The Syndicate

My submission would have to be this cocktail called the infected whitehead, which sounds atrocious. It's vodka, Bloody Mary mix, and cottage cheese. I don't think I could accept any amount of money to drink this, it sounds like I'd have a major issue with the texture.

you know...I would drink most of these cocktails for the $100 if I were able to spend the money on myself and if the cocktails were mocktails. The way alcohol makes me feel sucks and I don't get the hype.

Sophie wrote:you survived a lynch and a civvie got lynched instead of you!
you are acting as if that never happened

you seem to be throwing civvie names outhere (bf first, who im totally seeing civvie this game) me then, being subtly joined by juliets, you seem to be playing the "offended civvie"card. Im not buying it, im smelling baddie

im sorry if my instincts are wrong, i made a mistake when i thought you might not be the baddie, i made a mistake after not playing for so long, and seeing people vouching for you


maybe some of those people are teammate of yours? i dont know

im entitled to think whoever i think is bad, you are entitled to suspect me, like you clearly did. you are entitled to push a lynch against me. Lets see how that works for you in the end.

I'm NEVER acting as if that never happened, I've only said repeatedly I've had nothing to do with it. And I swear I haven't. I don't understand why you automatically assume I'm bad because something completely out of my control prevented my lynch.

If you think BF is civilian, can you explain to me why? You say you're totally seeing his civvie game, why? I spent ALL cycle last cycle asking for people's opinions on Canuck, BF, and you, so why are you not responding to me? Your thoughts are so incredibly not transparent it's not funny. Or maybe it's just me. But I don't understand how you go from A to B to C, so at the very least can you stop attacking me for two seconds so that you can explain that to me? Because I'm more than willing to consider the perspectives of those who know BF best, as I've said over and over, but people are flat out ignoring my requests to DISCUSS.

Who's vouching for me? I thought BR and LC said they thought my reaction to my lynch seemed genuine (and they're right, and it's probably because they've played games with me recently for almost the past year and all of those who DON'T think my reaction was genuine, like you, have not, but what do I know?). And bea's theory I think holds a lot of possible water, so I figure by that theory she doesn't have any reason to relentlessly attack me. Things in mafia are not always so black and white. I agree with you that Occam's Razor is a powerful concept -- sometimes they are, but there's too many possibilities this game to waste an entire lynch on me and lose a civilian role. I KNOW that I did not switch any lynch and I KNOW that I'm civilian. So please reconsider. Please consider the defenses I used against Golden's case, which falls apart not only on a meta level but in assuming too much that is incorrect, and please consider the possibility that I'm being genuine.

I'm legitimately baddie hunting. If you call that offensively throwing out names, fine. But I don't understand why civilians would be so incredibly narrow-minded against me as you and BF have been. I used to be an aggressive railroader myself and can even still do it (ugh, Cars Mafia), but seeing the results time and time again with only the occasional baddie result, I've tried to develop a more cautious playstyle, and it's times like these where I am not only being ignored, but having to defend myself constantly against things I've already defended and explained, that reinforce that my decision to alter my approach to mafia is perhaps for the best.

If you don't find this genuine, then I'm sorry, but you're only setting back the civilian cause more and more, and I can't fully discern whether it's because you're doing it on purpose or not.

I think I've said all I need to say in my defense, as frustrating as it has been.

Tomorrow I'd like to engage in more discussion as to who to lynch. If it ends up being me, then this will hands down be the most frustrating game I've ever played as a civilian.

Can people please explain to me what they see in BF and Sophie being civilian and/or genuine, if they believe it to be true? I can't read either of them and their actions are completely irrational to me, and I've stated multiple reasons why I suspect both of them but also at least one reason why I haven't been fully convinced either are bad, so I'd like to hear opinions here from those who haven't already provided them.

BR, why are you backing off of Canuck completely?

Sophie:

Voted for Aces in the last minute of the first day's vote. By the poll, there was no way that Aces was going to get the most votes. That's a primo place for a baddie teammate to put a vote on their buddy for some delectable distancing.

Sophie wrote:thatts amazing! bye aces, rih psycho

still reading the last few pages, what struck me as odd while i was side eyeing the thread earlier while i was in the in laws, what how after golden case on aces, votes on MM started to pile up fast. A lot of those votes seemed easy ones, they started coming fast, like when mafia tries to save a teammate, that made aces look bad, that and a kind of overeaction to golden post, one that golden pointed out in his case. will keeep reading, find myself agreeing with rabbit too, specially on juliets.

"Like when Mafia tries to save a teammate." Is that what happens on Day One when a baddie is in distress? The baddie teammates rally and all vote quickly on someone else?

Agrees with rabbit, about suspecting juliets... but I have been going through the thread and I didn't see a solid time when rabbit said he suspects juliets and why. There's a baby here, and some distractions, but I didn't see it. If it's there and I missed it, so be it. If it's not, then that pings me. What is she agreeing with about juliets?

I'll do more on the Sophie thing, but I have to go away from the computer right now, so I'll post this start and get back to it later.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Tomorrow I'd like to engage in more discussion as to who to lynch. If it ends up being me, then this will hands down be the most frustrating game I've ever played as a civilian.

I'm eager to discuss and not interested in voting for you. I keep voting for Elohcin and Zombrella, but no one else seems to suspect them. Let's discuss them.

