Game Over! Monty Python and the Holy Grail

[S~V~S]

Plus I think you are intentionally trying to misdirect. So time to walk away for the night

[Made]

That is not a relaxation. That is a clarification.

Nah, Relaxation. She said "it will cease again." implying that at one point discussing this was against the rules.

Night!

[S~V~S]

That is not a relaxation. That is a clarification.

Nah, Relaxation. She said "it will cease again." implying that at one point discussing this was against the rules.

Night!

This is actually not an important thing, and if you wish to be right, OK. You're right

Again, I think this was an attempt on your part to redirect, and i think it failed.

[Long Con]

Yeah, not speaking of official warnings,, just S~V~S' concern that some bad stuff etc.

S~V~S, I have never been unclear about why I suspected you. It was never about the content of the warning, or the veracity of anything. It has always been about the way you pushed it.

The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"

[S~V~S]

So no opinion about the game i am playing here vs Fight Club?

[S~V~S]

I never said you were unclear, i said you were misunderstanding me, or misconstruing me.

[Enrique]

To be honest, SVS, I'm gonna give this one to Made. I was super confused about how much role speculation was allowed, and for me at least it went from "stop or you will suffer" to "yeah just don't out yourselves."

Not that I know how that's relevant to the discussion but yeah.

[S~V~S]

The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"

When did I do this?

Linki, it isn't relevant, he just popped into the discussion that for once had nothing to do with him, and misconstrued it to be relevant to him..

[S~V~S]

Really, LC, tell me when i did this. because i am so not freaking bad, and i need to know where you are coming from.

[Made]

If anyone can verify S~V~S' claim about how her Roxy challenge warning works, someone who played the game with her, then that would be good. I don't think the specific meaning of the warning, or the claim that Made was doing what she warned against, affects my gut ping, since it was due to the frequency and earnestness of her warnings, as I recall.

I have no clue what you're talking about LC
linki- Redirect what? I misinterpreted the above message apparently. If this message was about another game, then why was i mentioned in it?

The way I understood the message was that you claimed that Roxy gave a warning to me. I didn't remember a warning from roxy, but i did remember one from Dispol.I was curious why you thought I was given the warning I was talking about, so I asked. I'm still not sure what warning you or LC are talking about.

[S~V~S]

MADE THIS WARNING DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

It is not about you, LC & I are talking about something different.

[S~V~S]

To be honest, SVS, I'm gonna give this one to Made. I was super confused about how much role speculation was allowed, and for me at least it went from "stop or you will suffer" to "yeah just don't out yourselves."

Not that I know how that's relevant to the discussion but yeah.

Perhaps so, but LC & I were talking about something else. I told Made that I had been the one to complain since i thought that might clear things up for him, but the warnign LC 7 i are discussing =/= what he is talking about.

[S~V~S]

Mainly I want to know why LC persists in suspecting me when i have addressed his points.

[Mister Rearranger]

Rarely have I read a Mafia thread and wished that I could be LESS sober while doing so... >.>

[Made]

Caught up here at Port Perry fair. I didn't click on that pastebin thing, but I don't understand what Made was up to with that "recreate the situation" a stuff. Was the point to make a game part that was offsite as the Chatzy was offsite? And then to argue with Enrique over the contents, which would then be made unavailable, I guess?

Also, some how missed this. My goal with the Enrique pastebin was to get people talking about enrique, and gauge reactions.
My reasoning for using pastebin was because I could post time stamped text text outside the thread so i could late verify that my opinions of Enrique starting a certain time were not how i actually felt.

[Dom]

ATTENTION PLAYERS:

I am going to be packing and traveling and moving into my room at school until Monday. I will be a little less available than usual. Any PMs sent to me ARE important and I will get to them as soon as humanly possible. I just wanted to ensure I am transparent with everyone, but so far, I guess no one's been unhappy because I've received no PMs-- and that makes me mildly happy.

Are you our very own HR department?

Kind of:

Fortunately, your game comes complete with a Moderator, an impartial individual who can serve as a referee, issue warnings, or just be a therapist to players who just need to vent. If you as a host (or a player) observe resentment manifesting itself in the thread, it’s best to alert the Mod on duty, and let him or her handle it from there.

[Made]

Mainly I want to know why LC persists in suspecting me when i have addressed his points.

I feel like i'm also missing the part where he suspects you.

