A Mafia of Unfortunate Events [END GAME]

[Golden]

LOL, although in the other one (Haiku), I hid you, Golden, in my moderately bad reads, because you were the one I was most sure was Civ. Then you complained about it. And you were bad. How ironic?

I'll always challenge someone who puts me on the bad side!

[Quin]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

@Dom - I'm packing. Going away for a few days, so I've got to get stuff done. Not that I was actually lying low in the first place.

[Long Con]

Who else acted like a certain role?

Aren't you arguing affiliation?
Couldn't you say... I dunno... sig could be bad by the same argument, but replace "indy" with "civvie"?

sig seems to be acting like a supatown, and he expressed shock that he was orange in my list. I thought maybe he was supposed to be Klaus, but then I read him talking about who else might be Klaus. Is he just supatowning off the Gloryo meta read triumph?

That's where I stand with sig. I can point to the specific post where MP tries to REALLY softclaim Indy. You know the one, right?

no

Where he was like "And by 'us' I mean the Civvies. I don't really care either way."

Paraphrased.

[Golden]

If I were to take a "PoE" approach to this - like, trust, create a pool of people who have worked hard and look good and could be deepwolves but also there are legitimate reasons to see them as town... then I would not vote for the following:

DDL, dom, epi, Jack, LC, sig.

That leaves four - daisy, sorsha, MP, quin.

The problem is, I'm way too paranoid to the idea there is a deepwolf. Part of it might be that someone like LC is just the kind of guy to carry this off. In fact, I remember seeing it first hand as a teamie...

But, LC's defences are very strong. And his third-party defence from Jack is very persuasive as well.

So, I'm pretty sure I will vote one of those four who are in the PoE pool.

[Long Con]

LOL, although in the other one (Haiku), I hid you, Golden, in my moderately bad reads, because you were the one I was most sure was Civ. Then you complained about it. And you were bad. How ironic?

I'll always challenge someone who puts me on the bad side!

I do it out of love.

[Dom]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

@Dom - I'm packing. Going away for a few days, so I've got to get stuff done. Not that I was actually lying low in the first place.

who bad then

[Golden]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

[Quin]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

[Quin]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

@Dom - I'm packing. Going away for a few days, so I've got to get stuff done. Not that I was actually lying low in the first place.

who bad then

Not Jack, DDL, sig or LC.

[Long Con]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

No one is trying to lynch sig. It's just not impossible for him to be bad. It's just one of the most unlikely ones.

[Golden]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

[Golden]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

No one is trying to lynch sig. It's just not impossible for him to be bad. It's just one of the most unlikely ones.

It's not impossible for anyone to be bad. What I said is that sig is even less likely to be bad than those who appear mechanically cleared, and I stick by that.

[Quin]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

No, I think sig is Ishmael. But the possibility that that's what happened is most definitely there.

[Long Con]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

No one is trying to lynch sig. It's just not impossible for him to be bad. It's just one of the most unlikely ones.

It's not impossible for anyone to be bad. What I said is that sig is even less likely to be bad than those who appear mechanically cleared, and I stick by that.

Yeah, I agree. Because Olaf.

[Quin]

Then again, you survived a night kill too, so maybe Violet's just gotten pretty lucky.

sig's anti-Ishmael string of posts from the moment he checked in are damning though, imo.

[Quin]

Got a little bit more stuff to do, so I'll come and catch up properly after dinner.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I don't care if Sig is Ishmael. Not today, anyhow.

[Jackofhearts2005]

Reading through MP's ISO.

I could definitely see him as buddies with Spirit2.

[Golden]

Then again, you survived a night kill too, so maybe Violet's just gotten pretty lucky.

sig's anti-Ishmael string of posts from the moment he checked in are damning though, imo.

My survival has nothing to do with violet or Ishmael, at least to the best of my knowledge. I think it might have been the Fowl who did it.

[Jackofhearts2005]

Probably won't be able to post it in full til tomorrow afternoon cause I'm going drop computer to phone. I'll give the a summary with page references before then.

