Alright now that I have the opportunity, I am going to restate my suspicion of
Long Con more thoroughly, covering the full length of the game so far.
An early exchange with Quin
In this exchange I see one player (Quin) refuting the assertion of another (Long Con) and then asking a couple of simple questions which bear relevance to LC's assertions. There is some potential in Quin's questions to add substance to Long Con's post history which will affect reads on him presently (then) and in the future.
Instead of just answer those questions, LC called him "defensive", and in this context I don't see how that term applies to those questions, and turned the prodding finger back upon Quin. These shouldn't have been difficult questions to answer even LC's perspective of any implied inferences in those questions by Quin was dubious. There's no reason LC can't answer Quin's questions and
then issue the same prod. He addressed this later:
Long Con wrote:My direct answer to Quin's question would have downplayed the oddness of his attitude toward me. I think it was more illuminating to focus on that attitude.
This reads like fake b/s to me. I see no reason why answering Quin's questions would have "downplayed the oddness of his attitude", and I'm not entirely sure what that even means.
Long Con wrote:thellama73 wrote:In my opinion, there's a lot of civ on civ squabbling going on up in here, and a lot of baddie coasting and laughing. Also, a lot of Llama going to bed.
Good night. That opinion makes me feel suspicious,
because I do not understand how a Civ could formulate it. In the parlance of our times: how the f*ck would you think that?
IF it's true that the main arguments are Civ on Civ, then there are four players who know that for sure, and correctly identifying such a thing could be a way to get that baddie some buddying-style Civ cred. As in, each Civ in this big Civ on Civ conflict can think "
I'm a Civ, so Llama is at least reading me right and trying to steer this game in the right direction!"
This general perspective of LC's is understandable, but he expresses it in a way that strikes me as hyperbolic. Refer to the highlighted content.
I can understand why someone might suspect llama for inferring that any interaction is civ-civ, but to suggest that it's not even compatible with a civilian's mindset is a bit much.
Long Con wrote:Well, I disagree with most of JJJ's outlooks, right down to being more willing to lynch me than all his "meh" reads. It makes my inner voice say "Fuck, fine, maybe I'll just not participate next time so JJJ will get off my damn back!" Then my outer-inner voice says "Shut up, and quit being a whiny bitch or I'll replay that time you had to drown the hamster!" Then my inner voice shuts up and goes "

". Long story long, I thought JJJ was ass-backwards in ASoUE Mafia and he was Civ, so I won't come back hard on him this time.
Scotty wrote:I find that when MM is bad, he isn't afraid to jab at anyone... My memory of his bad games are ingratiating himself with his baddie partners and playing the WIFOM game.
Is that what you find? Is that what you remember? I don't find and remember that, so I am not inclined to straight-up believe you. That said, I do like the angle here, and if it catches a bad marmot, then I applaud your memory. What would it take to get a little citation on these things? A little citation goes a long way.
I never like it when people assert that my suspicions are based upon effort level or post quantity, and that is what LC implies in the highlighted portion (that I'd have suspected him less if he didn't participate). That downplays my reasoning and discredits me without it being related to a
read on me.
Long Con wrote:I find myself agreeing with this.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fair. The last post there is the one I liked from DDL because I've known him to be willing to lynch people for reasons that I'd call more strategy-relevant than alignment-relevant. You're correct though that there is hypocrisy in that given his empty posts before that.
I cannot recall seeing a time when hypocrisy had any connection to alignment. If anything, I would theorize that baddies are more likely to take care not to be a hypocrite, because their behaviour has a certain level of craft necessary... on the flip side, a Civ barrels forward, unconcerned for the most part with how they look as they find the baddies, and thus be easier targets for the hypocrisy accusation angle.
That isn't to say I want to defend DDL specifically, this is something I wish to monitor over multiple games, because I do see the hypocrisy accusation come up here and there. I don't think it holds water.
The first line in this quote is in response to Epi's case against DDL. After we've had the chance to discuss this point a little more I can be more understanding of LC's perspective of hypocrisy -- I don't necessarily think it's a rock solid scumtell either.
Nonetheless, his agreement Epi and disagreement with me combines to form an unclear and on-the-fence stance about DDL that doesn't look great.
Long Con wrote:I didn't take him seriously.
