so the other team might take them out?

No, I don't recall ever seeing that. The dynamic for an idea like that might be different for a game like this where NK'ed roles are revealed, but the way I see it, the reasons for baddies pointing out Civs in the thread are to do some buddying, and to get some cred after their role is revealed.

Trying to direct the other baddie team's kill by calling a Civ a Civ seems like it could backfire. Maybe the other baddie team will read it as YOU are a Civ who is doing bold things out there, and kill you instead.