[S~V~S]

Caught up here at Port Perry fair. I didn't click on that pastebin thing, but I don't understand what Made was up to with that "recreate the situation" a stuff. Was the point to make a game part that was offsite as the Chatzy was offsite? And then to argue with Enrique over the contents, which would then be made unavailable, I guess?

Also, some how missed this. My goal with the Enrique pastebin was to get people talking about enrique, and gauge reactions.
My reasoning for using pastebin was because I could post time stamped text text outside the thread so i could late verify that my opinions of Enrique starting a certain time were not how i actually felt.

Please don't do that anymore. We try as much as possible to rely on what is in thread. Basing in game decisions on non thread stuff is frowned upon.

Linki, read all of his posts, or any of them. Read his sig. he suspects me, and I am perplexed as to why.

[Marmot]

Caught up here at Port Perry fair. I didn't click on that pastebin thing, but I don't understand what Made was up to with that "recreate the situation" a stuff. Was the point to make a game part that was offsite as the Chatzy was offsite? And then to argue with Enrique over the contents, which would then be made unavailable, I guess?

Also, some how missed this. My goal with the Enrique pastebin was to get people talking about enrique, and gauge reactions.
My reasoning for using pastebin was because I could post time stamped text text outside the thread so i could late verify that my opinions of Enrique starting a certain time were not how i actually felt.

Please don't do that anymore. We try as much as possible to rely on what is in thread. Basing in game decisions on non thread stuff is frowned upon.

Linki, read all of his posts, or any of them. Read his sig. he suspects me, and I am perplexed as to why.

I have to agree with SVS here. Posting things outside the thread that can be manipulated so that not everyone may be able to see is essentially against the rules. I'm not of the mindset that you would do such a thing, but I don't think that should allow the excuse. There is a perfectly good reason we are not allowed to edit posts, and this is not much different. So for future purposes, I would ask that don't do it again, but just explain yourself in the game thread at the point you want to reveal your thought process.

Signatures are also kind of iffy. I personally don't like the idea of putting game-related content in sigs either for reasons already listed.

[Made]

Caught up here at Port Perry fair. I didn't click on that pastebin thing, but I don't understand what Made was up to with that "recreate the situation" a stuff. Was the point to make a game part that was offsite as the Chatzy was offsite? And then to argue with Enrique over the contents, which would then be made unavailable, I guess?

Also, some how missed this. My goal with the Enrique pastebin was to get people talking about enrique, and gauge reactions.
My reasoning for using pastebin was because I could post time stamped text text outside the thread so i could late verify that my opinions of Enrique starting a certain time were not how i actually felt.

Please don't do that anymore. We try as much as possible to rely on what is in thread. Basing in game decisions on non thread stuff is frowned upon.

Linki, read all of his posts, or any of them. Read his sig. he suspects me, and I am perplexed as to why.

I have to agree with SVS here. Posting things outside the thread that can be manipulated so that not everyone may be able to see is essentially against the rules. I'm not of the mindset that you would do such a thing, but I don't think that should allow the excuse. There is a perfectly good reason we are not allowed to edit posts, and this is not much different. So for future purposes, I would ask that don't do it again, but just explain yourself in the game thread at the point you want to reveal your thought process.

Signatures are also kind of iffy. I personally don't like the idea of putting game-related content in sigs either for reasons already listed.

Gotcha, will refrain from doing any of those things.

[Marmot]

Also, I'm not currently getting the baddie vibe from Made, although llama so graciously gave us his insight, which may be used as evidence if more comes to light. I say I'm not getting the baddie vibe because I see nothing unusual in his behavior so far (compared to his "normal" gameplay, that is :P Made is beautifully unorthodox).

SVS (and others) let me also quote this line from Day 1 from ninja blooper f about Made in regards to his gameplay. Let's skip the idea that he is a noob, because while his actions escape some of our comprehension, he most definitely does not play like a beginner per say.

[reywaS]

I think everyone should read this, specifically MP's

So these are the opinions I have found about the people who are currently on the poll.

MP - I feel like MP started out by saying a lot without saying very much at all. He has a lot of posts with a lot of words in them but doesn't do much with them. Other than SVS he hasn't really came out strongly against anyone. He seemed like he might lean toward Made early on but was never convinced and now seems to have gone away from it entirely, which is fine. Also in my opinion he got quite defensive over Epi's suspicion of him.

