Blue Velvet Mafia {THE END}

[Long Con]

FWIW I can think of at least one game Epignosis and I were partners and he threw me under the bus.

I was just about to say that if llama is scum, he's a good bus candidate. Not necessarily Epi throwing him under the bus, but someone out there could be doing it. If he is scum.

Exactly. But it's Epi.

Maybe. I haven't been following too closely. Why do you think this?

I am quite sure Epi is bad. I'm connecting the dots backward based on his treatment of Llama today.

Can I have the abridges version of your case?

Sure... Epi is using the same techniques he used against me when he was bad in a previous game, like bring up (out of nowhere) unusual stuff I have done in the past, like getting my own baddie team to kill me. He's using the same dismissive ( ) techniques as before as well.

He caught my eye on Day 1 with his deceptive double-dealing, wherein he accepted a deal to not vote each other (though he knew it wasn't a Last Man Standing game), but then publicly boasted that he wouldn't make deals with people in a regular Mafia game like this one.

His latest wall of text is nothing more than Epignosis inventing his own meta for us. He's really adamant that he would never bus a teammate since he started in on Llama.

[Epignosis]

I'm going to do this quickly, because I have other things to do today.

What did I accuse you of doing that I gave thellama73 a pass for, and how is me voting for him now that we've had lynch reveals treating him with kid gloves?

Maybe, for the fun of throwing your words back in your face, I said it wrong. YOU are the one who has never mentioned Llama before today. That is what you are falsely (proven) accusing me of, but you're the one doing it.

Woah there.

I did not accuse you of never having mentioned llama before today, because you did mention him. I quoted your mention of him, and commented that what you were giving me shit for was something you should have been giving thellama73 shit for, but you didn't.

Your assertion that thellama73 and I are teammates is a swift conclusion to draw. You have given no independent reasoning whatsoever to established that, on his own, thellama73 is bad. Given the degree of comfort that a number of people have recently suggested with lynching llama (DH, nutella, me), the outlook for thellama73 surviving today is grim. This tells me that you know thellama73 is bad, and you need a way to frame his lynch in a way that incriminates me.

That's funny, that's exactly what I would say to you.

But that's not what you said. You said thellama73 said I could lynch him because I needed to get credibility. And I gave a few independent reasons to believe thellama73 is bad (Rico accused him right before he died, thellama73 hasn't been that active), whereas you have not.

A few things:

First, you included an extravagant detail in your accusation against me: That thellama73 gave me permission to throw him under the bus. I wouldn't need permission to throw thellama73 (who knows he can't really participate) under the bus, and more importantly, this shows you lack an understanding of the dynamic he and I have when we're bad together (or how we think in general). thellama73 wouldn't need to give me permission, and I wouldn't feel the need to ask him of it (someone else like S~V~S or nutella would be a different story).

Yeah yeah, Epi is a big shot who doesn't need permission from anyone to do anything. Gotcha. Everybody understand that? Epi doesn't need permission to throw a teammate under the bus. Glad we got that covered, so we can move on to some topics that are actually relevant.

I did not say "teammate." I said "thellama73."

No one cares about understanding the dynamic Llama and you have when we're bad together (or how you think in general). This is just filler talk to make it look like you have more to say than you do. If someone other than the two of you felt like coming up and saying "hey, I have in-depth knowledge of the Llama/Epi dynamic and how they think together in general" then that would be interesting. Coming from you or him? Totally worthless. You don't get to define your own secret meta.

You should care if you are interested in working out who is bad. But you're not interested in that, so you don't have to care.

Second, the impression you are trying to maintain- that you know how I operate when I'm bad- has betrayed you. I have been evil over twenty times across three sites. In that stretch, I have intentionally thrown a teammate under the bus one time (Dragon D. Luffy), and it wasn't even because he was inactive; rather, it was because I had never done it before and wanted to see how it would play out. It played out well, but I have never done it since. There were only two other times I had to go against my teammate in the thread, and they weren't orchestrated. In one case, Scotty slipped badly, and there was no salvaging him. The other was ika- I'll leave it at that.

And, what, maybe four or five people have read this line of crap, and already one of them has disproven it.

Who disproved it? This guy?

FWIW I can think of at least one game Epignosis and I were partners and he threw me under the bus.

Damn, I forgot about that time!

