The Syndicate

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:Also, Zebra, that's another time you have made an assertion that I don't see how you could know. About curse roles.

Excuse me? What was the first time?

Hmmm... never mind, I think I was confused. It might be in the other game I'm in, please pardon me. Why am I on your list?

Draconus wrote:Is there a case on llama that I missed?

My recent post indicated my reasons for suspecting him.

Golden wrote:Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.

If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.

It looks pretty arbitrary does it not?

I'm not convinced she didn't just pick some of those names right then and there.

I'm not sure Zebra is the sort of player who has suspicions of players for as long as she apparently has had here without engaging them or even mentioning it.

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Boomslang
sig
Long Con
MacDougall
Matt
juliets

You haven't even made mention of some of these players so I'm not sure how we were supposed to guess.

Also I share suspicion of your main two suspects for what it's worth.

That's what makes it a guess? And good to know.

@Mac - maybe, maybe not. As noted, I know from Star Wars that zebra is able to choose to appear supatown when bad. Choosing to look slightly lazy (in comparison to that game) could be a very good and intentional counterpoint to her Star Wars persona (regardless of her affiliation).

Based on going back and reading her iso, I would have her just slightly bad in my rainbow, but very close to neutral. I was disappointed to see how high a percentage of the content was just dealing with all the rico stuff, and how vague the rest is. And I don't really see why you wouldn't just offer up who is bad rather than asking people to guess (even for funsies).

But, I don't understand those things from any particular affiliation mindset.

Long Con from the current Heist game 'LOST Again' wrote:How do you KNOW that one of the two Day 1 lynch guys was bad, Zebra?

That's what I was thinking of, Z. Just mixing up my questioning of you in two separate games.

Long Con wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:Also, Zebra, that's another time you have made an assertion that I don't see how you could know. About curse roles.

Excuse me? What was the first time?

Hmmm... never mind, I think I was confused. It might be in the other game I'm in, please pardon me. Why am I on your list?

You're pardoned...but not from my suspicion! DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN

I suspect you for reasons that others (notably Mac) have pointed out regarding this post:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.

What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.

...and I think your other posts in general have come across as disingenuous.

OK thanks!

Going to bed in half an hour or so. Still no votes on the confirmed baddies, maybe tomorrow will be the day. Oh, and my fifth confirmed baddie is juliets (conveniently added by zebra just now, for distancing). She is hunting LoRab for things she has done herself, claiming one detail places her totally on the civvie spectrum.

I'm probably halfway confirming Dom as baddie as well, I just need some rest.

Long Con wrote:OK thanks!

Lol wot

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.

If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.

It looks pretty arbitrary does it not?

I'm not convinced she didn't just pick some of those names right then and there.

I'm not sure Zebra is the sort of player who has suspicions of players for as long as she apparently has had here without engaging them or even mentioning it.

Normally, you'd be correct. But at the moment, and at the start of the day when I declared the six other potential candidates, I still have Ricochet as by far and away my top suspicion, and since you and some others are hesitant about lynching him, I am/was reluctant to share my other suspicions directly because I don't want the day to result in a wild goose chase when I think we've got a clear baddie target that we can focus on. Make no mistake, I do want discussion, I just feel it necessary to demonstrate that Rico is by far and away the top of my kill list mothafucka.

a2thezebra wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.

If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.

It looks pretty arbitrary does it not?

I'm not convinced she didn't just pick some of those names right then and there.

I'm not sure Zebra is the sort of player who has suspicions of players for as long as she apparently has had here without engaging them or even mentioning it.

Normally, you'd be correct. But at the moment, and at the start of the day when I declared the six other potential candidates, I still have Ricochet as by far and away my top suspicion, and since you and some others are hesitant about lynching him, I am/was reluctant to share my other suspicions directly because I don't want the day to result in a wild goose chase when I think we've got a clear baddie target that we can focus on. Make no mistake, I do want discussion, I just feel it necessary to demonstrate that Rico is by far and away the top of my kill list mothafucka.

