Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[thellama73]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

Would you consider a Boomslang lynch?

[Matt]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

Would you consider a Boomslang lynch?

Forgot to respond to your question about how well me and Boom know each other...

We've only played with each other once before, in Pet Sounds as Mafia. He seemed to coast by there, while here it looks like he's putting in an effort. G2H I'd say Boom is good.

[Matt]

3J - I still don't see why Zebra wouldn't put a curse on you as her teamie. As you said yourself, you've been major busy with personal stuff and you've also admitted Mafia fatigue. So why wouldn't that be ideal, Zebra curses you, you get to take it easy and a bit of sus is lifted off of you at the same time?

Sounds logical from where I'm sittin'.

[Long Con]

I'm comfortable with lynching JJJ or Llama today, I have suspicion of both of them. I'm also cool with a Boomslang lynch. So all these developments are legit.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

Would you consider a Boomslang lynch?

Forgot to respond to your question about how well me and Boom know each other...

We've only played with each other once before, in Pet Sounds as Mafia. He seemed to coast by there, while here it looks like he's putting in an effort. G2H I'd say Boom is good.

He has averaged 8 posts per game cycle. What effort specifically have you noticed?

[thellama73]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

Would you consider a Boomslang lynch?

I am open to that possibility.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

3J - I still don't see why Zebra wouldn't put a curse on you as her teamie. As you said yourself, you've been major busy with personal stuff and you've also admitted Mafia fatigue. So why wouldn't that be ideal, Zebra curses you, you get to take it easy and a bit of sus is lifted off of you at the same time?

Sounds logical from where I'm sittin'.

From your perspective it can sound logical. Imagine being the one who was cursed and immediately being confronted by conspiracy theories when it ends. That's very frustrating, and I think I displayed that. I think it's stupid, frankly, but we've had this conversation already. If I get lynched in part because of what if tinfoil, then there's not much I can do about that. It would definitely make Zebra's curse a highly productive move for her team, so kudos to them for even putting me in this position.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Boomslang is probably my most substantive red read, and llama might be my least. I don't think his conversation with Golden has made him look worse, most of my concern still stems from the earlier stage of the game. There's more to work with now.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm also still mulling a LoRab vote, though I've done less legwork with her than with Boom. Anyone who feels she is the best choice could provide/restate their reasons now.

[Epignosis]

I want to hear from Boomslang first.

[Epignosis]

I'm also still mulling a LoRab vote, though I've done less legwork with her than with Boom. Anyone who feels she is the best choice could provide/restate their reasons now.

To be brief: Lorab's post about Ricochet was overly equivocal. Black Rock also came out against her, saying Lorab sounded like her Mafia self, and I don't think Black Rock would be so bold in doing that if she were not genuine.

[thellama73]

I don't think JJ is bad, and I have no particular feelings about Boomslang. However, JJ has at least contributed to the game in a substantive way, so if I have to vote one of the two of them out, I would rather it be Boomslang.

[Golden]

I also have a red read on boomslang, so if the lynch goes that way I won't be upset.

After today's lynch, I'll be quite absent for the next three day/night cycles (9 days). I won't be able to thoroughly keep up with the thread. I'll do my best, though.

[Golden]

On the otheeer haaand

I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.

You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.

Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while

I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.

So you would have vote literally anyone opening their mouth and saying the words?

Also, llama's theory was not an attack on you specifically, at that point, I think, but a general angle, unlike people freaking out about you in Recruitment post-Epig's death and following your comments. So I still feel you were a bit of a bobcat jumping from the bushes.

Yes I would have, but not necessarily kept my vote there long term. As I said, my vote is currently not on llama just for that theory, but for his responses and approach in the wake of that. And I know llama wasn't after me specifically at that point (at least, not overtly... I am not so sure if he wasn't in actuality, in hindsight), which should go to show you that it was genuinely me jumping on the theory I had in my own mind for why Fuzz was killed, and not a no u.

But waiting to jump on a theory maker, whomever he/she may have been, doesn't make it... sound...better...?

Why? If you think a kill has been done with a particular plan in mind, the person executing that plan would be bad. Doesn't matter their identity.

[Golden]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

You have ignored nearly every point I've raised against you and nearly every question I've asked you.

If you had bothered to answer the charges against you, maybe I'd feel differently against you. But you haven't. You've ignored them.

[thellama73]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

You have ignored nearly every point I've raised against you and nearly every question I've asked you.

If you had bothered to answer the charges against you, maybe I'd feel differently against you. But you haven't. You've ignored them.

That's not true. I spent all day yesterday answering all your points. It got to the point where we were just talking in circles and I felt nothing productive was being said. I've explained myself at length, and you haven't accepted it. The rest of the players are not benefiting by our continuing to say the same things over and over again, so I refuse to do it.

[Golden]

Well, I'm not happy with the direction this is going. I feel that I've answered the charges against me very clearly, and am rather surprised people are buying into them. I don't want to vote for JJ, but I will to defend myself, because unlike Golden, I care whether I die.

You have ignored nearly every point I've raised against you and nearly every question I've asked you.