On the contrary, you can go as recent as Vocaroo Mafia and see (or hear, rather) that when I had an absentee teammate, I outright defended a2thezebra. I am continually amused by this reputation I somehow sustain that I work to lynch my teammates for credibility when I have only ever done it one time and never again since. Furthermore, I am all too aware of the credibility paradox: If people keep accusing me of throwing a teammate under the bus for credibility, I know that I cannot obtain credibility by leading a lynch on a teammate, and for that reason the play has a negative expected value.

What reputation? In what world do you have a reputation for throwing a teammate under the bus?? You're not going to wipe away proven points like my case against you by dazzling people with terms like "credibility paradox", and no one is going to believe your self-defined meta that you're trying to cram down our throats.

People act like I do it all the time. I don't.

For someone named "Long Con," you sure have a lot of confidence regarding what other people are not going to believe.

So in over twenty starts as mafia, I have never thrown a teammate under the bus because he or she couldn't play. If anything, I request a replacement, because I know that Mafia is a game of numbers. The more teammates you have, the closer endgame is, and the fewer lynches you have to work your way out of. In Vocaroo Mafia, I lost my sole teammate Day 1, and ultimately became a last man standing role, which stacked the odds against me right out of the gate. I ended up winning, but it was a long, lonely, and difficult journey. I don't lynch my teammates if I can help it.

Great, wow, I can pick out thirty games in which I didn't bus a teammate, and there's a few where I did do that. Probably everyone playing here has similar history. Doesn't change the fact that if Llama came to you and said "hey, I don't have time for this, and the vultures are already circling me, so please bus me", you would do it. I don't care if you have five hundred games where that never came up. Stop inventing your meta to get yourself out of hot water.

No I wouldn't. That scenario has never before occurred in my own experience. I try to get my teammate a replacement. I have demonstrated that by providing examples. I'm not "inventing meta." You are. You are speculating about what I would do in a situation when I have never done it once and recognize that it's bad strategy long term.

Need more proof of that? Turf Wars. In that game, I tried desperately to preserve a team that made a career out of trying to lynch one another. One of my teammates couldn't play. Instead of joining my team in cutting the dead weight for credibility, I found a replacement: Elohcin, who didn't even want to play, but subbed in as a favor to me. We just needed the numbers long enough. It was a risky play, because it was obvious that Eloh wasn't an enthusiastic participant, and that she was only showing up voting where her team was telling her. That pointed a pretty accusatory finger at me, but I didn't mind being lynched when the time came, because we had just about done enough to get the win, and I was running out of plays anyway.

Cool, like I said, I can also pick and choose from countless games where I didn't do action A, B, or C that I am accused of in any given game. That proves nothing about this game.

But you have no precedence to accuse me of what you are accusing me of. You are making something up and then asserting that's exactly what happened. You are making this up. This game.

No, thellama73 didn't give me permission to throw him under the bus, nor am I throwing him under the bus. Were I on his team, I would be trying to obtain a replacement. But you didn't consider any of this about me.

If you're Mr Replacements, then why haven't you said or done anything about replacing the players who have actually requested them? If "trying to obtain a replacement" for other players is what you do, then where is it? Have you asked Elohcin to replace Dizzy?

It's what I do when I'm bad and have an inactive teammate.

No, I have not asked Elohcin to replace Dyslexicon for a number of reasons- not the least of which is the fact that Dyslexicon has already been replaced.

Does it suck having two absentee teammates?

Nor did you entertain the scenario in which I am bad and I am setting thellama73 up as a patsy. You immediately went for the "Epignosis is throwing thellama73 under the bus for credibility," which only works if you know how thellama73 is going to flip. If thellama73 comes back civilian, then your crusade against me loses some steam, since your assessment of the situation will have been proven incorrect. I think you've shown there's no chance of that happening though.

I don't know how Llama is going to flip, but I am very sure how you are going to flip. You have a lot more bad on your record than him. Also, "recently","immediately", "importantly", "desperately", "ultimately"?

You don't understand how the adverb theory works. I get it. You don't have to put yourself on blast like that.

But I'm not through with you.

Oh, and guess who actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.

I'm not going to comment on the italicized adverb here (oy). I'll leave that alone.

Except you did comment on it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, there's too much of that going around.

No, this little jab proves to me that you are not being fair in your suspicion of me.

Epignosis. You have pretty much only focused on Dyslexicon as a suspicion. How does Dizzy's imminent replacement affect your opinion, and who else do you think is bad?

Your criticism of me here is that I "pretty much only focused on Dyslexicon as a suspicion."

I've already commented that I thought it was ironic of you to complain about my narrowed focus, but then ask me a question about Dyslexicon.