[Golden]

I don't care if Sig is Ishmael. Not today, anyhow.

Neither should quin. I think he's just shifting attention.

Besides, his theory is all based on me and mp being on Ishmael team, and so there are at least three people who know quin is dead wrong.

[Long Con]

Ok, bedtime. Good night, all. Lots of time left to vote, and I'll be around tomorrow all day here and there.

[Golden]

Pretty sure my vote is one of quin and MP.

[Quin]

I don't care if Sig is Ishmael. Not today, anyhow.

Neither should quin. I think he's just shifting attention.

Besides, his theory is all based on me and mp being on Ishmael team, and so there are at least three people who know quin is dead wrong.

Well ain't this the biggest misrepresentation I've seen today.

First off, I'm not shifting attention. I intentionally stopped pushing my sig is Ishmael agenda a long time ago, because he doesn't matter in the wider scheme of things if I'm correct.. The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Secondly, my theory has absolutely nothing to do with either you or MP. My theory is based on sig's survival and my narrowing it down to 3 responsible roles, and his anti-Ishmael agenda which he made a strong point about as soon as he checked in. You or MP would be good candidates to be recruited. That is literally all I said.

[Quin]

I'll catch up now.

[Quin]

I dislike how he voted for DDL three days in a row, including day 2. This is slightly scummy to me.

Insistent voting and ignoring major wagons is my thing. You shouldn't try to read me based on that, because it's a personal approach to mafia, not an alignment indicative strategy.

But you'll try do it anyway

[Quin]

If you HAD to vote for Dom or Sorsha, who would it be?

Me? Doesn't matter to me. I'm fine either way.

MP is bad.

Spoiler: show

Mark my words.

[Golden]

The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Incredibly specific. I asked if you thought he was bad and you said "No, I think he's Ishmael". Then you went on to post further and call posts he made 'damning'.

How can anything pointing to him being Ishmael be "damning"? That's why I think you are shifting attention.

[Quin]

The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Incredibly specific. I asked if you thought he was bad and you said "No, I think he's Ishmael". Then you went on to post further and call posts he made 'damning'.

How can anything pointing to him being Ishmael be "damning"? That's why I think you are shifting attention.

If you ask me if that's what I think, I'm going to tell you what I think. That's just a no brainer. I went further because your night kill survival opened up a new train of thought and I decided to pursue it.

If you don't agree with the word 'damning', read his posts and tell me why you disagree. There threat Ishmael poses is insignificant compared to the baddies, yet he came in with a clearly anti-Ishmael agenda, even instructing the baddies to seek him out and kill him. I'd say that's pretty strong distancing.

[Quin]

I think you're trying to evoke this degree of elaboration out of me so you can push your argument that I'm steering the direction of the thread, Golden. Na-uh.

[Golden]

The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Incredibly specific. I asked if you thought he was bad and you said "No, I think he's Ishmael". Then you went on to post further and call posts he made 'damning'.

How can anything pointing to him being Ishmael be "damning"? That's why I think you are shifting attention.

If you ask me if that's what I think, I'm going to tell you what I think. That's just a no brainer. I went further because your night kill survival opened up a new train of thought and I decided to pursue it.

If you don't agree with the word 'damning', read his posts and tell me why you disagree. There threat Ishmael poses is insignificant compared to the baddies, yet he came in with a clearly anti-Ishmael agenda, even instructing the baddies to seek him out and kill him. I'd say that's pretty strong distancing.

Why does someone need to distance from their own role? Why wouldn't the real Ishmael ideally want to minimise the threat that can be caused by their role? Doesn't it make more sense for Ishmael to be someone who talked about how little of a threat they were?

I disagree with the word 'damning' because Ishmael is no threat to the town. Are you suggesting we need to deal with Ishmael at some point?

[Golden]

I think you're trying to evoke this degree of elaboration out of me so you can push your argument that I'm steering the direction of the thread, Golden. Na-uh.