SVS - I never know what to think of her in general. She has seemed very focused in her pursuit/suspicion of Made and I think her responses to MP's accusations against her have been quite reasonable. I definitely don't see this 'fabricated suspicion' that MP claims is there, I think she has genuine and understandable reasons to distrust Made. I also think that even baddies usually have genuine suspicions. Furthermore, others are suspicious of him for similar reasons but MP only seems to suggest that SVS' suspicion is the dishonest one. Having read the exchanges between these two I would have to say if one of them is definitely bad and the other civ I'd lean towards trusting SVS. That's not to say I'll vote MP today though but I do have an eye on him so far.

Daisy - It's great to see someone with just three posts after going through SVS and MP's! Only one of her posts is really on topic but I know she's usually very busy so that means little or nothing to me. Her read of MP could be particularly damning for him.

BWT - Just after the challenge ended he said there'd been no serious game-related discussion yet, so maybe he ought to be careful what he wishes for!! Seriously though I do share his dismay at having to keep reading a novel's worth of text every time I log in. He is another who is suspicious of MP and shares my view that MP has said a lot without saying much. I also agree with him that we should back off from the Llama/Made fling for now. He seems pretty genuine and in my experience he's more blendy as a baddie so I'm leaning civ on BWT for now.

Juliets - I'm not feeling great about JC. In my opinion she seems to be trying to fly under the radar, not coming out against anyone. Most of her posts say that she isn't suspicious of Made or Llama but she doesn't seem to make much, if any, effort to say who she is suspicious of. The only hint at who might get her vote today is that she says she will vote to save Llama if necessary. My gut says she's not trustworthy and trying to be blendy.

Llama - I was enjoying not having too many posts to comb through He comes off here much like his usual civvie self in my opinion.

Lizzy - Has been missing since Tuesday! Maybe we need to form a search party. Her seven posts are pretty standard Lizzy material. That said, none are on topic or serious in nature but since she disappeared during day zero that's sort of to be expected. I'd like to hear more from her because I know she can be a tricky and dangerous baddie.

LC - I think his point about 'you would know' as a common phrase was good and agree with his view on Made. I'd like to hear more from him though. There isn't enough for me to get much of a feel for where he stands this game. It looks like he might be suspicious of SVS but other than that I'm not sure.

MR - Hasn't posted in a while. The last thing he said was he was joining the 'want to hear more from Made/Rey group' which, as Rey pointed out, he's the founding member of. So I'm not sure what he meant by that. Now that his game is over he might have more time for us so hopefully he makes it in today and can share some of his thoughts.

Canuck - I feel... okay about Canuck. I trusted her for a while in Misfits and was wrong to but here I think she looks quite genuine and I like her point that the baddies could be 'using this insane Made-centric firestorm to stay out of the way and out of memory'. With so much discussion centred around so few people I think it'd be very easy for someone to fly under the radar. She's another I'd like to hear more suspicion from but I feel reasonably good about her.

Dana - Trusted her in Misfits too and I was right for a change. Here she has said a fair bit but, like MP, hasn't really said much. I'm not sure how I feel about her yet.

Made - I doubt I'll vote Made at this point. I think everything that has happened with him here is basically the same as in Misfits, he's just one of those players I guess. I don't necessarily think he's a civ just yet, but I'm not calling him suspicious either.

So overall I guess this is where I stand on the players who are actually on today's poll:

Feel good about: SVS, Llama, BWT, Canuck

Unsure: Daisy, Lizzy, LC, MR, Dana, Made

Feel bad about: MP, JC.

He went on to vote for Juliet.

Based on my reread of him, Bullz has so far played a very strange game. Basically, all he's done (exluding arguements towards Juliet/MP) is attempt to bring accusations and theories to a middle ground.

At this point, the only thing i'm thinking right now is that DF and Bullz weren't on the same time.

Also, Dana needs to say more words.

[Long Con]

So no opinion about the game i am playing here vs Fight Club?

Not everyone develops suspicions the same way. I don't know what the difference is between your gameplay here and your gameplay in Fight Club. I don't know what the difference is in my gameplay. I just play the game and try to develop suspicions. I'm not inclined to comb Fight Club to see if this amorphous thing called "gameplay" is the same or not. And if you were a baddie, then I'd be a complete fool to go and compare your gameplay because you told me to, since you are in control of your gameplay and could craft it so as to be different just so you could say "See how different??" when someone suspects you. "I was bad there and acted way differently so I couldn't be bad here so stop suspecting me k?"