That's not ironic. Maybe if you're Alanis Morrisette. But... now you suspect people for irony? Why don't you delve into your extensive self-meta playbook and pull out a time when you caught a baddie based on irony? That would be a lot more entertaining than you going on and on about how you would never bus a teammate.

It is ironic. I don't suspect you for irony. I suspect you because you should have been all over llama if laying-low and only talking about one person is your hallmark of evil behavior. You didn't do this. Therefore you don't genuinely suspect me. Therefore you are bad.

No, I'm asking you questions because all you're doing is accusing Dizzy and defending Rico, and laying low.

Once again, your problem with me is that all I was doing was accusing Dyslexicon and defending Ricochet (which I don't maintain I was doing, but okay).

I haven't bothered to comment on your argument because I assume the others can just click on your ISO button and see that I'm right. Go ahead guys, try it out!

What argument? I asked a question.

Oh, and guess who actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.

Which would you prefer? That I only talk about people I have mentioned before today, or that I take into consideration the fact that we now have alignment flips to go off of, and that I can look back at the posts of the deceased and draw more informed conclusions? You gave me shit for only accusing Dyslexicon and not talking about other people, and now you're giving me shit for talking about someone new after alignments have been revealed.

I would prefer that you rewrite this post without making references to your own invented meta. Except then it would be a really short post, and I know that you want to have a nice big tl;dr kind of post to make it look like you have a lot of legs to stand on. But the thing is, you don't.

That wasn't an option. Would you prefer if I only talk about people I have mentioned before today or that I talk about new people when I have a reason to do so? That's, as you put it, having your cake and eating it too.

You are not genuine, and you know thellama73 is bad. There is only one reason that makes sense, and it isn't because you are a cop, or your crusade against me would have ended by now.

Thanks for playing.

You're welcome, I also appreciate your presence in the game. Just not for much longer. I'm a hell of a lot more sure that you are bad than Llama, which makes your Day 3 ploy that much easier to see through. We can lynch Llama, and then you, or we can lynch you and then Llama. It's all the same to me, I'd just like to see what Llama has to say before nailing his coffin lid shut.

While you do that, I'll be sketching out a nice winner's badge for you to make for me when this is over.

[timmer]

[Epignosis]

FWIW I can think of at least one game Epignosis and I were partners and he threw me under the bus.

I was just about to say that if llama is scum, he's a good bus candidate. Not necessarily Epi throwing him under the bus, but someone out there could be doing it. If he is scum.

Exactly. But it's Epi.

Maybe. I haven't been following too closely. Why do you think this?

I am quite sure Epi is bad. I'm connecting the dots backward based on his treatment of Llama today.

Can I have the abridges version of your case?

Sure... Epi is using the same techniques he used against me when he was bad in a previous game, like bring up (out of nowhere) unusual stuff I have done in the past, like getting my own baddie team to kill me. He's using the same dismissive ( ) techniques as before as well.

For the record:

Spoiler: show

My win condition: You will be able to win with the faction you choose and your win condition will align with theirs. You will not be counted among their numbers though for the purposes of deciding the game. If you align with the Reapers, you will not join them in BTSC or be made aware of their identities. They will be made aware of yours.

LC's win condition: To win the game you must survive as the last player standing. If you are in a situation with just one Alliance member alive alongside you, you will be declared the winner. If you are in a situation with just one mafia member alive alongside you, the winner will depend upon other circumstances.

I was a neutral independent with no win condition.
LC was a hostile must-kill-everybody-to-win.

He still acts like he caught me as though I were mafia when I had no win condition and no one needed me dead to win, and he needed everybody dead to win.

I wonder why LC doesn't like seeing the same techniques I used against him when he (not I) was bad.

Maybe he's...nervous.

He caught my eye on Day 1 with his deceptive double-dealing, wherein he accepted a deal to not vote each other (though he knew it wasn't a Last Man Standing game), but then publicly boasted that he wouldn't make deals with people in a regular Mafia game like this one.

And I've still held up my end of the bargain.

His latest wall of text is nothing more than Epignosis inventing his own meta for us. He's really adamant that he would never bus a teammate since he started in on Llama.

"Inventing his own meta" is a phrase people use when they realize there is zero evidence backing up the shit they're saying.



See?

[Long Con]

I'm going to do this quickly, because I have other things to do today.

Don't we all.

What did I accuse you of doing that I gave thellama73 a pass for, and how is me voting for him now that we've had lynch reveals treating him with kid gloves?

Maybe, for the fun of throwing your words back in your face, I said it wrong. YOU are the one who has never mentioned Llama before today. That is what you are falsely (proven) accusing me of, but you're the one doing it.