The one thing I can guarantee I'm not going to accuse you of doing is steering the direction of the thread. You're not even in the car.

[Quin]

The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Incredibly specific. I asked if you thought he was bad and you said "No, I think he's Ishmael". Then you went on to post further and call posts he made 'damning'.

How can anything pointing to him being Ishmael be "damning"? That's why I think you are shifting attention.

If you ask me if that's what I think, I'm going to tell you what I think. That's just a no brainer. I went further because your night kill survival opened up a new train of thought and I decided to pursue it.

If you don't agree with the word 'damning', read his posts and tell me why you disagree. There threat Ishmael poses is insignificant compared to the baddies, yet he came in with a clearly anti-Ishmael agenda, even instructing the baddies to seek him out and kill him. I'd say that's pretty strong distancing.

Why does someone need to distance from their own role? Why wouldn't the real Ishmael ideally want to minimise the threat that can be caused by their role? Doesn't it make more sense for Ishmael to be someone who talked about how little of a threat they were?

I disagree with the word 'damning' because Ishmael is no threat to the town. Are you suggesting we need to deal with Ishmael at some point?

The Syndicate has a 'lynch rogues if all else fails' philosophy that I've pretty often since I joined. It's no surprise that indies would want to distance themselves from their roles.

And I'm not suggesting we lynch him at all. I'm using damning to illustrate that I think I have a strong case.

linki: You're arguing semantics.

[Golden]

I think you're doing the exact opposite. Trying to avoid having much impact on who is chosen for a lynch, or on having any strong opinions on who troupe members might be.

You're too busy arguing why sig could be Troupe even though you think he isn't, for example. Why should this be seen as townie? What's the function of it from a civilian mindset? All it does is cast doubt on someone who we have every reason to trust...

[Golden]

The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Incredibly specific. I asked if you thought he was bad and you said "No, I think he's Ishmael". Then you went on to post further and call posts he made 'damning'.

How can anything pointing to him being Ishmael be "damning"? That's why I think you are shifting attention.

If you ask me if that's what I think, I'm going to tell you what I think. That's just a no brainer. I went further because your night kill survival opened up a new train of thought and I decided to pursue it.

If you don't agree with the word 'damning', read his posts and tell me why you disagree. There threat Ishmael poses is insignificant compared to the baddies, yet he came in with a clearly anti-Ishmael agenda, even instructing the baddies to seek him out and kill him. I'd say that's pretty strong distancing.

Why does someone need to distance from their own role? Why wouldn't the real Ishmael ideally want to minimise the threat that can be caused by their role? Doesn't it make more sense for Ishmael to be someone who talked about how little of a threat they were?

I disagree with the word 'damning' because Ishmael is no threat to the town. Are you suggesting we need to deal with Ishmael at some point?

The Syndicate has a 'lynch rogues if all else fails' philosophy that I've pretty often since I joined. It's no surprise that indies would want to distance themselves from their roles.

And I'm not suggesting we lynch him at all. I'm using damning to illustrate that I think I have a strong case.

linki: You're arguing semantics.

My car comment is semantics? How?

[Golden]

You're putting out pre-emptive defences against me, trying to build up what you aren't because you're not sure where I'm going to come at you from. It's all discrediting. Most of what I've seen from you in the last two pages is about discrediting. Discrediting sig, discrediting me... it's not 'here are the baddies', its 'don't listen to these guys', and I don't like it.

[Quin]

I think you're doing the exact opposite. Trying to avoid having much impact on who is chosen for a lynch, or on having any strong opinions on who troupe members might be.

You're too busy arguing why sig could be Troupe even though you think he isn't, for example. Why should this be seen as townie? What's the function of it from a civilian mindset? All it does is cast doubt on someone who we have every reason to trust...

If you don't want me to talk about sig, don't ask me about sig. Problem solved.

I'm not on the sidelines, bud. I'm putting it all out there.

