The Syndicate

Zomberella12 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Snowman wrote:

bea wrote: @ Snowman, in all fairness - what do you think of how Zombra's been playing so far? Is she reading on the up and up to you? Besides llama, who else will you be looking at going into the next lynch?

I do think she's been a straight-shooter so far. The real test would be how she reacts to a legitimate accusation.

Really!? A legitimate accusation? What would that look like? I think now would be a perfect time for Snowman to demonstrate his case building abilities. Or perhaps he would just like to throw that idea out there and let everyone else do all the work? Llama, we need to talk. I might be experiencing a change of heart.

You mean like this?

Zomberella12 wrote:
Your assessment is astute. I wonder if those you are arguing against understand your logic, agree with it, and are fine with it because they are in fact mafia...
Also, don't give the baddies good ideas.

Holy smoke! That was like D0. And I stand by that. I do thunk it benefited the baddies to vote that way. I think that post makes me look good.

Because it was Day 0 its not suspicious? It makes you look good to do the thing you said makes Snow look bad?

Hold up. Yes, because it was D0 it does make a difference. It was the ONLY thing we had to go on. I was not on board with the whole "Snow looks bad because he wanted a bandwagon to join" argument that Lllama was selling (is that the thing you are referring to?). In fact I said that it was a WEAK case. Saying that baddies would vote for L/Light was not a bandwagon anyway, it was deductive reasoning.

I'm not sure you're understanding my point, so in fairness I will explain it a bit better:

You accused Snowman of throwing something out into the thread in the hopes that someone else would take it and run with it. I highlighted that part of your post. This is obviously suspicious to you because you express a desire to hash out your Snowman thoughts with llama.

In a direct comparison, I pulled the quote of yours I found suspicious from D0, wherein you (in my view) float the idea out there that baddies understand boos logic and are fine with voting for the L/Light option given the alleged risk of doing so. You put the idea out there, very surgically so. It read to me, as I expressed, as an attempt to get other people to do the leg work of accusing specific L/Light voters so that you didn't have to.

To recap:

You and Snow did the exact same thing. You think Snow is suspect for doing it, but when you did it, it was with good intentions. Whether you did it on D0 or D10 is irrelevant.

Linki -

@Zomberella - I don't care if you are behind in reading. I am behind myself. What I said was your defense was "I'm new, cut me some slack." Which is, as I said, irrelevant.

@Marsh hopefully this explanation post helps you then.

When did Zomba say she was new and to ask for slack? I've seen several players 'accuse' her for being new and several others 'defend' here for being new, but I don't recall her pulling that card.

Whatever, DH, I don't care what you say.

Yesterday I wasn't fully on board with lynching Snowman because I thought the evidence against him wasn't super strong. However, this post (the one below - NOT THE ONE FROM THREE DAYS AGO - has me convinced that he is bad. I am 100% on board with this.

THIS IS THE POST I WAS WAITING FOR:

Snowman wrote:

bea wrote: @ Snowman, in all fairness - what do you think of how Zombra's been playing so far? Is she reading on the up and up to you? Besides llama, who else will you be looking at going into the next lynch?

I do think she's been a straight-shooter so far. The real test would be how she reacts to a legitimate accusation.

Here are my reasons. I know that you all haven't played with Snowman very much so you might not agree right now, but I have played with him for the last 20 years (mind out of the gutter) and once you find out (even if its at the end of the game) that I am a detective and he is bad you are guys are all going to put more stock in my opinion in future games. I am SO excited about this!

1) Snowman is threatened by me - I deduce that he is afraid I am about to figure him out. He wouldn't worry about this unless he was bad.
2) Snowman does not think that we are on the same team. I know what team I'm on - so he must be bad.
3) Snowman doesn't want to come out and build a case against me himself because he thinks that I am good and that if you all lynch me and find that out, he will look bad. He wants someone else to build the case against me so they can take the heat when I flip detective.

That is my case. I will vote Snowman at the first opportunity. I am officially calling out Llama to support me. He was gung ho to lynch Snowman yesterday. The case against him has only gotten stronger.

Zomberella12 wrote:@DH-Give me a break. I've barely been able to keep up with you let alone make meaningful and well crafted additions to the conversation. This is only my second game ever. I haven't had time to formulate any kind of strategy and trying to analyze me would be weird because I'm still trying to figure out how to play. I like to post and I agreed with Boo. That's it.

There you go Marsh.

