Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Matt]

Mac, I think Epig is quite possibly one of those Mafia folk. Because reasons. I'd like to see his response to my inquires before I go further.

Btw I just read the last page of your ISO and apparently you no longer find Lorab suspicious. So you disagree with Epig about Lorab then?

[Golden]

Golden, as you know, I was quite involved in another game here at TS, as well as the fact that this game was bombarded with lunacy (and lots and lots of posts to go along with it) until Rico was lynched. Today was my first of three days off in a row, and I finally caught up. You will be seeing a lot more of me from here on out.

I slightly town read you because you've been quieter. I know people can switch it up at any affiliation, but at this specific moment in your mafia career I think its more likely you would have aimed to live up to the perception of civ Matt. Quieter is Matt is different Matt. It's not a particular strong town read, but it's my starting point on you for now.

I'm looking forward to hearing your epi reasons, when you are at a point you feel you can give them. How do you feel about llama? LC? JJ? Wilgy?

[Matt]

G2H

Llama - Bad

LC - Civ

3J - Bad

Wilgy - (whether civ or bad)

Alright peeps, time for sleep.

Another day off tomorrow. Another day...for justice!

[FZ.]

RIP the deadies. That's bad.

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.
As for Fuzz, maybe he did talk about someone who is bad, and the baddies thought they could just shift it to the "he was the most civvie" reason. I agree that at this stage, killing him just for being a player some has regarded as civ, is not a good enough reason. Especially when there are a lot of vocal players here who are considered a threat to a lot of people.
Speaking of that, I'm always worried when the vocal and those who lead the thread don't die during the night. Makes me paranoid.

*votes Boomslang*

Boomslang was the first vote I cast in the game, as I recall, because he made me suspicious back then:

Spoiler: show

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

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

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

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

And recently his sig vote twanged me in the twingiest of ways. So, Day 3 starts with a vote on him, foremost of my suspicions.

Never thought too much about it before, but Boomslang is a pretty kick ass handle.

That's funny. This was my first post of the game, on day 2 (I cut it short):

Hi

This post caught my eye:

Well, I had no idea this lynch result was even possible, but I'm pretty pleased by it. I think having a confirmed civ as a discussion resource is worth more than people realize: we all now know exactly where Rico's opinions are coming from, and the way people agree/disagree with his arguments take on a lot more meaning.

Regarding the night poll, I'm going to vote for Bos taurus because, like Boomslang, it starts with B. Disappointed there's no Dispholidus typus option :P

Blendy post, with what seems to be a logical and helpful point, when in fact, he's just stating the obvious and not really saying anything. I guess I'll have to go back and read Bullzeye now, but I had to react to that post.

Not sure what to make of him now though.

[FZ.]

Matt, you asked about my thoughts about Epi. I don't know why, maybe because at the end of last day I said that I relatively trust the people voting for Lorab. Is that why? In any case, nothing really bothers me about Epi. I think he's acting like someone who doesn't have much to lose, yet is engaged. He is focused on Lorab, and it was on the basis of the day before the last one, which was weird, but not in a way that made me think it's nefarious. His last post regarding Lorab, about wanting to just vote for her and see where we stand makes me feel even better about him. He's staying away from the big bandwagons, which made me doubt him last game we were both civs, so it doesn't really this game.

[FZ.]

A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm not sure. N1's proceedings reminded me a bit like Roxy and fingersplints hosting Syndicate, where the night results wouldn't necessarily come all at once. I don't see any reason for either zebra or DF to have had a "special" timing for their kill. Both their killers would have had to send their kills by the end of the phase.

The only oddity about zebra's kill (or killer) is zebra turning his posts into delirious swansong. If Fuzz killed her, it wouldn't reflect on that at all.

Anyway, I stick by my equation. If DF was killed by Fuzz, then who killed zebra. A teammate of zebra makes no sense. An opposite mafia makes, but in light of N2, how can we reconcile two mafia teams with third party killers?

Also, vigi mentality can or can't reflect in the vigi's activity. Fuzz simply locking on to DF doesn't imply he wouldn't have pointed his gun at zebra instead. Camouflage-y.

Do you think Turnip's post about "At least there was only one death" or whatever was just for fun then?

fwiw on RYM I've predicted my day 1 death at least once just out of a general gut feeling, and it ended up slandering the townie that I thought was going to do it, all the way up to lylo where I think scum had a flawless victory. There's also the possibility that Zebra was poisoned night 0 and had a chance (or maybe none) at curing it, if we're going to assume the foretelling is actually real and not a coincidence.

I like the idea that someone redirected a mafia nightkill, either Zebra shooting herself or some other mafia target being switched with Zebra, happening to be a very good/lucky call. Does DFaraday seem like an attractive choice for a night 1 mafia kill? I don't think there's much blackmail potential there, and if scum learned his role night 0, I wouldn't say his was particularly powerful.

Also, I don't see what night 2 has to do with it. You could have alternating kills per team as was the case in A World Reborn, you can also have a killer with a delayed-kill ability to explain the extra two deaths night 2 (assuming Fuzz did commit one of the two night 1 kills). I'm actually leaning a little towards a single typical mafia team, with maybe a smaller recruiter or other type of anti-town party as a balance. Part is just me maybe reading into mod stuff too much (Zebra simply labeled MAFIA in red; sounds like a default anti-town team as opposed to one of two teams), but also, I think two diametrically opposed mafia teams would try to hit bigger targets more. At least in A World Reborn, we generally tried to kill Witherdeath suspects until golden's super townie circle became a massive threat, and I think the more active power-player types are even more threatening when with partners. Also, I like that Mac brought up the No Compassion role from Talking Heads, because it explains lurky people being killed, but in that game it was also a supplement to a single large mafia team.