[bea]

LOL I've missed you Sawyer.

[reywaS]

Looking at the roster, Juliets played and she was one of my primary victims, and rey played, he was one of my teammates. But you say that you still think i am suspicious even if they corroborate me.

Linki, made, I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought you were suspicious for suspecting BWT for not being all that in the challenge. This is reminiscent of what happened in a game Roxy hosted in the past, that is what LC & I are talking about. NOT whatever you are talking about.

FWIW, I get where SVS was coming from with her warning about people that try to develop suspicions based on the side game chat. We did it in Roxy's Survivor game and we kicked ass...SVS made it to the very end and IMO only lost because Tranq was a challenge freak. But, yes, a HUGE part of our strategy in that game was to keep suspicions based soley on what happened in the challenges. Lynching poor performers kept the actual baddies under the radar because, well, we were all very active in the challenges. That's how i remember it anyway.

SVS played a helluva game in Survivor, so I don't see anything wrong with her warning in this game. I'm still quite confused over what LC is basing his suspicion of her on. It's not the contents of the warning, but it's the fact that she issued the warning in the first place??? Is that right, LC?

bea

[Long Con]

The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"

When did I do this?

Linki, it isn't relevant, he just popped into the discussion that for once had nothing to do with him, and misconstrued it to be relevant to him..

Really, LC, tell me when i did this. because i am so not freaking bad, and i need to know where you are coming from.

This is an example of the desperation I spoke of. These posts are literally one minute apart. You ask me to tell you "when you did this", and, though you KNOW I was at a fair (home now), you ask again one minute later like I'm holding out on you.

"When you did this": Well, you clarified what you meant by saying baddies can take advantage of Roxy's challenge, and expected my suspicion of you to vanish. I have already explained that the suspicion isn't based on what you meant by warning everyone, it was a gut feel based on your repeated insistence that we watch out for it. It rang baddie to me, like you were trying to foster goodwill by being a helpful player.

You said "so you think I am bad regardless of what i say or mean. Good to know, LC." You're right. It's not what you say or mean right NOW, it's what you said and how you said it THEN.

[Long Con]

Looking at the roster, Juliets played and she was one of my primary victims, and rey played, he was one of my teammates. But you say that you still think i am suspicious even if they corroborate me.

Linki, made, I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought you were suspicious for suspecting BWT for not being all that in the challenge. This is reminiscent of what happened in a game Roxy hosted in the past, that is what LC & I are talking about. NOT whatever you are talking about.

FWIW, I get where SVS was coming from with her warning about people that try to develop suspicions based on the side game chat. We did it in Roxy's Survivor game and we kicked ass...SVS made it to the very end and IMO only lost because Tranq was a challenge freak. But, yes, a HUGE part of our strategy in that game was to keep suspicions based soley on what happened in the challenges. Lynching poor performers kept the actual baddies under the radar because, well, we were all very active in the challenges. That's how i remember it anyway.

SVS played a helluva game in Survivor, so I don't see anything wrong with her warning in this game. I'm still quite confused over what LC is basing his suspicion of her on. It's not the contents of the warning, but it's the fact that she issued the warning in the first place??? Is that right, LC?

Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.

[Made]

Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.

I get your suspicion. Twice this game( suggesting no lynch, and trying to determine odds off numbers i couldn't possibly know) SVS has told me thing i was suggesting either benifited Mafia/or were classic mafia moves.

Regardless, I don't currently suspect her as mafia. However, you suspicion has definately warrented another Full SVS read.

[Made]

Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.

I get your suspicion. Twice this game( suggesting no lynch, and trying to determine odds off numbers i couldn't possibly know) SVS has told me thing i was suggesting either benifited Mafia/or were classic mafia moves.

Regardless, I don't currently suspect her as mafia. However, you suspicion has definately warrented another Full SVS read.

Also, there's no reason for SVS to be deserperate, yet anyways. I read her quick succession post as more Angry/Impatience.

I plan to reread you too btw, thought you might want to know that .

[reywaS]

Looking at the roster, Juliets played and she was one of my primary victims, and rey played, he was one of my teammates. But you say that you still think i am suspicious even if they corroborate me.

Linki, made, I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought you were suspicious for suspecting BWT for not being all that in the challenge. This is reminiscent of what happened in a game Roxy hosted in the past, that is what LC & I are talking about. NOT whatever you are talking about.