I think Snowman was right, it was pretty telling how you handled this accusation, Zomb.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Snowman wrote:
I do think she's been a straight-shooter so far. The real test would be how she reacts to a legitimate accusation.

Really!? A legitimate accusation? What would that look like? I think now would be a perfect time for Snowman to demonstrate his case building abilities. Or perhaps he would just like to throw that idea out there and let everyone else do all the work? Llama, we need to talk. I might be experiencing a change of heart.

You mean like this?

Zomberella12 wrote:
Your assessment is astute. I wonder if those you are arguing against understand your logic, agree with it, and are fine with it because they are in fact mafia...
Also, don't give the baddies good ideas.

Holy smoke! That was like D0. And I stand by that. I do thunk it benefited the baddies to vote that way. I think that post makes me look good.

Because it was Day 0 its not suspicious? It makes you look good to do the thing you said makes Snow look bad?

Hold up. Yes, because it was D0 it does make a difference. It was the ONLY thing we had to go on. I was not on board with the whole "Snow looks bad because he wanted a bandwagon to join" argument that Lllama was selling (is that the thing you are referring to?). In fact I said that it was a WEAK case. Saying that baddies would vote for L/Light was not a bandwagon anyway, it was deductive reasoning.

I'm not sure you're understanding my point, so in fairness I will explain it a bit better:

You accused Snowman of throwing something out into the thread in the hopes that someone else would take it and run with it. I highlighted that part of your post. This is obviously suspicious to you because you express a desire to hash out your Snowman thoughts with llama.

In a direct comparison, I pulled the quote of yours I found suspicious from D0, wherein you (in my view) float the idea out there that baddies understand boos logic and are fine with voting for the L/Light option given the alleged risk of doing so. You put the idea out there, very surgically so. It read to me, as I expressed, as an attempt to get other people to do the leg work of accusing specific L/Light voters so that you didn't have to.

To recap:

You and Snow did the exact same thing. You think Snow is suspect for doing it, but when you did it, it was with good intentions. Whether you did it on D0 or D10 is irrelevant.

Linki -

@Zomberella - I don't care if you are behind in reading. I am behind myself. What I said was your defense was "I'm new, cut me some slack." Which is, as I said, irrelevant.

@Marsh hopefully this explanation post helps you then.

Thanks for the explanation. I do see what you are saying. However, I guess I should have made my intentions more clear on D0. I wasn't expecting anyone to run with my accusation. I in all honesty did mean that to be my entire case. I get that you don't think that is a good case. Maybe it wasn't. But I still assert that it was the best I could do at the time.

FTR: I do not consider myself to be new and I do not expect anyone to pull any punches. I will not quit the site because someone disagrees with me. I will vote based on my own analysis whether or not my opinion happens to coincide with someone else's.

Did you make that "Whatever DH, I don't care what you think" post before you read what I think?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:@DH-Give me a break. I've barely been able to keep up with you let alone make meaningful and well crafted additions to the conversation. This is only my second game ever. I haven't had time to formulate any kind of strategy and trying to analyze me would be weird because I'm still trying to figure out how to play. I like to post and I agreed with Boo. That's it.

There you go Marsh.

I think Snowman was right, it was pretty telling how you handled this accusation, Zomb.

Thanks. I didn't see that one.

So you think she is wilting under the pressure? I'm seeing the opposite here. What do you think about her accusations of Snowman?

zeek wrote:Need to catch up on the past few pages and look at the voting, but:

Turnip Head wrote:Zeek voted Snowman for implying there was a civ team. What.

That's bullshit. That's not what I said. Don't take my words out of context.

I voted for him for saying he wants to help his team going into the future. I didn't like the language used, teams imply BTSC for me. I disagree with everybody who has since said there is a "civ team" because I don't think there is. We're a community, not a team. If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same. You are steadily gaining my eye, TH.

Snowman hasn't addressed my point either.

Below is Zeek's vote post. Tell me if I'm bullshitting, fellow players, but it looks like Zeek's reason for voting Snowman was because he called the civ roles a "team" and according to Zeek they are instead a "community".

zeek wrote:I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Snowman wrote:Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.

I'm not voting Snowman based on jumping onto bandwagons, but that is a factor, I'm voting Snowman because the underlined section worries me. This isn't Donner Party, there's no civ team per se. This terminology could be poor language selection by a new player or it could be a slip. Either way, he's got my vote because I just don't feel comfortable placing it anywhere else.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:@DH-Give me a break. I've barely been able to keep up with you let alone make meaningful and well crafted additions to the conversation. This is only my second game ever. I haven't had time to formulate any kind of strategy and trying to analyze me would be weird because I'm still trying to figure out how to play. I like to post and I agreed with Boo. That's it.

