Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[DharmaHelper]

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

[FZ.]

I hope I snipped these quotes correctly. Anyway, FZ since you haven't read LC's case on JJJ because it was too long, I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on this particular aspect of it, at least?

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.

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.

I think it's bull. I read that line exactly as how JJJ said it could mean when I first read it. That he doesn't know if llama is bad. By saying maybe he has team mates, he means maybe he's bad. I swear, that's how I read that. So building everything based on that is either naively twisted at best, or deliberately bad. This does not mean jjj can't be bad, but the reasons in here don't come close to convincing me of that, and from what I've read from him recently, he doesn't feel bad to me.

If anything, JJJ seems upset at llama for ignoring him, and interprets that as a sign of him being bad because why would he ignore him if a civ. That may be a flawed logic, but it doesn't make him bad. It's not even as if he's sold on it.

[FZ.]

DH, to spare us all another long post quote, I'm answering without it.

It's not that I don't think you're not attempting, I'm just not sure I buy the sincerity of your suspicions. Yeah it could just be disagreeing I guess, but I'm not sold on it yet. You seem like a logic person and the way you play as a civ, from what I've seen, is something I find easy to relate. The fact that I find myself disagreeing with you so much bothers me.

I get how that's different, but in what way did she not pursue her suspicion? She voted for her twice. I perceived it as a gut feeling more than a solid reason, thus her answer that she can't really build a case. Again, I can only judge by how I play when I think of what a baddie would do (unless I know that person's bad game really well), but if I were a baddie, I would try to build the case, just so I look like I can back up my votes and not look bad.

Uhm, she literally said "I won't bother to respond to LoRab's defense because it's too perfect."

I don't see it as a baddie tell, but you know what? I could be wrong :P

[Long Con]

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.

[DharmaHelper]

@FZ, I'd like to draw you attention to this in particular.

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.

Does that sound uncertain to you? The way JJJ sees it, his statement " 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" means that either llama as a civ cursed him, or llama/one of llamas teammates cursed him as mafia. Except that logically doesn't track.

[DharmaHelper]

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.

Should I?

[thellama73]

[quote="JaggedJimmyJay"]Llama, what is your read on me?[/quote
Civ.

[juliets]

Here is my ISO of Lorab. Note that I fully admit i don't have a good read on Lorab's meta except she uses the twirly whether good or bad.

This is the first post that indicates Lorab looks bad:

Spoiler: show

The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.

I not, def not. That was painful to type.

You've never played a game with me bad--how do you know how to read my tone? Oh, and wait, you thought I was bad last game, too. And were wrong. Just saying.

And here is the first post Mac was talking about:

Spoiler: show

I need to wrap my brain around this game. I don't think I've played a champions game before--although I did co-host one. Cupcakes FTW!! Just got back from vacation...way too tired to think through what roles are included and how that decision may have been made. Will ponder after sleep. To do so earlier would be scandalous.

I don't see Mac's point on this particular issue. Her first post seemed normal to me.

Another assertion by Mac that Lorab is bad but I don't see her vote for Ezekiel as reason to call her bad:

Spoiler: show

Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

You are very bad. Enrique in Star Wars bad.

No, I'm not.

In this post Jimmy records that Lorab's posts seem too well thought out and he tends to see that as a baddie trait. This is Lorab's response:

Spoiler: show

I enjoyed the format, but see the points against it. And, relatedly, can't remember what I was going to say in response to this because I can't look back at the quote. But, in general, I'll say that I write for a living--about 3/4 of my job is writing. I'm generally careful with language, or at least I try to be. This has come up a few times now, but it doesn't make me bad. It's just how I write. Like in every game I play, the suspicions against me are incorrectly reading my posts. But, eye me all you want. *twirls* (oh, and I think the green things are scarves)

Here is an instance where Mac doesn't call her bad but infers that something is baddie regarding her question:

Spoiler: show

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

There are several points in this next long post:

Spoiler: show

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.