[HamburgerBoy]

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.

fwiw, in A World Reborn the consensus was to kill timmer for our night 1 kill, the reasoning being that he could be very threatening once he starts getting active in a game. I had no input on that of course not being familiar with him, but I think some civ in the thread even guessed the reason behind the kill.

[MacDougall]

Mac, I think Epig is quite possibly one of those Mafia folk. Because reasons. I'd like to see his response to my inquires before I go further.

Btw I just read the last page of your ISO and apparently you no longer find Lorab suspicious. So you disagree with Epig about Lorab then?

Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that.

You mean you notice the post I actually answered you in? The post I commented on Lorab was the one I replied to you in Matt.

And you literally just said you saw that I am not sure about Lorab anymore so to ask me whether I disagree with Epi and Lorab is straight up trying to create conflict. You are bad and you have earned my vote.

[MacDougall]

I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts.

This is such a far fetched astronomical theory. You think that the mods would intentionally unbalance their own championship game? It's so crazy it makes me think you're trying too hard to consider the kills weird.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

No time to talk much. Just want to say I agree with FZ about LoRab completely in reference to her answer about Burger. I'll adress LC's case whenever I get an opportunity.

I will make one quick point that people can take or leave:

I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

[FZ.]

Bea, Sorry to hear about your situation. Sounds terrible I hope things turn out better soon
I don't know how to help you. I joined on day 2, so it's a day less to catch up on. But I only read back from a little after the lynch of day 1. I'm trying to find my footing. I think you shouldn't dwell on the first day, because while you might miss some things, it's much better to discuss things with people live, than keep addressing things that have already passed.


Mac, what is your opinion of Juliets' ISO of BR? It's making me a little uneasy. While I get that she said she was going to do it to get you to trust her, it seems like an easy way to avoid looking for baddies while focusing on something she was asked to do. It's taken her a long time, and I got the feeling she was relatively trusting of BR, so why is she still wasting her time on that?


linki: Mac, I always dwell on NK that don't make sense to me. Sometimes I obsess too much to let it go. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose those people. Just makes no sense to me at all

[MacDougall]

No time to talk much. Just want to say I agree with FZ about LoRab completely in reference to her answer about Burger. I'll adress LC's case whenever I get an opportunity.

I will make one quick point that people can take or leave:

I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

Do you really think it's immoral for a baddie to say something like "jeez I've been snowed under at work" or the like as a cover when they are playing a role that literally requires them to lie? Because I don't think you do. It wasn't suggested that you were pretending your cat was run over man.

I agree that you wouldn't make up something truly tragic but I wouldn't put it past you to softly appeal to emotion and I certainly would be surprised if something so light was something you would consider in very poor taste or outright immoral.

[FZ.]

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.

fwiw, in A World Reborn the consensus was to kill timmer for our night 1 kill, the reasoning being that he could be very threatening once he starts getting active in a game. I had no input on that of course not being familiar with him, but I think some civ in the thread even guessed the reason behind the kill.

I already stated that Timmer would be a threat to baddies if he starts playing, but aren't there enough players that can pose similar threat and are actually playing now? I won't mention names. Like I said, the fact they are not dead makes me a little paranoid, LOL

[MacDougall]

Bea, Sorry to hear about your situation. Sounds terrible I hope things turn out better soon
I don't know how to help you. I joined on day 2, so it's a day less to catch up on. But I only read back from a little after the lynch of day 1. I'm trying to find my footing. I think you shouldn't dwell on the first day, because while you might miss some things, it's much better to discuss things with people live, than keep addressing things that have already passed.


Mac, what is your opinion of Juliets' ISO of BR? It's making me a little uneasy. While I get that she said she was going to do it to get you to trust her, it seems like an easy way to avoid looking for baddies while focusing on something she was asked to do. It's taken her a long time, and I got the feeling she was relatively trusting of BR, so why is she still wasting her time on that?


linki: Mac, I always dwell on NK that don't make sense to me. Sometimes I obsess too much to let it go. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose those people. Just makes no sense to me at all

It didn't come off fabricated to me but man she is stilted. I am trying to see her as a civ but her unflappable robotic style here is exactly what I saw in Reborn and she was bad and it's the only thing I have to go by.

Hmmm you seem to be inferring that they were all killed by the same party in your tinfoiling. Do you actually think all three were killed by the mafia?

[HamburgerBoy]

Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that.

This falls under the category of "X being X" again. Not going to make a list, here's just one to remind you of how Matt responds when pressured.

I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

I can basically vouch for this, although the post LC quoted didn't really register as an appeal to emotion to me (but I'm not a sports guy so I probably just don't appreciate what you're going through ). But yeah, I've never seen you try to guilt trip anybody or get pouty or anything before so if there's anything I see that looks like emotion, I'm not reading into that any way alignment-related. If you're genuinely frustrated, it doesn't really matter if it's because you're scum being threatened or town being threatened.

[FZ.]

No time to talk much. Just want to say I agree with FZ about LoRab completely in reference to her answer about Burger. I'll adress LC's case whenever I get an opportunity.

I will make one quick point that people can take or leave:

I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

Do you really think it's immoral for a baddie to say something like "jeez I've been snowed under at work" or the like as a cover when they are playing a role that literally requires them to lie? Because I don't think you do. It wasn't suggested that you were pretending your cat was run over man.