If you had bothered to answer the charges against you, maybe I'd feel differently against you. But you haven't. You've ignored them.

That's not true. I spent all day yesterday answering all your points. It got to the point where we were just talking in circles and I felt nothing productive was being said. I've explained myself at length, and you haven't accepted it. The rest of the players are not benefiting by our continuing to say the same things over and over again, so I refuse to do it.

We went around in circles because you ignored my questions and kept answering points I wasn't asking to make it appear as though there was nothing new to answer.

Would you like me to go back and point out the things you haven't addressed? Because, frankly, the most compelling thing for me that you are bad is the fact that you more or less completely ignored my case, focussing only on the minutiae of whether or not you were talking about 'buddying' or 'calling Fuzz a civ' when that was really not that relevant.

[thellama73]

We went around in circles because you ignored my questions and kept answering points I wasn't asking to make it appear as though there was nothing new to answer.

Would you like me to go back and point out the things you haven't addressed? Because, frankly, the most compelling thing for me that you are bad is the fact that you more or less completely ignored my case, focussing only on the minutiae of whether or not you were talking about 'buddying' or 'calling Fuzz a civ' when that was really not that relevant.

I disagree that I didn't address your points. I think you're wrong. You said people don't get killed because they are called out as civ. That is untrue, because I have seen it happen. If you think my saying so is some kind of baddie ploy, I don't know what I can say to you.

Your mind is made up, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I see no reason to waste my time.

[Golden]

We went around in circles because you ignored my questions and kept answering points I wasn't asking to make it appear as though there was nothing new to answer.

Would you like me to go back and point out the things you haven't addressed? Because, frankly, the most compelling thing for me that you are bad is the fact that you more or less completely ignored my case, focussing only on the minutiae of whether or not you were talking about 'buddying' or 'calling Fuzz a civ' when that was really not that relevant.

I disagree that I didn't address your points. I think you're wrong. You said people don't get killed because they are called out as civ. That is untrue, because I have seen it happen. If you think my saying so is some kind of baddie ploy, I don't know what I can say to you.

Your mind is made up, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I see no reason to waste my time.

Well, then, I'll do the list, so everyone can see that your disagreement is utterly and completely wrong, eh?

My mind isn't made up, my mind is never made up. But yeah, things like 'no, even you point out what I haven't answered, I'll ignore it' certainly won't make me feel better.

[thellama73]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

[thellama73]

We went around in circles because you ignored my questions and kept answering points I wasn't asking to make it appear as though there was nothing new to answer.

Would you like me to go back and point out the things you haven't addressed? Because, frankly, the most compelling thing for me that you are bad is the fact that you more or less completely ignored my case, focussing only on the minutiae of whether or not you were talking about 'buddying' or 'calling Fuzz a civ' when that was really not that relevant.

I disagree that I didn't address your points. I think you're wrong. You said people don't get killed because they are called out as civ. That is untrue, because I have seen it happen. If you think my saying so is some kind of baddie ploy, I don't know what I can say to you.

Your mind is made up, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I see no reason to waste my time.

Well, then, I'll do the list, so everyone can see that your disagreement is utterly and completely wrong, eh?

My mind isn't made up, my mind is never made up. But yeah, things like 'no, even you point out what I haven't answered, I'll ignore it' certainly won't make me feel better.

Fine, do the list. But explain how my boredom with this same debate over and over again makes sense if I am bad.

[Ricochet]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

[Ricochet]

Also, the mafia making civ's job easier reminds me of past opinion that an SK makes the civs' job easier by targetting mafia. In Talking Heads, we ended up being 3 (admitedly, godlike) civs against the SK and two mafias and only then did the SK actually decided to help and take out a mafia. So I never buy much into it. A civ's job is a civ's job. If you're civ, do yer job.

[Golden]

Before I get in to it llama - these points contain what I consider most of the compelling evidence against you, because they are the pieces that indicate that your mind set is not genuine. They show, to me, that you are just putting a suspicion out there without looking at it from all sides and going 'what are the civ explanations for goldens behaviour'. Despite the fact they are the primary reason for my case, the answers you've given have all been about buddying vs saying someone is a civ and why Fuzz would be killed, which neither of us know. The things you haven't answered are the crux of my suspicion on you. Here they are.

1) The closest you've come to answering this is saying buddying is different to saying someone is a civ. You've never explained how volunteering someone is a civ is different to answering a question that someone is a civ. Wouldn't both create a target? About three or four people tops said they read Fuzz as civ. If you really think civs shouldn't call other people civs because it paints a target, wouldn't you just not agree to answer such questions?

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!"

Why is it completely different? If you ask everyone how they read someone, and they all say civ, does it not paint a target?[/quote]

2) Why do you see this as bad golden behaviour?

Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.

3) You've not addressed my assertions that you are misrepresenting my actions. All I did was say he was a top town read once until other people specifically started probing me on it. You haven't provided an explanation for what civ me should have done instead of responding. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns? I've asked this one a few times, but constantly ignored.