Those 2 MP posts linkitised me, but the Sophie thing works as an answer to him. And MP, about believing you with the genuine reaction thing... just don't make a fool of my wife and I. Even if that was the kind of thing to fake, I just don't think a faker would pour that much into it, especially down to naming suspects for after the lynch is done and they're dead.

Anyways, Sophie is looking like she is going on my suspect list, and that's just from Day One... I still have to look into it more for a better 'all-Sophie' feel. There's also some meta-Sophie stuff going on, like Zomberella suspecting here, and then someone said they suspect Zomb and not Sophie. All worth looking at.

Linki: And Llama is a mild suspect of mine, and Elohcin is not.

AND I already discussed Elohcin.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Tomorrow I'd like to engage in more discussion as to who to lynch. If it ends up being me, then this will hands down be the most frustrating game I've ever played as a civilian.

I'm eager to discuss and not interested in voting for you. I keep voting for Elohcin and Zombrella, but no one else seems to suspect them. Let's discuss them.

I've suspected Zombrella all along.

MP, you've mentioned the term "railroading" a few times. What do you mean by that?
(This is a legit question, not a poke, I don't really know what that term means in a mafia context. I'm trying to get a better idea of what you feel/see is happening to you in this game so that I can decide how I feel about your alignment, but I keep tripping over that term because I don't know what you're trying to express by it. Sorry!)

And llama, I could follow your Elochin lead, but I feel like what I most suspect Elo for is her defensive of Zomba, so I'd rather lynch her first. I'll look at the rest of the case on her later.

Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

fingersplints wrote:And llama, I could follow your Elochin lead, but I feel like what I most suspect Elo for is her defensive of Zomba, so I'd rather lynch her first. I'll look at the rest of the case on her later.

You've got yourself a deal there, Splintsy.

Long Con wrote:Sophie:

Voted for Aces in the last minute of the first day's vote. By the poll, there was no way that Aces was going to get the most votes. That's a primo place for a baddie teammate to put a vote on their buddy for some delectable distancing.

Sophie wrote:thatts amazing! bye aces, rih psycho

still reading the last few pages, what struck me as odd while i was side eyeing the thread earlier while i was in the in laws, what how after golden case on aces, votes on MM started to pile up fast. A lot of those votes seemed easy ones, they started coming fast, like when mafia tries to save a teammate, that made aces look bad, that and a kind of overeaction to golden post, one that golden pointed out in his case. will keeep reading, find myself agreeing with rabbit too, specially on juliets.

"Like when Mafia tries to save a teammate." Is that what happens on Day One when a baddie is in distress? The baddie teammates rally and all vote quickly on someone else?

Agrees with rabbit, about suspecting juliets... but I have been going through the thread and I didn't see a solid time when rabbit said he suspects juliets and why. There's a baby here, and some distractions, but I didn't see it. If it's there and I missed it, so be it. If it's not, then that pings me. What is she agreeing with about juliets?

I'll do more on the Sophie thing, but I have to go away from the computer right now, so I'll post this start and get back to it later.

Are you kidding?

rabbit8 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I really don't like MM's self vote I think LC pointed out that he did it in flim director mafia and was bad.

On the other hand, MP pointed out he has done it about five times in a row.

I think a vote for MM is a vote against this anti-civvie tactic, not a genuine baddie catching vote.

Then a vote for MM is in fact a pointless endeavor. You may as well be self voting if you are voting on principal or against a tactic.

I don't know him so I will vote where I think a baddie is. Maybe BF or Juliets..........

rabbit8 wrote:

juliets wrote:rabbit you are thinking of voting for me for my MM vote or for something else?

I hoped you would ask. Yes your flip flopping ways that lead to your vote on MM has me concerned. The timing is there for a baddie to try to slip in and because someone else started the whole conversation it leaves a trail right back to LC, that son of a......

Though admittedly it's not much. But as day 1 goes, it could be enough. I really want to hear from BF before I make any actual decision.

rabbit8 wrote:FYI, some work stuff came up today and I'm flying out to China Saturday morning so there will possibly be a 14 - 17 hour period I don't post and my posting time will reverse for two weeks. I will have internet at hotel, I'm hoping at the job site as well, but who knows.


link: JC, I understand, somewhat. And I'm not defending MM in anyway. If you think he is bad I think you should vote for him. The timing of it does not sit right with me. Sliding in there after it's been brought by another player after changing your mind rather quickly and not waiting to vote is just odd to me, since you are here posting right now. Had you not been able to get here to vote closer to the close of the poll I would understand more.

In fact I think I might be typing myself into voting for you. Why did you vote so hastily when Clever and a few others had not even really weighed in? Your vote is just there smiling baddie to me.

Lets not misrepresent what happened like you have been doing all game. Thanks in advance.

I also vote for her twice. Kinda fucking hard to miss.

Canucklehead wrote:Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

Have you already posted your thoughts on your near-lynch and the baddies you think are involved? I can't remember, might have skimmed.

Long Con wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

Have you already posted your thoughts on your near-lynch and the baddies you think are involved? I can't remember, might have skimmed.

I haven't!



I'm afraid the baddies will kill me.

You know, LC. You have suspected me all game. We have been going back and fourth since the game began. The fact you don't even know what I have posted or who I suspect if fucking absurd. Like really man, WTF?