I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.

I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.

It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.

The underlined portion of this quote shows Lorab being snippy about how she writes things. I though Mac and Rico had a good point but does this make her bad? It might show us a little about her mood, but not necessarily that she is bad.

Also in this post is Epi's accusation that Lorab is too comfortable. Lorab says she doesn't know what he means and I have to say I am not sure either. This may get explained further down the road. Also, Epi calls for someone to put pressure on Lorab so we can see if she cracks which he says would be indicative of baddie Lorab. I don't question his logic here I'm just not sure that she cracks when Epi puts pressure on in the future. (we'll get to that I hope)

I am going ahead and posting this part of the iso so I don't end up posting a gigantic document. I'm working on the rest of the iso now.

[Long Con]

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.

Should I?

You should. You have played with her a fair number of times... gut play is mostly how I've seen her operate, so I imagine we both saw the same lady.

And if that isn't something you recall, then read my sentence an alternate way, like "She's mostly a gut player, you should consider making this part of your knowledge."

[thellama73]

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

When did I go after JJ?

[DharmaHelper]

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.

Should I?

You should. You have played with her a fair number of times... gut play is mostly how I've seen her operate, so I imagine we both saw the same lady.

And if that isn't something you recall, then read my sentence an alternate way, like "She's mostly a gut player, you should consider making this part of your knowledge."

First of all, don't tell me what I "should know". It just makes me more suspicious of you. You don't know how I read you, how I analyze you, and how I remember your post play in games. You know how YOU do these things, but the things I know, remember, and analyze are not going to be the same as you.

[FZ.]

@FZ, I'd like to draw you attention to this in particular.

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.

Does that sound uncertain to you? The way JJJ sees it, his statement " 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" means that either llama as a civ cursed him, or llama/one of llamas teammates cursed him as mafia. Except that logically doesn't track.

No, I think that he sees it as if llama is bad, than he cursed him (or his team mates. Doesn't really matter. I don't think the team mates refers to the case, but rather to being bad), and if he doesn't have team mates (i.e., he's not bad), maybe it just wasn't him.

[FZ.]

Juliets, can you please just come on and share your thoughts on the things that are happening now instead of putting so much focus on the ISO's?

[DharmaHelper]

@FZ, I'd like to draw you attention to this in particular.

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.

Does that sound uncertain to you? The way JJJ sees it, his statement " 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" means that either llama as a civ cursed him, or llama/one of llamas teammates cursed him as mafia. Except that logically doesn't track.

No, I think that he sees it as if llama is bad, than he cursed him (or his team mates. Doesn't really matter. I don't think the team mates refers to the case, but rather to being bad), and if he doesn't have team mates (i.e., he's not bad), maybe it just wasn't him.

[Long Con]

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.

Should I?

You should. You have played with her a fair number of times... gut play is mostly how I've seen her operate, so I imagine we both saw the same lady.

And if that isn't something you recall, then read my sentence an alternate way, like "She's mostly a gut player, you should consider making this part of your knowledge."

First of all, don't tell me what I "should know". It just makes me more suspicious of you. You don't know how I read you, how I analyze you, and how I remember your post play in games. You know how YOU do these things, but the things I know, remember, and analyze are not going to be the same as you.

Touché. Carry on then.

[FZ.]

DH, we'll just agree to disagree. On the bright side, I will say this back and forth makes me feel better about you.

[DharmaHelper]

DH, we'll just agree to disagree. On the bright side, I will say this back and forth makes me feel better about you.

This discourse has given me a lot to think about I will admit.

[Golden]

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)?

Exactly JJ. This is what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that RadicalFuzz 'couldn't be lynched' is kind of silly anyway. He was taking heat on day zero. I call him my top civ read and suddenly a whole lot of people bandwagon on to that on their rainbows, but beyond me I never saw anyone give reasons for seeing him as civ.

And, as per the point I've been making all game.