Saying someone is your top town read on day one is hardly extreme. And your 'double down' is me responding to the questions I was asked about it. It wouldn't have been more than a short sentence if Fuzz himself hadn't pointed out that he felt uncomfortable about it. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns?

4) You appeared to accept my inexperience, but if you really believed your case on me you would believe that I had literally just done what I claimed I've never seen. Your response wouldn't be accepting my inexperience, it would be thinking I'm lying.

This is the other thing re point 2. Llama's choice of talking about my inexperience indicates an acceptance that I have not been involved in such discussions.

If I genuinely suspected someone had been buddying specifically to put a target on someones back (which is llamas premise) then I couldn't possibly believe they would have no experience of that being a factor for mafia teams. Or else I might look at this and go 'oh, if golden doesn't have that experience, perhaps my theory is wrong'.

Llama, however, remained unperturbed by this. It didn't make him think twice about his suspicion at all.

5) You haven't addressed my statement that you are overstating the truth

2) You keep overstating things. In epi's terms, this might be 'use of adverbs' but I'd also say adjectives and other intensifiers. Things like "Fuzz was obviously killed because...", "golden has repeatedly", "golden has heaped glowing praise". These intensifiers have the effect of making your points look like facts, when in reality they are overstating the facts (or, in some cases, assuming them entirely).

6) You haven't addressed the fact that you can't keep your own reasons for having a firm knowledge of why Fuzz died straight:

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.

(and add to this, your recent accusation that he died because I, specifically, called him civ.)

7) This wasn't the first time I brought up that you were ignoring my questions. Last time I brought it up, you completely ignored that fact, you didn't endeavour to ask me what things you thought I was missing about your case:

1) You have avoided addressing any of the points I've made against you, other than one - that you suspect JJ. You were happy to call that one out and respond to it. But you've ignored literally every other question without making a response. Interesting selectiveness. Notably, this is also what you were doing to JJ back on day zero.

8) You didn't address it when I pointed out the logical fallacy you gave to juliet

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.

That appears to be everything.

[thellama73]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

Don't know, but lots of players and three kills last night points to it.

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.[/quote]

[Golden]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

The thing rico said in pink is exactly what my response to that llama post would have been. It's a big part of why the argument was fallacious from the start. The kill is no more likely to hit a civilian because they listen to me as it was by the mafia just using their own gut and analysis skills. For llama's point to be true, he has to LITERALLY believe that I am so good at mafia that every one of my reads is correct.

The idea that because I say Fuzz is civ, that means he is civ... is daft. And I already made that point yesterday. He could well have been bad. And if I had so much control over who the baddies were going to kill as you claim I do, llama, I could easily use that to the town advantage... if I actually knew who was civ and bad.

[Ricochet]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

Don't know, but lots of players and three kills last night points to it.

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.

There's been lots of players in Talking Heads too, with only one mafia team and an SK.

Three kills on N2 was unusual in pretty much every way possible. It can't be deciphered as two mafia teams, anyway. That's not how two mafia teams usually work.

Same thing. It doesn't make the mafia "know" anything.[/quote]

[Ricochet]

[/color]*, lol

[juliets]

I just re-read llama and did not find places where he didn't answer questions HOWEVER I did not read Golden in tandem with llama so that possibility still exists. Golden are you saying you are going to list the points that llama did not address? That would be very helpful.

@Rico - your question to the non-juliets people about my behavior describes me perfectly. Someone even used the word "indecisive" in AWR and I agreed with that. I like to see lot's of evidence before I decide which is hard in a game of mafia.

I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.

[Golden]

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.

[/quote]

You've stated that a lot. Why don't you pull the quotes to prove it.

I didn't have over the top confidence. I called him my top town read. On day one. I've made this point over and over. This does not equate to 'over the top confidence'. At that point in time, I had no other people that I felt in any way had demonstrated they were civilian. With Fuzz, he'd hit four indicators. Which I set out.

Here are the four reasons I gave.

There are lots of reasons you are my top town read, including:

1) The way a number of people jumped on you for poor reasons, at least some of which I think is likely from baddies.
2) The way you called that out when it just got dropped (completely right, and although I still haven't analysed who those people were I'm waiting to find out...)
3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.
4) The way you have handled Dr Wilgy... unflappable in the face of meaningless suspicion.

Which of them do you believe are 'very little reason'? Why don't you explain why they are not good reasons? If they are such bad reasons for thinking he is civ, why does me calling him civ make it so obvious to the mafia that he is civ and not bad, so that they have a much better chance of killing a civ by killing him?

Can't people see why the stuff llama is saying doesn't stack up... when with one hand he attacks by civ read on Fuzz as having 'very little reason' but on the other claims it is so valuable that it damaged the civ cause because it stopped them from having any chance of killing a baddie.

[Golden]

I just re-read llama and did not find places where he didn't answer questions HOWEVER I did not read Golden in tandem with llama so that possibility still exists. Golden are you saying you are going to list the points that llama did not address? That would be very helpful.

I already have.

And I'd ask you and everyone to read them and everything llama has done from one perspective.

Do they indicate a consistent, genuine point of view that would lead to his suspicion on me being genuinely held, or do they appear more as though his thoughts on what baddie behaviour looks like are shifting with the wind.