If no one else can see you are just making shit up now...............

rabbit8 wrote:Lets not misrepresent what happened like you have been doing all game. Thanks in advance.

I appreciate you showing me what I had missed.

I also vote for her twice. Kinda fucking hard to miss.

Well, you hadn't voted for her at all at the time of Sophie's post that I was questioning. Who is misrepresenting here?

This has been an interesting Night period. Thanks for elaborating, LC.

Llama, I'd be more than glad to discuss those two with you, since I'm not too sure what I think of either of them. Can you elaborate as to every reason you find them worthy of your votes? I thought Golden's point about Elo was astute, but other than that, I haven't noticed anything from her that is given me any overt reason to suspect her. I haven't seen anything from Zomba that's made me think BAD, but I feel knowing her IRL, her mafia posts in this game as well as Donner and Death Note just seem like a translation of her personality. That said, I'm a bit surprised she hasn't been more aggressively pursuing suspects yet.

Canuck, by railroading, I'm just referring to aggressively pursuing one suspect in particular and exercising tunnel vision in doing so. I can't recall if you played the Disney Cars game, but I relentlessly attacked FZ. and Bass in that game because I was convinced certain events in the thread could only be explained by them being bad, and it turned out I was incorrect. Does that help?

rabbit8 wrote:You know, LC. You have suspected me all game. We have been going back and fourth since the game began. The fact you don't even know what I have posted or who I suspect if fucking absurd. Like really man, WTF?

If no one else can see you are just making shit up now...............

I feel like you believe that I don't know juliets is a suspect of yours, rabbit. I can understand why that would upset you. I was only speaking in the context of Sophie at the time of the post. That was a Day One post, and you had only said a couple of things regarding juliets at that time.

I saw the "Maybe BF or Juliets.......... " one, but that doesn't give a reason for Sophie to "agree" with.

This next one does a good job of explaining the suspicion, but I missed it. On a reread, I can see why... it seems at the start to be a paragraph about MM, and there's only a pronoun change along the way to indicate you're speaking about JC.

rabbit8 wrote:link: JC, I understand, somewhat. And I'm not defending MM in anyway. If you think he is bad I think you should vote for him. The timing of it does not sit right with me. Sliding in there after it's been brought by another player after changing your mind rather quickly and not waiting to vote is just odd to me, since you are here posting right now. Had you not been able to get here to vote closer to the close of the poll I would understand more.

In fact I think I might be typing myself into voting for you. Why did you vote so hastily when Clever and a few others had not even really weighed in? Your vote is just there smiling baddie to me.

I don't want you to think that I'm not paying attention to what you are saying. I think it was pretty clear that I was open to correction on that front anyway, so you could have just pointed out the posts I missed and said "Suck it, LC!"... but you seem really upset about it. So I'm sorry, I'll try to do better in my past-post research in the future.

Canucklehead wrote:Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

Is there any other reason you don't see them as bad at this time?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

Is there any other reason you don't see them as bad at this time?

I think bf has been level headed, open minded, and has contributed to discussions on a variety of topics, rather than seeming to try to steer/keep discussion on one area (the latter is a baddie thing, borne of the need to "contribute" coupled with the difficulty to acctually keep an open mind about people/see genuine suspicions/try out new ideas/etc when you already know who the bad guys are. The former is something civvies do, and that openness is really hard to fake).
Sophie, it's mostly gut/tone based. She's been reactionary and definitely hasn't done much elaborating of her thoughts, and certainly hasn't seemed open to changing her mind (I agree with you on those things), but becuase of that my civ read on her is due to opposite reasoning from my read on bf. I think that sort of stubbornness is equally hard to pull off as a baddie. It's just not worth the risk, when it would be SUUUPER easy for her to (as BR has done, for example ) just back off and say "Yeah, on second thought I may be having tunnel vision here, I need to re-think" when you come under scrutiny for it.

Canucklehead wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

Is there any other reason you don't see them as bad at this time?

I think bf has been level headed, open minded, and has contributed to discussions on a variety of topics, rather than seeming to try to steer/keep discussion on one area (the latter is a baddie thing, borne of the need to "contribute" coupled with the difficulty to acctually keep an open mind about people/see genuine suspicions/try out new ideas/etc when you already know who the bad guys are. The former is something civvies do, and that openness is really hard to fake).
Sophie, it's mostly gut/tone based. She's been reactionary and definitely hasn't done much elaborating of her thoughts, and certainly hasn't seemed open to changing her mind (I agree with you on those things), but becuase of that my civ read on her is due to opposite reasoning from my read on bf. I think that sort of stubbornness is equally hard to pull off as a baddie. It's just not worth the risk, when it would be SUUUPER easy for her to (as BR has done, for example ) just back off and say "Yeah, on second thought I may be having tunnel vision here, I need to re-think" when you come under scrutiny for it.

Duly noted, this is much appreciated.

Canucklehead wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Zomb is someone I'd consider a vote for maybe. I need to read her again, though, to be able to articulate why.

I don't suspect Eloh at this time, and I also don't share MP's suspicions of bf or Sophie (but that's probably because they saw my near-lynch as baddie maneuvering, and so did I, so I may have blinders on there)

Have you already posted your thoughts on your near-lynch and the baddies you think are involved? I can't remember, might have skimmed.

I haven't!



