Game Over! Monty Python and the Holy Grail

[fingersplints]

I don't like this post at all.

I missed your thoughts on Canuck, Keterman. Now that I go back and look at them, they are astonishingly astute. I've been increasingly suspicious of Canuck this game as well. Her posting pattern alone indicates someone who spends most of their time in a chatzy and occasionally pops in to contribute when needed.

I feel like she has been very active (but that is probably because she keeps wanting to discuss me, haha).

She has been active, but there have been long pauses between her activity, as one would expect from someone who checks into a chatroom before posting.

Or maybe Canuck's posts are generally long ones, big blocks of text, multiquoting masterpieces , and that takes more time to get into the thread than , say, someone who just throws short accusations out there to see what sticks, to see if he can get some people to go along with it. Like you.

I think Canuck is being surprisingly cool about you doing it to her, actually.

I still like you LC, but this really irks me and I have a hard time seriously considering your llama suspicion when I feel like it's based off a semi-attack on how he posts. Maybe that isn't what you are intending but it's what it feels like a little to me.

I tend to make shorter posts because I frequently am playing from a phone. I don't think a persons posts are better just because they are longer or wordier. I personally find large blocks of text harder to read.

(back to the reading)

[Long Con]

Splints, you got the wrong idea... I was more focused on Canucks posting style, and I only brought Llamas posting style into it as a segue from talking about her style into the accusagt. The accusation was that llama has been mudslinging, basically, not that his posts are a certain way. Sometimes he does short, terse posts, sometimes midrange humorous, sometimes in-depth analyses.

[Canucklehead]

NinaJellyBeans: I'm not floundering, nor is my logic "weird" or "unsound". For one thing, I have never professed to play this game according to logic. Don't put your crazy strictures on me, son!
But really. What is more logical: to assume that I am the lone voice of reason in a thread that has many, many people - the majority of whom are likely to be Civ and some of whom I very much trust to be so - professing opinions that contradict my own? Or to consider the fact that I could be wrong and cast my lot with the majority, knowing full well that had I stubbornly stuck to my guns I would have garnered suspicions for that no matter which way Made flipped? For me, the latter is clearly more logical, since it is part of a civ's job to avoid being lynched as much as possible, and I believed that placing a "distancing" or "hands cleaning" vote on Mongoose (which is totes how it would have been perceived) would do nothing to help the town and would only get me in hot water.
For you, perhaps the former would have felt more logical, but that is because you obviously operate on a different set of assumptions and therefore weigh your options differently. Like I said earlier to Keterman, the fact that I make different choices than you would have in the same situation does not make me bad.
It turns out my initial read on Made was correct, but I was not solid enough in it to put my fingers in my ears and shut out the overwhelming opinion of others. So I changed my mind (spoiler alert: this is something that is allowed to happen in this game!) and decided that even if my gut was telling me Made was good, the brains of other people who I trust were telling me he was bad. So I listened to the brains. This is not a denial of responsibility or a jumping on a bandwagon. It's a weighing of options, a listening to arguments, and a making of a choice.
Nowhere have I shirked responsibility for my decision. In fact, I've done little but explain and own up to my vote, so please do not put those words into my mouth or imply that I have been trying to avoid responsibility or dodge accusations or hide behind the crowd. I haven't. Also, please feel free to provide some evidence of the "floundering" you suggest I'm doing. I don't think you'll actually find any of that, either

and of course I don't take it personally! no worries! It's mafia!

[LoRab]

The "llama suspects people for trivial reasons" thing is ridiculous. Where are the detailed, well thought out cases behind LoRab's votes? Or Ninjablooper's? Or Dana's? or Bea's? Or Boogs'? or Hedgeowl's? or Mongoose's?

I have explained all my votes, actually. I mean, maybe my posts weren't overly detailed (or long), but I've said why I'm suspicious of those I'm suspicious of.

ETA: the one exception I can think of to my truancy from baddie chatrooms was the first Recruitment game at TP. I had a shittonne of fun that game and hung out in our baddie chat a LOT. I have no idea how we did as a team in the actual game (I think we lost? Probably pretty hard?), but I will admit that I did in that instance spend a lot of time chatting and planning who we were going to recruit and kill. FoD Forever!

Best team ever.

We lost, but I got to the final four! I blame LoRab because of that stupid amulet. UGH! Still haunting me to this day.

I vaguely remember an amulet. Very vaguely. Did I win that game? I can't even remember if I was civ or bad.

And, to be clear, I'm not offended by the word scum. I use worse words all the time. It just strikes me when I see posts saying, "you are scum" as opposed to "you are a baddie." I'm not used to seeing posts that appear personal in that way. Maybe it's just something I need to get used to on the Syndicate and realize that this offshoot of our mafiaverse is different than the other portions of it.

[thellama73]

The "llama suspects people for trivial reasons" thing is ridiculous. Where are the detailed, well thought out cases behind LoRab's votes? Or Ninjablooper's? Or Dana's? or Bea's? Or Boogs'? or Hedgeowl's? or Mongoose's?

I have explained all my votes, actually. I mean, maybe my posts weren't overly detailed (or long), but I've said why I'm suspicious of those I'm suspicious of.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to attack you specifically. I was just making the point that we all suspect people for small reasons. It's the nature of the game. The baddies are trying not to be found, so there are not going to be flashing neon signs directing us to them, so we use small things.

I annoys me that vocal people, like me, get singled out for having suspicions that are less than airtight, but less vocal, more "go with the flow types" seem immune from the same criticism, even though it is equally valid.