This is the moment where the little buzz on my scum radar became a loud ring. I hate this post less only than the one that will follow it. LC jammed himself into a dialogue between Marmot and I in which Marmot was asking me questions about Day 1 and I was answering them. LC's comment here serves two purposes -- to refute a point I'd made, and to lend a supporting hand to Marmot --
neither of which was explicitly stated. This is angling. This is manipulative. I had to ask him what his point was to get him to actually say something.
Long Con wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con wrote:I didn't take him seriously.
What is your point?
You're pursuing this as though it was a real read. It was a joke read.
You should be able to see the difference, and govern yourself accordingly.
If a joke read like that signals that MM is bad to you, then accuse him of that. Don't act like "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil;
obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!" I don't believe you really think that.
"You should be able to see the difference."
"You should be able to see the difference."
"You should be able to see the difference."
This is simultaneously an accusation against me (something he'd later deny) and a serious buddy-move on Marmot. To tell me that I should be able to know when someone else is joking, in a Mafia game thread, without orange sarcasm text, wherein the post claims someone else is "evil", is absolute bullshit. He has since rejected that this represents a demand that I should be able to read minds, but that rejection was weak.
That's exactly what this is. "You should be able to see the difference." "
You should be able to see into Marmot's brain and know when he is joking."
Hell no.
Long Con wrote:Buh?

I was talking about whether or not MM's "Llama is evil" was real or jokey.
I wasn't accusing you of being bad, and I wasn't implying that MM is Civ. Those are elements you have added in after the fact.
You don't need a "telepathic superpower" to get when a joke is a joke. I can't believe what an overdefensive knot you have tied yourself in over this.
I'll get to your DDL comments regarding me at some point. I read them on my phone while out in the woods, so I didn't respond directly. You can employ a little patience, or you can try and spin it into an accusation, totally your call.
The highlighted portion is demonstrably false and just an awful backtrack.
He told me what I should think, and he told me he didn't believe what I was saying. Those are accusations and to claim otherwise is nonsense.
Long Con wrote:That is not all that different than saying "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!.
There are numerous examples of LC converting the things I say into something brazenly idiotic. The misrepresentation is so blatant that I can't fathom how it'd be misinterpretation.
Long Con wrote:Long Con wrote:I'll get to your DDL comments regarding me at some point. I read them on my phone while out in the woods, so I didn't respond directly. You can employ a little patience, or you can try and spin it into an accusation, totally your call.
Here's a pretty hilarious example of LC doing exactly what he was wrongly accusing me of doing. I called him my top suspect before this argument even started, and he responded by trying to take the offensive against me.
In this post he pretends that I'm the one playing defense. Garbage.
Long Con wrote:Your logic is terrible and your interpretation is worse. The conclusion he would ideally come to is that the interpretation he intended for his post isn't the only possible interpretation. When you stick gross adverbs like "obviously" in your fake JJJ quote, you paint me as a person who isn't even attempting to play the game with any semblance of reason. That's the very nature of a straw man. You converted my commentary into something much dumber than it actually was and then you argued against the dumb version.
First, it wasn't a "fake quote". If you think anyone read that and said to themselves "Gee, JJJ literally said that" then you have a really low opinion of your fellow players' intelligence. If you think that I tried to trick everyone into thinking you literally said that, then you think that I have a very low opinion of everyone's intelligence.
"You paint me as a person who isn't even attempting to play the game with any semblance of reason" That's some fine hyperbole, along with some exquisite language choice. Again... I'm not trying to "paint you" as anything. The way I phrased it is the way that I understood your post. I just used unambiguous language where you used ambiguous language.
It is convenient to use ambiguous language when you might need to clarify things later in the way you want it to be seen, but I think it would be more helpful, and take up less space in the thread, to speak more plainly.[/quote]
And here is where LC insults everyone else's intelligence with this manipulative horseshit. He makes me look like a jerk by implying with no sound reasoning that I think everyone else is dumb, thus discrediting me in the eyes of observers.
And the notion that I am using "ambiguous language" or that I "need to speak more plainly" is laughable crap. I have been speaking as plainly as I possibly can in every one of these posts we've fought over. I don't see how LC can really believe in what he is saying to me. It's all angling and deflection.
Moreover, one final point: how much scumhunting has Long Con really done in this game? His most substantive effort has been to cast suspicion upon me -- after I started ripping his face off.
~~~~~
If anyone out there disagrees with my reasoning or thinks Long Con is a civilian for whatever other reason, please speak up. I have seen a few people give him the thumbs up and I have no idea why.