There you go Marsh.

I think Snowman was right, it was pretty telling how you handled this accusation, Zomb.

Thanks. I didn't see that one.

So you think she is wilting under the pressure? I'm seeing the opposite here. What do you think about her accusations of Snowman?

I don't know if I'd say she's wilting under the pressure, but she's come across to me as very slippery and defensive/deflective.

I am responding to this post, which I won't quite for the sake of brevity.

The detectives need the four Kira dead to win. That isn't a simplification, as S~V~S claims- that is literally what the host wrote. If the Yotsuba need the detectives dead to win, then:

1. That contradicts what is explicitly stated in the first post,
2. Would make the game 12 vs 14, which is not balanced,
3. And would not need to be a secret.

What I said regarding the Yotsuba early on bears repeating:

Epignosis wrote:What is this "non-Light Mafia"/ "Mafia 2" I keep seeing?

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

I note that there are four Kiras: Kyosuke Higuchi (Third Kira), Light Yagami (Kira), Misa Amane (Second Kira), Teru Mikami (X Kira). Unless I am reading something incorrectly or the secret win conditions contradict this, these are the only people a detective needs dead to win. I am operating under the belief that the other Lighters play a supporting role, and that lynching them would be helpful for taking down three of the Kiras, but non-essential for victory. The host explicitly identified the killers as Kiras.

And with the exception of Kyosuke Higuchi, none of the Yotsuba are Kiras, and therefore do not need to be dead for a detective to win. I hated looking this up because I am only on episode 6, but according to http://deathnote.wikia.com/wiki/Kyosuke_Higuchi *SPOILERS* The Yotsuba betray Kyosuke Higuchi when they discover he is Kira. The premise sounds just like a Mafia game- eight people who meet, and they all know one of them is the killer but not who. Sounds like an ingenuous opportunity to put a mafia game IN a mafia game. *END SPOILERS*

Let me ask you this if you are a detective: How much closer did you come to satisfying your win condition by lynching birdwithteeth? I'll help you out: You hurt your chances. Why? Because you burned a lynch accomplishing something you didn't need to accomplish. Keep this up, and Kira will eliminate you.

The paranoia regarding independents on this site astounds me.

So Epi, you think SVS and Snowman are two of the Kiras?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:So Epi, you think SVS and Snowman are two of the Kiras?

I need to finish reading the thread and organize my thoughts. I've gone back and forth on a couple of people and I need to obtain some clarity. I will report before the end of the Night.

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

Does anyone think the use of the word stopped, instead of killed, means anything?

Matahari wrote:

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

Does anyone think the use of the word stopped, instead of killed, means anything?

Assuming the idea that the death notes can be removed from their possession is accurate, yes.

It could Mata. If a non-Kira was able to obtain a Death Note and use it to kill, there would essentially be a new Kira. Whether or not this is possible within the mechanics of the game, I'm not sure.

Matahari wrote:

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

Does anyone think the use of the word stopped, instead of killed, means anything?

I think I can see a case where they don't have to be killed.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Kyosuke Higuchi (Third Kira) – A very greedy and power-hungry man who becomes the owner of a Death Note if a certain chain of events occurs. However, little does he know he is no more than a tool in an elaborate scheme orchestrated by the original Kira. Each night, while in possession of a Death Note, he votes on a victim for Kira to kill, concealing the fact that he is actually the one deciding others’ fates. Higuchi cannot be lynched or night killed until he receives a Death Note; thereafter, even if the Note is taken from him, he can die. When he possesses a Death Note, all members of Yotsuba vote on a player to die every night, but Higuchi has a choice to override the player to be killed. However, if he does so, he risks the chance of outing himself to his fellow members. Each member currently alive has a 25% chance of learning Higuchi’s real identity every time a kill is overriden, with a 75% chance of instead receiving a randomly redirected result. When he gains his Death Note, he is offered the Shinigami Eye Deal. If Higuchi takes the Eye Deal, he can role check two players every night but he must kill one of those two players; this only applies if he overrides the kill selection. If Higuchi currently cannot kill with a Death Note or does not override the kill target, he cannot role check anyone. Because the Eye Deal cuts his lifespan, all votes against Higuchi in lynches will be doubled for the remainder of the game. If Higuchi refuses the Eye Deal, he still may change his mind and accept it later at any time.