I'm afraid the baddies will kill me.

Perhaps tomorrow then.

Zomba

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:I'm tempted to vote llama for voting early for Zomba saying she hasn't posted, and then of course she shows up because it was too early to make that assessment. But then again i know llama does goofy stuff because he's just having fun. I'll have to think about it.

Maybe she showed up because her teammates saw which way the wind was blowing and demanded that she show up. Did you ever consider that? You should.

Or maybe because it's 4:15 p.m. in Texas and my class gets out at 4:00. Nice Llama. I feel like you are setting me up. You know that I post at about this time every day. Vote for me then call me out right before then and then say it's cause I have BTSC. You sound Stupid.

Lucky for me, sounding stupid and being stupid are two different things.

Zomba' calling Aces a huge asset when he turned out bad was weird.

thellama73 wrote:I think Zombrella's "huge asset" comment was weird too. I mean no offense, old chum, but Aces has always struck me as a player who more or less blends in. I don't know why Zombrella would have said that.

Elohcin

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Elohcin, is your avatar a role hint?

Role hinting is not allowed. That was the cooest Roger Rabbit cake I could find on the net. I guess I will have to just make my own some day.

1. You didn't answer my question, you dodged it.
2. Role hinting is allowed. Why are you lying about the rules?

Epignosis wrote:Rules

1. No BTSC (Behind the Scenes Contact/Conversation) with anyone other than your specified BTSC partners. BTSC takes place in a specific assigned chatzy. If I say your BTSC is interrupted or over, don't access it until I inform you otherwise.
2. No editing or deleting of posts.
3. No role outing of yourself or anyone else.
4. No double-targeting (targeting the same individual with a power twice in a row).
5. Be respectful and remember that this is a game.
6. Dead players should not post on-topic and should be in dead red. There is a "dead" button when posting for this function.
7. Off-topic posts should be in off-topic green. There is an "OT" button when posting for this function.
8. Posts from non-players should be in non-player blue. There is a "np" button when posting for this function.
9. This is your host's color. All host posts will be in this color. Don't use it!
10. S~V~S is the Mod on Duty. Please PM her with any concerns or frustrations you experience.

Additionally:

11. No team PMs are permitted. Killers will need to include in their PMs that they are the ones conducting the kill. If I receive a subsequent PM from a teammate saying he or she is conducting the kill, I will accept that as the latest of the team's wishes. Communicate with your team.
12. Votes are NOT changeable.
13. No posting the contents of PMs- period.
14. If you out yourself or someone else, I won't fuss. But your Days are numbered. I won't even have to lift a finger.
15. Don't forget to laugh!

Apologizing for Zomba's comment.

Elohcin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Juliets does seem kind of bad this game, but juliets has one of the most impossible to read baddie games ever, so I doubt she actually is.

Lynch Rabbit... I mean Zombrella! No, wait. I don't know what I mean...

I disagree. I do think Juliets is difficult to read most times, but I think she is civ here. I think the "case" against her is silly and that those gunning for her are most likely bad.

Also, whe Zomb said Aces was a huge asset, I immediately thought maybe she was somewhat referring to his playstyle in Death Note Mafia....he was being helpful there. Zomb, how many games have you played with Aces?

Linki @ MP...funny, Mine are:
1)llama
2)MM
3)Golden

linki linki linki linki

Canuck, your last post seemed very genuine to me. I think I will actually spend today re-reading the thread with a fresh mind, because what better way to spend my first day of official spring break? :P

Llama, I don't find any stock in the teammate telling her theory; I've never seen nor done that as bad. Regarding the "huge asset" comment, I don't understand that at all. I think Elo's defense is exactly what I had to say about the matter, so why do you suspect Elo for it but not me? I'm afraid I still don't understand the basis of either of your suspicions.

I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her. Apart from the bizarre Aces/asset comment (which to me is most ping-worthy NOT because she seems reluctant to lose a now confirmed baddie - though obviously that's worth noting - but rather because she seems 100% willing to lose llama or MM for being "jokey". Civs should not be willing to lose any civs, tbqh), the most suspicious thing I saw in her posts was repeated mention (she brings it up, like, 4 or 5 times) of how the baddies must be "super sophisticated" and "experienced players", and then hypothesizes a list of LC, llama, MM, and bf. This theory of the "sophisticated baddie team" not only contradicts her earlier rationale for voting llama/MM (are they "jokey"/unhelpful or "sophisticated"? How did they advance in her estimation so fast?), it also conveniently removes herself from consideration for anyone who agrees with her theory because she is a newer player (which she reminds people of a few times).

I'm not sure if it's enough to earn a vote over my other suspects, but that's what I noticed. I don't find Eloh's "defense" of her particularly damning, because I read the huge asset comment the same way. It wasn't until doing this recent re-read while wearing my suspicion glasses that I interpreted it as possibly being anything other than completely innocent.

I think my conclusion from all this is that zombra is someone I will continue to keep an eye on, but not someone I'm willing to vote for right now.

Llama, are you saying it's suspicious that Elohcin said role-hinting isn't allowed when it's not actually a rule?

I also agree with Elohcin's assessment of Aces' play in games Zomba has played. It was Donner or Death Note where Aces came out with a big case and some dynamic play, and I was impressed considering I had the impression that he was almost always a so-quiet-is-he-really-playing kind of guy. That's the impression Zomb has of him, and so her "huge asset" comment doesn't ping me at all. Consequently, Elohcin's "apologizing" for Zomba's comment doesn't ping me either. And I also wouldn't call it apologizing, I would call it understanding.