[birdwithteeth11]

Sorry I haven't been around. Will catch up tomorrow.

[LoRab]

The "llama suspects people for trivial reasons" thing is ridiculous. Where are the detailed, well thought out cases behind LoRab's votes? Or Ninjablooper's? Or Dana's? or Bea's? Or Boogs'? or Hedgeowl's? or Mongoose's?

I have explained all my votes, actually. I mean, maybe my posts weren't overly detailed (or long), but I've said why I'm suspicious of those I'm suspicious of.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to attack you specifically. I was just making the point that we all suspect people for small reasons. It's the nature of the game. The baddies are trying not to be found, so there are not going to be flashing neon signs directing us to them, so we use small things.

I annoys me that vocal people, like me, get singled out for having suspicions that are less than airtight, but less vocal, more "go with the flow types" seem immune from the same criticism, even though it is equally valid.

Totally agree. Ultimately, all we have are small reasons/obscurities that we notice. Other than the rare occasions where a baddie fantastically slips up (and that's rarer and rarer, I think), we can only notice the little things. I don't have an opinion of your alignment one way or another at this point, but how you build your suspicions (or how anyone builds suspicions, really), doesn't sway me or raise my eyebrow.

[Long Con]

2) I think LC's sudden turn on llama for a comment I thought was rather innocuous to be...odd. I've seen other people accuse players of only being on when it's convenient and possibly being in a chat, so...not really understanding why THAT happened to be the comment that set him off. Is there more to the case than "That's what a baddie would say!" LC? I'm curious

There is more than that, bloop, that's like, the last thing I said to him. I suspected him back in the early game when he claimed not to know the meaning of the phrase "you would know", and the accusation of Canuck having btsc because of Llama's analysis of her posting frequency, which I think is not a realistic thing to say, and therefore must have other motives driving it.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

[thellama73]

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

I don't know. I never claimed to know. I just pointed out an observation I made that was consistent with those Keterman made.

[Long Con]

An observation about the frequency of Canuck's posts, right?

[Mongoose]

The "llama suspects people for trivial reasons" thing is ridiculous. Where are the detailed, well thought out cases behind LoRab's votes? Or Ninjablooper's? Or Dana's? or Bea's? Or Boogs'? or Hedgeowl's? or Mongoose's?

I have explained all my votes, actually. I mean, maybe my posts weren't overly detailed (or long), but I've said why I'm suspicious of those I'm suspicious of.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to attack you specifically. I was just making the point that we all suspect people for small reasons. It's the nature of the game. The baddies are trying not to be found, so there are not going to be flashing neon signs directing us to them, so we use small things.

I annoys me that vocal people, like me, get singled out for having suspicions that are less than airtight, but less vocal, more "go with the flow types" seem immune from the same criticism, even though it is equally valid.

You are so vocal this game.

[Dana]

Dana had it right with her post against him, and he just deflected it with a "no u" post to put her on the defensive. His reasons for suspecting people have mostly been trifling and contrived, and this last one against you takes the cake.

I agree, he didn't really address what I said other than saying he wanted Made dead the whole time and then changing the subject.

Voting Llama because I just have to know his role!

I didn't change the subject. You said I made cases based on minor things. I pointed out that everyone else votes based on even more minor things, especially you. I think that is relevant.

I thought your issue with me was that I didn't vote, not that I voted based on minor things. That's the exact opposite of what I've been doing. I had only been voting when I felt I had good reason to. I think that you making cases on minor things is a major thing, and I also learned that I pretty much must vote, so I voted for you.

If you are good, then I'm sorry, friend.
I know I don't know you well at all so this could very well just be your play style, but I am finding it very suspicious.

[Tangrowth]

I vaguely remember an amulet. Very vaguely. Did I win that game? I can't even remember if I was civ or bad.

You must have been given it by the Devil's team, and since I hadn't encountered it, I had no idea what it would do.

It was you, a civvie, and Bree, another civvie, Map, the last remaining Devil member, and me, the last remaining Jello team member. I had previously claimed the civvie Ambassador role to save myself from being lynched, but in reality I was the Jello Ambassador. Map actually outed herself in thread and you began working with her, claiming the other bad role, but then I came out and said I was bad, and after a lengthy discussion Map and I agreed to each kill one of you. She would kill Bree and I would kill you, and then our "tie" would be decided by LC and BR. Well, that night, LC said I had been offered the Amulet of... Power, I think? And that I could take it or pass it on... I was super afraid that if I passed it on, then Map would get it and she would beat me in the case of a tie, so I thought I should hold onto it. I debated so much over it though. Turns out it was the Amulet of Misdirection and any night target that would target you (the giver of the amulet) from the wearer of the amulet (me) would be redirected back at myself.

Map had an extra vote up her sleeve, but so did I! So I had no idea what LC and BR would have done for a tie, but I blew it by being super paranoid with the amulet.

Totally epic endgame, my favorite I've ever been involved in still, to this day.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

SPECIAL LATE NIGHT QUESTION TIME

Who was the second person to get Lancelot in the survey?

PM your guess to both hosts.

[thellama73]

Dana had it right with her post against him, and he just deflected it with a "no u" post to put her on the defensive. His reasons for suspecting people have mostly been trifling and contrived, and this last one against you takes the cake.

I agree, he didn't really address what I said other than saying he wanted Made dead the whole time and then changing the subject.

Voting Llama because I just have to know his role!

I didn't change the subject. You said I made cases based on minor things. I pointed out that everyone else votes based on even more minor things, especially you. I think that is relevant.