If he never receives a death note, but the other kiras are killed, perhaps that counts as 'stopping' them.

Does anyone want to talk about Zeek's vote?

Zomberella12 wrote:

Snowman wrote:

bea wrote: @ Snowman, in all fairness - what do you think of how Zombra's been playing so far? Is she reading on the up and up to you? Besides llama, who else will you be looking at going into the next lynch?

I do think she's been a straight-shooter so far. The real test would be how she reacts to a legitimate accusation.

Really!? A legitimate accusation? What would that look like? I think now would be a perfect time for Snowman to demonstrate his case building abilities. Or perhaps he would just like to throw that idea out there and let everyone else do all the work? Llama, we need to talk. I might be experiencing a change of heart.

A legitimate accusation would be one based on actual evidence and quotes, rather than blindly firing into the crowd and hoping your target flinches. The old, "I think he's guilty because he said I'm not guilty when I said he's guilty seems a rather unsophisticated tactic.

@TH, I already did.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

zeek wrote:Need to catch up on the past few pages and look at the voting, but:

Turnip Head wrote:Zeek voted Snowman for implying there was a civ team. What.

That's bullshit. That's not what I said. Don't take my words out of context.

I voted for him for saying he wants to help his team going into the future. I didn't like the language used, teams imply BTSC for me. I disagree with everybody who has since said there is a "civ team" because I don't think there is. We're a community, not a team. If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same. You are steadily gaining my eye, TH.

Snowman hasn't addressed my point either.

I looked back at the Snowman post you mentioned, and I don't think it's suspicious. It sounded to me like a comment made about mafia-gameplay in general and his meta-game, rather then being a post specifically about this mafia game.

Okay. So do you want to make a conclusion or hypothesis about Zeek based on that?

Turnip Head wrote:Okay. So do you want to make a conclusion or hypothesis about Zeek based on that?

I think he misunderstood Snowman's comment. Two trains of thought behind that. 1) He just misinterpreted it and reacted accordingly to his thoughts. 2) He came into the thread, saw that a couple of our long-time residents were going after Snowman (llama and Epi), so he picked up on something for a forced reason to justify his vote.

Yes, it looks like the suspicion was made up to fit the vote, to me. I don't believe that a civvie Zeek would use the reasoning he did to hop onto a bandwagon.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:@DH-Give me a break. I've barely been able to keep up with you let alone make meaningful and well crafted additions to the conversation. This is only my second game ever. I haven't had time to formulate any kind of strategy and trying to analyze me would be weird because I'm still trying to figure out how to play. I like to post and I agreed with Boo. That's it.

There you go Marsh.

I think Snowman was right, it was pretty telling how you handled this accusation, Zomb.

Thanks. I didn't see that one.

So you think she is wilting under the pressure? I'm seeing the opposite here. What do you think about her accusations of Snowman?

Well, being married for years, perhaps they can read each other based on RL knowledge & cues, not unlike Epi/Elo.

And I am not seeing a wilt, either. She is a feisty thing, isn't she? I never understood why changing your mind in the face of new info was a baddie thing, yet people think it is, or say so, at least. I am willing to give her read some weight.

I am going to reread Snowman for the fifth time. I did not see Llamas case becasue, tbh, it was like most of Llamas cases. And boo was convincing as well (but I tend to find boos posts somewhat mesmerizing to begin with; we agree on so many things, but totally disagree on others). But I am willing to look again as the only person in here who actually does know Snowmans game thinks he's bad.

That's a head turner for me.

Linki @S-man. Hrm

Thanks for the answers guys. About Zekes vote, I looked at it as though it was an STV thing. Back a few years ago, using the word 'team' was considered a slip. Over time, at rev, it became accepted that the civs are a team and it wasn't considered a slip anymore, thank heavens. Most so-called slips wound up lynching civs anyway, so I'm glad they get largely disregarded now.

I have two pages to catch up on, but I want to comment on a few things before reading on as I have things to get to before I can sit an read for a bit.

Epignosis wrote:Elohcin's game has evolved to the point where such insight is no longer reliable.

You heard it guys. I am becoming a better Mafia player.

DharmaHelper wrote:I was gonna try and keep trucking through my catch up then I read beas post. lol no.