[thellama73]

Before I get in to it llama - these points contain what I consider most of the compelling evidence against you, because they are the pieces that indicate that your mind set is not genuine. They show, to me, that you are just putting a suspicion out there without looking at it from all sides and going 'what are the civ explanations for goldens behaviour'. Despite the fact they are the primary reason for my case, the answers you've given have all been about buddying vs saying someone is a civ and why Fuzz would be killed, which neither of us know. The things you haven't answered are the crux of my suspicion on you. Here they are.

1) The closest you've come to answering this is saying buddying is different to saying someone is a civ. You've never explained how volunteering someone is a civ is different to answering a question that someone is a civ. Wouldn't both create a target? About three or four people tops said they read Fuzz as civ. If you really think civs shouldn't call other people civs because it paints a target, wouldn't you just not agree to answer such questions?

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!"

Why is it completely different? If you ask everyone how they read someone, and they all say civ, does it not paint a target?

2) Why do you see this as bad golden behaviour?

Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.

3) You've not addressed my assertions that you are misrepresenting my actions. All I did was say he was a top town read once until other people specifically started probing me on it. You haven't provided an explanation for what civ me should have done instead of responding. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns? I've asked this one a few times, but constantly ignored.

Saying someone is your top town read on day one is hardly extreme. And your 'double down' is me responding to the questions I was asked about it. It wouldn't have been more than a short sentence if Fuzz himself hadn't pointed out that he felt uncomfortable about it. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns?

4) You appeared to accept my inexperience, but if you really believed your case on me you would believe that I had literally just done what I claimed I've never seen. Your response wouldn't be accepting my inexperience, it would be thinking I'm lying.

This is the other thing re point 2. Llama's choice of talking about my inexperience indicates an acceptance that I have not been involved in such discussions.

If I genuinely suspected someone had been buddying specifically to put a target on someones back (which is llamas premise) then I couldn't possibly believe they would have no experience of that being a factor for mafia teams. Or else I might look at this and go 'oh, if golden doesn't have that experience, perhaps my theory is wrong'.

Llama, however, remained unperturbed by this. It didn't make him think twice about his suspicion at all.

5) You haven't addressed my statement that you are overstating the truth

2) You keep overstating things. In epi's terms, this might be 'use of adverbs' but I'd also say adjectives and other intensifiers. Things like "Fuzz was obviously killed because...", "golden has repeatedly", "golden has heaped glowing praise". These intensifiers have the effect of making your points look like facts, when in reality they are overstating the facts (or, in some cases, assuming them entirely).

6) You haven't addressed the fact that you can't keep your own reasons for having a firm knowledge of why Fuzz died straight:

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.

(and add to this, your recent accusation that he died because I, specifically, called him civ.)

7) This wasn't the first time I brought up that you were ignoring my questions. Last time I brought it up, you completely ignored that fact, you didn't endeavour to ask me what things you thought I was missing about your case:

1) You have avoided addressing any of the points I've made against you, other than one - that you suspect JJ. You were happy to call that one out and respond to it. But you've ignored literally every other question without making a response. Interesting selectiveness. Notably, this is also what you were doing to JJ back on day zero.

8) You didn't address it when I pointed out the logical fallacy you gave to juliet

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.

That appears to be everything.[/quote]

1. No, I don't see it that way. It's one person's opinion given in response to a solicitation. It's different from enthusiastic confidence expressed in someone, especially when there's no reason to do it.

2. I don't rely on meta for you very much, Golden, because I think you do a generally good job of making your civ and mafia games look similar. There's nothing I associate with "civ Golden." So I only point out that things don't make sense. Recall, that this started out with you calling me bad, not the other way around. It was your sudden attack that didn't make sense to me that got me feeling bad about you. My original statement was just that intended to look at people who, in my opinion, contributed to Fuzz's death.

3. This is a matter of interpretation. I read your early interactions with Fuzz as over the top and fake sounding. YOu say they are not. Okay, but that's a difference of opinion, not facts.

4. The inexperience line was a snarky barb based on your claim. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

5. Perhaps I tend towards hyperbole in games about lynching and murdering, but I don't believe I have substantively overstated things. Any exaggeration was done to make a rhetorical point.

6. I don't know for certain why Fuzz died. I am making an inference based upon a chain of events and past experience and the logic of how I think mafia teams might operate in a given situation. Of course I can't know. Generally, people know very little in thee games, but it's tedious to couch everything in "in my opinion" so sometimes I state my beliefs as flat assertions. Almost everyone does that in mafia though, in my opinion.

7. First, I'm busy. But mainly, as I said, I don't think you are making any points you haven't made before, and I am frankly sick of saying the same things again and again when it feels like I'm arguing with someone who is less interested in uncovering the truth than in playing "gotcha" with me. I don't really feel that I've said anything new in this post either, but hopefully you feel that I have addressed your points.