SAYING YOU READ SOMEONE AS CIV IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BUDDYING. To claim it is, is utterly disingenuous. Llama just called JJ civ, does that mean (since he says that only mafia people buddy) that I should call llama confirmed mafia, because only mafia buddy? Because, thats where llamas logic takes you.

And it is actually ridiculous to suggest people should not say they read people as civ. If we took this approach, the town would literally never win the game.

[Golden]

Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

When did I go after JJ?

My impression. You have now cleared this up.

[Ricochet]

DH, we'll just agree to disagree. On the bright side, I will say this back and forth makes me feel better about you.

This discourse has given me a lot to think about I will admit.

BUDDYING

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

So just to be clear, your main issue is that you feel he's just saying the obvious and throwing what you already said right back at you, under the guise of making novel content?

Spoiler: show

In other words, what I'm doing right now to your post if I've read it correctly.

Was timmer not on our team?

Before you were recruited, birdswithteeth was on our team, but he had to leave so timmer rejoined as a replacement.

[thellama73]

Exactly JJ. This is what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that RadicalFuzz 'couldn't be lynched' is kind of silly anyway. He was taking heat on day zero. I call him my top civ read and suddenly a whole lot of people bandwagon on to that on their rainbows, but beyond me I never saw anyone give reasons for seeing him as civ.

And, as per the point I've been making all game.

SAYING YOU READ SOMEONE AS CIV IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BUDDYING. To claim it is, is utterly disingenuous. Llama just called JJ civ, does that mean (since he says that only mafia people buddy) that I should call llama confirmed mafia, because only mafia buddy? Because, thats where llamas logic takes you.

And it is actually ridiculous to suggest people should not say they read people as civ. If we took this approach, the town would literally never win the game.

Um, I was asked. Do you want me to ignore the question? That's completely different than volunteering "Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!"

[DrWilgy]

Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!

[Golden]

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.

I'm not going to win this fight.

Needless to say, I read both Long Con and llama as bad, and think their key intent here is to discredit.

Llama calls RadicalFuzz 'unlynchable' which is obviously extreme given I think about three players called him civ.
Long Con brings in 'proven civs' which Fuzz was obviously not, and calls them 'extremely likely' to be NKed, which is a clear exaggeration.

There are a whole lot of people who I would say right now are, overall, trusted civs. RadicalFuzz was one. I wasn't even saying he wasn't killed because of the conversation about him being a top civ... I just find it much more likely he was killed for it deliberately to put heat on those who said it and not merely because he was a top civ. And Long Con, I very much doubt even you could deny that the 'extremely likely' kill is going to be based on far more than such a simplistic and (in llamas words) 'obvious' explanation.

Llama's theory as to why Fuzz died makes him look like he was following through on the specific mafia agenda of the kill, to me.

[Golden]

Exactly JJ. This is what I've been saying from the start.

The idea that RadicalFuzz 'couldn't be lynched' is kind of silly anyway. He was taking heat on day zero. I call him my top civ read and suddenly a whole lot of people bandwagon on to that on their rainbows, but beyond me I never saw anyone give reasons for seeing him as civ.

And, as per the point I've been making all game.

SAYING YOU READ SOMEONE AS CIV IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BUDDYING. To claim it is, is utterly disingenuous. Llama just called JJ civ, does that mean (since he says that only mafia people buddy) that I should call llama confirmed mafia, because only mafia buddy? Because, thats where llamas logic takes you.

And it is actually ridiculous to suggest people should not say they read people as civ. If we took this approach, the town would literally never win the game.

Um, I was asked. Do you want me to ignore the question? That's completely different than volunteering "Wow, JJJ is the most civ guy around! He's so definitely civ, I can hardly believe it!"

Why is it completely different? If you ask everyone how they read someone, and they all say civ, does it not paint a target?