@Eloh - I said the 58% thing, but I think the bulk of the "Eloh is trying to rationalize her kills" suspicion came from the highlighted area.

I've been saying this for a while now. Someone else, DH, Ace, can't remember said that 58% of us don't want to kiss non-detectives. This game seems to be less of a civvie/baddie/independant type game. Even as a viewer of the show, (as I said before) it's difficult to decide who to go for....Light or the Detectives. Both feel they are doing what is good and right.

I honestly think it might be best that we stop referring to each other as civ or bad and instead as kira or detectives.

Most mafia games (even though evenly balances hopefully) are lots of civs vs. a few baddies. I was just pointing out that this game seems to be pretty even if not more baddies than civvies. It made me wonder why people are so willing to admit they are detectives. As for talking about both sides feeling they are doing what is right. I was specifically talking about the SHOW. But anyway....TH pointed out to me that its basically detectives vs kiras and that yotsuba don't seem to play much of a part in the win conditions, so......my thoughts on the matter have changed a good bit. So really...this argument is no longer relevant. Okay, time to go cook for for little people and perform other motherly responsibilities. I shall be back to catch up.

Zomberella12 wrote:Llama, we need to talk. I might be experiencing a change of heart.

I'm a little hung over, but I would be glad to talk with you.

Elohcin wrote:I have two pages to catch up on, but I want to comment on a few things before reading on as I have things to get to before I can sit an read for a bit.

Epignosis wrote:Elohcin's game has evolved to the point where such insight is no longer reliable.

You heard it guys. I am becoming a better Mafia player.

DharmaHelper wrote:I was gonna try and keep trucking through my catch up then I read beas post. lol no.


@Eloh - I said the 58% thing, but I think the bulk of the "Eloh is trying to rationalize her kills" suspicion came from the highlighted area.

I've been saying this for a while now. Someone else, DH, Ace, can't remember said that 58% of us don't want to kiss non-detectives. This game seems to be less of a civvie/baddie/independant type game. Even as a viewer of the show, (as I said before) it's difficult to decide who to go for....Light or the Detectives. Both feel they are doing what is good and right.

I honestly think it might be best that we stop referring to each other as civ or bad and instead as kira or detectives.

Most mafia games (even though evenly balances hopefully) are lots of civs vs. a few baddies. I was just pointing out that this game seems to be pretty even if not more baddies than civvies. It made me wonder why people are so willing to admit they are detectives. As for talking about both sides feeling they are doing what is right. I was specifically talking about the SHOW. But anyway....TH pointed out to me that its basically detectives vs kiras and that yotsuba don't seem to play much of a part in the win conditions, so......my thoughts on the matter have changed a good bit. So really...this argument is no longer relevant. Okay, time to go cook for for little people and perform other motherly responsibilities. I shall be back to catch up.

Alrighty.

Matahari wrote:Thanks for the answers guys. About Zekes vote, I looked at it as though it was an STV thing. Back a few years ago, using the word 'team' was considered a slip. Over time, at rev, it became accepted that the civs are a team and it wasn't considered a slip anymore, thank heavens. Most so-called slips wound up lynching civs anyway, so I'm glad they get largely disregarded now.

Thanks Mata. From your experience (I am assuming you have played with Zeek at STV before?), how much do you think Zeek is aware of this change in culture from the word "team" no longer being deemed a slip over there? He seems to have no problem continuing to use that logic even if it failed to work time and time again on his home site...

Turnip Head wrote:

Matahari wrote:Thanks for the answers guys. About Zekes vote, I looked at it as though it was an STV thing. Back a few years ago, using the word 'team' was considered a slip. Over time, at rev, it became accepted that the civs are a team and it wasn't considered a slip anymore, thank heavens. Most so-called slips wound up lynching civs anyway, so I'm glad they get largely disregarded now.

Thanks Mata. From your experience (I am assuming you have played with Zeek at STV before?), how much do you think Zeek is aware of this change in culture from the word "team" no longer being deemed a slip over there? He seems to have no problem continuing to use that logic even if it failed to work time and time again on his home site...

I started at STV almost right after he stopped. We may have played 1 game together, or else, I just read a game he played, not sure. Since then, I haven't played any games with him, and I'm not sure how long he has been back in the game. I think I'm seeing the point you are getting at- but I'm not qualified to answer it. Using slips to lynch someone became a baddie associated tactic, so it dwindled away. Do I think he may have used the slip as an excuse for his vote? I really don't know. He may have actually thought it was a legit slip.

