Someone trying to save someone is more likely to be a civilian than Mafia.sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.

Moderator: Community Team
Someone trying to save someone is more likely to be a civilian than Mafia.sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.
When did anything get personal?MovingPictures07 wrote:No need to make it personal. It isn't.Epignosis wrote:Like I said, I'll remember this.MovingPictures07 wrote:You haven't died yet.Epignosis wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't really need a lecture about not being able to play. I mainly signed up to help Llama fill the game, and it looked fun. I have time to play, but woke up later than I thought I would.Elohcin wrote:That's annoying MP. If you can't devote the time to it, don't play. It's not fair to the rest of us.![]()
Why are you so concerned that Epi might be lynched?![]()
So someone who isn't informed and hasn't read the thread casts a deciding vote for someone who has been keeping up and wants to participate. Thanks. I'll remember that.
I keep trying to post but the site keeps logging me out.
If you do, and you are civilian, then that sucks and I'm sorry I cast the deciding vote. But I had to vote for someone.
No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.S~V~S wrote:So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?Sloonei wrote:It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.S~V~S wrote:But you said that to make a point about it either way strikes you as suspicious; not that one is more suspicious than the other. And you did not mention this aspect of your thoughts at all when you voted for Epi. I still think this was a save vote. Although there is a lot of civ BTS here, I don't think you would have waited so long to put in a save for a civ.Sloonei wrote:I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.S~V~S wrote:I feel pretty good about Epi, and fairly neutral about sig.
But since you voted for Epi, you feel it is LESS suspicious when sig mentions it, even though he brought it up first?Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.
I am moving my vote to sig, this vote of Slooneis feels save-ish.
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.
Yes, in the Champions Game, I denounced the suspicion of you and believed you were Civ.sig wrote:No you haven'tLong Con wrote:The answer is, it makes it less likely for a baddie to be lynched. As far as I know. It's like lining lynch victims up in a buffet for a baddie to carefully craft a simple vote that will ensure their teammate doesn't die.Long Con wrote:Does a tied vote make it more or less likely that a baddie will be lynched?
I'll move my vote to sig. Sorry sig, I know you have had early-game troubles before, and I have defended you when the majority was taking Civ you down... but this is my biggest ping now.
Epi's point that the tiny not-all-BTSC baddies aren't performing some multi-save on Epi is also relevant, but that could mean other things as well.
*vote sig*
You are mistaken, I did not vote for BWT. My only vote before you was for Epi.sig wrote:Even if it is just two with the BTSC they still could have saved him, though I might be revising my thoughts. Your more likely mafia then any off the others I've named. Mafia LC always bandwagons onto me day 1, 2, or 3. Plus you voted for a player who didn't even show up before switching to me.Long Con wrote:The answer is, it makes it less likely for a baddie to be lynched. As far as I know. It's like lining lynch victims up in a buffet for a baddie to carefully craft a simple vote that will ensure their teammate doesn't die.Long Con wrote:Does a tied vote make it more or less likely that a baddie will be lynched?
I'll move my vote to sig. Sorry sig, I know you have had early-game troubles before, and I have defended you when the majority was taking Civ you down... but this is my biggest ping now.
Epi's point that the tiny not-all-BTSC baddies aren't performing some multi-save on Epi is also relevant, but that could mean other things as well.
*vote sig*
From a hosting perspective, this probably makes Llama happy. A host likes for his roles to matter, and sig's role manifested in a spectacular, and tragic, way.Epignosis wrote:Damn.
Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.
Got screwed by his own role Day 1.
I'm sorry sig.
My vote on BWT was about saving Epi. I said as much. My vote for you was all about your behavior and the points brought against you. Those points were not brought against you until later in the day. THat is why I changed my vote then and didn;t vote for you first.sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.
Sloonei wrote:No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.S~V~S wrote:So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?Sloonei wrote:It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.S~V~S wrote:But you said that to make a point about it either way strikes you as suspicious; not that one is more suspicious than the other. And you did not mention this aspect of your thoughts at all when you voted for Epi. I still think this was a save vote. Although there is a lot of civ BTS here, I don't think you would have waited so long to put in a save for a civ.Sloonei wrote:I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.S~V~S wrote:I feel pretty good about Epi, and fairly neutral about sig.
But since you voted for Epi, you feel it is LESS suspicious when sig mentions it, even though he brought it up first?Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.