8. We've been over this a hundred million times. Your repeated assertions that all you did was "call Fuzz civ" is either a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my case with you, or a genuine inability to understand what I am saying. Calling someone civ, especially when asked, is not the same as what you and others were doing with Fuzz. I would also note that Fuzz himself agreed with me on this, and thought what you were doing was weird, so I'm not the only person who feels this way.

I hope that satisfies you for now.

[thellama73]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

Don't know, but lots of players and three kills last night points to it.

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.

There's been lots of players in Talking Heads too, with only one mafia team and an SK.

Three kills on N2 was unusual in pretty much every way possible. It can't be deciphered as two mafia teams, anyway. That's not how two mafia teams usually work.

Same thing. It doesn't make the mafia "know" anything.

[/quote]

And I never said "there are two mafia teams this game". Of course I don't know that. I just think it is more likely than not.

[Ricochet]

@Rico - your question to the non-juliets people about my behavior describes me perfectly. Someone even used the word "indecisive" in AWR and I agreed with that. I like to see lot's of evidence before I decide which is hard in a game of mafia.

I described you in general, because I still don't remember playing with you as a baddie. I don't remember what you did to get caught in AWR. (...you did get caught, right?)

Just like with JJJ's questionnaire about llama, however, I feel this trait you mention cannot fully set your civ game apart from your baddie one. Civvie indecisiveness can be mulling over, pondering, struggling to judge things the right way. Baddie indecisiveness can be waffling, waiting for others to form a trajectory....etc.

mother of all linkis

[HamburgerBoy]

Ham Boy who is your top pick and why wouldn't you put your vote on them?

I'd say Mac or maybe Dom (but I can go along with what Sorsha said earlier in that he hasn't been pressured enough to be confident there, and I haven't found enough material to pressure him with). I wouldn't vote for them because it would be a wasted vote for what looks like what may shape up to an interesting 3-way.

Don't have time to respond to Jimmy's Boomslang ISO in detail immediately, but I'll say right now that I actually disagree with it and that it's making me see him in a townier light.

[Ricochet]

I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.

In a game with multiple mafias, their night kills have a chance of taking out each other, making the civs' jobs easier. If instead they are able to target people they know are civs, that possibility goes away, making the civs' jobs harder. You literally cannot conceive of that? I literally don't believe you.

Is this such a game? How would you know, if so?

Technically true, but I've rarely seen a mafia team pulling good results on erasing the other mafia team.

Tricksy wording. How does a player like Golden calling Fuzz civ make the mafia "know" for sure that Fuzz must be civ? Yes, it happened in this case, but you can't generalize like that.

Don't know, but lots of players and three kills last night points to it.

Again, it's more than just "calling him civ". Read Golden's posts. It was, in my view, over the top confidence in Fuzz's civvieness with very little reason, and Golden was not the only one doing it, just the most prominent.

There's been lots of players in Talking Heads too, with only one mafia team and an SK.

Three kills on N2 was unusual in pretty much every way possible. It can't be deciphered as two mafia teams, anyway. That's not how two mafia teams usually work.

Same thing. It doesn't make the mafia "know" anything.

And I never said "there are two mafia teams this game". Of course I don't know that. I just think it is more likely than not.

Well, you brought it up as if it was a scenario applying here. Again, using the words "I think" or "I believe" at the right time, instead of retroactively, can make things a lot clearer.

[Golden]

You still haven't actually answered number 3. All I did with Fuzz was call him, once, my top town read... and after that all I did was respond to specific questions and concerns. Do you think I should not have addressed those? What do you think I should have done differently? THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ME.

It indicates what you think appropriate civilian behaviour would be in the circumstances, given you are accusing my behaviour of being bad.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Some input on the Golden/llama discussion:

I don't think Golden has said anything unfair or manipulative; I get a strong feeling that he genuine conviction for what he's saying -- particularly his frustration at his points being ignored (as he perceives it). If Golden is guilty of anything, it might be that he is demanding a higher degree of specificity from llama than llama has realized, and I think that has led to this lengthy and continuing exchange in which llama feels like he is repeating himself. I don't get the impression that llama is deliberately avoiding Golden's points, because I do think he has answered to them in ways that make sense within the mindset he is conveying -- even if they don't meet the specificity standard within Golden's mindset.

That disconnect has led to this most recent series of posts, including Golden's list of grievances and llama's response to those grievances. I think the exchange reads genuine on both sides, to a degree enough that it has shaken me from my llama suspicion in general (aided of course by my heightened suspicion of Boomslang). When I look through the llama posts that Golden has brought out, this is the one I think is most important:

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.

My immediate reaction to this was negative. I understand why Golden might think this looks like a pre-meditated maneuver, particularly considering the fact that Golden knew he was going to be a primary suspect emerging from llama's proposed approach. However, I do have one doubt about this line of thinking: if llama and his team consciously planned to kill Fuzz and then cast suspicion upon the people who were calling him a town read, then this post evidences a very transparent effort by llama to execute that plan. It'd almost be like a person farting in an elevator and then shouting "OH MAN WHO RIPPED ONE" despite already having drawn disgusted looks from at least one other person inside.