Woah there.

I did not accuse you of never having mentioned llama before today, because you did mention him. I quoted your mention of him, and commented that what you were giving me shit for was something you should have been giving thellama73 shit for, but you didn't.

Except I have three other posts discussing Llama, including calling him sketchy or lazy for his play. So, your statement here is a lie.

Your assertion that thellama73 and I are teammates is a swift conclusion to draw. You have given no independent reasoning whatsoever to established that, on his own, thellama73 is bad. Given the degree of comfort that a number of people have recently suggested with lynching llama (DH, nutella, me), the outlook for thellama73 surviving today is grim. This tells me that you know thellama73 is bad, and you need a way to frame his lynch in a way that incriminates me.

That's funny, that's exactly what I would say to you.

But that's not what you said. You said thellama73 said I could lynch him because I needed to get credibility. And I gave a few independent reasons to believe thellama73 is bad (Rico accused him right before he died, thellama73 hasn't been that active), whereas you have not.

Ok liar. "Pretty low-laying, just a bit of Rico action. Not very impressive." "So Llama gets a slight uptick of suspicion due to sprityo's death." "Llama is being sketchy/lazy, which is a bit annoying, and not really helpful. I feel like he has been 90% Rico-focused. Also, he was one of [sprityo's] only suspicions."

I already showed you those. Why do you repeat a lie that has already been disproven?? I get that you don't have a lot of time, but this is really not up to your usual standards.

A few things:

First, you included an extravagant detail in your accusation against me: That thellama73 gave me permission to throw him under the bus. I wouldn't need permission to throw thellama73 (who knows he can't really participate) under the bus, and more importantly, this shows you lack an understanding of the dynamic he and I have when we're bad together (or how we think in general). thellama73 wouldn't need to give me permission, and I wouldn't feel the need to ask him of it (someone else like S~V~S or nutella would be a different story).

Yeah yeah, Epi is a big shot who doesn't need permission from anyone to do anything. Gotcha. Everybody understand that? Epi doesn't need permission to throw a teammate under the bus. Glad we got that covered, so we can move on to some topics that are actually relevant.

I did not say "teammate." I said "thellama73."

Equally irrelevant, due to the relative impossibility of proving it.

No one cares about understanding the dynamic Llama and you have when we're bad together (or how you think in general). This is just filler talk to make it look like you have more to say than you do. If someone other than the two of you felt like coming up and saying "hey, I have in-depth knowledge of the Llama/Epi dynamic and how they think together in general" then that would be interesting. Coming from you or him? Totally worthless. You don't get to define your own secret meta.

You should care if you are interested in working out who is bad. But you're not interested in that, so you don't have to care.

I'm doing just fine working out who is bad without focusing on dubious anecdotal references to your personal relationship with Llama.

Second, the impression you are trying to maintain- that you know how I operate when I'm bad- has betrayed you. I have been evil over twenty times across three sites. In that stretch, I have intentionally thrown a teammate under the bus one time (Dragon D. Luffy), and it wasn't even because he was inactive; rather, it was because I had never done it before and wanted to see how it would play out. It played out well, but I have never done it since. There were only two other times I had to go against my teammate in the thread, and they weren't orchestrated. In one case, Scotty slipped badly, and there was no salvaging him. The other was ika- I'll leave it at that.

And, what, maybe four or five people have read this line of crap, and already one of them has disproven it.

Who disproved it? This guy?

FWIW I can think of at least one game Epignosis and I were partners and he threw me under the bus.

Damn, I forgot about that time!

It's refreshing to see you drop your falsehoods when they're proven wrong, for once.

On the contrary, you can go as recent as Vocaroo Mafia and see (or hear, rather) that when I had an absentee teammate, I outright defended a2thezebra. I am continually amused by this reputation I somehow sustain that I work to lynch my teammates for credibility when I have only ever done it one time and never again since. Furthermore, I am all too aware of the credibility paradox: If people keep accusing me of throwing a teammate under the bus for credibility, I know that I cannot obtain credibility by leading a lynch on a teammate, and for that reason the play has a negative expected value.

What reputation? In what world do you have a reputation for throwing a teammate under the bus?? You're not going to wipe away proven points like my case against you by dazzling people with terms like "credibility paradox", and no one is going to believe your self-defined meta that you're trying to cram down our throats.

People act like I do it all the time. I don't.

Who acts like that? When?

For someone named "Long Con," you sure have a lot of confidence regarding what other people are not going to believe.