I thought your issue with me was that I didn't vote, not that I voted based on minor things. That's the exact opposite of what I've been doing. I had only been voting when I felt I had good reason to. I think that you making cases on minor things is a major thing, and I also learned that I pretty much must vote, so I voted for you.

If you are good, then I'm sorry, friend.
I know I don't know you well at all so this could very well just be your play style, but I am finding it very suspicious.

Not having a case and having a case based on minor things are the same in my book. If anything, the former is worse because it looks like you're not even trying. But once again, the point of my post was not that I have an "issue" with you, but to point out thta your criticisms could apply equally to others, including yourself.

[Long Con]

You avoided my question.

[thellama73]

You avoided my question.

What, this questiion?

An observation about the frequency of Canuck's posts, right?

The answer is: yes.

Happy?

[Long Con]

Not yet, I'll be happier when you give us the sample of posts you used to come to your conclusion. Take us through your logic, show us the case instead of mudslinging.

[thellama73]

Not yet, I'll be happier when you give us the sample of posts you used to come to your conclusion. Take us through your logic, show us the case instead of mudslinging.

No, I don't think I will.

You've made your opinion known, and cast your vote. I've said all I have to say on the subject. I'm happy to let the rest of the thread draw their own conclusions from what has already been said.

[Long Con]

Votes can change. Your refusal to make a case at all speaks volumes. If the rest of the thread still can't see what I see at this point, then you've got them right where you want them.

[thellama73]

Why would I make a case on someone I don't necessarily think is bad and am not planning to vote for?

[Long Con]

Why would I make a case on someone I don't necessarily think is bad and am not planning to vote for?

But if people had just gone along with your accusation then it would be a different story. They didn't, so now you're trying to back out.

[Long Con]

So now you

I missed your thoughts on Canuck, Keterman. Now that I go back and look at them, they are astonishingly astute. I've been increasingly suspicious of Canuck this game as well. Her posting pattern alone indicates someone who spends most of their time in a chatzy and occasionally pops in to contribute when needed.

[Long Con]

So now you don't think she's bad, yet in this recent quote you said you've been increasingly suspicious of her.

So which is it?
Sorry for the weirdness, posting from phone and accidentally submitted early.

[Long Con]

"her posting pattern alone indicates" she's often in a Chatzy. The "alone" implies that that's just one reason out of multiple... What were the other reasons then? Do they exist, or were you just pushing her as a suspect because you were hoping people would listen to you and ask no questions?

[birdwithteeth11]

Hmmmm....re-evaluating my reads at the moment. I'm biased against a scum read on Llama because to me he acts scummy all of the time, almost literally every post he makes. SVS's defenses have sounded genuine to me so far. Canucklehead I'm unsure about. I'll see where the day goes before I make any conclusions.

It's funny you say that, because it's the exact opposite of how I feel. I'm even more convinced that she is possibly bad now. Especially those 4 or 5 points you made on her earlier. I've agreed with the majority of it (probably not the "sloppy defense" part), and I was already thinking she was bad before then.

[thellama73]

Thank you for quoting me so that everyone can see that I never said I necessarily thought she was bad or that I wanted to vote for her. I do think Keterman's observations were astute, and I am suspicious of her, but I'm not ready to vote for her yet. I was merely trying to discuss the matter (actually, I'm shocked SVS hasn't called you out for discussion squashing yet, but I guess only I get those accusations.)

Am I not allowed to bring up suspicions without a complete and airtight case to follow through with?

[Long Con]

You can do what you like, but tagging along with someone else's suspicion, accusing someone based on false evidence, backpedaling, and playing the "no u" card are all baddie behaviour.

[birdwithteeth11]

2) I think LC's sudden turn on llama for a comment I thought was rather innocuous to be...odd. I've seen other people accuse players of only being on when it's convenient and possibly being in a chat, so...not really understanding why THAT happened to be the comment that set him off. Is there more to the case than "That's what a baddie would say!" LC? I'm curious

There is more than that, bloop, that's like, the last thing I said to him. I suspected him back in the early game when he claimed not to know the meaning of the phrase "you would know", and the accusation of Canuck having btsc because of Llama's analysis of her posting frequency, which I think is not a realistic thing to say, and therefore must have other motives driving it.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

I know you suspected him earlier in the game, but to me, it really seemed like you were willing to drop your suspicions of llama because either the two of you had a common enemy in SVS or you were more suspicious of her. So to me, it does feel like you made a very quick turnaround. Especially to go from not really mentioning being suspicious of llama for awhile to "Oh, I'm voting him now because he's Baddie McBadikins."

[birdwithteeth11]

Forgot to address the second part too.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

I do agree with this though. I'm suspicious of Canuck, but it has nothing to do with llama's BTSC-esque case. I think she could be bad for a completely different reason.

[thellama73]

You can do what you like, but tagging along with someone else's suspicion, accusing someone based on false evidence, backpedaling, and playing the "no u" card are all baddie behaviour.

I didn't backpedal. I have been consistent. There's nothing wrong with thinking about what someone else says and adding to it. I have never thought the whole "no u" thing is meaningful at all. As Epignosis is fond of pointing out, there is no such thing as defined "baddie behavior" because baddies behave in all sorts of ways.

\These are all bogus, trumped up charges and you know it.

[thellama73]

SO bear with me here for a moment, folks. I have had a thought.

In typing my last post in which I noticed that LC is doing the very thing that SVS ALWAYS jumps on me for doing, and noting her lack of response, I began to wonder. And wonder pretty hard.

Long Con has done a good job of portraying himself as SVS's greatest adversary, but is he really? Let's look at the votes.