FWIW, I get where SVS was coming from with her warning about people that try to develop suspicions based on the side game chat. We did it in Roxy's Survivor game and we kicked ass...SVS made it to the very end and IMO only lost because Tranq was a challenge freak. But, yes, a HUGE part of our strategy in that game was to keep suspicions based soley on what happened in the challenges. Lynching poor performers kept the actual baddies under the radar because, well, we were all very active in the challenges. That's how i remember it anyway.

SVS played a helluva game in Survivor, so I don't see anything wrong with her warning in this game. I'm still quite confused over what LC is basing his suspicion of her on. It's not the contents of the warning, but it's the fact that she issued the warning in the first place??? Is that right, LC?

Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.

I get it now. I was just trying to understand what you were saying.

[Long Con]

Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.

I get your suspicion. Twice this game( suggesting no lynch, and trying to determine odds off numbers i couldn't possibly know) SVS has told me thing i was suggesting either benifited Mafia/or were classic mafia moves.

Regardless, I don't currently suspect her as mafia. However, you suspicion has definately warrented another Full SVS read.

Also, there's no reason for SVS to be deserperate, yet anyways. I read her quick succession post as more Angry/Impatience.

I plan to reread you too btw, thought you might want to know that .

What, don't do that! My posts are single-read only!

Have a read of her and see what you think. Is she a baddie going with safe and easy posts to stay involved but not put herself too much out there? Maybe, maybe not. Your insights will be appreciated.

[Bullzeye]

1.What if the knight has no BTSC? It wasn't specfically stated that they do, and can't all they say is "NI"? Maybe they can "NI" other team members?

I highly doubt there's a lone baddie whose only power is to search for one civ and kill him. The Knights Who Say Ni in the film can and do say far more than just Ni. Ni is supposed to be a special word that people are afraid of hearing for some reason.

Also, Who's Roger (the Character)?

Roger the Shrubber is a shrubber. He designs, makes, and sells shrubberies.

I think everyone should read this, specifically MP's

He went on to vote for Juliet.

Based on my reread of him, Bullz has so far played a very strange game. Basically, all he's done (exluding arguements towards Juliet/MP) is attempt to bring accusations and theories to a middle ground.

At this point, the only thing i'm thinking right now is that DF and Bullz weren't on the same time.

That's rich coming from you!

The wording of your post kind of implies I'd only been suspicious of MP and my vote for JC came out of nowhere. If you actually read my post you'd see I'd mentioned both as suspicious, and in my overview of SVS said I wasn't sure if I'd vote MP but thought he was more likely to be bad than SVS. I also called JC suspicious and when her defenses did nothing to change that (and actually made me more suspicious of her) she got my vote. Do you have any more examples of me playing a strange game or is it just the one cherry-picked and misrepresented post?

Bullz lives in England, Faraday lives in Texas, so yeah, they probably were not on at the same time. He has not played a "strange game" he has actually given an opinion on everyone. And if you are trying to make a behavior based theory on someone, you can't "exclude" behavior that does not fit your theory.

You can when looking for abnormalities. What i'm saying is that his opinions weren't strong, including his on Me, Llama, You (SVS), Hedge.
Note this theory isn't really saying he's good or bad. Heck, the fact that he was so focused on one/two people might even appear more likely to be civvie. I mean fuck up the only theory you had all game and you wouldn't look too hot. By that logic, mafia would be hesistant to put all of their eggs in one basket.

I don't have a strong opinion on Hedge because I still haven't gotten around to reading why people seem suspicious of her. As to Llama and SVS, I named them as likely civs so I don't see how I don't have strong opinions on them. You I think look bad but I'm holding back because you looked bad in Misfits for similar reasons. You say I was focused on two people when the fact is of the 12 people on the poll they were the only two I felt comfortable voting for.

What does that even mean?

I'm not saying Bullz is bad. I'm saying his allignment might be able to be deduced from what he's said, specifically in that quote.

Using what people have said in the game to determine whether or not they're bad? That's a novel concept.

Rarely have I read a Mafia thread and wished that I could be LESS sober while doing so... >.>

I feel this way about most things.

[S~V~S]

The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"

When did I do this?

Linki, it isn't relevant, he just popped into the discussion that for once had nothing to do with him, and misconstrued it to be relevant to him..

Really, LC, tell me when i did this. because i am so not freaking bad, and i need to know where you are coming from.