I am moving my vote to sig, this vote of Slooneis feels save-ish.
In retrospect, this comment is terribly cruel.Epignosis wrote:I wonder if sig will vote bwt to save himself.
I'm just glad I don't have to keep track of it anymore.Long Con wrote:From a hosting perspective, this probably makes Llama happy. A host likes for his roles to matter, and sig's role manifested in a spectacular, and tragic, way.Epignosis wrote:Damn.
Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.
Got screwed by his own role Day 1.
I'm sorry sig.
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 simply would not draw the conclusion that FL is unaware of their teammates' identities. Not having BTSC =/= not knowing who they are. All that we can see is that the scum team has a member that is excluded from the regular BTSC. I do not see this as a strong indictment on Epi, but I found it more suspicious that he was accusing a player of being suspicious for either being unaware of the setup or making an assumption about it, when at the very best he (Epi) was making the reciprocal of that exact same assumption. I also think, since he was emphasizing this point in his vote against sig, that he was stating it with much more conviction, which can be taken to mean either he studied the roles and came a strong conclusion, or he is privy to such information, meaning he's one of those bad guys.indiglo wrote:Sloonei wrote:No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.S~V~S wrote:So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?
Reading the roles though, I read Fearless Leader the exact same way Epi did.
Fearless Leader - Can send one message to Boris and Natasha each night. Survives his first death.
He doesn't have BTSC with them, and likely will only learn their identities by some code he tells them to use to identify themselves in the thread. (Well, that's what I would do.) He will probably identify himself to them tonight in his message (assuming he's present) and then Day 2 Boris & Natasha will identify themselves to him in the thread somehow. I don't see why it's odd to use explained game mechanics as a defense. It's actually (maybe?) one of the few defenses that is solid and makes sense. (Not saying Epi is civ, just that that defense doesn't ping me a bit. Not sure it's one I would use, because my brain works differently, but the defense itself isn't pingy to me.)
I didn't find that part suspicious at all. I think Epi is likely one of those players who analyzes the roles right away to try to see where things fit. Not all players play that way, and clearly sig is one who didn't in this game.
Yep. Dune.Sloonei wrote:Is there precedent for a role like that on the Syndicate?
I must errata this... It was not Zebra's 1st post that I saw.DrWilgy wrote:Not sure yet. The giant smiley in Zebras 1st post makes me think she is bad... Happy Zebra is ebil Zebra!Scotty wrote:LolDrWilgy wrote:Technically it worked for me... Not how I planned but worked well enough, so sure!Scotty wrote:You are no doctor, Wilgy.
Want to buddy up? It worked well for us last game!
Ok who we voting for today?
ok.sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.
Epignosis wrote:Bitch, my identity is my identity theft protection!
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.
Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.Scotty wrote:RIP sig.
Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?
ok.sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.![]()
You patting yourself on the back here?Long Con wrote:Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.![]()
Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.
Are you implying that I'm hinting at Aesop or Boris?Sloonei wrote:You patting yourself on the back here?Long Con wrote:Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.![]()
Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.
No the other thing. Are you scum? You have to tell me if you are.Long Con wrote:Are you implying that I'm hinting at Aesop or Boris?Sloonei wrote:You patting yourself on the back here?Long Con wrote:Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.![]()
Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.
Yes, there were.indiglo wrote: @ llama - Were there any missing PMs?
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.
Probably bwt.thellama73 wrote:Yes, there were.indiglo wrote: @ llama - Were there any missing PMs?
Oh, no... no I am not. Not Aesop either, for the record. But I probably shouldn't say too much about who I'm not, because each claim inches closer to violating Rule 3: No role claiming or role outing. Given the civilian BTSC in this game, this one is important. Modkills will be the fruit of violation.Sloonei wrote:Oh Boris. Yes, you are Boris. Right?
Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.Sloonei wrote:Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.Scotty wrote:RIP sig.
Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?
ok.sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.![]()
You forgot one:Scotty wrote:Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.Sloonei wrote:Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.Scotty wrote:RIP sig.
Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?
ok.sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.![]()
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.
If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.
It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.
Sloonei wrote:Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.
I never voted for Golden. Golden is not playing in this game. How could I have voted for Golden?Scotty wrote:Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.Sloonei wrote:Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.Scotty wrote:RIP sig.
Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?
ok.sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.![]()
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.
If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.
It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.