I agree that you wouldn't make up something truly tragic but I wouldn't put it past you to softly appeal to emotion and I certainly would be surprised if something so light was something you would consider in very poor taste or outright immoral.

I would add to that, that players that are really committed as civvies, and have to keep up that level of involvement when they are bad, often let RL interfere with the game more than they would let it when they are good. It might not even be a conscious thing, but for me, it's really stressful and hard to keep up the lies when I'm bad, so I let myself fall back on the real life things I need to do, whereas when I'm good, no matter how busy I am, I find myself drawn back to the game.
Maybe this wasn't really related to appeal to emotion, but it's something I'm wondering about regarding JJJ

[MacDougall]

Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that.

This falls under the category of "X being X" again. Not going to make a list, here's just one to remind you of how Matt responds when pressured.

It feels like you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of it.

[FZ.]

Bea, Sorry to hear about your situation. Sounds terrible I hope things turn out better soon
I don't know how to help you. I joined on day 2, so it's a day less to catch up on. But I only read back from a little after the lynch of day 1. I'm trying to find my footing. I think you shouldn't dwell on the first day, because while you might miss some things, it's much better to discuss things with people live, than keep addressing things that have already passed.


Mac, what is your opinion of Juliets' ISO of BR? It's making me a little uneasy. While I get that she said she was going to do it to get you to trust her, it seems like an easy way to avoid looking for baddies while focusing on something she was asked to do. It's taken her a long time, and I got the feeling she was relatively trusting of BR, so why is she still wasting her time on that?


linki: Mac, I always dwell on NK that don't make sense to me. Sometimes I obsess too much to let it go. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why they chose those people. Just makes no sense to me at all

It didn't come off fabricated to me but man she is stilted. I am trying to see her as a civ but her unflappable robotic style here is exactly what I saw in Reborn and she was bad and it's the only thing I have to go by.

Hmmm you seem to be inferring that they were all killed by the same party in your tinfoiling. Do you actually think all three were killed by the mafia?

I get that. I think Juliets is the kind of person who asks many "feel" questions and usually contemplates all aspects. I can completely relate to the "robotic style" you are talking about. I don't see the things I've come to expect from her.

No, I don't know what to assume about the kills. I'm not ruling out at least two of these kills were done by the same party. I don't remember which game it was, but in one of them, the mafia could execute their kill at any time they wanted. What if they chose to combine two kills together. I'm just throwing out thoughts, but I don't think it's really productive. We have no way of knowing this. But like I said, it bothers me when I don't understand the NK.

[Ricochet]

RIP the deadies. That's bad.

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts.

No way is that remotely plausible. What sort of a deal are you implying anyway? "Hey Mafia you can, like, kill three times tonight"? "Hey Mafia, can you clean up inactives so that we don't have to?" The Hosts have clear modkill rules for that and the design of the game should specify how many times a killer can act and on which Nights. This is completely bizarro Mafia you're describing. What made you think of this or propose this angle?

I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.
As for Fuzz, maybe he did talk about someone who is bad, and the baddies thought they could just shift it to the "he was the most civvie" reason. I agree that at this stage, killing him just for being a player some has regarded as civ, is not a good enough reason. Especially when there are a lot of vocal players here who are considered a threat to a lot of people.
Speaking of that, I'm always worried when the vocal and those who lead the thread don't die during the night. Makes me paranoid.

This keeps pinging me, for some reasons. Mafia can't target inactives/low-posters, if they can create distance between those posters' ideas/suspicions and themselves? The more people are active, the more suspicious they are? Is this your regular view on Mafia proceedings?

[HamburgerBoy]

I already stated that Timmer would be a threat to baddies if he starts playing, but aren't there enough players that can pose similar threat and are actually playing now? I won't mention names. Like I said, the fact they are not dead makes me a little paranoid, LOL

Dunno, my one game with timmer wasn't really fair because he took a lot of the blame because of an unforseen item/BTSC mayhem. I remember we had about a dozen or so candidates, narrowed down to golden or timmer, Turnip wanted golden but I guilt-tripped him by mentioning a post where golden had been looking forward to the game for three years, so we ended up going timmer, so I'd guess that mean he can be a really big threat when he's on.

In my experience, going after quiet players often happens the most threatening players are hounding mafia, and they want things to fade a bit. That doesn't always happen, because in a large game there are usually so many suspects named that mafia can get away with it, and it's wifom-y business regardless, but that's something I've been keeping in mind.

It feels like you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of it.

Nah, just disagreeing with your love to shift so readily between candidates for tone/wording reasons. You just said nearly the same thing ("You're just arguing with me for the sake of looking like you are contributing") when I disagreed about a specific post where you accused juliets of waffling as well. You were also a big advocate of the sig train and even tried to point out a fake conversation between he and I.

[MacDougall]

It feels like you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of it.

Nah, just disagreeing with your love to shift so readily between candidates for tone/wording reasons. You just said nearly the same thing ("You're just arguing with me for the sake of looking like you are contributing") when I disagreed about a specific post where you accused juliets of waffling as well. You were also a big advocate of the sig train and even tried to point out a fake conversation between he and I.

That is not what you were disagreeing with, you disagreed with my point.

I told you, I hate it when people defend others with opinion. It's especially the case when you look back at someone's civilian meta to defend them and point out that they are doing the same thing here. It's especially the case when the post you mention is only similar if you want it to be. The post you quoted Matt was far more aggressive, it was 5 times as long. There is much more different about it than is similar. You could have found any Matt post with a question mark in it.