[Quin]

You're putting out pre-emptive defences against me, trying to build up what you aren't because you're not sure where I'm going to come at you from. It's all discrediting. Most of what I've seen from you in the last two pages is about discrediting. Discrediting sig, discrediting me... it's not 'here are the baddies', its 'don't listen to these guys', and I don't like it.

You started it. You completely misrepresented my sig case, and that's why we're here now. Don't stick my name on this and fling mud at me for it. You're just as, if not more responsible.

On top of that, you're exaggerating the timelines. This debacle only started on this page. Everything else between us was part of a regular discussion.

And you're completely right that I don't know where you're going to come at me from, because I think you're being completely disingenuous right now.

[Quin]

The only reason I brought it up again is because you asked me and that was my specific answer to that question.

Incredibly specific. I asked if you thought he was bad and you said "No, I think he's Ishmael". Then you went on to post further and call posts he made 'damning'.

How can anything pointing to him being Ishmael be "damning"? That's why I think you are shifting attention.

If you ask me if that's what I think, I'm going to tell you what I think. That's just a no brainer. I went further because your night kill survival opened up a new train of thought and I decided to pursue it.

If you don't agree with the word 'damning', read his posts and tell me why you disagree. There threat Ishmael poses is insignificant compared to the baddies, yet he came in with a clearly anti-Ishmael agenda, even instructing the baddies to seek him out and kill him. I'd say that's pretty strong distancing.

Why does someone need to distance from their own role? Why wouldn't the real Ishmael ideally want to minimise the threat that can be caused by their role? Doesn't it make more sense for Ishmael to be someone who talked about how little of a threat they were?

I disagree with the word 'damning' because Ishmael is no threat to the town. Are you suggesting we need to deal with Ishmael at some point?

The Syndicate has a 'lynch rogues if all else fails' philosophy that I've pretty often since I joined. It's no surprise that indies would want to distance themselves from their roles.

And I'm not suggesting we lynch him at all. I'm using damning to illustrate that I think I have a strong case.

linki: You're arguing semantics.

My car comment is semantics? How?

I thought it was blatantly obvious that when I said 'steering the direction of the thread' I was referring to your thinking that I'm 'shifting attention'

[Golden]

You're putting out pre-emptive defences against me, trying to build up what you aren't because you're not sure where I'm going to come at you from. It's all discrediting. Most of what I've seen from you in the last two pages is about discrediting. Discrediting sig, discrediting me... it's not 'here are the baddies', its 'don't listen to these guys', and I don't like it.

You started it. You completely misrepresented my sig case, and that's why we're here now. Don't stick my name on this and fling mud at me for it. You're just as, if not more responsible.

On top of that, you're exaggerating the timelines. This debacle only started on this page. Everything else between us was part of a regular discussion.

And you're completely right that I don't know where you're going to come at me from, because I think you're being completely disingenuous right now.

What "case" did I 'completely misrepresent', and how did I misrepresent it?

Saying 'case' is like saying 'damning'. No-one needs a 'case' on Ishmael. We can completely ignore Ishmael. If Sig was Ishmael (which I don't think he is), why do you even care?

Don't tell me I started it. Let's look at the evidence shall we...

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

@Dom - I'm packing. Going away for a few days, so I've got to get stuff done. Not that I was actually lying low in the first place.

Whoop - the post that started it. You deciding to jump into a conversation I was having with LC (and by proxy Dom), by flinging mud at sig for how he could be a teammate of glorf. This despite your 'damning case' that he is Ishmael? What sense am I supposed to make of this? Why did you decide to jump into a conversation I wasn't having with you with an explanation for how sig could be bad? And how is this me starting it?

Here is what happened:

I had a go at LC for having sig as orange in his rainbow. LC had a perfectly reasonable answer. You decide to fling poo at sig as to how he could be a baddie. I rebut poo fling, and ask you if you actually believe sig could be bad. You say no, and then bring up your 'damning case' that he is Ishmael, a role which I never mentioned.

So first you fling poo at sig for being bad, then for being an indy who we shouldn't fear.

Why? Why did you do any of it? What sense does any of it make from the perspective of a townie trying to find the Troupe?