This is an example of the desperation I spoke of. These posts are literally one minute apart. You ask me to tell you "when you did this", and, though you KNOW I was at a fair (home now), you ask again one minute later like I'm holding out on you.

"When you did this": Well, you clarified what you meant by saying baddies can take advantage of Roxy's challenge, and expected my suspicion of you to vanish. I have already explained that the suspicion isn't based on what you meant by warning everyone, it was a gut feel based on your repeated insistence that we watch out for it. It rang baddie to me, like you were trying to foster goodwill by being a helpful player.

You said "so you think I am bad regardless of what i say or mean. Good to know, LC." You're right. It's not what you say or mean right NOW, it's what you said and how you said it THEN.

I WAS trying to foster goodwill by being a helpful player, lol. That is pretty much what civvies are supposed to do, right? Civvies have to get the other civvies to trust them, right?

I am not desperate, if people are going to vote for me, i want to know why. I want to know what they think of my rebuttal posts. And I ALWAYS do this LC, post something, and add things I forgot. I know you are at the fair, i also know you would find these questions when you get back. Mafia is not "real time". People ask me questions when i am at work all the time, I don't think they're being desperate.

You have no opinion on what i said about my game being very different here than it was in Fight Club?

I think you are trying too hard to defend your position about me. Your initial supposition about how I was pushing fear of something that did not happen was based on a false assumption, now you are switching it from what I said to how I said it. And blasting me for something i always do, multi post.

So thanks for the answers, I will expect your vote, and not bother you about it again.

On the way to my sisters shower yesterday, we stopped at a garage sale, and they had a stuffed Monty Python Dead Norwegian Blue Parrot dog toy of all random things, lol~! So i bought it and gave it to Sookie for you, Roxy

[S~V~S]

Also, since I already voted, I noticed that we can change our votes today, too.

[Canucklehead]

Hey, all.
Just catching up and posting thoughts as I go.

1) I see Made has become the centre of Attention again. I am having a harder and harder time maintaining my earlier belief that he's just a whackadoodle civ. The main reason for this is because if I was on a baddie team with him, I'd be rejoicing because he's so successful at diverting the thread and keeping everyone's eyes just on him that it would allow his team a lot of freedom (and an easy distancing vote, if it came to that). Of course, the diversionary benefits still apply even if Made is a civ, so I'm back to square one. Basically, Made, if you are a civ, it might not be a bad idea to turn down the crazy and turn up the listening. There are an unknown number of baddies to find, and if you are a civ, you are currently distracting a lot of people from doing so.

2) Something about hedgie and juliets? I got pretty lost/uninterested there and don't really get what's the deal. I don't have any homegrown suspicions of either of those players, but I'm willing to listen if there is a case to be made....but my skim-through made it seem like it was mostly just confusion? Or something? Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't want to brrush by this if it is really something that I/we should be looking at.

3)SVS and LC. This is an interesting nut. I'm not seeing SVS's baddie game necessarily. I think she always demands that people back up their suspicions of her and acknowledge the flaws/inconsistencies/misunderstandings she points out when she goes through the suspicion with a fine-toothed comb. I think she does this regardless of whether she's good or bad.....

However.

I'm a little baffled by how she found LC's suspicion - which he repeatedly characterized as a "gut" ping, and which he laid out pretty clearly (even as someone ignorant of the other game situation referenced, I found his reasoning pretty easy to follow) - why was this so seemingly hard to understand for SVS? Also, LC responds to SVS' querey about the difference between her playstyle in "Fight Cub" and this game here:

So no opinion about the game i am playing here vs Fight Club?

Not everyone develops suspicions the same way. I don't know what the difference is between your gameplay here and your gameplay in Fight Club. I don't know what the difference is in my gameplay. I just play the game and try to develop suspicions. I'm not inclined to comb Fight Club to see if this amorphous thing called "gameplay" is the same or not. And if you were a baddie, then I'd be a complete fool to go and compare your gameplay because you told me to, since you are in control of your gameplay and could craft it so as to be different just so you could say "See how different??" when someone suspects you. "I was bad there and acted way differently so I couldn't be bad here so stop suspecting me k?"

.....but then in SVS' next post, she seems to have not read it, and says this (bolded):

The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"

When did I do this?

Linki, it isn't relevant, he just popped into the discussion that for once had nothing to do with him, and misconstrued it to be relevant to him..

Really, LC, tell me when i did this. because i am so not freaking bad, and i need to know where you are coming from.

