lolololololololoMatt wrote:Uh really? I'm seeing them both get 6 votes. Is it possible the entire poll isn't showing up on my screen?Ricochet wrote:I'm seeing position 4 getting 8 votes to position 5 getting 7 votes, unless I need to clean my eyesockets.Matt wrote:Holy crap, I think my theory is full of it. Just looked over the polls, and I didn't realize there was a tie in the last Night poll, so we have no idea which won.
You should... open image in a new tab...?Matt wrote:That's kind of messed up.
For Simon and Gar, I have MM, DH, Boom, BR, Llama, and Niju
For Thelma and Louise, I have Golden, Mac, Dom, Epig, Juliets, and 3J.
Who am I missing? And why doesn't it show everyone if I'm missing people???
The poll screencap I posted in the poll thread shows the entire vote. Perhaps it is your monitor? I looked at it on my phone, and on my work computer and I could see it both ways.Matt wrote:That's kind of messed up.
For Simon and Gar, I have MM, DH, Boom, BR, Llama, and Niju
For Thelma and Louise, I have Golden, Mac, Dom, Epig, Juliets, and 3J.
Who am I missing? And why doesn't it show everyone if I'm missing people???
Well, I'm lost. Walk me through your story. When did you challenge or expected Boom to be cursed? When did Boom post question-cursey-like posts or responded to your challenge or whatevs. Correct...I think. Yeah, if you are cursed on N2 (and hence post like a cursedman on D3)and the curse is a position power, it means the ability to curse was determined by the N1 polls.Matt wrote:I'm confused. Help me out here, Rico.
Day 3.0 was when Boomslang was question cursed, correct? So he would've had to have been cursed on Night 2, and the position on Night 2 would've depended on the poll for Night 1, correct?
Argh. I don't even know if what I'm saying makes sense.
Also, does anyone know why the complete polls might not be showing up for me? Cuz really, I frequently look at polls in games and I'd like to fix this lol.
Linki - That's weird. And Lol @ me voting Thelma and Louise.
Position 5 won N2 poll as well, so D3.0 was a position 5er.Matt wrote:Cool shit, Rico, thanks. That worked!
Who knows how many incorrect polls I've been looking at since I came back for Talking Heads?
So, on the Night 1 poll, option 5 won thus position 5 would've been used on Day/Night 2 against Boomslang for Day 3.0 if the question curse is a position power. Have we had any other position 5 day/nights?
I thought at first that you were making it all up in order to flush some baddies out somehow. Seemed like an interesting plan, fun to try. Maybe you should look at Boomslang's poke in that light - if he believed there was something to it...? That might be far-fetched though, and coloured by the fact that I already suspect him. It's really nothing new.Matt wrote:Oh snap. Does that mean Lorab controlled the verdict on the Night 2 poll to pick her own position for Day/Night 3? So maybe there shouldn't be a question curser today.
I still think it's odd that Boomslang, of all people, kind of took a poke at my "Super Secret Theory", but I suppose I'll chalk that up to coincidence.
Tell us your favorite fruit.Ricochet wrote:When I return from studying, I want suggestions on what my 5K post should be. Don't worry, it'll be disappointingly bland or normal, but you can afford to dream.
At face value I think llama has been more suspicious, and there's a more overt connection to be observed between he and LoRab than there is with Dom. So I agree. Some have asserted that they could both be baddies, but I think this is unlikely given LoRab's treatment of them. It looks to me like an attempt to buddy Dom (and make him look bad after her flip) while distancing from llama. It reminds me a lot of the MacDougall/DrWilgy dynamic from Talking Heads, when Mac pretended to pursue Doc's lynch as a manner of distancing and protected Diiny in the process (not his team mate).Long Con wrote:Like I said, I'd go for Llama. I'm not so convinced that Dom is bad. We just have to drink to the good times and hope, my friend.
Who would you vote for if you could, and why?Ricochet wrote:This reads like a bunch of nothing. You already concluded D3.5 by place a left-field vote, based of vibes, which completely extinguished four previous days (two Day phases) of cases, debates, leads you made or had. Now, your "catching up" = "nothing happened, voting vibes again".thellama73 wrote:Okay, caught up. I'm still feeling bad about DH, so I am placing my vote there for now, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has the inclination to.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
NoMatt wrote:Thanks Sorsha/Llama. And haha, no not this time Sorsha
Wilgy and Tranq - please post, thank you!
I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.
Clementines.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Tell us your favorite fruit.Ricochet wrote:When I return from studying, I want suggestions on what my 5K post should be. Don't worry, it'll be disappointingly bland or normal, but you can afford to dream.
Not only that.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can only vaguely understand why some people have labeled Tranq as a top suspect. Here's my concern with him as the lynchee:
Entering this phase and in it's earliest hours there were at least two significant cases in discussion (Long Con's against me and mine against llama/Dom). If a baddie team wants to evade those cases (from your perspectives you can freely include the case against me, from mine it's distinctly the llama/Dom case), then who could be an easier guy to bandwagon than Lurker King Tranq? These are being labeled as "pressure votes", but I find myself doubting they all really are -- they're meant to stay there through the buzzer.