You probably have your post count per page higher than me, before you go saying I'm 'exaggerating timelines'. It didn't start on this page for me.

[Golden]

I thought it was blatantly obvious that when I said 'steering the direction of the thread' I was referring to your thinking that I'm 'shifting attention'

There's a big difference between trying to get the target off your own back and steering the thread.

[Golden]

A non-semantic difference. The first looks like a baddie trying to stay alive. The second looks like a civilian trying to catch baddies.

[Quin]

You're putting out pre-emptive defences against me, trying to build up what you aren't because you're not sure where I'm going to come at you from. It's all discrediting. Most of what I've seen from you in the last two pages is about discrediting. Discrediting sig, discrediting me... it's not 'here are the baddies', its 'don't listen to these guys', and I don't like it.

You started it. You completely misrepresented my sig case, and that's why we're here now. Don't stick my name on this and fling mud at me for it. You're just as, if not more responsible.

On top of that, you're exaggerating the timelines. This debacle only started on this page. Everything else between us was part of a regular discussion.

And you're completely right that I don't know where you're going to come at me from, because I think you're being completely disingenuous right now.

What "case" did I 'completely misrepresent', and how did I misrepresent it?

See the first post I called you out on on this page.

Saying 'case' is like saying 'damning'. No-one needs a 'case' on Ishmael. We can completely ignore Ishmael. If Sig was Ishmael (which I don't think he is), why do you even care?

We absolutely need a case on Ishmael. If we can identify any indie, then we identify someone who is likely not a member of the Troupe or a Guardian. That is why I care.

Don't tell me I started it. Let's look at the evidence shall we...

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

@Dom - I'm packing. Going away for a few days, so I've got to get stuff done. Not that I was actually lying low in the first place.

Whoop - the post that started it. You deciding to jump into a conversation I was having with LC (and by proxy Dom), by flinging mud at sig for how he could be a teammate of glorf. This despite your 'damning case' that he is Ishmael? What sense am I supposed to make of this? Why did you decide to jump into a conversation I wasn't having with you with an explanation for how sig could be bad? And how is this me starting it?

There is no way you can legitimately interpret that as anything more significant than conversation. You said something I disagreed with, and I told you why I disagreed with it. I didn't attack you or sig, or infer any suspicion on you as a result of it. Yes, I think sig is Ishmael. But I'd be a moron if I wasn't exploring other options. This post didn't start it. Again, refer to where the misrepresentation actually took place.

Here is what happened:

I had a go at LC for having sig as orange in his rainbow. LC had a perfectly reasonable answer. You decide to fling poo at sig as to how he could be a baddie. I rebut poo fling, and ask you if you actually believe sig could be bad. You say no, and then bring up your 'damning case' that he is Ishmael, a role which I never mentioned.

So first you fling poo at sig for being bad, then for being an indy who we shouldn't fear.

Why? Why did you do any of it? What sense does any of it make from the perspective of a townie trying to find the Troupe?

Refer to what I said above.

You probably have your post count per page higher than me, before you go saying I'm 'exaggerating timelines'. It didn't start on this page for me.

[Quin]

I thought it was blatantly obvious that when I said 'steering the direction of the thread' I was referring to your thinking that I'm 'shifting attention'

There's a big difference between trying to get the target off your own back and steering the thread.

Now we get to argue about whether I actually considered non-semantic differences when I threw a synonym into the conversation to keep it fresh. Yippee.

[Golden]

How could you possibly simultaneously disagree with my assertion about why sig is not bad (on the basis of a tenuous side case of glorf actually asking to be bussed) and believe that you have a 'damning' case that he is ishmael?

[Quin]

How could you possibly simultaneously disagree with my assertion about why sig is not bad (on the basis of a tenuous side case of glorf actually asking to be bussed) and believe that you have a 'damning' case that he is ishmael?

You said there is no good reason for sig to be orange on LC's rainbow list. That is what I disagreed with. I can recognise alternative possibilities even while believing in one specific outcome.