That's a different kind of confidence.

So in over twenty starts as mafia, I have never thrown a teammate under the bus because he or she couldn't play. If anything, I request a replacement, because I know that Mafia is a game of numbers. The more teammates you have, the closer endgame is, and the fewer lynches you have to work your way out of. In Vocaroo Mafia, I lost my sole teammate Day 1, and ultimately became a last man standing role, which stacked the odds against me right out of the gate. I ended up winning, but it was a long, lonely, and difficult journey. I don't lynch my teammates if I can help it.

Great, wow, I can pick out thirty games in which I didn't bus a teammate, and there's a few where I did do that. Probably everyone playing here has similar history. Doesn't change the fact that if Llama came to you and said "hey, I don't have time for this, and the vultures are already circling me, so please bus me", you would do it. I don't care if you have five hundred games where that never came up. Stop inventing your meta to get yourself out of hot water.

No I wouldn't. That scenario has never before occurred in my own experience. I try to get my teammate a replacement. I have demonstrated that by providing examples. I'm not "inventing meta." You are. You are speculating about what I would do in a situation when I have never done it once and recognize that it's bad strategy long term.

Need more proof of that? Turf Wars. In that game, I tried desperately to preserve a team that made a career out of trying to lynch one another. One of my teammates couldn't play. Instead of joining my team in cutting the dead weight for credibility, I found a replacement: Elohcin, who didn't even want to play, but subbed in as a favor to me. We just needed the numbers long enough. It was a risky play, because it was obvious that Eloh wasn't an enthusiastic participant, and that she was only showing up voting where her team was telling her. That pointed a pretty accusatory finger at me, but I didn't mind being lynched when the time came, because we had just about done enough to get the win, and I was running out of plays anyway.

Cool, like I said, I can also pick and choose from countless games where I didn't do action A, B, or C that I am accused of in any given game. That proves nothing about this game.

But you have no precedence to accuse me of what you are accusing me of. You are making something up and then asserting that's exactly what happened. You are making this up. This game.

Except... I did provide evidence of you using the same techniques this game as you did in the past when bad. I'm hoping that the other players don't have a memory that is (apparently) as bad as yours.

No, thellama73 didn't give me permission to throw him under the bus, nor am I throwing him under the bus. Were I on his team, I would be trying to obtain a replacement. But you didn't consider any of this about me.

If you're Mr Replacements, then why haven't you said or done anything about replacing the players who have actually requested them? If "trying to obtain a replacement" for other players is what you do, then where is it? Have you asked Elohcin to replace Dizzy?

It's what I do when I'm bad and have an inactive teammate.

No, I have not asked Elohcin to replace Dyslexicon for a number of reasons- not the least of which is the fact that Dyslexicon has already been replaced.

Does it suck having two absentee teammates?

It probably does suck.

Nor did you entertain the scenario in which I am bad and I am setting thellama73 up as a patsy. You immediately went for the "Epignosis is throwing thellama73 under the bus for credibility," which only works if you know how thellama73 is going to flip. If thellama73 comes back civilian, then your crusade against me loses some steam, since your assessment of the situation will have been proven incorrect. I think you've shown there's no chance of that happening though.

I don't know how Llama is going to flip, but I am very sure how you are going to flip. You have a lot more bad on your record than him. Also, "recently","immediately", "importantly", "desperately", "ultimately"?

You don't understand how the adverb theory works. I get it. You don't have to put yourself on blast like that.

I do understand the joke theory. It's just fun to do. You started it by identifying my valid adverb.

But I'm not through with you.

Oh, and guess who actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.

I'm not going to comment on the italicized adverb here (oy). I'll leave that alone.

Except you did comment on it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, there's too much of that going around.

No, this little jab proves to me that you are not being fair in your suspicion of me.

Epignosis. You have pretty much only focused on Dyslexicon as a suspicion. How does Dizzy's imminent replacement affect your opinion, and who else do you think is bad?

Your criticism of me here is that I "pretty much only focused on Dyslexicon as a suspicion."

I've already commented that I thought it was ironic of you to complain about my narrowed focus, but then ask me a question about Dyslexicon.

That's not ironic. Maybe if you're Alanis Morrisette. But... now you suspect people for irony? Why don't you delve into your extensive self-meta playbook and pull out a time when you caught a baddie based on irony? That would be a lot more entertaining than you going on and on about how you would never bus a teammate.