Day 1: Long Con cast the third vote for SVS after MP had seven. No danger to SVS there.
Day 2: Long Con voted for juliets. SVS took 0 votes. No danger to her there.
Day 3: Long Con cast the only vote for SVS after Made had three. No danger to SVS there.
Day 4: Long Con cast the 13th vote for Made. SVS took three votes. No danger to her there.
Day 5: Long Con, after talking about no one but SVS for ever, suddenly abandons his suspicion of her to come after me HARD for what seems to me to be no reason at all.

Now, it is possible SVS is keeping quiet just because she is thankful that attention has shifted away from her, but I submit to you that Long Con and SVS have been on a team this whole time, and engaging in some very clever distancing.

This is based on a) Long Con being vocally against SVS, but not actually voting for her when it could have made a difference. and
b) SVS staying silent about behavior that she consistently goes bananas over when others do it.

I would love to hear others' opinions about this, but as for me, I am going ahead and trusting my gut. Voting for SVS now.

[juliets]

Forgot to address the second part too.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

I do agree with this though. I'm suspicious of Canuck, but it has nothing to do with llama's BTSC-esque case. I think she could be bad for a completely different reason.

bwt, i skimmed through your recent posts and havent seen you mention any reasons for canuck being bad. Looks like you have something specifically in mind here - would you share your thoughts?

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright. So here's where I stand currently.

1)SVS: I still think she is very, very bad. Her defenses started off as fairly emotional and frustrated (which I've come to associate with civ SVS) to having an attitude of not really caring. I don't think a civ SVS would just lay down and give up when someone makes a really long list of reasons why they are accusing her (i.e. Keterman). Although IIRC, he even mentioned that he's not ready to vote for her yet which I think is kind of odd if he is willing to make a list of reasons why he suspects her. Also, my reason about her using Made for her own gains still rings true to me.

2)Canuck: I think llama's case on why Canuck is bad is based more off assumption. And it's not an assumption I agree with. While it's certainly within the realm of possibility, I think it more likely that Canuck is bad because I felt like she glomped onto my reasoning for voting Made:

Keterman, I'm not voting Made "because everyone else is". That's a pretty reductive and manipulative reading of my explanation.

This is the part of bwt I was saying I agreed with. Sorry I didn't quote it.

I said that on Monday, it's now Saturday. A lot can happen in the space of a week. The seemer thing has made me distrust you because as I've said a few times I'm always wary of people who fall back on seemer accusations after civ lynches so the fact you're doing it before he's even been lynched is just grabbing my attention like crazy. It's not that I don't take you seriously, it's just that I find some of the things you're pushing to be a bit shifty. Not only the seemer thing but also the "let's lynch the people around Made before we lynch him" which you must admit can be taken to look as if you're his teammate trying to buy him some time. I did trust you at first but I always want to trust you. Now I trust you less. If we finally lynch Made today (who I'll probably vote for unless something crazy happens) then the outcome of that will affect how I see you. At this point I'd probably still vote MM over you just because of my gut telling me he's bad. Maybe JC too though I'm beginning to turn away from her I think.

Sorry to chop off the rest of the quote, but the bolded part is pretty much the conclusion I have come to. How I view SVS really comes down to what Made is. And while I like it or not, I don't see any other way to get past this mental roadblock until we deal with Made.

So that being said, I'm sorry Made, but given your case on MR which I didn't believe, the general confusion you've caused (either intentionally or unintentionally), this thread needs to move on. And it cannot be with you. I've waffled on you many times in this game, so here's to hoping that my bad read of you is correct.

Votes Made

I agree w/ bwt and Bullz that we're not moving on to anything else until made is gone. Yes, I think Made is civ (I'm not sure, I don't have your preternatural ability to feel sure about things, Keterman), but I think so. But I've been expressing that opinion for days. No one else thinks so. Therefore, I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong. If it would make you feel better about me, I could ineffectually vote for Mongoose again, because that empty gesture would totally avoid the inevitable lynch of Made today. I think we need to move on. A townie might die. I hope that's not the case, but I've done what I could to sway popular opinion away from that and have been unsuccessful. The civiness of Made is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so yeah. I'm going to concede this one, vote with the majority, and take my share of the blame if he turns up civ.

Your playstyle is to trust yourself more than you trust anyone else and stick to your guns no matter what. That is not my playstyle....and that's OK.

She claims she isn't voting Made for the same reasons as everyone else, but this post doesn't read as genuine to me. I think she was going for an easy, blendy, opportunistic vote here.

3)LC: I've gone from civ to on the fence with him. I already mentioned his quick turnaround on llama. The only thing holding me back is he did previously midly suspect llama and gave reasons for doing so. So it's certainly possible he could have had a quick turnaround. But I think it's also possible he's trying to start a bandwagon against someone I've seen get lynched time and time again for his posting style. That, and I haven't seen anything yet to make me think llama is bad.

I'm going to vote SVS for now. I might possibly change it to Canuck, but at this point, I think she would have to come in and drop a bomb (or someone else would) for me to change my vote.

Votes SVS

Linki: Will read both posts in a minute here. Going to force my post through first.

[birdwithteeth11]

SO bear with me here for a moment, folks. I have had a thought.

In typing my last post in which I noticed that LC is doing the very thing that SVS ALWAYS jumps on me for doing, and noting her lack of response, I began to wonder. And wonder pretty hard.

Long Con has done a good job of portraying himself as SVS's greatest adversary, but is he really? Let's look at the votes.