[HamburgerBoy]

Just read over the rest of the last two pages and I'm leaning against voting Jimmy now, especially in light of Dom jumping onto that. I'll vote thellama73 instead because I don't want to split things further, but I'll have more thorough reasons against at least a top 3 of suspects later. Mac is looking pretty scummy to me right now as well. I just arrived at work and don't need to get caught up in a big argument or post-search already.

[thellama73]

Just read over the rest of the last two pages and I'm leaning against voting Jimmy now, especially in light of Dom jumping onto that. I'll vote thellama73 instead because I don't want to split things further, but I'll have more thorough reasons against at least a top 3 of suspects later. Mac is looking pretty scummy to me right now as well. I just arrived at work and don't need to get caught up in a big argument or post-search already.

I hope I can make you see the good in me, HB.

[FZ.]

Just read over the rest of the last two pages and I'm leaning against voting Jimmy now, especially in light of Dom jumping onto that. I'll vote thellama73 instead because I don't want to split things further, but I'll have more thorough reasons against at least a top 3 of suspects later. Mac is looking pretty scummy to me right now as well. I just arrived at work and don't need to get caught up in a big argument or post-search already.

I'm interested in your thoughts on Mac. The one game I played with him as bad, he was the baddie that fooled me the most in that game. So what does baddie Mac look like?

[FZ.]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

[thellama73]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.
3. The way he was lying in wait to pounce on anyone who made the argument I made (seems pretty contrived)
4. The way he has been misrepresenting me since then (saying I went after JJ when I never did).

He's got it in for me, and I'm not sure why, but I do not interpret his actions as those of a civ at this time.

[Golden]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

As far as I can glean, he voted me for calling Fuzz my top civilian read, before Fuzz was nked.

[thellama73]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

As far as I can glean, he voted me for calling Fuzz my top civilian read, before Fuzz was nked.

It's more complicated than that. At the time, you didn't really have a good reason to think Fuzz was good, but made a very strong claim about it anyway. Then you doubled down on it. It just came across as extreme and unnecessary. Plus all the stuff I mentioned above.

[DrWilgy]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

Nope, I'm behind.

[FZ.]

llama, I have to say I'm a little worried about you? There are certain things I expect civ llama which I haven't seen this game. We haven't played together in a long time, but is there a reason why you would change how you play?

[Golden]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.
3. The way he was lying in wait to pounce on anyone who made the argument I made (seems pretty contrived)
4. The way he has been misrepresenting me since then (saying I went after JJ when I never did).

He's got it in for me, and I'm not sure why, but I do not interpret his actions as those of a civ at this time.

I don't have it in for you, as such. I feel LC is a more compelling lynch.

But - if you want to know why I suspect llama, here is the answer in a handy dandy response to Llamas 4 points:

1. Llama claims calling someone civ is buddying. You can judge for yourself whether you think calling someone civ is buddying. Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.
2. Unless llama killed Fuzz, he has no idea why Fuzz was killed. He is trying to push an angle on that.
3. Fuzz dies, and then llama says he was 'obviously' killed for having been called a top town read, and that the people who CALLED him their top town reads were therefore suspicious. Which, as I've pointed out, is full of logical fallacy (its chicken and egg. If Fuzz was killed for being a top town read, then why would he be killed for being apparently unlynchable by the people calling him a top town read? If the mafia were the ones calling him a civ, then they wouldn't be worried about the fact he had people calling him civ) but, to me, also sits with a common mafia strategy... make a kill with a plan on how you can pin that kill on others afterwards, and then execute the plan. And llama has admitted the logical fallacy, but continued to say I'm probably bad for it anyway.
4. Llama was having disagreements with JJ in the thread. They looked to me like he was reading JJ as bad. He clarified since that he wasn't, and I accepted that. This is hardly 'misrepresenting him since then'... its being incorrect once and admitting it.

And I also have another point to make on point number 2, but I'll do it in a separate post.

[Golden]

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

As far as I can glean, he voted me for calling Fuzz my top civilian read, before Fuzz was nked.