Canuck, I think that's a very good analysis and helps me to understand what, besides the huge asset comment, makes her seem suspicious to some. For the moment I think I agree with you that it's something but not really enough for a vote. I will keep my eye out though.

I also thought your analysis of bf and sofie were very good. I am starting to see the spirited Sofie that I look for in games. I just think she's mistaken in her suspicions but i don't know why because she hasn't really explained herself yet.

Long Con wrote:Llama, are you saying it's suspicious that Elohcin said role-hinting isn't allowed when it's not actually a rule?

I also agree with Elohcin's assessment of Aces' play in games Zomba has played. It was Donner or Death Note where Aces came out with a big case and some dynamic play, and I was impressed considering I had the impression that he was almost always a so-quiet-is-he-really-playing kind of guy. That's the impression Zomb has of him, and so her "huge asset" comment doesn't ping me at all. Consequently, Elohcin's "apologizing" for Zomba's comment doesn't ping me either. And I also wouldn't call it apologizing, I would call it understanding.

It was more about the question dodging than anything else.

I understand that it's not an airtight case. I never claimed it was, but those are posts thta set alarm bells ringing in my head.

Long Con wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:You know, LC. You have suspected me all game. We have been going back and fourth since the game began. The fact you don't even know what I have posted or who I suspect if fucking absurd. Like really man, WTF?

If no one else can see you are just making shit up now...............

I feel like you believe that I don't know juliets is a suspect of yours, rabbit. I can understand why that would upset you. I was only speaking in the context of Sophie at the time of the post. That was a Day One post, and you had only said a couple of things regarding juliets at that time.

I saw the "Maybe BF or Juliets.......... " one, but that doesn't give a reason for Sophie to "agree" with.

This next one does a good job of explaining the suspicion, but I missed it. On a reread, I can see why... it seems at the start to be a paragraph about MM, and there's only a pronoun change along the way to indicate you're speaking about JC.

rabbit8 wrote:link: JC, I understand, somewhat. And I'm not defending MM in anyway. If you think he is bad I think you should vote for him. The timing of it does not sit right with me. Sliding in there after it's been brought by another player after changing your mind rather quickly and not waiting to vote is just odd to me, since you are here posting right now. Had you not been able to get here to vote closer to the close of the poll I would understand more.

In fact I think I might be typing myself into voting for you. Why did you vote so hastily when Clever and a few others had not even really weighed in? Your vote is just there smiling baddie to me.

I don't want you to think that I'm not paying attention to what you are saying. I think it was pretty clear that I was open to correction on that front anyway, so you could have just pointed out the posts I missed and said "Suck it, LC!"... but you seem really upset about it. So I'm sorry, I'll try to do better in my past-post research in the future.

You left it open to get yourself out of a jam if questioned. I've seen that done many times by baddies. Make a statement or don't. Don't do the wishy washy shit.

rabbit8 wrote: Make a statement or don't. Don't do the wishy washy shit.

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her.

Canucklehead wrote:

rabbit8 wrote: Make a statement or don't. Don't do the wishy washy shit.

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her.

Yeah, I think you might be bad too. I said that before.

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her. Apart from the bizarre Aces/asset comment (which to me is most ping-worthy NOT because she seems reluctant to lose a now confirmed baddie - though obviously that's worth noting - but rather because she seems 100% willing to lose llama or MM for being "jokey". Civs should not be willing to lose any civs, tbqh), the most suspicious thing I saw in her posts was repeated mention (she brings it up, like, 4 or 5 times) of how the baddies must be "super sophisticated" and "experienced players", and then hypothesizes a list of LC, llama, MM, and bf. This theory of the "sophisticated baddie team" not only contradicts her earlier rationale for voting llama/MM (are they "jokey"/unhelpful or "sophisticated"? How did they advance in her estimation so fast?), it also conveniently removes herself from consideration for anyone who agrees with her theory because she is a newer player (which she reminds people of a few times).

I'm not sure if it's enough to earn a vote over my other suspects, but that's what I noticed. I don't find Eloh's "defense" of her particularly damning, because I read the huge asset comment the same way. It wasn't until doing this recent re-read while wearing my suspicion glasses that I interpreted it as possibly being anything other than completely innocent.

I think my conclusion from all this is that zombra is someone I will continue to keep an eye on, but not someone I'm willing to vote for right now.

By way of explanation, my first day strategy did center around playstyle because that literally all I had to go on. Now that we have been playing for a few days, I can rely on my reading of actual events, which is a MUCH MORE reliable strategy. I am civ. I'm sorry to all the other civs who are spending time looking at me because of my "huge asset" comment. I just used the wrong words to express my opinion - but that makes sense because I have nothing to hide. I know I haven't been playing as long as some of you, but itsn't it more likely that a civ would slip up than a baddie? Anyway, I've said all this sooooo many times.

^^Of course it's more likely. There are always more civs than baddies.

Baddies slip all the time though. From what I've seen.