Day 1: Long Con cast the third vote for SVS after MP had seven. No danger to SVS there.
Day 2: Long Con voted for juliets. SVS took 0 votes. No danger to her there.
Day 3: Long Con cast the only vote for SVS after Made had three. No danger to SVS there.
Day 4: Long Con cast the 13th vote for Made. SVS took three votes. No danger to her there.
Day 5: Long Con, after talking about no one but SVS for ever, suddenly abandons his suspicion of her to come after me HARD for what seems to me to be no reason at all.

Now, it is possible SVS is keeping quiet just because she is thankful that attention has shifted away from her, but I submit to you that Long Con and SVS have been on a team this whole time, and engaging in some very clever distancing.

This is based on a) Long Con being vocally against SVS, but not actually voting for her when it could have made a difference. and
b) SVS staying silent about behavior that she consistently goes bananas over when others do it.

I would love to hear others' opinions about this, but as for me, I am going ahead and trusting my gut. Voting for SVS now.

The vote history is interesting here. I entertained the possibility slightly that the two of them could be teammates. But one of them would have to get lynched and come up bad before I would really go digging through and looking for connections. So time will tell on that one I guess.

[birdwithteeth11]

Forgot to address the second part too.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

I do agree with this though. I'm suspicious of Canuck, but it has nothing to do with llama's BTSC-esque case. I think she could be bad for a completely different reason.

bwt, i skimmed through your recent posts and havent seen you mention any reasons for canuck being bad. Looks like you have something specifically in mind here - would you share your thoughts?

Lol ironically, you posted this RIGHT as I was typing up a post that included my main reason for suspecting Canuck. The timing is kind of funny. :P

[Bullzeye]

You can do what you like, but tagging along with someone else's suspicion, accusing someone based on false evidence, backpedaling, and playing the "no u" card are all baddie behaviour.

I didn't backpedal. I have been consistent. There's nothing wrong with thinking about what someone else says and adding to it. I have never thought the whole "no u" thing is meaningful at all. As Epignosis is fond of pointing out, there is no such thing as defined "baddie behavior" because baddies behave in all sorts of ways.

\These are all bogus, trumped up charges and you know it.

I do think your point about Canuck posting like someone who has btsc was ridiculous but this is a reasonable thing to say. There are no specific and exclusive things baddies 'do' because that would mean they were obviously bad.

SO bear with me here for a moment, folks. I have had a thought.

In typing my last post in which I noticed that LC is doing the very thing that SVS ALWAYS jumps on me for doing, and noting her lack of response, I began to wonder. And wonder pretty hard.

Long Con has done a good job of portraying himself as SVS's greatest adversary, but is he really? Let's look at the votes.

Day 1: Long Con cast the third vote for SVS after MP had seven. No danger to SVS there.
Day 2: Long Con voted for juliets. SVS took 0 votes. No danger to her there.
Day 3: Long Con cast the only vote for SVS after Made had three. No danger to SVS there.
Day 4: Long Con cast the 13th vote for Made. SVS took three votes. No danger to her there.
Day 5: Long Con, after talking about no one but SVS for ever, suddenly abandons his suspicion of her to come after me HARD for what seems to me to be no reason at all.

Now, it is possible SVS is keeping quiet just because she is thankful that attention has shifted away from her, but I submit to you that Long Con and SVS have been on a team this whole time, and engaging in some very clever distancing.

This is based on a) Long Con being vocally against SVS, but not actually voting for her when it could have made a difference. and
b) SVS staying silent about behavior that she consistently goes bananas over when others do it.

I would love to hear others' opinions about this, but as for me, I am going ahead and trusting my gut. Voting for SVS now.

I hadn't really thought much about LC, but this is an interesting theory. Especially when you bring his votes into it. I have been trusting SVS less and less as days have gone on based on the way she pursued Made so hard and pushed the idea that even if he flipped civ he was probably just a seemer anyway. The emotion-based defenses that came out recently strike me as bad too.

2)Canuck: I think llama's case on why Canuck is bad is based more off assumption. And it's not an assumption I agree with. While it's certainly within the realm of possibility, I think it more likely that Canuck is bad because I felt like she glomped onto my reasoning for voting Made:

Keterman, I'm not voting Made "because everyone else is". That's a pretty reductive and manipulative reading of my explanation.

This is the part of bwt I was saying I agreed with. Sorry I didn't quote it.

I said that on Monday, it's now Saturday. A lot can happen in the space of a week. The seemer thing has made me distrust you because as I've said a few times I'm always wary of people who fall back on seemer accusations after civ lynches so the fact you're doing it before he's even been lynched is just grabbing my attention like crazy. It's not that I don't take you seriously, it's just that I find some of the things you're pushing to be a bit shifty. Not only the seemer thing but also the "let's lynch the people around Made before we lynch him" which you must admit can be taken to look as if you're his teammate trying to buy him some time. I did trust you at first but I always want to trust you. Now I trust you less. If we finally lynch Made today (who I'll probably vote for unless something crazy happens) then the outcome of that will affect how I see you. At this point I'd probably still vote MM over you just because of my gut telling me he's bad. Maybe JC too though I'm beginning to turn away from her I think.

Sorry to chop off the rest of the quote, but the bolded part is pretty much the conclusion I have come to. How I view SVS really comes down to what Made is. And while I like it or not, I don't see any other way to get past this mental roadblock until we deal with Made.

So that being said, I'm sorry Made, but given your case on MR which I didn't believe, the general confusion you've caused (either intentionally or unintentionally), this thread needs to move on. And it cannot be with you. I've waffled on you many times in this game, so here's to hoping that my bad read of you is correct.