Lol "kill list"

Touchdown baddie confirming, if I've ever seen one.

Long Con wrote:

Long Con from the current Heist game 'LOST Again' wrote:How do you KNOW that one of the two Day 1 lynch guys was bad, Zebra?

That's what I was thinking of, Z. Just mixing up my questioning of you in two separate games.

Ah, makes sense.

linki - Que?

...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.

Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.

24 hours makes you uneasy?

Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.

To lynch is to kill.

MacDougall wrote:

juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.

24 hours makes you uneasy?

oh for God's sake, i thought the deadline was tonight. Thank you for the correction.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.

To lynch is to kill.

A civvie's mentality is to lynch, whilst a baddie's is to kill.

Typical baddie slip. RIP

juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.

I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.

To lynch is to kill.

A civvie's mentality is to lynch, whilst a baddie's is to kill.

Typical baddie slip. RIP

What about vigilantes?

not saying I'm a vigilante or anything

Also, that's simply not true. Killing is killing.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Players are lynched during the Day, not killed. That's for you and your team of 6 to do during the Night.

To lynch is to kill.

A civvie's mentality is to lynch, whilst a baddie's is to kill.

Typical baddie slip. RIP

What about vigilantes?

not saying I'm a vigilante or anything

Also, that's simply not true. Killing is killing.

If you're not a vigi, then you slipped.

*yawn*

a2thezebra wrote:

juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.

I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.

I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.

I understand what you are saying here. At the beginning of games regardless of my affiliation I am not very confident about lynching people. Some people are comfortable with that ambiguity but I am not. Therefore I come off as always following. As the game goes on I become more confident and i think you will see a change in my demeanor (if I make it that far). I will do my best to expose myself more earlier in the game than normal for me regardless of the consequences. Usually that comes out in the form of questions, one of which I've already asked and it hasn't been answered. My questions tell you where I am suspicious.

Thanks for your answer to my question.

That's a sufficient defense. I'm still eyeing you, but consider yourself off the list of potential votes for the day for the time being.

Finally, a vote for a baddie.

Metalmarsh I posted a question for you about your question "which team do you think he's on?" (I'm paraphrasing the quote). Would you look at that question and answer it for me please? If it does not make sense to you please let me know and I'll make my question clearer. I'm asking something that's different than what was asked before.

That...was a miserable read. It was like watching a horrible episode of a horribly drawn cartoon that may have been amusing/understandable in the right state of mind, but I just wanted to fast forward through it. And I did. I've tabbed things I want to mention, and really the only things that I managed to follow.

MacDougall wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Tranq wrote:25 pages already?

They are not really worth reading.

There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.

I disagree with this. If there has been a lot of productive, useful stuff posted, one has to wade through a lot of nonsense to get through it, and frankly, it's tiresome. I like to analyze people's posts, especially when I do have the time to do so like I will for the next week or so without much work to bring home, but when I come back after a day and there's literally about 15 pages of just STUFF to glean "useful" bits from, I don't call that productive on the whole. I'll come back to this.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Now why did you go an' vote me? You only said I look least civvie, not that I'm bad.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Ricochet

Your behavior tells me that one of two things is true:

Either you don't care enough to further the civvie cause or you have reason to deter the civvie cause. In either case, a vote for you at this stage is my best option.

I agree with this so hard. Rico, I love ya, but the game you're pulling is not civilian, whether or not you're a civ. It's distracting to a point I've never experienced here, and I don't see a civ reason for it, unless there's some insane role power I don't know about. But I can't imagine a ridiculous post-number power would be civilian. Which brings me to someone mentioning the possibility of your being indy, and to this I agree with:

DharmaHelper wrote:Also, since when is "Indy" synonymous with "Better let this person win the game"

I have been indy in the last two games I've played, and it was fantastic since I straight up didn't have to worry about a civilian or baddie cause - I did whatever I could to keep my own win conditions. Indies can be dangerous as fuck (especially near the end when it really counts) if you let them slide.