[thellama73]

Here is the chain of quotes that gave me the impression you were both buddying and painting a target on Fuzz. I hesitate to post it, because I know you'll quibble with each post as if I am misrepresenting the facts, so I'll reiterate, it's a matter of interpretation, not of facts. I'll also once more highlight Fuzz's post accusing you of the same thing, to prove that I am not the only one who feels this way. It's long, so I'll spoiler it.

Spoiler: show

I might've not said hypothetical or theoretical when referring to "2 wagons" in my short conversation with Golden, or maybe he didn't, mostly irrelevant and we've cleared up the confusion.

Yeah, that in addition to his compliments unnerve me. The entire chain of events feels like:
"Fuzz I like how you think"
"Fuzz engage me in this conversation"
"Fuzz is my strongest town read, I wanted to get his perspective to understand where he's coming from"

Now, I love my name being thrown around like hot potato, that's not the issue, but it feels like an accelerated process. Even taking into account the fact that "strongest town read" is a fickle thing on Day 1 this trust Golden has built feels artificially quickened, if that makes sense.

Of the two with most heat right now (RadicalFuzz and LoRab) I'd be far more likely to vote LoRab.

The suspicion on RadicalFuzz reminds me of a standard suspicion of sig. Or a little bit of how people thought I was bad because I tried something different in recruitment. I don't see where the baddie motives are for claiming that you are going to play a different style this early in the game, for a couple of reasons 1) drawing attention to a change in play style is hardly helpful - I'd think a baddie would more likely want to avoid drawing attention to it... and 2) because I don't see it as likely that he is paranoid enough about how different his baddie meta looks that he would need to protect it in advance.

JJJ's quote 2 on LoRab - that is standard for all LoRab metas and she would say it either way. She isn't easy to read. I'd like to know more about why you and Mac feel the other two read as constructed, because they don't deeply to me. But I find LoRab to be good at hiding her affiliation, and so she could be bad. If I was to vote LoRab, it would be more because I trust the instincts of both of those people who have called her out (should they be town) and not based on my own read.

I'm more suspicious of two people who don't have a lot of heat right now.

My eye is more on Rico and Mac at this point. Rico minimises the value of the poll without any evidence beyond his own opinion that he has presented, but also claims certain options benefit him. He claims he thinks it has no value, but he immediately questions me for apparently being so sure that roles are imported wholesale, as though there could be some kind of baddie motive for that in a poll he apparently doesn't think has any meaning. His mindset just doesn't add up, to me, I don't know what his perspective is. He is drawing a lot of attention to himself with apparent nonsense/jokes (like that rainbow list). Maybe his agenda is just to have fun and be a little zany, in which case success. But I'm wary of the things that seem to me to be contradictions.

Mac, has felt more like town Mac for me except that one trap he put me in which reminded me much more of TH where he liked to try to talk people into traps. I don't remember him doing that when civ, and I don't like it from either player. I might have felt a little better if he'd taken the time to explain where his mindset was on that after I called him out on it. But I feel much more wary of Rico at this point.

I haven't heard your vocaroo. If you think we should stop fighting and just be friends then which of us would you rather see gone? I also really dislike it when people say votes not on leading wagons are going to waste. It's a very narrow-minded viewpoint that completely ignores any effect of lynch votes aside from voting to kill.

Hey Mac, question. If you had to blindly trust one player for the rest of the game, who would it be?

I like a lot of your posts, Fuzz. They bring an interesting perspective that I think is helpful.

I think votes off the main wagons can definitely be meaningful and analysed (see: G-Mans rainbow lists in Biblical). I don't think anyone should pick someone on one of the main two wagons if they feel that both are civilian. However, I tend to prefer that people at least declare which of the main wagons they would vote for, if they voted for either, because being off the wagon is an easy place to hide for a baddie.

But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

So he compliments people with the intent to legitimately compliment them? That bugs me, one of my pet peeves is feeling manipulated when people say nice things about me. That's why I prefer people to suspect me, I know where their mindset is.

I have told you exactly where my mindset is. It's up to you to choose whether to 'know it' or not.

Choosing only to trust my mindset if I'm suspicious of you is flawed. It just means that I know my best move when bad is to be suspicious of you. It wouldn't make my suspicious mindset genuine.

I'll give my reads whatever they are. I don't really care if it makes you uncomfortable that I trust you. And, as Mac's basically implied, I don't even care if it gets me suspected. I think part of Mac's reason for suspecting me in that game may have also been that he was concerned I was being manipulative.

There are lots of reasons you are my top town read, including:

1) The way a number of people jumped on you for poor reasons, at least some of which I think is likely from baddies.
2) The way you called that out when it just got dropped (completely right, and although I still haven't analysed who those people were I'm waiting to find out...)
3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.
4) The way you have handled Dr Wilgy... unflappable in the face of meaningless suspicion.

[thellama73]

Well, you brought it up as if it was a scenario applying here. Again, using the words "I think" or "I believe" at the right time, instead of retroactively, can make things a lot clearer.

I never intended to say I think or I believe that there are two mafia teams. I said it's likely, and it is. You're misreading my post anyway. Golden said he could not conceive of any situation in which not calling out civs could be beneficial, so I pointed to a possible one. It wasn't meant to imply that this was the case in this game.