Votes Made

I agree w/ bwt and Bullz that we're not moving on to anything else until made is gone. Yes, I think Made is civ (I'm not sure, I don't have your preternatural ability to feel sure about things, Keterman), but I think so. But I've been expressing that opinion for days. No one else thinks so. Therefore, I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong. If it would make you feel better about me, I could ineffectually vote for Mongoose again, because that empty gesture would totally avoid the inevitable lynch of Made today. I think we need to move on. A townie might die. I hope that's not the case, but I've done what I could to sway popular opinion away from that and have been unsuccessful. The civiness of Made is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so yeah. I'm going to concede this one, vote with the majority, and take my share of the blame if he turns up civ.

Your playstyle is to trust yourself more than you trust anyone else and stick to your guns no matter what. That is not my playstyle....and that's OK.

She claims she isn't voting Made for the same reasons as everyone else, but this post doesn't read as genuine to me. I think she was going for an easy, blendy, opportunistic vote here.

What's interesting to me is that in one of those quotes she essentially says she's voting for the same reasons as you and I voted but then apparently wasn't voting him for the same reasons as everyone else. Perhaps I'm misreading that but I agree it comes off shady. I had been seeing her as fairly civ though.

[birdwithteeth11]

2)Canuck: I think llama's case on why Canuck is bad is based more off assumption. And it's not an assumption I agree with. While it's certainly within the realm of possibility, I think it more likely that Canuck is bad because I felt like she glomped onto my reasoning for voting Made:

Keterman, I'm not voting Made "because everyone else is". That's a pretty reductive and manipulative reading of my explanation.

This is the part of bwt I was saying I agreed with. Sorry I didn't quote it.

I said that on Monday, it's now Saturday. A lot can happen in the space of a week. The seemer thing has made me distrust you because as I've said a few times I'm always wary of people who fall back on seemer accusations after civ lynches so the fact you're doing it before he's even been lynched is just grabbing my attention like crazy. It's not that I don't take you seriously, it's just that I find some of the things you're pushing to be a bit shifty. Not only the seemer thing but also the "let's lynch the people around Made before we lynch him" which you must admit can be taken to look as if you're his teammate trying to buy him some time. I did trust you at first but I always want to trust you. Now I trust you less. If we finally lynch Made today (who I'll probably vote for unless something crazy happens) then the outcome of that will affect how I see you. At this point I'd probably still vote MM over you just because of my gut telling me he's bad. Maybe JC too though I'm beginning to turn away from her I think.

Sorry to chop off the rest of the quote, but the bolded part is pretty much the conclusion I have come to. How I view SVS really comes down to what Made is. And while I like it or not, I don't see any other way to get past this mental roadblock until we deal with Made.

So that being said, I'm sorry Made, but given your case on MR which I didn't believe, the general confusion you've caused (either intentionally or unintentionally), this thread needs to move on. And it cannot be with you. I've waffled on you many times in this game, so here's to hoping that my bad read of you is correct.

Votes Made

I agree w/ bwt and Bullz that we're not moving on to anything else until made is gone. Yes, I think Made is civ (I'm not sure, I don't have your preternatural ability to feel sure about things, Keterman), but I think so. But I've been expressing that opinion for days. No one else thinks so. Therefore, I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong. If it would make you feel better about me, I could ineffectually vote for Mongoose again, because that empty gesture would totally avoid the inevitable lynch of Made today. I think we need to move on. A townie might die. I hope that's not the case, but I've done what I could to sway popular opinion away from that and have been unsuccessful. The civiness of Made is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so yeah. I'm going to concede this one, vote with the majority, and take my share of the blame if he turns up civ.

Your playstyle is to trust yourself more than you trust anyone else and stick to your guns no matter what. That is not my playstyle....and that's OK.

She claims she isn't voting Made for the same reasons as everyone else, but this post doesn't read as genuine to me. I think she was going for an easy, blendy, opportunistic vote here.

What's interesting to me is that in one of those quotes she essentially says she's voting for the same reasons as you and I voted but then apparently wasn't voting him for the same reasons as everyone else. Perhaps I'm misreading that but I agree it comes off shady. I had been seeing her as fairly civ though.

That's why I put her underneath SVS for now. I'm a bit more in the middle than you are (I could see her being either civvie or baddie currently), but I agree that I haven't seen enough to fully sway me away from Canuck possibly being civ.

[Long Con]

2) I think LC's sudden turn on llama for a comment I thought was rather innocuous to be...odd. I've seen other people accuse players of only being on when it's convenient and possibly being in a chat, so...not really understanding why THAT happened to be the comment that set him off. Is there more to the case than "That's what a baddie would say!" LC? I'm curious

There is more than that, bloop, that's like, the last thing I said to him. I suspected him back in the early game when he claimed not to know the meaning of the phrase "you would know", and the accusation of Canuck having btsc because of Llama's analysis of her posting frequency, which I think is not a realistic thing to say, and therefore must have other motives driving it.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?

I know you suspected him earlier in the game, but to me, it really seemed like you were willing to drop your suspicions of llama because either the two of you had a common enemy in SVS or you were more suspicious of her. So to me, it does feel like you made a very quick turnaround. Especially to go from not really mentioning being suspicious of llama for awhile to "Oh, I'm voting him now because he's Baddie McBadikins."

Yes, and I did mention during the night phase that Llama was cool in my books and I had no intention of turning on him. And yet I did. Sometimes it's not smart to tell your true intentions to the world, especially at night. I'd rather watch a guy like Llama and buddy up to him if I think he's bad, than go after him on thin suspicions like "you would know". I prefer to wait for something more obvious, and it came.