So, let me sum up my thoughts: I am so distracted by the storm of what I see as filler posts that I'm having serious trouble gleaning anything from anyone else. I already have enough trouble keeping up in the first days of huge games like this and tend to only keep track of a few people at a time. I don't like to jump on what looks easy, especially on Day 1, but for me, this just stands out too much (and I've told myself not to ignore what stands out and screams at me in mafia anymore), and in the words of zebra,

a2thezebra wrote:I think he wants us to think that he wants to be lynched so he can cruise his baddieness all the way to endgame. Fuck that.

So, for probably the first or second time ever (and what the hell, votes are changeable), I'll vote early, and for Rico.

Also, apologies if this post comes off snarky - I'm rather exhausted from the transition back to work, which requires me to get up before sunrise when I'd been going to bed in the wee hours for two beautiful vacation weeks. One day, I'll get a job that starts at a normal hour. A girl can dream, right? :P

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

nijuukyugou wrote:That...was a miserable read. It was like watching a horrible episode of a horribly drawn cartoon that may have been amusing/understandable in the right state of mind, but I just wanted to fast forward through it. And I did. I've tabbed things I want to mention, and really the only things that I managed to follow.

MacDougall wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Tranq wrote:25 pages already?

They are not really worth reading.

There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.

I disagree with this. If there has been a lot of productive, useful stuff posted, one has to wade through a lot of nonsense to get through it, and frankly, it's tiresome. I like to analyze people's posts, especially when I do have the time to do so like I will for the next week or so without much work to bring home, but when I come back after a day and there's literally about 15 pages of just STUFF to glean "useful" bits from, I don't call that productive on the whole. I'll come back to this.[/ot]

Yes for you having to read it all in one big chunk it's not going to be the same as me having been able to stay on top of it all by virtue of having nothing better to do with my time. As I was able to analyse everything in context I feel like lots of players (Ricochet aside) have been putting up quite a good amount of positive contributions, more than I'm used to seeing.

Boomslang wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.

I agree.

Yeah, I mean it's an argument like this... if there are 15 pages and in amongst them there is 1 page of useful content, is that better than there only being 3 posts which are all useful content?

I agree that the vast bulk of it is nonsense and doesn't need to be read. But there has also been quite a number of legimitate cases made on people besides Rico, by people who aren't rico, which for day one is unusual.

Sorsha wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I'm fairly certain there are two curse roles, even if Draconus and/or JJJ is faking their curse.

BR was also underlining the word "crap" when she used it in her posts today also.. Another curse?

I looked at the night 0 poll to see if they all voted the same and they did, but I also voted the same option as they did and I'm not cursed so

@Matt- that was the same thing I noticed about MM but I'm not convinced that assuming there is more than one baddie team in a 30 player game is enough to convince me he's guilty.

No, not a curse, Rico told me not to call his contributions crap. So I did, I didn't want him to miss it.

Christ, I can't even go to sleep already and this is how I'm treated.



Stop being rued and lynch the baddies I caught. Even a semblance of hunting them down.

Ricochet wrote:

Boomslang wrote:
Linki @Rico: What makes you say that? There have certainly been indie roles in the games from which this one is drawing.

I wouldn't want any win-grab or special-powered mofo indy to win either. But right now I'm focused on rooting for the baddies.

So you admit it!

The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

Thank you for the compliment, also.

Mac Wilgy does this to an extent whenever we play, even IRL, because he has my number, for lack of a better term. In basically anything but Smash Bros he knows exactly what I'm going to do and why. If we can cooperate then we are a decent team but he takes legitimate glee in watching me struggle to find out his allegiance that I often can't trust him even with good reason.

Gonna follow MM and Wilgy with their votes.

You're going to follow Wilgy who is following me who is following J3 with your vote, more specifically.

I'm sad that I was left out of the Kool Kids List from Zebra. Whoever's cursing people, can you target me next time so people have to acknowledge my strange and less-than-ideally-literate existence?