What does me being a big advocate of the sig train have to do with anything?

[FZ.]

RIP the deadies. That's bad.

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts.

No way is that remotely plausible. What sort of a deal are you implying anyway? "Hey Mafia you can, like, kill three times tonight"? "Hey Mafia, can you clean up inactives so that we don't have to?" The Hosts have clear modkill rules for that and the design of the game should specify how many times a killer can act and on which Nights. This is completely bizarro Mafia you're describing. What made you think of this or propose this angle?

I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.
As for Fuzz, maybe he did talk about someone who is bad, and the baddies thought they could just shift it to the "he was the most civvie" reason. I agree that at this stage, killing him just for being a player some has regarded as civ, is not a good enough reason. Especially when there are a lot of vocal players here who are considered a threat to a lot of people.
Speaking of that, I'm always worried when the vocal and those who lead the thread don't die during the night. Makes me paranoid.

This keeps pinging me, for some reasons. Mafia can't target inactives/low-posters, if they can create distance between those posters' ideas/suspicions and themselves? The more people are active, the more suspicious they are? Is this your regular view on Mafia proceedings?

Way to twist my thoughts.

Since SD said she wanted to be replaced and understood it wasn't going to happen (and then Bea was said to replace her), it made me wonder if somehow the hosts were trying to think of creative reasons to balance the game if players asked to be replaced but they didn't have any people to do that. If for example, they give you an opportunity to get another kill, but there's a price, and you can only kill inactive players. Yeah, it's far fetched, and now it's taking over the discussion, but I sometimes voice my weird thoughts out loud.

What do I gain by doing that as a baddie, if my initial reason for targeting those players was to avoid all connections? You make no sense. All I'm saying is, to avoid all connections seems like a stupid idea to kill players. I would target those who pose a threat to me, that's all. And no, I didn't say that the more vocal you are, the more suspicious you are, did I? I said that I think vocal people pose more threat than the un vocal, and thus are better candidates for a NK, which didn't happen here.

linki: Exactly HB, Golden for example, is probably a threat to baddies. Why didn't take him out? Maybe he's on to someone, and it would be too obvious, maybe he's way off, or maybe he's bad. Either way, the fact he's still alive is something that I'm wondering about.

[FZ.]

Regarding my last comment to HB, I expect someone to say that this is exactly why baddies would keep Golden alive, but I know that unless someone was going strongly after me, in a way that would make the connection to strong to avoid, I would kill the people that would be able to take me down. So no, I don't get the NK of this night. Sorry. Now, let's move on.

[HamburgerBoy]

I was disagreeing with you on Matt because your case is on something that people seem to often use as a case against him, to detriment of town. I mentioned sig because he was the same case.

Aggression is an area I could actually agree that Matt looks different. He hasn't had quite as many theories as I saw from him during Talking Heads or A World Reborn, and does seem a little quieter. I was responding specifically to "Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that."; he asks questions more than most players, answers questions with more questions as a result, and I've seen loaded ones from him too. His loaded question to you seemed perfectly reasonable; you're mellowing out on LoRab, Epi is the biggest advocate of LoRab's lynch, when Matt asked your thoughts on Epi you responded "You first swine" (just a note, I literally laughed out loud over that response), so it sounds like he's just trying to get it out of you.

[Ricochet]

RIP the deadies. That's bad.

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts.

No way is that remotely plausible. What sort of a deal are you implying anyway? "Hey Mafia you can, like, kill three times tonight"? "Hey Mafia, can you clean up inactives so that we don't have to?" The Hosts have clear modkill rules for that and the design of the game should specify how many times a killer can act and on which Nights. This is completely bizarro Mafia you're describing. What made you think of this or propose this angle?

I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.
As for Fuzz, maybe he did talk about someone who is bad, and the baddies thought they could just shift it to the "he was the most civvie" reason. I agree that at this stage, killing him just for being a player some has regarded as civ, is not a good enough reason. Especially when there are a lot of vocal players here who are considered a threat to a lot of people.
Speaking of that, I'm always worried when the vocal and those who lead the thread don't die during the night. Makes me paranoid.

This keeps pinging me, for some reasons. Mafia can't target inactives/low-posters, if they can create distance between those posters' ideas/suspicions and themselves? The more people are active, the more suspicious they are? Is this your regular view on Mafia proceedings?

Way to twist my thoughts. Way to overreact.

Since SD said she wanted to be replaced and understood it wasn't going to happen (and then Bea was said to replace her), it made me wonder if somehow the hosts were trying to think of creative reasons to balance the game if players asked to be replaced but they didn't have any people to do that. If for example, they give you an opportunity to get another kill, but there's a price, and you can only kill inactive players. Yeah, it's far fetched, and now it's taking over the discussion, but I sometimes voice my weird thoughts out loud.

Nope nope nope. My understanding of SVS saying no replacements are on the way is that SD will have to go down into modkill zone, sadly, if she can't keep up. I don't see Hosts (least of all SVS and TH, leastest of all for this occasion) coming up with creative stuff. Anyway, you're talking about SD, but b24, timmer or Fuzz were never in replacing mode. The player most likely to fall in modkill danger was b24 I think. So your viewpoint doesn't amount much to anything.

What do I gain by doing that as a baddie, if my initial reason for targeting those players was to avoid all connections? You make no sense.