[Long Con]

And I am amused at the idea S~V~S and I are teammates. I'm sure she will be as well.

[S~V~S]

She is. Like Keterman, maybe you read between the lines.

I defend in an emotional way when I feel I am being attacked in a personal way, or a way that is unnecessarily rude or aggressive, in my opinion, obviously. I try my best to NOT deal with others in that way, and it upsets me when others do it.

You will notice that the person I reacted that way to went back to the thread, and apparently read between the lines, because he backed off of me.

Now, BWT, I wish you would go back and read between the lines, because I have been discussing certain aspects of what has been happening (and not happening); perhaps that is what both LC & Keterman saw, and you have not.

And I am not lying down, but the way I see the thread going, I honestly think that yet another week long argument about one person is not going to help the civvies in any way shape or form. Getting some info from my lynch might. Take a hard look at who pushed hardest for my lynch, look at my role, and look again at who pushged hardest. I do not want to be lynched, nor do I wish to become the cause of a thread derailment. I did what I did with my role, and I am OK with it if I don’t make it to the end. I just hope I did some good, which is all I can hope for.

I am not sure if I will be able to voter later, and I know that I will be unable to post any defenses as work is worse than usual today, and I am being picked up for an appointment straight from the office. So voting Llama, I really do think he is bad. Now that Boogs has backed off of me totally, wonder what hes gonna do not that Llama has voted for me.

And if I am lynched, after Llama, look to Ninjajujube. I think BWT is civ, though.

[birdwithteeth11]

Believe it or not, I am reading between the lines with you, SVS. I just don't believe you, and think you are trying to come up with a way to save yourself. So it's not that I am blatantly ignoring your posts. I've done that far too often with people I've suspected in the past, developed tunnel vision, and gotten burned for it. I don't feel like I have tunnel vision with you though. I think I'm actually on to something here.

When I said lying down, I meant that you've gone off your emotionally-driven defense and become a lot more calm and logical about it. And I feel that's more indicative if you being bad.

I do agree with you on Ninjajellobabies though. I think her one long post earlier was full of indecision on which way to go. It reminded me of Juliets earlier on when I voted for her on Day 4, although I feel like she's gotten away from that moreso now. Which makes me feel a bit more comfortable about her.

[S~V~S]

If I am trying to save myself I am doing a pisspoor job.

Like I said, if I get lynched, look at my role, look at host posts, look at who wanted me dead. That is as clear as I can make it.

You are so very wrong, bwt.

[thellama73]

I almost let myself be talked out of voting for SVS. I think she is very good at that. But ultimately, I think BWT is right.

[juliets]

Believe it or not, I am reading between the lines with you, SVS. I just don't believe you, and think you are trying to come up with a way to save yourself. So it's not that I am blatantly ignoring your posts. I've done that far too often with people I've suspected in the past, developed tunnel vision, and gotten burned for it. I don't feel like I have tunnel vision with you though. I think I'm actually on to something here.

When I said lying down, I meant that you've gone off your emotionally-driven defense and become a lot more calm and logical about it. And I feel that's more indicative if you being bad.

I do agree with you on Ninjajellobabies though. I think her one long post earlier was full of indecision on which way to go. It reminded me of Juliets earlier on when I voted for her on Day 4, although I feel like she's gotten away from that moreso now. Which makes me feel a bit more comfortable about her.

bwt, I usually see the calm, logical SVS as good and the intensely defensive SVS as bad. Do you see that differently or is it something about the change in her behavior that you find suspicious?

[Boogs]

Gotta vote now, i really got a re-READ and see SvS as Civ so im voting Llama to try to help save her at this loint. Hope you turn up good Sherry :-)

[Canucklehead]

Uh oh. I am terrible at reading between the lines...also I am lazy.

BUT I will do my best

Before I go and try to decipher what SVS is saying, though, I should respond to Bullz and bwt:

2)Canuck: I think llama's case on why Canuck is bad is based more off assumption. And it's not an assumption I agree with. While it's certainly within the realm of possibility, I think it more likely that Canuck is bad because I felt like she glomped onto my reasoning for voting Made:

Keterman, I'm not voting Made "because everyone else is". That's a pretty reductive and manipulative reading of my explanation.

This is the part of bwt I was saying I agreed with. Sorry I didn't quote it.

I said that on Monday, it's now Saturday. A lot can happen in the space of a week. The seemer thing has made me distrust you because as I've said a few times I'm always wary of people who fall back on seemer accusations after civ lynches so the fact you're doing it before he's even been lynched is just grabbing my attention like crazy. It's not that I don't take you seriously, it's just that I find some of the things you're pushing to be a bit shifty. Not only the seemer thing but also the "let's lynch the people around Made before we lynch him" which you must admit can be taken to look as if you're his teammate trying to buy him some time. I did trust you at first but I always want to trust you. Now I trust you less. If we finally lynch Made today (who I'll probably vote for unless something crazy happens) then the outcome of that will affect how I see you. At this point I'd probably still vote MM over you just because of my gut telling me he's bad. Maybe JC too though I'm beginning to turn away from her I think.

Sorry to chop off the rest of the quote, but the bolded part is pretty much the conclusion I have come to. How I view SVS really comes down to what Made is. And while I like it or not, I don't see any other way to get past this mental roadblock until we deal with Made.

So that being said, I'm sorry Made, but given your case on MR which I didn't believe, the general confusion you've caused (either intentionally or unintentionally), this thread needs to move on. And it cannot be with you. I've waffled on you many times in this game, so here's to hoping that my bad read of you is correct.