I don't know if anyone has another question for me, but I will happily answer it later. After a week of below 0 temps, its 50 degrees and sunny today, so I'm heading outside.

Thanks Mata. I would say that even Zeek himself didn't think there was a great chance of it actually being a slip. Once again I'll quote his vote post:

zeek wrote:I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Snowman wrote:Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.

I'm not voting Snowman based on jumping onto bandwagons, but that is a factor, I'm voting Snowman because the underlined section worries me. This isn't Donner Party, there's no civ team per se. This terminology could be poor language selection by a new player or it could be a slip. Either way, he's got my vote because I just don't feel comfortable placing it anywhere else.

Zeek concludes that it was either "poor word selection" - which I don't agree with because calling the civs a "team" instead of a "community" does not seem like poor word selection at all - or it was a slip - which, as Mata has pointed out, is a line of logic that seemed flawed when they used it at STV, and the baddies became known for being the ones to use that flawed logic. Zeek says no matter which of these are true, Snowman's getting his vote.

He also compared this game to Snowman's other game, the Donner mafia, in order to help illustrate that there are no teams here... but isn't the idea of a team even MORE intangible in the Donner game than it is here? Looks like the teams are constantly in flux in that game, whereas here they are grounded.

Zeek simply wanted to make something out of nothing.

I'd love to say that this is a good lynch, and it's definitely better than the last lynch, but I would have much preferred if it was a known baddie. At this point, I'll say that I guess third parties alignments might depend on the person playing it. I know I, as an indie would most probably choose the civvie side, while others would choose the baddie. I hope BWT is the kind that would choose the latter. It would make me feel a lot better for pushing for that lynch.

I still don't think llama is bad, but not ruling out one of the non detective roles. Same goes for Snowman. I liked Russ' analysis as well. Thought it was very helpful.

My gut says that Zeek's vote did not have nefarious intentions behind it, but I agree with you, TH, that his logic is badly flawed.

Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

While I'm here, I'll admit that civs are probably just as likely to end up using flawed logic as baddies are... but that's not the vibe I'm picking up from Zeek right now.

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

One other thing I would add to this discussion of our old pal zeek is that he replaced Roxy rather quickly, and it is my belief that baddies get replaced more quickly than civvies, although this game may be an exception due to the relative lack of baddie BTSC.

FZ. wrote:I'd love to say that this is a good lynch, and it's definitely better than the last lynch, but I would have much preferred if it was a known baddie. At this point, I'll say that I guess third parties alignments might depend on the person playing it. I know I, as an indie would most probably choose the civvie side, while others would choose the baddie. I hope BWT is the kind that would choose the latter. It would make me feel a lot better for pushing for that lynch.

I still don't think llama is bad, but not ruling out one of the non detective roles. Same goes for Snowman. I liked Russ' analysis as well. Thought it was very helpful.

I don't think the Yotsuba will be "given a choice" once Higuchi receives a DN. They will all actively start nominating a night kill. But maybe thdy won't stay bad for the remainder the game either, because they have a chance to expose Higuchi if he doesn't comply with their nomination and turn sides.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

One other thing I would add to this discussion of our old pal zeek is that he replaced Roxy rather quickly, and it is my belief that baddies get replaced more quickly than civvies, although this game may be an exception due to the relative lack of baddie BTSC.

Good point, although I remember Zeek stating his desire to be a replacement right near the beginning of the game. So no matter which role Roxy was, Zeek likely would have replaced her pretty quickly.

However, a BTSC-less baddie role is one I could definitely see Roxy not wanting to play unless she could really commit to it.

Almost all detectives are btsc-less.

Yes indeed.

Epignosis wrote:I am responding to this post, which I won't quite for the sake of brevity.

The detectives need the four Kira dead to win. That isn't a simplification, as S~V~S claims- that is literally what the host wrote. If the Yotsuba need the detectives dead to win, then:

1. That contradicts what is explicitly stated in the first post,
2. Would make the game 12 vs 14, which is not balanced,
3. And would not need to be a secret.

What I said regarding the Yotsuba early on bears repeating:

Epignosis wrote:What is this "non-Light Mafia"/ "Mafia 2" I keep seeing?