It is ironic. I don't suspect you for irony. I suspect you because you should have been all over llama if laying-low and only talking about one person is your hallmark of evil behavior. You didn't do this. Therefore you don't genuinely suspect me. Therefore you are bad.

Except I did call Llama out on that behaviour. Just stop lying about what I have done. You went and found one post I made about Llama and acted like it was the only post. You have been proven wrong. It's time to move on. To a noose.

No, I'm asking you questions because all you're doing is accusing Dizzy and defending Rico, and laying low.

Once again, your problem with me is that all I was doing was accusing Dyslexicon and defending Ricochet (which I don't maintain I was doing, but okay).

I haven't bothered to comment on your argument because I assume the others can just click on your ISO button and see that I'm right. Go ahead guys, try it out!

What argument? I asked a question.

Ok. I haven't bothered to comment on your question because I assume the others can just click on your ISO button and see that I'm right.

Oh, and guess who actually has never mentioned Llama before today? I'll give you a hint: he has a "pig" in his name.

Which would you prefer? That I only talk about people I have mentioned before today, or that I take into consideration the fact that we now have alignment flips to go off of, and that I can look back at the posts of the deceased and draw more informed conclusions? You gave me shit for only accusing Dyslexicon and not talking about other people, and now you're giving me shit for talking about someone new after alignments have been revealed.

I would prefer that you rewrite this post without making references to your own invented meta. Except then it would be a really short post, and I know that you want to have a nice big tl;dr kind of post to make it look like you have a lot of legs to stand on. But the thing is, you don't.

That wasn't an option. Would you prefer if I only talk about people I have mentioned before today or that I talk about new people when I have a reason to do so? That's, as you put it, having your cake and eating it too.

Once again, I'm just demonstrating that, where I'm not doing the things you accuse me of, you are doing them. Don't get saucy because you got called out on it.

You are not genuine, and you know thellama73 is bad. There is only one reason that makes sense, and it isn't because you are a cop, or your crusade against me would have ended by now.

Thanks for playing.

You're welcome, I also appreciate your presence in the game. Just not for much longer. I'm a hell of a lot more sure that you are bad than Llama, which makes your Day 3 ploy that much easier to see through. We can lynch Llama, and then you, or we can lynch you and then Llama. It's all the same to me, I'd just like to see what Llama has to say before nailing his coffin lid shut.

While you do that, I'll be sketching out a nice winner's badge for you to make for me when this is over.

You might just win. You are very good at this. But you have more than enough banners already.

[Long Con]

"Inventing his own meta" is a phrase people use when they realize there is zero evidence backing up the shit they're saying.

It is? Can you give an example?

And I have provided evidence. I am already tired of repeating it.

[nutella]

So, btw, I'd already changed my mind about Epi yesterday because he PMed me, told me he was a vanilla civ, and more or less convinced me through his genuine-sounding tone. I told him I would back off of him in the thread, but at this point there's no reason for me to not just be honest about this. I simply believe him.

At the same time, Long Con has been one of my stronger civ reads for the whole game (and LMS-gate caused me to believe he is most likely a vanilla civ). So, get this, I think Epi and LC are both civvies and this argument is getting us nowhere.

That being said, I think Llama is a perfectly fine choice to lynch today. Regardless of the crazy theories that Epi or LC is his teammate, I think he is a reasonable candidate for having killed Ricochet.

[Epignosis]

Second, the impression you are trying to maintain- that you know how I operate when I'm bad- has betrayed you. I have been evil over twenty times across three sites. In that stretch, I have intentionally thrown a teammate under the bus one time (Dragon D. Luffy), and it wasn't even because he was inactive; rather, it was because I had never done it before and wanted to see how it would play out. It played out well, but I have never done it since. There were only two other times I had to go against my teammate in the thread, and they weren't orchestrated. In one case, Scotty slipped badly, and there was no salvaging him. The other was ika- I'll leave it at that.

And, what, maybe four or five people have read this line of crap, and already one of them has disproven it.

Who disproved it? This guy?

FWIW I can think of at least one game Epignosis and I were partners and he threw me under the bus.

Damn, I forgot about that time!

It's refreshing to see you drop your falsehoods when they're proven wrong, for once.

So...does anybody want to let LC in on why his refreshment is misplaced, or should we just let him keep rolling with it?

[speedchuck]

And guess what? I'm going to lay low tomorrow.

I am in charge of an entire church service. Music, announcements, sermon! I'm doing it all. So you probably won't see me much tomorrow either.

I'm laying low. I volunteered to do all this to keep my bad role a secret.

"Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish! Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." -Proverbs 31:6-7

I guarantee you none of these church people have heard this one.