Votes Made

I agree w/ bwt and Bullz that we're not moving on to anything else until made is gone. Yes, I think Made is civ (I'm not sure, I don't have your preternatural ability to feel sure about things, Keterman), but I think so. But I've been expressing that opinion for days. No one else thinks so. Therefore, I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong. If it would make you feel better about me, I could ineffectually vote for Mongoose again, because that empty gesture would totally avoid the inevitable lynch of Made today. I think we need to move on. A townie might die. I hope that's not the case, but I've done what I could to sway popular opinion away from that and have been unsuccessful. The civiness of Made is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so yeah. I'm going to concede this one, vote with the majority, and take my share of the blame if he turns up civ.

Your playstyle is to trust yourself more than you trust anyone else and stick to your guns no matter what. That is not my playstyle....and that's OK.

She claims she isn't voting Made for the same reasons as everyone else, but this post doesn't read as genuine to me. I think she was going for an easy, blendy, opportunistic vote here.

What's interesting to me is that in one of those quotes she essentially says she's voting for the same reasons as you and I voted but then apparently wasn't voting him for the same reasons as everyone else. Perhaps I'm misreading that but I agree it comes off shady. I had been seeing her as fairly civ though.

That's why I put her underneath SVS for now. I'm a bit more in the middle than you are (I could see her being either civvie or baddie currently), but I agree that I haven't seen enough to fully sway me away from Canuck possibly being civ.

bwt (responding to the part in blue): I'm sorry that my post doesn't seem "genuine" to you. I'm not sure how to respond to that accusation, except perhaps by asking you to describe what in that post indicates that it is not "genuine"? Is it the tone? Diction? Syntax? Something else? Do you think I made it up? If so, can you describe how you imagine that making that particular argument (which has been noticed by MANY people, and which is long and detailed and somewhat convoluted, and which is therefore the polar opposite of "blendy" and "opportunistic") would benefit me as a baddie? I agree with you that making a vote which was "blendy" during Made's lynch would probably be something a baddie would do (and almost assuredly something that the baddies did do)...but my vote stuck out like a sore thumb, as I anticipated it would. There is nothing blendy about it. A blendy vote would be me saying something like "Made's actions just can't possibly be civ actions and I think it's far-fetched that he has a lovers role, so I'm going to vote Made".....This would have been "blendy" and "the same as everyone else". My ACTUAL reasons for voting (which I have explained ad naseum in many recent posts so won't waste your time going over again here) were very different from everyone else and not at all blendy.
Also, had I wanted to be "opportunistic" I would have hid behind the opporunity of my Mongoose-voting history, and come out of the lynch looking squeaky clean. Instead, I avoided that opportunity because I made the choice to get to the bottom of the Made sitch, and didn't want to be accused of avoiding responsibility.
You might disagree with my reasoning (and that's fine), but to suspect me for blendiness and opportunism is......perhaps not "genuine"
I'm glad you aren't entirely convinced I'm bad. I hope I can ease whatever doubt you still have.

Bullz (responding to the part in green): I did vote for some of the same reasons you and bwt outlined (i.e. to get to the bottom of the Made thing). I did not vote for him for the reasons "everyone else" did. "Everyone else" had many diverse reasons for voting for him. Some of them were common among many people, some not. Voting for a similar reason as you and bwt =/= voting for the same reasons as "everyone else" since you and bwt =/= "everyone".
I don't understand the contradiction that you're trying to point out? By saying that I didn't vote for the same reason as everyone else, I'm not at all denying that I followed the thoughts and brains and reasons of some people (you and bwt among them), nor am I - by saying that I agreed you and bwt- suggesting that I voted for exactly the same reasons as you two did or agreed with every part of your reasoning.
I am gad you see me as fairly civ. I hope you will begin to realize that I am completely civ.

[thellama73]

Gotta vote now, i really got a re-READ and see SvS as Civ so im voting Llama to try to help save her at this loint. Hope you turn up good Sherry :-)

This is starting to feel eerily similar to the MR lynch.

[Bullzeye]

If I am trying to save myself I am doing a pisspoor job.

Like I said, if I get lynched, look at my role, look at host posts, look at who wanted me dead. That is as clear as I can make it.

You are so very wrong, bwt.

What would host posts have to do with anything? The hosts are impartial, they wouldn't just drop hints about people's roles. I feel like you're trying to make out there's some grand conspiracy against you when really people just think you're bad. I am going to *Vote SVS* now because in addition to my pre-existing suspicion of you, your defenses are doing nothing to make me feel better.

Bullz (responding to the part in green): I did vote for some of the same reasons you and bwt outlined (i.e. to get to the bottom of the Made thing). I did not vote for him for the reasons "everyone else" did. "Everyone else" had many diverse reasons for voting for him. Some of them were common among many people, some not. Voting for a similar reason as you and bwt =/= voting for the same reasons as "everyone else" since you and bwt =/= "everyone".
I don't understand the contradiction that you're trying to point out? By saying that I didn't vote for the same reason as everyone else, I'm not at all denying that I followed the thoughts and brains and reasons of some people (you and bwt among them), nor am I - by saying that I agreed you and bwt- suggesting that I voted for exactly the same reasons as you two did or agreed with every part of your reasoning.
I am gad you see me as fairly civ. I hope you will begin to realize that I am completely civ.

I think for some reason I was understanding your comment as if you were saying your reasons for voting Made were unique and specific to you. My mistake!

[Mongoose]

I am getting uber-strong civvie vibes from Llama today, so I shan't be voting him now (and doubtless in the future).