[thellama73]

When I look through the llama posts that Golden has brought out, this is the one I think is most important:

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.

My immediate reaction to this was negative. I understand why Golden might think this looks like a pre-meditated maneuver, particularly considering the fact that Golden knew he was going to be a primary suspect emerging from llama's proposed approach. However, I do have one doubt about this line of thinking: if llama and his team consciously planned to kill Fuzz and then cast suspicion upon the people who were calling him a town read, then this post evidences a very transparent effort by llama to execute that plan. It'd almost be like a person farting in an elevator and then shouting "OH MAN WHO RIPPED ONE" despite already having drawn disgusted looks from at least one other person inside.

Thank you for giving my gameplay some respect, JJ. You are a gentleman.

[Golden]

@llama - I'll point out that fuzz and I (and you, whats more) had a discussion at the time where I addressed fuzz's concerns.

I can't quibble with you posting a list of posts which fairly represent the evolution of my read on fuzz and explain pretty clearly from the first post to the last a consistent set of reasons for reading him as civ.

I have even admitted multiple times that, at least, the 'buddying' side of your case has some merit.

You see, I don't see you as bad for that side of things at all. BUT

All of those posts came in day zero and the first half of day one. That was the context of developing that read. To say it is 'very confident' in that context... how confident is anyone of any read that early in the game?

I also said these things about fuzz on day one.

Spoiler: show

But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

Explain something to me. How can I, with my reasoning for voting Llama literally attributed to "I'm following the guy who can only speak in smileys," be your strongest town read when in the same post you claim you would criticize people voting off wagon without much explanation?

Fair enough Marsh. You realize, then, that if we're going to operate on the possibility of separate scum teams that catching scum provides very little credibility, correct?

1) there are 24 hours to go, so it's hardly time to be talking about where the major wagons in this lynch are... if I think your vote is to be criticised, I'll wait until I see where the wagons actually are and your vote is at the end of the day
2) Just because someone does something scum might do, does not mean that particular thing is the only thing I take into account when making a read. If I felt like you were deliberately skirting creating any opinions on the main candidates by voting off-wagon, then my opinion of you would probably start to fall from 'top town read', but it wouldn't immediately send you to 'worst scum read', either.

Now, would it make sense for you to kill Fuzz after this? Probably not, but if there are multiple killers as there appear to be after last night, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them.

How do these three sentences make sense together? If it "probably wouldn't" make sense for Golden to kill the object of his proposed malevolent buddying, then why wouldn't it surprise you if he was one of the killers (Fuzz being among the dead)?

Exactly JJ. This is what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that RadicalFuzz 'couldn't be lynched' is kind of silly anyway. He was taking heat on day zero. I call him my top civ read and suddenly a whole lot of people bandwagon on to that on their rainbows, but beyond me I never saw anyone give reasons for seeing him as civ.

And, as per the point I've been making all game.

SAYING YOU READ SOMEONE AS CIV IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BUDDYING. To claim it is, is utterly disingenuous. Llama just called JJ civ, does that mean (since he says that only mafia people buddy) that I should call llama confirmed mafia, because only mafia buddy? Because, thats where llamas logic takes you.

And it is actually ridiculous to suggest people should not say they read people as civ. If we took this approach, the town would literally never win the game.

I'd also add that I mentioned Fuzz exactly once in all of night one, day two and night two, and that one time was my rainbow list in which I named every player.

And yes people, that second quote I posted was from day one. You'd think it was from day three, when llama and I have been spatting, but llama had already once accused me of buddying fuzz on day one.

[Ricochet]

Well, you brought it up as if it was a scenario applying here. Again, using the words "I think" or "I believe" at the right time, instead of retroactively, can make things a lot clearer.

I never intended to say I think or I believe that there are two mafia teams. I said it's likely, and it is. You're misreading my post anyway. Golden said he could not conceive of any situation in which not calling out civs could be beneficial, so I pointed to a possible one. It wasn't meant to imply that this was the case in this game.

Ah. I sort of disagree, anyway. Reading players as good or bad is, like, basic evaluating. I don't understand what "calling out civs" means, without prior knowledge that the player called out is indeed civ. I don't know, but nor do I really think, Golden had prior knowledge. I don't know if whoever killed Fuzz did it for this reason.

[Golden]

There is two ways this could be, in my mind.

1) Llama really does see my behaviour towards Fuzz as odd. He forgot that he had called it out on day one, and so when he came out with the case that 'he needed to look back at who was calling Fuzz civ', he had genuinely forgotten that he had already called me out on that. Then he remembered he found that suspicious when he went back and looked. Yes llama, I can see this as possible. My mind isn't made up.

2) Llama remembered full well, killed Fuzz, and did it knowing full well he'd set up the thread for me to be his lynch target the next day.

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll just address the most immediate problem I have with the anti-Boomslang case first:

Spoiler: show

Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

But if the "case" against me, as far I understand it, is that I "buddied up" to Tranq as a Mafia defense, why aren't you including him in this list?