Zomberella12 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her. Apart from the bizarre Aces/asset comment (which to me is most ping-worthy NOT because she seems reluctant to lose a now confirmed baddie - though obviously that's worth noting - but rather because she seems 100% willing to lose llama or MM for being "jokey". Civs should not be willing to lose any civs, tbqh), the most suspicious thing I saw in her posts was repeated mention (she brings it up, like, 4 or 5 times) of how the baddies must be "super sophisticated" and "experienced players", and then hypothesizes a list of LC, llama, MM, and bf. This theory of the "sophisticated baddie team" not only contradicts her earlier rationale for voting llama/MM (are they "jokey"/unhelpful or "sophisticated"? How did they advance in her estimation so fast?), it also conveniently removes herself from consideration for anyone who agrees with her theory because she is a newer player (which she reminds people of a few times).

I'm not sure if it's enough to earn a vote over my other suspects, but that's what I noticed. I don't find Eloh's "defense" of her particularly damning, because I read the huge asset comment the same way. It wasn't until doing this recent re-read while wearing my suspicion glasses that I interpreted it as possibly being anything other than completely innocent.

I think my conclusion from all this is that zombra is someone I will continue to keep an eye on, but not someone I'm willing to vote for right now.

By way of explanation, my first day strategy did center around playstyle because that literally all I had to go on. Now that we have been playing for a few days, I can rely on my reading of actual events, which is a MUCH MORE reliable strategy. I am civ. I'm sorry to all the other civs who are spending time looking at me because of my "huge asset" comment. I just used the wrong words to express my opinion - but that makes sense because I have nothing to hide. I know I haven't been playing as long as some of you, but itsn't it more likely that a civ would slip up than a baddie? Anyway, I've said all this sooooo many times.

Can you speak to the part about how llama and MM went from expendable, jokey players on Day 1 to being founding members of your highly sophisticated baddie group by Day 2? What "actual events" prompted this promotion for them?

I used to suspect Elo and now I do not.
Elo used to suspect me and now she does not.

Based on that, I think that we should all look to lynch players who are laying low, still posting, but not contributing. Not that it matters I guess. In this game, the people we lynch never die. Maybe I should be begging you all to vote for me. (Not really, don't vote for me).

@ MP - You can't compare my baddie hunting in this game with my campaign against Snowman. That wouldn't be fair. I have been actively hunting Llama who I think is bad. He doesn't post so no one else agrees, but in time, I think you will all see that I am right about him.

@ Splints - Really? You think I've been bad this whole game? Well, nice of you to say so now that others brought it up.

@ Llama - Since I have been gunning for you for several days, I don't think it's a no U to say, "let's all talk about Llama." Early votes, doesn't post, votes without reasons, could easily be masterminding the lynch hyjinks.

Zomberella12 wrote: @ Llama - Since I have been gunning for you for several days, I don't think it's a no U to say, "let's all talk about Llama." Early votes, doesn't post, votes without reasons, could easily be masterminding the lynch hyjinks.

And since I have been suspecting you since Day 1, I don't think it's a No U to ask people to look at you.

Real Life obligations prevented me from contributing much over the weekend. You can see that I did the same thing in Death Note, so that is not a meaningful accusation. I also do have reasons for all of my votes.

Canucklehead wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her. Apart from the bizarre Aces/asset comment (which to me is most ping-worthy NOT because she seems reluctant to lose a now confirmed baddie - though obviously that's worth noting - but rather because she seems 100% willing to lose llama or MM for being "jokey". Civs should not be willing to lose any civs, tbqh), the most suspicious thing I saw in her posts was repeated mention (she brings it up, like, 4 or 5 times) of how the baddies must be "super sophisticated" and "experienced players", and then hypothesizes a list of LC, llama, MM, and bf. This theory of the "sophisticated baddie team" not only contradicts her earlier rationale for voting llama/MM (are they "jokey"/unhelpful or "sophisticated"? How did they advance in her estimation so fast?), it also conveniently removes herself from consideration for anyone who agrees with her theory because she is a newer player (which she reminds people of a few times).

I'm not sure if it's enough to earn a vote over my other suspects, but that's what I noticed. I don't find Eloh's "defense" of her particularly damning, because I read the huge asset comment the same way. It wasn't until doing this recent re-read while wearing my suspicion glasses that I interpreted it as possibly being anything other than completely innocent.

I think my conclusion from all this is that zombra is someone I will continue to keep an eye on, but not someone I'm willing to vote for right now.

By way of explanation, my first day strategy did center around playstyle because that literally all I had to go on. Now that we have been playing for a few days, I can rely on my reading of actual events, which is a MUCH MORE reliable strategy. I am civ. I'm sorry to all the other civs who are spending time looking at me because of my "huge asset" comment. I just used the wrong words to express my opinion - but that makes sense because I have nothing to hide. I know I haven't been playing as long as some of you, but itsn't it more likely that a civ would slip up than a baddie? Anyway, I've said all this sooooo many times.

Can you speak to the part about how llama and MM went from expendable, jokey players on Day 1 to being founding members of your highly sophisticated baddie group by Day 2? What "actual events" prompted this promotion for them?

I think the problem lies in your assumption that there are "actual events". My suspicions of those people are based on the weirdness and chaos of the lynch results, curses, and night kills. They are all so random and make no sense. I think that this might be because (get ready for me to say it again) the baddies are messing with the lynches and thread by doing and saying unpredictable things. You all keep talking about this persons baddie game and that person's civ game. I don't think that those are working in this game. If they were, we'd have some idea of who was bad and who was good. My list was just a bunch of players who are laying a little low and I think are smart and would have fun messing with us. Please don't ask me to explain again and then get after me for saying the same thing over and over.