This is an example of the desperation I spoke of. These posts are literally one minute apart. You ask me to tell you "when you did this", and, though you KNOW I was at a fair (home now), you ask again one minute later like I'm holding out on you.

"When you did this": Well, you clarified what you meant by saying baddies can take advantage of Roxy's challenge, and expected my suspicion of you to vanish. I have already explained that the suspicion isn't based on what you meant by warning everyone, it was a gut feel based on your repeated insistence that we watch out for it. It rang baddie to me, like you were trying to foster goodwill by being a helpful player.

You said "so you think I am bad regardless of what i say or mean. Good to know, LC." You're right. It's not what you say or mean right NOW, it's what you said and how you said it THEN.

I WAS trying to foster goodwill by being a helpful player, lol. That is pretty much what civvies are supposed to do, right? Civvies have to get the other civvies to trust them, right?

I am not desperate, if people are going to vote for me, i want to know why. I want to know what they think of my rebuttal posts. And I ALWAYS do this LC, post something, and add things I forgot. I know you are at the fair, i also know you would find these questions when you get back. Mafia is not "real time". People ask me questions when i am at work all the time, I don't think they're being desperate.

You have no opinion on what i said about my game being very different here than it was in Fight Club?

I think you are trying too hard to defend your position about me. Your initial supposition about how I was pushing fear of something that did not happen was based on a false assumption, now you are switching it from what I said to how I said it. And blasting me for something i always do, multi post.

So thanks for the answers, I will expect your vote, and not bother you about it again.

....so now I'm maybe beginning to doubt SVS a little. From what I understood, LC's suspicion was more of a gut thing, with a hint of a reminder of a previous game....and SVS's reaction seems a little more intense than the gravity of his suspicion called for...


....but then again, she now seems to be satisfied that she's not going to change LC's mind, and is therefore backing off...which seems a reasonable, civ SVS thing to do....so.......

[S~V~S]

I did not think that was an actual response, i thought it was an evasion, tbh. And initially it was a gut thing based on a very specific thing, a thing that turned out to be LC misunderstanding what i was talking about, as he had not played that game.

So while it was a gut thing, it was based on something fairly specific. Something that is not what he believed it to be.

[S~V~S]

Also, one of the reasons I always play a very overt civvie game is that I always take suspicion, I fight more as a civ (and take votes) than I ever do as a baddie. Then I get suspected for trying to act too civ. I expect to take votes, but I also will defend hard against them, individually, since I KNOW they are wrong, theres a difference from when i am bad. I am trying to persuade then they are wrong when I am bad, I KNOW they are wrong when I'm a civ.

[Roxy]

On the way to my sisters shower yesterday, we stopped at a garage sale, and they had a stuffed Monty Python Dead Norwegian Blue Parrot dog toy of all random things, lol~! So i bought it and gave it to Sookie for you, Roxy

YARD SALE!! *TIRES SQUEAL TO A STOP*
Dead Parrot is one of my favorite Monty Python skits <3
Yay for a new cool toy for Sookie!
Btw whenever I hear the name Sookie I don't think of True Blood I think of -


*Let it hang out , baby!!!"

[Long Con]

Thank you, Canuck, saved me the trouble on the "Fight Club opinion" front.

S~V~S says I'm "trying too hard to defend this position". All I'm doing is responding to her - if anyone is trying too hard, it's her. I never wanted to try to make the gut ping into a big thing. What happened to the S~V~S that welcomed a bit of suspicion as a Civ, to keep safer from NKs? It's why I said she seems desperate - this little suspicion is hardly something to get so worked up about. Maybe it's the sig thing.

[S~V~S]

It's in your sig, yeah. ha ha.

[juliets]

I'm not really sure if this is important in this debate but in the Survivor game, Roxy's game in the past that SVS was referring to when she made her warning comments, the baddies most definitely gained civ cred by being helpful and all go-team-go. A baddie SVS was on my team and was the one who helped me maintain my sanity when Tranq yelled at me and was easy for me to trust. LC, you may be saying that regardless of what happened in that game you still fell that SVS warning people in this one was her trying to look civ. I didn't think anything about the warning other than what she was saying was true.

[S~V~S]

Mongoose needs one more for FELT

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the letter "M" and the number "8"

[Long Con]

So while it was a gut thing, it was based on something fairly specific. Something that is not what he believed it to be.