If Tranq is bad then I grant this is patently wrong. I just don't think there's much of a case against Tranq -- only annoyance at his post count.
)
Funny thing is, on mobile, your attempt is fail, because I could see the whole thing without having to quote it.Long Con wrote:I think lynching Tranq has a good chance of taking out a baddie as well. I'm just saying this to spur on Tranq, it's not my real feelings. It's not time to lynch a lurker yet. Soon though. It's got to be sure.His behaviour is similar to other times I have seen him bad - he likes to plot behind the scenes more than hang out in the thread.
You. You have an entire quote of mine there, as to why.thellama73 wrote:Who would you vote for if you could, and why?Ricochet wrote:This reads like a bunch of nothing. You already concluded D3.5 by place a left-field vote, based of vibes, which completely extinguished four previous days (two Day phases) of cases, debates, leads you made or had. Now, your "catching up" = "nothing happened, voting vibes again".thellama73 wrote:Okay, caught up. I'm still feeling bad about DH, so I am placing my vote there for now, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has the inclination to.
What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.
Werd, it's not the best voting behavior. I have to ask though: does Tranq give a flying eff who he votes for? If the answer is no, is that a baddie trait? WIFOM I guess. I'm just used to seeing baddies give some fraction of a crap.Ricochet wrote:Not only that.
D1: Rico (hi
D2: Sig
D3: pileup on LoRab
D3.5: FZ, simply at my request
D4 so far: requesting me to tell him again who to vote for
Why wouldn't it, in theory, suit a baddie to not give a crap who to vote for, if they have a good window for it? (such as playing the "intentional ambiguous card" or, say, "the Vompatti code of play")JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Werd, it's not the best voting behavior. I have to ask though: does Tranq give a flying eff who he votes for? If the answer is no, is that a baddie trait? WIFOM I guess. I'm just used to seeing baddies give some fraction of a crap.Ricochet wrote:Not only that.
D1: Rico (hi
D2: Sig
D3: pileup on LoRab
D3.5: FZ, simply at my request
D4 so far: requesting me to tell him again who to vote for
Well yeah, I guess Vompatti does exist. I also just remembered my baddie team mate in the Champs Tournament Finale (Zack) doing basically nothing but exist and vote randomly before he was replaced. So there is some precedent.Ricochet wrote:Why wouldn't it, in theory, suit a baddie to not give a crap who to vote for, if they have a good window for it? (such as playing the "intentional ambiguous card" or, say, "the Vompatti code of play")
I don't understand why people think he's bad.Ricochet wrote: What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.
Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA
THELLAMA73
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
I don't think the word "suspish" is remotely suspicious on its own power. But I do think it's interesting that confirmed baddie made the conscious decision to treat you and Dom very differently for the same silly thing -- that word. I think she blatantly exposed one of you two as her team mate. If it's not you then it must be Dom. Do you find my reasoning faulty?thellama73 wrote:Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.
A lot of people have focused on my use of the word "suspish". I don't remember using it, but okay. I get why some people might feel that I picked it up from a teammate and it's a slip, but I'll remind you that I have played a lot of mafia games here and have heard a loit of varied language. I certainly picked it up from somewhere, but it wasn't this game, because - spoiler alert - I have no teammates this game.
It's certainly possible that Dom is bad. Lynch him if you like. But I am keeping my vote on DH for now.
Why don't you think he's bad for why people think he is?thellama73 wrote:I don't understand why people think he's bad.Ricochet wrote: What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?
It's okay.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Me too.DharmaHelper wrote:Addressing the top part of Dom's post, I lol'd.
Sorry Dom, I didn't even notice the dark red text.
Why did you not comment on JJJ's case?thellama73 wrote:I didn't miss this, JJJ! I was going back to read a little before responding. Just give me a second.Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA
THELLAMA73
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.
A lot of people have focused on my use of the word "suspish". I don't remember using it, but okay. I get why some people might feel that I picked it up from a teammate and it's a slip, but I'll remind you that I have played a lot of mafia games here and have heard a loit of varied language. I certainly picked it up from somewhere, but it wasn't this game, because - spoiler alert - I have no teammates this game.
It's certainly possible that Dom is bad. Lynch him if you like. But I am keeping my vote on DH for now.
Actually it was 31 times. My eyeball guessing needs work.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Through four days and nights, he posted around 10-15 times.
For some reason, if I'd imagine someone in that chair, the way he's playing, it'd be Wilgy.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Baddies right now:
He voted for LoRab on Day 3.0. I don't think it counts for much because his vote came before the flood of late voters made her a truly viable lynch. At the time of llama's vote it was not a likely result. On Day 3.5 he voted for DharmaHelper.Tranq wrote:JJJ what do you make of llama's Day 3.1 vote for LoRab? Between llama and Dom, who do you think is more likely to be LoRab's teammate? Do you think both of them are?
I'm inclined to change my vote but I'm not sure yet to who. Maybe llama but I want to re-read him first.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Actually it was 31 times. My eyeball guessing needs work.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Through four days and nights, he posted around 10-15 times.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