[Quin]

Here's a post from a few days ago where I say basically the same thing as what I said earlier, if you wanted something more.

I kind of don't want to clear sig of being Count Olaf, although he was one of the front-runners in the lynch against Glorfindel. He replaced out, and I still refuse to believe that it's because he wasn't able to handle the pressure of being bad. He didn't do that in Mad Max even though he was suspected relatively heavily for the majority of the game.I read in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that Glorfindel had timing issues that kept him from signing up to games. If that's true for his reasons for subbing out here, I'm open to the possibility that he asked his team to bus him before subbing out.

Basically, I'm not ruling out Glorfindel and sig being teammates.

[Golden]

How could you possibly simultaneously disagree with my assertion about why sig is not bad (on the basis of a tenuous side case of glorf actually asking to be bussed) and believe that you have a 'damning' case that he is ishmael?

You said there is no good reason for sig to be orange on LC's rainbow list. That is what I disagreed with. I can recognise alternative possibilities even while believing in one specific outcome.

But why?

I have a specific role in mind for sig, a specific role in mind for epi, a specific role in mind for DDL... given that fact, why on earth would I bother arguing for why they could be another role?

I'm not blind to the fact there is the chance I'm wrong in each case (we can all recognise alternate possibilities), but, as a civilian, there is no value in talking about a very end-case scenario (the likes of which I've never heard and think is very improbable) for how someone could be bad when I don't even believe that they are. It would only serve to muddy the waters when what we really need are clean waters.

I asked you the direct question about whether you actually thought sig was bad because there appeared to be no reason at all for you to say what you did about how he could be Troupe. That's only magnified by the fact that you have a 'damning case' for why he isn't Troupe.

It doesn't seem like consistent or genuine thought patterns, to me. Just throwing seeds of doubt into the wind.

[Golden]

There is no way you can legitimately interpret that as anything more significant than conversation.

Also, this sentence is exactly the kind of thing I expect from a baddie.

In one breath you argue for an incredibly unlikely possibility for why sig is Troupe.

In the next you claim there is 'no way I can legitimately interpret' your post except the way you want me to.

The word 'legitimately' in particular would fail all of llama's adjective tests. Basically you're saying that if I interpret it in any other way, it's illegitimate and I'm trying to misrepresent you.

[Quin]

How could you possibly simultaneously disagree with my assertion about why sig is not bad (on the basis of a tenuous side case of glorf actually asking to be bussed) and believe that you have a 'damning' case that he is ishmael?

You said there is no good reason for sig to be orange on LC's rainbow list. That is what I disagreed with. I can recognise alternative possibilities even while believing in one specific outcome.

But why?

I have a specific role in mind for sig, a specific role in mind for epi, a specific role in mind for DDL... given that fact, why on earth would I bother arguing for why they could be another role?

You're playing a risky game if you're locking yourself into your conclusions and not at least entertaining other options. And since we're arguing non-semantic meanings, there's a difference between 'arguing why they could be another role' and 'being open to discussing alternatives'. I was doing the latter.

I'm not blind to the fact there is the chance I'm wrong in each case (we can all recognise alternate possibilities), but, as a civilian, there is no value in talking about a very end-case scenario (the likes of which I've never heard and think is very improbable) for how someone could be bad when I don't even believe that they are. It would only serve to muddy the waters when what we really need are clean waters.

If you're not blind to the fact that you could be wrong, why are you so opposed to discussing other people's cases on the topic? This again just seems like you're locking yourself into your conclusions.

I asked you the direct question about whether you actually thought sig was bad because there appeared to be no reason at all for you to say what you did about how he could be Troupe. That's only magnified by the fact that you have a 'damning case' for why he isn't Troupe.

I can only hope that you're the only one who sees a contradiction in this. Because it quite frankly does not exist and there's a limit to the number of ways I can reiterate my points before I give up.

It doesn't seem like consistent or genuine thought patterns, to me. Just throwing seeds of doubt into the wind.