I have a lot to gain. There's no danger for me to be linked with wanting player X dead, since player X didn't say much on me or payed attention to me/teammates much. And I can send the civvies looking in other directions or try to dig for suspects, where it's not clear who said suspects might be. How can this possibly not make sense?

All I'm saying is, to avoid all connections seems like a stupid idea to kill players. I would target those who pose a threat to me, that's all. And no, I didn't say that the more vocal you are, the more suspicious you are, did I? I said that I think vocal people pose more threat than the un vocal, and thus are better candidates for a NK, which didn't happen here.

To kill low posters and avoid eliminating important, vocal players, is a perfect, non-stupid Mafia tactic, but maybe that's just me.

Also what?! You specifically said "vocal players" not being hacked off during the Night "makes you paranoid"? How can it not make you paranoid of those players specifically? To me it read, "I'm afraid that vocal/threadleaders are secretly baddies". Sorry if I got it wrong.

[HamburgerBoy]

Sorry, I always neglect the linki thing, that was irt Mac a few pages up.

[FZ.]

Rico, I think we're speaking in a different language, because you clearly didn't understand what I'm saying, or I didn't understand what you are.
To me, discussing this is redundant because a. I don't need to figure you out, b. I think the topic is not progressing us further. If you find me suspicious for this, explain exactly what it is that makes you think that. The "what would I have to gain" question, by the way, was specifically about me, not about baddies. You said you were pinged, and I said that if I were bad looking to leave no connections by this kill, what would I gain by speaking about all of this and throwing out those theories that obviously have no basis for them, but are just theories that run through my head. It just draws the attention back to me, which according to you was what the baddies were trying to avoid by killing those players.

[HamburgerBoy]

3AM my time, going to bed now, goodnights peeps.

[MacDougall]

I was disagreeing with you on Matt because your case is on something that people seem to often use as a case against him, to detriment of town. I mentioned sig because he was the same case.

Aggression is an area I could actually agree that Matt looks different. He hasn't had quite as many theories as I saw from him during Talking Heads or A World Reborn, and does seem a little quieter. I was responding specifically to "Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that."; he asks questions more than most players, answers questions with more questions as a result, and I've seen loaded ones from him too. His loaded question to you seemed perfectly reasonable; you're mellowing out on LoRab, Epi is the biggest advocate of LoRab's lynch, when Matt asked your thoughts on Epi you responded "You first swine" (just a note, I literally laughed out loud over that response), so it sounds like he's just trying to get it out of you.

Did you read my post. He said he read my ISO to deduce something that was in a post I wrote directly to him. He also referenced that I had cooled on Lorab suspicion in the same post as asking me if I disagree with Epignosis which considering Epignosis has a mafia read on her goes without saying. He's just pushing shit around and trying to act like he's contributing. He's bad, and you are probably his teammate.

[Ricochet]

Rico, I think we're speaking in a different language, because you clearly didn't understand what I'm saying, or I didn't understand what you are.
To me, discussing this is redundant because a. I don't need to figure you out, b. I think the topic is not progressing us further. If you find me suspicious for this, explain exactly what it is that makes you think that. The "what would I have to gain" question, by the way, was specifically about me, not about baddies. You said you were pinged, and I said that if I were bad looking to leave no connections by this kill, what would I gain by speaking about all of this and throwing out those theories that obviously have no basis for them, but are just theories that run through my head. It just draws the attention back to me, which according to you was what the baddies were trying to avoid by killing those players.

I agree with a. and b., but I'm now in full liberty to question players' input and this is exactly your input on the N2 kills. Since it confuses me, I can question it. You came with two theories, one that I find highly unlikely and with an example that doesn't actually apply to any of the N2 victims, so I don't understand why the point of putting that on the table was, and one that sounded like you find mafia teams targetting inactive/low posters not very common or logical - which to me, instead, makes sense; plus it made me curious why you find high posters as a threat or, rather, high posters not being killed as odd?

Ok, I get it now. I thought you/we were still debating baddie methods, with the "gain" question. Doesn't get you off the hook, though. Everyone should have a reaction to the kills, especially to such a bloody night, and my impression still is that you may have overcooked your reaction, via crazy theories or heavily questioning the mafia's angle.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Do you really think it's immoral for a baddie to say something like "jeez I've been snowed under at work" or the like as a cover when they are playing a role that literally requires them to lie? Because I don't think you do. It wasn't suggested that you were pretending your cat was run over man.

A time constraint or Internet hindrance is not an appeal to emotion.

I agree that you wouldn't make up something truly tragic but I wouldn't put it past you to softly appeal to emotion and I certainly would be surprised if something so light was something you would consider in very poor taste or outright immoral.

I'm straight up telling you right now that I would consider it to be in poor taste. I have criticized people who've done it as baddies before. It's not in the spirit of the game IMO and leaves townies in an unfair position.

What LC qualified as appeal to emotion was an emotional comment from me. Would I ever post that as a bad guy to advance my position in the game?

No.

Nobody has to believe me but it's the truth. I don't pull that shit, and I'm passionate enough about this perspective that I'm split-quoting on a cell phone during my lunch break to talk about it.

[MacDougall]

You are starting to venture into "I swear on my daughter's life I'm not scum" territory putting your own moral code on the line like this.

[Sorsha]

A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

I agree. I don't like this post by LoRab either.

LoRab- why would HB need to "suck up" to you? Have you guys played together so much that he would see you as an influence that he'd want to get on your good side in this game? I thought the only other game you've been in together was a world reborn.