Rico that "kill list slip" is optimistic at best. I've been down that path, one time a townie said "So we're killing [person] tonight?" asking if that was the lynch candidate and we turned on him faster than a pack of wolves on steak. Yes it's technically more probable that someone who "slipped" like that was thinking of the term "kill" rather than lynch and as such has the ability to kill directly, but it is not a solid method of investigation.

Black Rock wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I'm fairly certain there are two curse roles, even if Draconus and/or JJJ is faking their curse.

BR was also underlining the word "crap" when she used it in her posts today also.. Another curse?

I looked at the night 0 poll to see if they all voted the same and they did, but I also voted the same option as they did and I'm not cursed so

@Matt- that was the same thing I noticed about MM but I'm not convinced that assuming there is more than one baddie team in a 30 player game is enough to convince me he's guilty.

No, not a curse, Rico told me not to call his contributions crap. So I did, I didn't want him to miss it.

Ah ok... Thanks for clearing that up!

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.

Can I just point out that there aren't "2 main wagons" either as Lorab and Llama have the same amount of votes on them.

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.

The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying.
Do you even read your own posts? This is just pure "he's bad because I feel like it, it doesn't matter what he says." You'll also notice I didn't compliment his content, I said it was at least on topic.

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

So you'd prefer every off-wagon voter to, whether directly asked or not, give information about which of the main wagons they'd rather see succeed? The issue I have with that is that you're forcing opinions from people. If a player is indecisive or split on the main wagons then pulling an opinion from them will inevitably cause a contradiction. When that player happens to be scum all is right in the world, however if that player is a townie then it creates a rabbit hole out of a mole hill, so to speak.

Mac the number of main wagons is irrelevant in this discussion, as far as I can tell. If there are 5 wagons with the same number of votes then the conversation would be the same.

Boomslang wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.

The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying.
Do you even read your own posts? This is just pure "he's bad because I feel like it, it doesn't matter what he says." You'll also notice I didn't compliment his content, I said it was at least on topic.

That is not even close to what I said, inferred, intended, or any other possible conclusion you could realistically have drawn from what I said. Please don't put things that aren't even close to what I said in quotation marks and try to pass them off as my thoughts.

For one, I am not convinced he is bad at all, and have said as much ... multiple times.

For two, I am convinced that he is trying to attract negative attention and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out. In fact, he has not even bothered to argue that point with me (or anyone else for that matter) who have said it. If you have played with Ricochet before, you will know that he is a good player and if you have been paying attention to this game you will have read that the lions share of what he has contributed to the thread has been among the worst fake case building ever seen.

You literally complimented him. You gave him a clap for fucks sake.

Trying to shift my point of view to make it suit an agenda = bad.
Not reading the context of posts before commenting = bad.
Taking contrarian viewpoint on major lynch candidate with very weak reasoning = bad.

You will now be known as badslang. Or boombad. I'll take it to a poll.

RadicalFuzz wrote:

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

So you'd prefer every off-wagon voter to, whether directly asked or not, give information about which of the main wagons they'd rather see succeed? The issue I have with that is that you're forcing opinions from people. If a player is indecisive or split on the main wagons then pulling an opinion from them will inevitably cause a contradiction. When that player happens to be scum all is right in the world, however if that player is a townie then it creates a rabbit hole out of a mole hill, so to speak.

Mac the number of main wagons is irrelevant in this discussion, as far as I can tell. If there are 5 wagons with the same number of votes then the conversation would be the same.

The two of you repeatedly said "2 major wagons" which indicates to me that you are overlooking the case on Llama being as strong and as supported as it is. That's worth mentioning.

Mac and Fuzz are teammates (in a bad kind of way).

Ricochet wrote:Christ, I can't even go to sleep already and this is how I'm treated.



Stop being rued and lynch the baddies I caught. Even a semblance of hunting them down.

I thought you went to bed. Good night!