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote: @ Llama - Since I have been gunning for you for several days, I don't think it's a no U to say, "let's all talk about Llama." Early votes, doesn't post, votes without reasons, could easily be masterminding the lynch hyjinks.

And since I have been suspecting you since Day 1, I don't think it's a No U to ask people to look at you.

Real Life obligations prevented me from contributing much over the weekend. You can see that I did the same thing in Death Note, so that is not a meaningful accusation. I also do have reasons for all of my votes.[/quote]

So you say. But having reasons doesn't mean you aren't bad.

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote: @ Llama - Since I have been gunning for you for several days, I don't think it's a no U to say, "let's all talk about Llama." Early votes, doesn't post, votes without reasons, could easily be masterminding the lynch hyjinks.

And since I have been suspecting you since Day 1, I don't think it's a No U to ask people to look at you.

Real Life obligations prevented me from contributing much over the weekend. You can see that I did the same thing in Death Note, so that is not a meaningful accusation. I also do have reasons for all of my votes.

So you say. But having reasons doesn't mean you aren't bad.

^^ Sorry - I messed up the quote earlier.

Zomberella12 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her. Apart from the bizarre Aces/asset comment (which to me is most ping-worthy NOT because she seems reluctant to lose a now confirmed baddie - though obviously that's worth noting - but rather because she seems 100% willing to lose llama or MM for being "jokey". Civs should not be willing to lose any civs, tbqh), the most suspicious thing I saw in her posts was repeated mention (she brings it up, like, 4 or 5 times) of how the baddies must be "super sophisticated" and "experienced players", and then hypothesizes a list of LC, llama, MM, and bf. This theory of the "sophisticated baddie team" not only contradicts her earlier rationale for voting llama/MM (are they "jokey"/unhelpful or "sophisticated"? How did they advance in her estimation so fast?), it also conveniently removes herself from consideration for anyone who agrees with her theory because she is a newer player (which she reminds people of a few times).

I'm not sure if it's enough to earn a vote over my other suspects, but that's what I noticed. I don't find Eloh's "defense" of her particularly damning, because I read the huge asset comment the same way. It wasn't until doing this recent re-read while wearing my suspicion glasses that I interpreted it as possibly being anything other than completely innocent.

I think my conclusion from all this is that zombra is someone I will continue to keep an eye on, but not someone I'm willing to vote for right now.

By way of explanation, my first day strategy did center around playstyle because that literally all I had to go on. Now that we have been playing for a few days, I can rely on my reading of actual events, which is a MUCH MORE reliable strategy. I am civ. I'm sorry to all the other civs who are spending time looking at me because of my "huge asset" comment. I just used the wrong words to express my opinion - but that makes sense because I have nothing to hide. I know I haven't been playing as long as some of you, but itsn't it more likely that a civ would slip up than a baddie? Anyway, I've said all this sooooo many times.

Can you speak to the part about how llama and MM went from expendable, jokey players on Day 1 to being founding members of your highly sophisticated baddie group by Day 2? What "actual events" prompted this promotion for them?

I think the problem lies in your assumption that there are "actual events". My suspicions of those people are based on the weirdness and chaos of the lynch results, curses, and night kills. They are all so random and make no sense. I think that this might be because (get ready for me to say it again) the baddies are messing with the lynches and thread by doing and saying unpredictable things. You all keep talking about this persons baddie game and that person's civ game. I don't think that those are working in this game. If they were, we'd have some idea of who was bad and who was good. My list was just a bunch of players who are laying a little low and I think are smart and would have fun messing with us. Please don't ask me to explain again and then get after me for saying the same thing over and over.

The "actual events" thing was a direct quotation of you....which is why I used the quotation marks

Zomberella12 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote: @ Llama - Since I have been gunning for you for several days, I don't think it's a no U to say, "let's all talk about Llama." Early votes, doesn't post, votes without reasons, could easily be masterminding the lynch hyjinks.

And since I have been suspecting you since Day 1, I don't think it's a No U to ask people to look at you.

Real Life obligations prevented me from contributing much over the weekend. You can see that I did the same thing in Death Note, so that is not a meaningful accusation. I also do have reasons for all of my votes.

So you say. But having reasons doesn't mean you aren't bad.

^^ Sorry - I messed up the quote earlier.

YOu said you suspect me because I vote without reasons. I said I don't vote without reasons, and now you're saying that's irrelevant? Talk about moving the goalposts...

Canucklehead wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I did a read through of zomba, too, and came out of it feeling mostly wishy-washy about her. Apart from the bizarre Aces/asset comment (which to me is most ping-worthy NOT because she seems reluctant to lose a now confirmed baddie - though obviously that's worth noting - but rather because she seems 100% willing to lose llama or MM for being "jokey". Civs should not be willing to lose any civs, tbqh), the most suspicious thing I saw in her posts was repeated mention (she brings it up, like, 4 or 5 times) of how the baddies must be "super sophisticated" and "experienced players", and then hypothesizes a list of LC, llama, MM, and bf. This theory of the "sophisticated baddie team" not only contradicts her earlier rationale for voting llama/MM (are they "jokey"/unhelpful or "sophisticated"? How did they advance in her estimation so fast?), it also conveniently removes herself from consideration for anyone who agrees with her theory because she is a newer player (which she reminds people of a few times).