What this post sounds like to me is you sucking up to BR in hopes that she will change her mind and stop suspecting you.

In other news.. I'm not going to quote it because it was really big, but I like the case that LC made on jjj. I've been shit at keeping up with the game but I remember agreeing with it when LC brought it up after zebra was killed and I'm not sure if I said anything at the time about it.

I'm not really sure I'm seeing civvie golden here either but I need to go back over his posts before I'm solid on that suspicion. His signature has that quote about civvie golden being a hurricane of self assurance and that is not what I'm seeing from him.

[thellama73]

The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

Bullsuit.

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.

YO8ur inexperience is not my fault. I've been part of such teams and I've hosted such teams. If a player is unlynchable due to being widely trusted, they make a good target for a mafia kill.

[thellama73]

Llama - Are you still suspicious of Mac or have you completely dropped it now that the two of you have successfully helped get sig lynched? MacD, what's your read of Llama?

My Mac suspicion was always weak. It was a Day 1 starting point to get the ball rolling, and it led me to more interesting avenues. He hasn't done anything lately that pinged me.

[thellama73]

Okay, I need to read a few people. I haven't given Lorab too much of a look yet, but I feel it's time I did. Epi's instincts are usually good enough not to be ignored. I agree with Rico that FZ's comment about the kills was weird, but I don't know if it's bad weird yet.

[Long Con]

The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

Bullsuit.

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.

Your inexperience is not my fault. I've been part of such teams and I've hosted such teams. If a player is unlynchable due to being widely trusted, they make a good target for a mafia kill.

I agree. Someone being a trusted or proven Civ in the thread is extremely likely to be nightkilled in my experience.

[thellama73]

See, Golden, this bugs me.

But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

Explain something to me. How can I, with my reasoning for voting Llama literally attributed to "I'm following the guy who can only speak in smileys," be your strongest town read when in the same post you claim you would criticize people voting off wagon without much explanation?

Fair enough Marsh. You realize, then, that if we're going to operate on the possibility of separate scum teams that catching scum provides very little credibility, correct?

I might've not said hypothetical or theoretical when referring to "2 wagons" in my short conversation with Golden, or maybe he didn't, mostly irrelevant and we've cleared up the confusion.

Yeah, that in addition to his compliments unnerve me. The entire chain of events feels like:
"Fuzz I like how you think"
"Fuzz engage me in this conversation"
"Fuzz is my strongest town read, I wanted to get his perspective to understand where he's coming from"

Now, I love my name being thrown around like hot potato, that's not the issue, but it feels like an accelerated process. Even taking into account the fact that "strongest town read" is a fickle thing on Day 1 this trust Golden has built feels artificially quickened, if that makes sense.

So he compliments people with the intent to legitimately compliment them? That bugs me, one of my pet peeves is feeling manipulated when people say nice things about me. That's why I prefer people to suspect me, I know where their mindset is.

You were engaging in what looked to Fuzz, and looks to me, like obvious buddying without much of a reason behind it. The only thing "strongest town read" type posts are useful for is getting the named person killed, which is what happened. Now, would it make sense for you to kill Fuzz after this? Probably not, but if there are multiple killers as there appear to be after last night, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Now, would it make sense for you to kill Fuzz after this? Probably not, but if there are multiple killers as there appear to be after last night, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them.

How do these three sentences make sense together? If it "probably wouldn't" make sense for Golden to kill the object of his proposed malevolent buddying, then why wouldn't it surprise you if he was one of the killers (Fuzz being among the dead)?

[thellama73]

Now, would it make sense for you to kill Fuzz after this? Probably not, but if there are multiple killers as there appear to be after last night, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them.

How do these three sentences make sense together? If it "probably wouldn't" make sense for Golden to kill the object of his proposed malevolent buddying, then why wouldn't it surprise you if he was one of the killers (Fuzz being among the dead)?

Because buddying is something the mafia does. Civs don't do it. The mafia also wouldn't care if their buddying got someone killed, where I would hope a civ would be more sensitive to the effects of their words.

[thellama73]

Okay, I read Lorab, and while I'm not sold on her being bad, the thing that stuck out to me in her posts was the way she quickly got defensive, and then suddenly switched to "suspect me all you like, I don't care! I'm civ and have nothing to hide!" It's a course correction worth noting.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Now, would it make sense for you to kill Fuzz after this? Probably not, but if there are multiple killers as there appear to be after last night, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of them.

How do these three sentences make sense together? If it "probably wouldn't" make sense for Golden to kill the object of his proposed malevolent buddying, then why wouldn't it surprise you if he was one of the killers (Fuzz being among the dead)?

Because buddying is something the mafia does. Civs don't do it. The mafia also wouldn't care if their buddying got someone killed, where I would hope a civ would be more sensitive to the effects of their words.

Civs absolutely do it. I do it in every game -- or at least I do the types of civ-defensive things that you're calling buddying. I think you're completely wrong in your perspective of broadcasting town reads and I know of numerous other players in this game that do it regularly too. You're not recognizing the most fundamental problem here: a mafia player consciously buddying a player represents putting a plan in motion, a plan that immediately disintegrates if that player is killed. Obviously in a multi-mafia team game the other team can do the killing, but that doesn't imply that the perceived "buddier" must be a mafioso.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Here's why I suspect JJJ. He first became my suspect when Zebra was revealed as the curser. The theory is that Jimmy's belief that Llama was the one who cursed him was fake. JJJ is an experienced player, and I don't think an experienced player would jump to the conclusion that the person who he had some suspicion about would be his curser, with any certainty. JJJ's Smiley posts condemned Llama and might have gotten him lynched if not for Rico's shenanigans. No waiting to have a discourse, not consideration that it was a frame, just right to the idea that Llama cursed him, and here's why.