I based an entire sermon on that one, actually. About taking scripture out of context. But this is not the place.

[speedchuck]

Hey guys, story time! For what it's worth.

I've been screwed over out of game.

I went on vacation Saturday morning, to a cabin on a river in the mountains. Which would be fine, if the Comcast internet connection that the cabin had was actually working. It isn't. No calls that we've made have helped. I have been without internet for 2 days, and I'm sitting in a Dunkin' Donuts right now, 3 miles from the cabin. Sucks.

This wouldn't be too bad, if the cabin had phone reception. It doesn't. I can't call, email, text, ANYTHING!

I'm enjoying the vacation, but let me tell you, I'm right pissed. I missed out on the mutiny that I opted in on, disappointing whoever my date was. Sorry whoever you were. I really wanted to mutiny with you, and if I'd been around to just send a single stupid PM, I would have. Damn Comcast to Hell.

Game-wise, I'm caught up on posts, but super behind on reads. And the game has been ignoring me, so I have nothing to answer for, no questions sent my way, and no personal interactions to work with. I'm not going to be at this restaurant forever. This is literally the worst situation I have ever been in, internet-wise.

I am sorry.

[speedchuck]

Uuuuuunnnnggghh I'm voting Llama.

I feel better about Epi than LC but have a higher level of paranoia regarding Epi. I really can't read him.

DH is funny. Timmer I still find eehhhh...

SpaceDaisy? Sloonei? All but gone. I think the LC vs Epi has taken up too much of this thread. I hardly remember anything of SVS aside from her avatar popping in between posts.

[DharmaHelper]

Step out to play games with friends for like 2 hours and I come back to this shit.

[DharmaHelper]

It would baffle me, honestly, if the mafia in this game weren't at least in part among the people who have barely shown their heads above water

[Long Con]

DH, Epi thinks me a fool to believe what you said about him bussing... can you explain why you made me your fool, if that's the case?

[DharmaHelper]

DH, Epi thinks me a fool to believe what you said about him bussing... can you explain why you made me your fool, if that's the case?

My dude,

Star Wars Mafia was a game hosted by Epignosis and I. T'was but a goof.

[Quin]

I assumed sprit was killed because he was a safe option, unlikely to receive public protection.

Was the public protection thing not on a poll? If so killing the 'safe' option feels counterproductive.

Yes. But they wouldn't have known who was going to win the vote, and the poll was tight. Choosing a player like sprit all but ensures that their target would not receive a flurry of votes and cancel out their kill unexpectedly.
It could also have been because he was hinting at "information", or they just wanted to keep us off balance, since he was not a player many people were discussing at all.

I didn't know the poll was so tight. I can understand though.

[Long Con]

DH, Epi thinks me a fool to believe what you said about him bussing... can you explain why you made me your fool, if that's the case?

My dude,

Star Wars Mafia was a game hosted by Epignosis and I. T'was but a goof.

I dun got goofed.

[Quin]

I'm a hell of a lot more sure that you are bad than Llama

Then where's your vote? To see the dispute go on between the two of you for this long without a vote being thrown his way gives off the impression you have no intention of doing that. What are you waiting for?

A question for the thread, because it's 8:30 in the morning and I'm lazy:

At what point did LC vote Epignosis the last two days, and what was the general course of the thread at those times? If nobody's sure, I'll check myself.

[Quin]

What if both LC and Epi are bad.

Then I picked out two baddies within 5 minutes of subbing in. Not bad.

[Quin]

What if both LC and Epi are bad.

Then I picked out two baddies within 5 minutes of subbing in. Not bad.

More like 4 hours kek just pretend k

[Quin]

Either LC is bad, and is bussing llama for cred and to get to Epi later, or Epi is bad and is bussing llama to get to LC later, or Epi and LC are both bad and llama is a civ.

Anyway, voting Llama.

What if they're all bad and this is just one big kamikaze mafia team?

[Long Con]

What if we're all Civ and the game hasn't really started yet?

[Long Con]

I'm a hell of a lot more sure that you are bad than Llama

Then where's your vote? To see the dispute go on between the two of you for this long without a vote being thrown his way gives off the impression you have no intention of doing that. What are you waiting for?

A question for the thread, because it's 8:30 in the morning and I'm lazy:

At what point did LC vote Epignosis the last two days, and what was the general course of the thread at those times? If nobody's sure, I'll check myself.