I'm not sure if it's enough to earn a vote over my other suspects, but that's what I noticed. I don't find Eloh's "defense" of her particularly damning, because I read the huge asset comment the same way. It wasn't until doing this recent re-read while wearing my suspicion glasses that I interpreted it as possibly being anything other than completely innocent.

I think my conclusion from all this is that zombra is someone I will continue to keep an eye on, but not someone I'm willing to vote for right now.

By way of explanation, my first day strategy did center around playstyle because that literally all I had to go on. Now that we have been playing for a few days, I can rely on my reading of actual events, which is a MUCH MORE reliable strategy. I am civ. I'm sorry to all the other civs who are spending time looking at me because of my "huge asset" comment. I just used the wrong words to express my opinion - but that makes sense because I have nothing to hide. I know I haven't been playing as long as some of you, but itsn't it more likely that a civ would slip up than a baddie? Anyway, I've said all this sooooo many times.

Can you speak to the part about how llama and MM went from expendable, jokey players on Day 1 to being founding members of your highly sophisticated baddie group by Day 2? What "actual events" prompted this promotion for them?

I think the problem lies in your assumption that there are "actual events". My suspicions of those people are based on the weirdness and chaos of the lynch results, curses, and night kills. They are all so random and make no sense. I think that this might be because (get ready for me to say it again) the baddies are messing with the lynches and thread by doing and saying unpredictable things. You all keep talking about this persons baddie game and that person's civ game. I don't think that those are working in this game. If they were, we'd have some idea of who was bad and who was good. My list was just a bunch of players who are laying a little low and I think are smart and would have fun messing with us. Please don't ask me to explain again and then get after me for saying the same thing over and over.

The "actual events" thing was a direct quotation of you....which is why I used the quotation marks

Okay - obviously I'm an idiot because I can't even remember my own posts for more than two minutes. Sorry I was condescending. I did write "actual events". Well then, I guess the actual events would be the lynch shenanigans and low posting.

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote: @ Llama - Since I have been gunning for you for several days, I don't think it's a no U to say, "let's all talk about Llama." Early votes, doesn't post, votes without reasons, could easily be masterminding the lynch hyjinks.

And since I have been suspecting you since Day 1, I don't think it's a No U to ask people to look at you.

Real Life obligations prevented me from contributing much over the weekend. You can see that I did the same thing in Death Note, so that is not a meaningful accusation. I also do have reasons for all of my votes.

So you say. But having reasons doesn't mean you aren't bad.

^^ Sorry - I messed up the quote earlier.

YOu said you suspect me because I vote without reasons. I said I don't vote without reasons, and now you're saying that's irrelevant? Talk about moving the goalposts...

Sorry. You are right that wasn't fair. You vote without posting your reasons. I didn't say having reasons was irrelevant. I said that having reasons doesn't make you good....and I think you know that...

Zomberella12 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:YOu said you suspect me because I vote without reasons. I said I don't vote without reasons, and now you're saying that's irrelevant? Talk about moving the goalposts...

Sorry. You are right that wasn't fair. You vote without posting your reasons. I didn't say having reasons was irrelevant. I said that having reasons doesn't make you good....and I think you know that...

I could refute every point of suspicion you bring up against me and you could say "that doesn't make you good." That's a meaningless comment. Nothing makes me good except the role Epignosis assigned to me.

You are trying to have it both ways. You want to be able to point to behavior you think makes me suspicious, then when I demonstrate I haven't behaved that way, you say it doesn't make me good.

"You did X. You must be bad."
"I didn't do X."
"Not doing X doesn't make you good! "

It's a nice try to paint me into an unwinnable corner, but it won't work because it's too transparently manipulative.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I think I've said all I need to say in my defense, as frustrating as it has been.

Tomorrow I'd like to engage in more discussion as to who to lynch. If it ends up being me, then this will hands down be the most frustrating game I've ever played as a civilian.

Can people please explain to me what they see in BF and Sophie being civilian and/or genuine, if they believe it to be true? I can't read either of them and their actions are completely irrational to me, and I've stated multiple reasons why I suspect both of them but also at least one reason why I haven't been fully convinced either are bad, so I'd like to hear opinions here from those who haven't already provided them.

BR, why are you backing off of Canuck completely?

I think she's civvie now. If something changes in the future I will revisit Canuck.

I could be talked off my mob mentality against mp to vote zomb. If he's good, I still think he's suspecting all the wrong people. Cough sophie and I who both voted aces day one cough. Not to mention a confirmed civ removed sophie from the poll yesterday.

Regardless, others aren't latching onto my obviously flawless assertion that he's bad :P

I still think way too many people are comfortable with thinking he's good for my liking. But I can be open minded and move on and contribute to discussion, I know when my efforts aren't going anywhere.

I'm also sorta eyeing bea for her IMO weird vote yesterday whereby she had no clue where to vote then latched onto the canuck bandwagon like they were giving out free money. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, my memory sucks

Alright I'm caught up and heading back to bed. I have some sort of stomach bug that's making me do gross things. I'll be more active after I kick it.