MM lists three relatively arbitrary names for lynch candidacy including Boomslang, and Boom offers a somewhat curious response -- insisting that a Tranq connection should exist. This says to me that if Boomslang is mafia-aligned, Tranq is probably not on his team.

The inclusion of Boomslang was not arbitrary and the Tranq mention wasn't just pulled out of a hat. A quick review of the earliest mentions of Tranq in the game show that Long Con was the first to suggest a Boomslang-Tranq connection, and that Mac rapidly latched on (yet again). You quoted the post in your ISO, but only in your "It's Day 3.0 and I'm still seeing this", which is especially disingenuous of you when we're talking about a day 0 case, revived on day 3 by Long Con, and being surprised that Boomslang chooses to discuss Tranq/day 0 when that's what the day 0 case was about.

[juliets]

Some input on the Golden/llama discussion:

I don't think Golden has said anything unfair or manipulative; I get a strong feeling that he genuine conviction for what he's saying -- particularly his frustration at his points being ignored (as he perceives it). If Golden is guilty of anything, it might be that he is demanding a higher degree of specificity from llama than llama has realized, and I think that has led to this lengthy and continuing exchange in which llama feels like he is repeating himself. I don't get the impression that llama is deliberately avoiding Golden's points, because I do think he has answered to them in ways that make sense within the mindset he is conveying -- even if they don't meet the specificity standard within Golden's mindset.

That disconnect has led to this most recent series of posts, including Golden's list of grievances and llama's response to those grievances. I think the exchange reads genuine on both sides, to a degree enough that it has shaken me from my llama suspicion in general (aided of course by my heightened suspicion of Boomslang). When I look through the llama posts that Golden has brought out, this is the one I think is most important:

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.

My immediate reaction to this was negative. I understand why Golden might think this looks like a pre-meditated maneuver, particularly considering the fact that Golden knew he was going to be a primary suspect emerging from llama's proposed approach. However, I do have one doubt about this line of thinking: if llama and his team consciously planned to kill Fuzz and then cast suspicion upon the people who were calling him a town read, then this post evidences a very transparent effort by llama to execute that plan. It'd almost be like a person farting in an elevator and then shouting "OH MAN WHO RIPPED ONE" despite already having drawn disgusted looks from at least one other person inside.

JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'll just address the most immediate problem I have with the anti-Boomslang case first:

Spoiler: show

Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

But if the "case" against me, as far I understand it, is that I "buddied up" to Tranq as a Mafia defense, why aren't you including him in this list?

MM lists three relatively arbitrary names for lynch candidacy including Boomslang, and Boom offers a somewhat curious response -- insisting that a Tranq connection should exist. This says to me that if Boomslang is mafia-aligned, Tranq is probably not on his team.

The inclusion of Boomslang was not arbitrary and the Tranq mention wasn't just pulled out of a hat. A quick review of the earliest mentions of Tranq in the game show that Long Con was the first to suggest a Boomslang-Tranq connection, and that Mac rapidly latched on (yet again). You quoted the post in your ISO, but only in your "It's Day 3.0 and I'm still seeing this", which is especially disingenuous of you when we're talking about a day 0 case, revived on day 3 by Long Con, and being surprised that Boomslang chooses to discuss Tranq/day 0 when that's what the day 0 case was about.

It's always possible that contextual details are overlooked in an ISO. It's a restricted view of thread content, deliberately. From the Boomslang ISO, it looked to me like he was frequently asking people to measure their read on him against the behavior of Tranq, and I think it's reasonable for me to find that suspicious. If I did miss important context, then could you please display it here instead of just talk about it? I don't remember each of these sectors of the thread clearly enough to follow your train of thought without quotes.

[FZ.]

The more people talk, the more confused I get. llama has a way of making me go back on my suspicion. That said, no one really replied to what I asked about him before. I'll post it again:

I asked llama why he feels different to me than his normal civ game, and now I'll say what I think his civ game is like, and people can tell me if they see it or not.

Often, when llama is suspected he tends to disregard those accusations with a kind of condescending remark like "you don't scare me", and the likes. He similarly addresses his suspicions in that way as well. For example, I remember a game when he was very suspicious of me (I think it was death note), where he just said something like "nobody is buying what you're selling". When he builds a case, he quotes a lot and shows how those quotes lead to the person being bad. He tends to be cocky in his suspicions, thinking he can't be wrong, or even if he can be wrong, still push his suspicion until he gets his lynch, when he feels someone is bad.

I am not seeing any of that here. I've waited and waited, and even asked him if there's a reason he could think of, to why I don't feel he's being his usual civ. His answer that he's more busy does not explain the attitude. It can explain less posts and maybe less involvement, but I assume the attitude would still be there when he found something he didn't like. Right now, it just looks like he's leaning on what Golden says and replies to him, instead of leading the conversation and pushing him.

Can those familiar with llama's game please tell me if they see what I see?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I have to go to sleep soon. The discussion has moved nicely but the tally remains particularly gross. If I get lynched that'll be two town lynches in a row for me, and that's not how JJJ plays ball.