How exactly am I supposed to convey complex thoughts like "maybe it wasn't llama, maybe he was framed, maybe this was a manipulative move" with freaking smiley faces? The point of cursing me is to severely limit my ability to communicate rational thought to the thread. I was able to do very little -- even casting suspicion upon people was a struggle. I did manage that after a while of trying, and it's pretty much the only thing I managed.

I was suspicious of llama, and I expressed as much in my smileys. I wasn't absolutely certain it was him and I did not convey that I was certain it was him. That's a complete lie from you frankly, because you can't have possibly supplied the posts necessary to evidence what you're saying I said. They don't exist.

What did I say when I was finally able to speak?

Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.

Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.

I said I don't know whether he cursed me. Maybe he has team mates. You've cast further doubts on this statement below, so I'll address it again in orange when I get there.

I expressed why I was suspicious of llama in reference to the curse. None of this is a reach, and none of it is far-fetched. I asserted a mafia player or his team mate might have cursed someone who was threatening them. It's not the only possibility in the universe, but that shouldn't need to be stated outright. No kidding.

Here's the bit you've continuously ignored, and it's enabled your entire case to built on a premise that is not true. I placed this caveat here for the specific purpose of expressing why my suspicion of llama existed even independent of the curse -- which clearly implies that at least some portion of my brain was conscious of the prospect that he wasn't connected to that curse.

The way that JJJ dealt with it, coupled with the way that Zebra interacted with the idea, leads me to the belief that it was a plan. To put it another way - starting on a little thought journey into the baddie BTSC, discussing how to take advantage of a cursing role beyond the meagre reward of messing with someone... what I saw with the two of them looks a lot like a plan.

Going from this post:

Spoiler: show

JJJ, like HamburgerBoy already pointed out, despite the fact that you couldn't talk, you managed to easily convey that you believed Llama cursed you, and why you believed he cursed you. Saying "I couldn't bloody talk" is disingenuous.

The fact that Zebra didn't agree with you and pursue Llama as a suspect makes complete sense as a baddie teammate. If Llama is going to flip Civ, then it looks good on her that she wasn't after him with you.

Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words.

How can you say there's no value in it, when Llama was on par with Lorab as the top lynch candidate, without Rico in the equation?

Now you have torn your shirt open and gone to super-civ mode with your very helpful breakdown of zebra's interactions... after you have been accused. That looks like scrambling to me.

Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words.

This isn't the only time he has defended against my theory with the notion that being unable to clearly communicate for one phase makes the framing plan valueless. That makes no sense, and here's why I say that: First, JJJ quite capably made the case in Smiley talk that he thought Llama cursed him and wished to lynch him for it. Second, JJJ gets to talk after the curse is over, and so would have plenty of time to make the case later on, so "can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words" is not realistic. Zebra's unexpected death and reveal changed the plan irrevocably, does anyone believe that Jimmy would not have continued hunting for Llama's blood based on the idea Llama cursed him?

Yes, the ability to talk later presents later opportunities to pursue a clearer frame maneuver in this hypothetical scenario. Do you think I consciously employed this delayed move for the sole purpose of pursuing a llama lynch? Instead of retaining my communicative capabilities throughout Day 1 so as to pursue multiple anti-town strategies to the benefit of my team? I've never been mafia-aligned with you so I don't know how you operate, but I think the strategy you're assigning to me is a pretty crappy one. There are so many better ways to take advantage of posting powers in a mafia-aligned game. If I were on Zebra's team and she had suggested this, I would have rejected it without much thought. No offense to llama, but getting him lynched just isn't that important.

Of course I would have, at least to some extent. This logic applies regardless of my alignment. Without the proof of Zebra's guilt inherent in her role flip, I would have know way of knowing with certainty that it wasn't llama. I still have no way of knowing with certainty that he wasn't in part responsible. It's not the only thing on my mind (as evidenced by yesterday's votes for MM and sig), but it's there.

Here's another thing, read this one and then consider:

Spoiler: show

I did not suggest llama definitely cursed me or imply I was convinced of that. I said something completely different from that. I literally said "I don't know". The difference is not at all negligible.

But what you said was this:

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

Unless I'm reading it differently than you intended it, that's saying "I don't know if Llama did this or if one of his teammates did it".

The difference is negligible, because they both mean "Llama is a baddie on the cursing team".

You are. The word "maybe" should not be glossed over. It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad (this is me speaking within the perspective that "town" isn't a "team" in the same manner as a mafia team). I was clearly suspicious of llama and I said so both in text and in emojis. I thought there was a decent enough likelihood that either he cursed me or a mafia team mate of his cursed me.

I was not certain that's what happened. I'm not certain of anything at all.

Here's the actual quote by Jimmy. Does it read like he's proposing two different possibilities? One, where Llama is bad, and the other, where Llama is Civ?

Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.

Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.

That line in pink is what he claims meant "It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad". The claims are quite obviously false when you read the post. Note who is asking him as well.

Well you've called the truth "quite obviously false", so I don't know what to tell you. Your proposed interpretation is incorrect. I've stated above the necessary evidence that I was not certain llama was involved with my curse, and that I made it clear in this very same post.