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

I note that there are four Kiras: Kyosuke Higuchi (Third Kira), Light Yagami (Kira), Misa Amane (Second Kira), Teru Mikami (X Kira). Unless I am reading something incorrectly or the secret win conditions contradict this, these are the only people a detective needs dead to win. I am operating under the belief that the other Lighters play a supporting role, and that lynching them would be helpful for taking down three of the Kiras, but non-essential for victory. The host explicitly identified the killers as Kiras.

And with the exception of Kyosuke Higuchi, none of the Yotsuba are Kiras, and therefore do not need to be dead for a detective to win. I hated looking this up because I am only on episode 6, but according to http://deathnote.wikia.com/wiki/Kyosuke_Higuchi *SPOILERS* The Yotsuba betray Kyosuke Higuchi when they discover he is Kira. The premise sounds just like a Mafia game- eight people who meet, and they all know one of them is the killer but not who. Sounds like an ingenuous opportunity to put a mafia game IN a mafia game. *END SPOILERS*

Let me ask you this if you are a detective: How much closer did you come to satisfying your win condition by lynching birdwithteeth? I'll help you out: You hurt your chances. Why? Because you burned a lynch accomplishing something you didn't need to accomplish. Keep this up, and Kira will eliminate you.

The paranoia regarding independents on this site astounds me.

I don't know. You keep talking about how unbalanced it would be, but it would also bee unbalanced if we viewed the Yotsubas as potential civvies, because that would make it 4 against the rest, and MP wouldn't do that either. So yeah, I believe there's something in the Yotsuba winning conditions that is more complicated. There can be tons of options here. Just for example, maybe they need at least one detective and one Kira alive to win. The fact that we don't know their winning condition does make them more dangerous for us, and the fact that they will at some point gain a kill is not helping matters.
None of this matters at the moment, because if we knew who was a Kira, we would take them down first, but since we're just going on those who look bad to us, this discussion is pointless to me for the time being. If we ever have to decide whether to lynch people we have any info on, then that conversation is going to matter

Nice rebuttal of Epi, FZ. He also acts like we knew BWT's role before we lynched him

Turnip Head wrote:Thanks Mata. I would say that even Zeek himself didn't think there was a great chance of it actually being a slip. Once again I'll quote his vote post:

zeek wrote:I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Snowman wrote:Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.

I'm not voting Snowman based on jumping onto bandwagons, but that is a factor, I'm voting Snowman because the underlined section worries me. This isn't Donner Party, there's no civ team per se. This terminology could be poor language selection by a new player or it could be a slip. Either way, he's got my vote because I just don't feel comfortable placing it anywhere else.

Zeek concludes that it was either "poor word selection" - which I don't agree with because calling the civs a "team" instead of a "community" does not seem like poor word selection at all - or it was a slip - which, as Mata has pointed out, is a line of logic that seemed flawed when they used it at STV, and the baddies became known for being the ones to use that flawed logic. Zeek says no matter which of these are true, Snowman's getting his vote.

He also compared this game to Snowman's other game, the Donner mafia, in order to help illustrate that there are no teams here... but isn't the idea of a team even MORE intangible in the Donner game than it is here? Looks like the teams are constantly in flux in that game, whereas here they are grounded.

Zeek simply wanted to make something out of nothing.

I read it as he acknowledged his reason was not a very solid one, but since he felt uncomfortable voting for any of the other players who had votes, he gave this more weight than he would have, and went with the vote. If anything, it made him seem more genuine to me. I know that I, as a baddie would try to have the best reason I could to vote for someone, and while it's possible I judge others by how I think I would act, that's all I have.

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

I think here, he meant himself. He said that you twisted his words, and that he wouldn't say stuff like that because it would end up in him getting called out for it, so it's not what he was saying. Don't know how you read it the way you did. Hmm.

Will you be voting llama the next day too, TH?

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

I think here, he meant himself. He said that you twisted his words, and that he wouldn't say stuff like that because it would end up in him getting called out for it, so it's not what he was saying. Don't know how you read it the way you did. Hmm.

No I think it was in reference to Snowman, not me. Here's the full post with the context:

zeek wrote:Need to catch up on the past few pages and look at the voting, but:

Turnip Head wrote:Zeek voted Snowman for implying there was a civ team. What.

That's bullshit. That's not what I said. Don't take my words out of context.

I voted for him for saying he wants to help his team going into the future. I didn't like the language used, teams imply BTSC for me. I disagree with everybody who has since said there is a "civ team" because I don't think there is. We're a community, not a team. If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same. You are steadily gaining my eye, TH.

Snowman hasn't addressed my point either.