You really have to stop saying that. I have clarified for you several times about what my ping was based on.The fact that you are still trying to act like it was about the content of the warning is just making you look more suspicious to me.

Stop twisting my ping! Acknowledge the reason for it, the reason I have given several times over already!

[Made]

Hey, all.
Just catching up and posting thoughts as I go.

1) I see Made has become the centre of Attention again. I am having a harder and harder time maintaining my earlier belief that he's just a whackadoodle civ. The main reason for this is because if I was on a baddie team with him, I'd be rejoicing because he's so successful at diverting the thread and keeping everyone's eyes just on him that it would allow his team a lot of freedom (and an easy distancing vote, if it came to that). Of course, the diversionary benefits still apply even if Made is a civ, so I'm back to square one. Basically, Made, if you are a civ, it might not be a bad idea to turn down the crazy and turn up the listening. There are an unknown number of baddies to find, and if you are a civ, you are currently distracting a lot of people from doing so.

Typing this a second time because cellphones suck...

Is my acknowledging theories where I'm bad really that distracting? When it comes down to it, that's what my unorthodox play style is grounded in.

I will attempt to play in a way that ping less people, but still pigeonholes baddies. If this doesn't work, I'll probably revert to how I naturally play.

Also, MM was forced voted/voted hella early?

[Bullzeye]

Hey, all.
Just catching up and posting thoughts as I go.

1) I see Made has become the centre of Attention again. I am having a harder and harder time maintaining my earlier belief that he's just a whackadoodle civ. The main reason for this is because if I was on a baddie team with him, I'd be rejoicing because he's so successful at diverting the thread and keeping everyone's eyes just on him that it would allow his team a lot of freedom (and an easy distancing vote, if it came to that). Of course, the diversionary benefits still apply even if Made is a civ, so I'm back to square one. Basically, Made, if you are a civ, it might not be a bad idea to turn down the crazy and turn up the listening. There are an unknown number of baddies to find, and if you are a civ, you are currently distracting a lot of people from doing so.

Typing this a second time because cellphones suck...

Is my acknowledging theories where I'm bad really that distracting? When it comes down to it, that's what my unorthodox play style is grounded in.

I will attempt to play in a way that ping less people, but still pigeonholes baddies. If this doesn't work, I'll probably revert to how I naturally play.

Also, MM was forced voted/voted hella early?

Distracting isn't the word I'd use. Most people when someone calls them bad they try to refute and discredit the argument in order to prove they're a civ. Seeing both sides of a debate is never a bad thing but if you accept someone's reasoning as to why you're a baddie then it looks like you're saying they're right and you are bad. It's confusing if anything. It makes people wonder about you.

[juliets]

Yeah Made, I didn't play Misfits but i read enough of it to know your playstyle is whack. Nevertheless, I agree with Bullz. I have also started to wonder if you are making up these wild theories to keep the eye away from others. I have believed in your civviness but I am starting to have doubts or as Bullz brings up maybe I'm just confused by you. I know I'm confused by some of those theories.

[Mongoose]

Mongoose needs one more for FELT

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the letter "M" and the number "8"

Thank you, darling!

I'll be busy dealing with sending the roles out and starting that game, but I'll be scanning for my name in here. Once the game is running, I should be fine.

[Mister Rearranger]

To vote Enrique or Made: that is my conundrum...

[Marmot]

Also, MM was forced voted/voted hella early?

1) I was making sure we can still switch votes.

2) There was a chance I would not be around most of today, so I went ahead and voted last night.

3) I voted you yesterday, and I was planning on voting you today as well. If I do change my vote, it would be to Enrique.

[Marmot]

Oops, forgot to add this.

Hey, all.
Just catching up and posting thoughts as I go.

1) I see Made has become the centre of Attention again. I am having a harder and harder time maintaining my earlier belief that he's just a whackadoodle civ. The main reason for this is because if I was on a baddie team with him, I'd be rejoicing because he's so successful at diverting the thread and keeping everyone's eyes just on him that it would allow his team a lot of freedom (and an easy distancing vote, if it came to that). Of course, the diversionary benefits still apply even if Made is a civ, so I'm back to square one. Basically, Made, if you are a civ, it might not be a bad idea to turn down the crazy and turn up the listening. There are an unknown number of baddies to find, and if you are a civ, you are currently distracting a lot of people from doing so.

Not that I disagree with your view on Made, in fact, I think it is quite apt. But you do have every right to ignore it and discuss/look elsewhere.