If you need proof that I suspect Epi, then I'll put a vote there. There's lots of time left in the day, and this kind of voting system doesn't really have the need for early votes. I'm not planning on disappearing any time before the lynch is up, and I've already said more than enough to let people know where I stand.

[Long Con]

Though the poll doesn't show it, Epi voted second for Llama.

[DharmaHelper]

In honor of the llama wagon I have re-read some of Sherlock Mafia and have successfully been pissed off by Sherlock Mafia, matching my yearly quota.

[Long Con]

In honor of the llama wagon I have re-read some of Sherlock Mafia and have successfully been pissed off by Sherlock Mafia, matching my yearly quota.

Was there a Llama wagon in Sherlock Mafia?

Was it this one:

[DharmaHelper]

Fam I *wish* there was a llama wagon in sherlock mafia.

[DharmaHelper]

IDEA:

Since it's very likely one of the three are mafia, we should tie LC/Epi/Llama in the poll.

[Epignosis]

Though the poll doesn't show it, Epi voted second for Llama.

Again, you are mistaken.

[Long Con]

Though the poll doesn't show it, Epi voted second for Llama.

Again, you are mistaken.

Shit, the old poll tricked me. You were first, weren't you? Your name showed up second.

[timmer]

Though the poll doesn't show it, Epi voted second for Llama.

Considering that when I voted for llama I was the second voter after Epig, I'd suggest that you are wrong.

[Long Con]

And, by "old poll", I mean that one where there were two votes on Llama. Earlier today.

[Long Con]

By the way, hide yo kids because this game is contagious. My younger son just started throwing up.

[Epignosis]

Spoiler alert:

Spoiler: show

The poll shows the voting order in reverse. It was me, timmer, DH, nutella, and then speedchuck.

Spoiler: show

Good thing LC is so reliable he can keep his facts in order.

He must be a bastion of reliability when it comes to knowing what I would do in a given situation.

[Epignosis]

Great. Mine just moved in with me.

AC works upstairs (my lair) but not downstairs (their rooms).

[Long Con]

As it should be.

[Long Con]

Spoiler alert...

Have you met Long Con? Fortunately, my points are strong enough that clear-minded folk can easily verify and judge what I'm saying, if they take the time to look.

[Epignosis]

What's amusing to me in all this is that there has been more talk over which of LC or Epi is throwing llama under the bus and more talk of what if we're teammates.

There's been little to no talk of whether we're both innocent or, if one of us is guilty, who may the third teammate (assuming there is a third, but I'm assuming that).

[DharmaHelper]

You sound.....nervous.....

[Long Con]

What's amusing to me in all this is that there has been more talk over which of LC or Epi is throwing llama under the bus and more talk of what if we're teammates.

There's been little to no talk of whether we're both innocent or, if one of us is guilty, who may the third teammate (assuming there is a third, but I'm assuming that).

That's usually the way it goes until a few days from now. The talkative ones get all the attention until there are less talkative ones.

[Epignosis]

You sound.....nervous.....

I am. $100 on the Mariners will do that do a man.

[Epignosis]

Every time I Cruz with Nelson he sucks or gets hurt.

[thellama73]

I'm voting for Epignosis due to his obvious attempt to set me up and lead a wagon on people who have very limited internet access.

[Epignosis]

I'm voting for Epignosis due to his obvious attempt to set me up and lead a wagon on people who have very limited internet access.

speedchuck has very little Internet access. I happened to know he was on vacation because he told me he would be. I'm not voting for him.

You are bad.

[DharmaHelper]

Choo Choo

[nutella]

What's amusing to me in all this is that there has been more talk over which of LC or Epi is throwing llama under the bus and more talk of what if we're teammates.

There's been little to no talk of whether we're both innocent or, if one of us is guilty, who may the third teammate (assuming there is a third, but I'm assuming that).

Guess I'm "little to no." I very clearly stated that I believe you are both innocent.

[Ricochet]

Poppy...

Poppy...

Poppy...

Poppy...

[timmer]

I'm not going to be around today much. I've got people all over my house installing windows and doors so I'll be busy, mostly pacing and fretting. My vote stays where it is. I think Epig seems civvie, and the longer LC stays on his blindered path, the more I think he might be, too. But I think they may have tripped into finding a baddie by proxy in llama.

[DharmaHelper]

if Llama flips bad we should lynch Sloonei.

[Sloonei]

if Llama flips bad we should lynch Sloonei.

Well I just came on to say that i'm voting llama and bailing for the day, because a cursory glance at the thread suggests that's the right thing to do. But now I see this so I'm obligated to ask why.
Why?