The sentence I singled out seems like Zeek's further justification for voting Snowman. If that's wrong I'm sure Zeek will correct me.

I don't think I'm voting for Llama tomorrow, but I can't say for sure.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

One other thing I would add to this discussion of our old pal zeek is that he replaced Roxy rather quickly, and it is my belief that baddies get replaced more quickly than civvies, although this game may be an exception due to the relative lack of baddie BTSC.

That's something I can agree with (baddies being replaced sooner). But, Roxy has been replaced, everyone managed to vote in the last lynch, and we know Golden is already looking to replace in. So, if there were multiple people needing replacements, that might being something, but since there's at least one replacement on stand-by, I don't see that belief as mattering in this situation.

Turnip Head wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Another example of really bad Zeek logic:

zeek wrote:If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same.

Does anyone think this is a good reason to call someone out on something? This doesn't seem like a genuine thought process in the slightest. Just because you think someone would find you suspicious for something doesn't mean you automatically have to find another player suspicious for that same thing...

I think here, he meant himself. He said that you twisted his words, and that he wouldn't say stuff like that because it would end up in him getting called out for it, so it's not what he was saying. Don't know how you read it the way you did. Hmm.

No I think it was in reference to Snowman, not me. Here's the full post with the context:

zeek wrote:Need to catch up on the past few pages and look at the voting, but:

Turnip Head wrote:Zeek voted Snowman for implying there was a civ team. What.

That's bullshit. That's not what I said. Don't take my words out of context.

I voted for him for saying he wants to help his team going into the future. I didn't like the language used, teams imply BTSC for me. I disagree with everybody who has since said there is a "civ team" because I don't think there is. We're a community, not a team. If I said shit like that in a game I'd be called out for it, so I've done the same. You are steadily gaining my eye, TH.

Snowman hasn't addressed my point either.

The sentence I singled out seems like Zeek's further justification for voting Snowman. If that's wrong I'm sure Zeek will correct me.

Ah, okay, sorry. I read it wrong. Well then, let him answer it himself. I feel like I'm doing his job.


And LOL to your reply to my question regarding llama

Turnip Head wrote:Below is Zeek's vote post. Tell me if I'm bullshitting, fellow players, but it looks like Zeek's reason for voting Snowman was because he called the civ roles a "team" and according to Zeek they are instead a "community".

zeek wrote:I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Yeah, you are bullshitting. You said I voted for him for saying he was talking about the civ team. I didn't. He didn't say civ team, he said team. If he said he wanted to help the "civ team" (terminology I don't believe is accurate) then fine, vote for me because that would be weird. I voted for him because I don't think he meant the civs, instead his baddie team.

Not once on this site do I ever recall anybody classifying the civs as a team. Nevertheless, you're jumping on me for, admittedly, a weak vote. Which I acknowledged. What I take objection with is you manipulating my words. I didn't vote for him because he talked about civs being a team. I voted for him because civs don't generally get called a team, here included, and I think he could have been talking about a baddie team, his baddie team.

Honestly, you're not changing my mind either considering how little I'm seeing of the usual civ TH. Snowman has his own voice and he's not using it.

(Also, any STV bashing - all I'll say is the civs actually won the majority of the games there!)

zeek wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Below is Zeek's vote post. Tell me if I'm bullshitting, fellow players, but it looks like Zeek's reason for voting Snowman was because he called the civ roles a "team" and according to Zeek they are instead a "community".

zeek wrote:I don't feel good about voting for anybody, but I have to because I need to sleep. I've looked into most of the main players being talked about and this post pinged me harder than others.

Yeah, you are bullshitting. You said I voted for him for saying he was talking about the civ team. I didn't. He didn't say civ team, he said team. If he said he wanted to help the "civ team" (terminology I don't believe is accurate) then fine, vote for me because that would be weird. I voted for him because I don't think he meant the civs, instead his baddie team.

Not once on this site do I ever recall anybody classifying the civs as a team. Nevertheless, you're jumping on me for, admittedly, a weak vote. Which I acknowledged. What I take objection with is you manipulating my words. I didn't vote for him because he talked about civs being a team. I voted for him because civs don't generally get called a team, here included, and I think he could have been talking about a baddie team, his baddie team.

Right, but you justified it by saying there's no such thing as a "civ" team, so that he could ONLY be talking about a baddie team, i.e. a slipup. I think you saw what you wanted to see in Snowman's words.