Another vaguer ping: After he got accused of this, he began an impressive, 'really-Civvish' ISO of Zebra. It was very helpful, and I believe several people thanked him for it. It's just the kind of thing that's easy to look at and say "this is good, solid contribution, very helpful to the Civs." What I see is one trick in the bag of tricks that an experienced player like JJJ knows will buy some cred.

I think that's pretty much it. Maybe a few gut feelings to shore it up. That's my JJJ case.

This is bull, frankly. You played in Talking Heads, yes? You did die early, but I'm sure you watched some of the game after that. You've seen first hand what JJJ does when a mafioso dies. I analyze everyone relative to that corpse. The only game in recent memory in which that didn't happen was Trees, and that's because I was mislynched before any bad guys died. To attack the timing of such a significant workload that I took on is quite manipulative. I did a great deal of work in those, and it took time to finish. That means I had to start and finish it when I had the time to do so. I can't just do that whenever I want. I have a life. I also live in Europe, and these phases end when I'm asleep. I have to sleep, wake up, go to work, fulfill other duties/obligations/desires in life, and then when the opportunity exists contribute to this Mafia thread.

I did it when I did it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I would add to that, that players that are really committed as civvies, and have to keep up that level of involvement when they are bad, often let RL interfere with the game more than they would let it when they are good. It might not even be a conscious thing, but for me, it's really stressful and hard to keep up the lies when I'm bad, so I let myself fall back on the real life things I need to do, whereas when I'm good, no matter how busy I am, I find myself drawn back to the game.
Maybe this wasn't really related to appeal to emotion, but it's something I'm wondering about regarding JJJ

I understand what you're saying, and it might even be true. I don't know. But can't it also be true for a civilian player who is expected to make 1,000 posts in every game? Whenever I finally am mafia-aligned here (as myself and not a sock), I probably will struggle to meet my perceived town meta.

I struggle to meet my town meta when I'm town.

Me too. I'm not going to be able to post as much as usual. Roll your eyes if you wish, but it's the truth.

When I said this, it was with this in mind:

I'm changing my continent of residence in a few months.

I'll go ahead and change that to white text. I'm changing my continent of residence in a few months.

My continent of residence.

This is a significant thing obviously, and it's a stressful workload right now for me. It's already had and will continue to have an impact on my performance in this game.

Here's my concern: people saw me put up 750 posts in Economic and 1450 posts in Talking Heads, at a very high word-count-per-post standard in both, and they can't help but associate those things with their read of me (or similar RYM performances for the RYMers reading me) -- even when I've said they shouldn't do that. It's not going to happen. Talking Heads especially was a one-time thing. I'm probably never going to do that again.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I should clarify that the first self-quote there was from the sign-up thread.

[Long Con]

Ok Jimmy, thanks, I think both sides of this are out there in enough detail to let others make their own judgements. What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.

Linki: I'd also like to say that my read of you is meta-independent. I think you have a few players who can only read you through the lens of your past games and expected behaviour, but I haven't played enough with you to have that baggage on my mind.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I said earlier that I agreed with FZ's commentary about LoRab. I'll expand.

A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

I think LoRab's comments about HamburgerBoy's defenses are not truly representative of his posts -- he has encouraged people to broaden their voting horizons beyond just her, but he hasn't abjectly defended her or "been too nice" by my observation. This does not look like a genuine read of Burger, and I agree with FZ that she appears to be appealing to BR's mindset more than developing an honest response. This looks like forced suspicion generated by a player who feels it's what she's supposed to do.

Epignosis: I might be willing to join your LoRab crusade. I'd also like to know what you think of other matters in the game though, your read on her is the only one of yours that I could state without checking.

[Dom]

I would add to that, that players that are really committed as civvies, and have to keep up that level of involvement when they are bad, often let RL interfere with the game more than they would let it when they are good. It might not even be a conscious thing, but for me, it's really stressful and hard to keep up the lies when I'm bad, so I let myself fall back on the real life things I need to do, whereas when I'm good, no matter how busy I am, I find myself drawn back to the game.
Maybe this wasn't really related to appeal to emotion, but it's something I'm wondering about regarding JJJ

I understand what you're saying, and it might even be true. I don't know. But can't it also be true for a civilian player who is expected to make 1,000 posts in every game? Whenever I finally am mafia-aligned here (as myself and not a sock), I probably will struggle to meet my perceived town meta.

I struggle to meet my town meta when I'm town.

Me too. I'm not going to be able to post as much as usual. Roll your eyes if you wish, but it's the truth.

When I said this, it was with this in mind:

I'm changing my continent of residence in a few months.

I'll go ahead and change that to white text. I'm changing my continent of residence in a few months.

My continent of residence.

This is a significant thing obviously, and it's a stressful workload right now for me. It's already had and will continue to have an impact on my performance in this game.

Here's my concern: people saw me put up 750 posts in Economic and 1450 posts in Talking Heads, at a very high word-count-per-post standard in both, and they can't help but associate those things with their read of me (or similar RYM performances for the RYMers reading me) -- even when I've said they shouldn't do that. It's not going to happen. Talking Heads especially was a one-time thing. I'm probably never going to do that again.

Then what the hell is this?

*votes JJJ*

[Dom]

I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.

fwiw, in A World Reborn the consensus was to kill timmer for our night 1 kill, the reasoning being that he could be very threatening once he starts getting active in a game. I had no input on that of course not being familiar with him, but I think some civ in the thread even guessed the reason behind the kill.

Was timmer not on our team?

I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

You don't say....


those two posts were supposed to be together.