It's more complicated than that. At the time, you didn't really have a good reason to think Fuzz was good, but made a very strong claim about it anyway. Then you doubled down on it. It just came across as extreme and unnecessary. Plus all the stuff I mentioned above.

On day one, I already had four different things I considered civilian tells, all of which I said.

Saying someone is your top town read on day one is hardly extreme. And your 'double down' is me responding to the questions I was asked about it. It wouldn't have been more than a short sentence if Fuzz himself hadn't pointed out that he felt uncomfortable about it. Should I have ignored the questions and Fuzz's concerns?

[FZ.]

I'm going to bed. Will be back tomorrow to read the answers to some of the questions I'm interested in.

I would like to hear more from Epi and BR regarding other suspicions, as well as hear from Juliets about any suspicions now that Sig is dead.

[Golden]

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.

This is the other thing re point 2. Llama's choice of talking about my inexperience indicates an acceptance that I have not been involved in such discussions.

If I genuinely suspected someone had been buddying specifically to put a target on someones back (which is llamas premise) then I couldn't possibly believe they would have no experience of that being a factor for mafia teams. Or else I might look at this and go 'oh, if golden doesn't have that experience, perhaps my theory is wrong'.

Llama, however, remained unperturbed by this. It didn't make him think twice about his suspicion at all.

[juliets]

Juliets, can you please just come on and share your thoughts on the things that are happening now instead of putting so much focus on the ISO's?

I just caught up. FZ, I'm isoing first BR and now Lorab because Mac asked me to in order to help find baddies. Now you are asking me to abandon that task and weigh in on more current things. I will stop on Lorab for awhile and address what you want me to address.

I do not think Jimmy is bad. My read on him, the vibe, is that he is good. Nothing that has been said about him makes me change my mind.

As for LC and llama, I have no read on LC though i will read his posts in isolation after I finish this post, and llama I'm leaning good on but want to read his posts too. These two have not been in the front of my mind. I'll come back when I have read them.

Is there anyone or anything else you particularly want my read on?

[thellama73]

llama, I have to say I'm a little worried about you? There are certain things I expect civ llama which I haven't seen this game. We haven't played together in a long time, but is there a reason why you would change how you play?

I'm not consciously changing how I play. The last few games I've played, I've been terrible about participation and my ability to keep up. I'm a lot busier now than I used to be. Maybe I'm not as intense as in earlier games, I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but it's probably something to do with lack of time combined with the mellowing wisdom of age.

[juliets]

I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.

llama, why did you vote Golden?

And what's up with Wilgy's vote? Do you have anything more to say than that joke post?

It's primarily a placeholder in case I forget to vote before tomorrow, when I have evening plans. It will probably change. But I do find Golden's activity really suspicious lately.
1. The way he buddied up to RadicalFuzz
2. The way RadicalFuzz was killed for it.
3. The way he was lying in wait to pounce on anyone who made the argument I made (seems pretty contrived)
4. The way he has been misrepresenting me since then (saying I went after JJ when I never did).

He's got it in for me, and I'm not sure why, but I do not interpret his actions as those of a civ at this time.

I don't have it in for you, as such. I feel LC is a more compelling lynch.

But - if you want to know why I suspect llama, here is the answer in a handy dandy response to Llamas 4 points:

1. Llama claims calling someone civ is buddying. You can judge for yourself whether you think calling someone civ is buddying. Also, my conduct re Fuzz is normal for my civ behaviour, something llama has ignored.
2. Unless llama killed Fuzz, he has no idea why Fuzz was killed. He is trying to push an angle on that.
3. Fuzz dies, and then llama says he was 'obviously' killed for having been called a top town read, and that the people who CALLED him their top town reads were therefore suspicious. Which, as I've pointed out, is full of logical fallacy (its chicken and egg. If Fuzz was killed for being a top town read, then why would he be killed for being apparently unlynchable by the people calling him a top town read? If the mafia were the ones calling him a civ, then they wouldn't be worried about the fact he had people calling him civ) but, to me, also sits with a common mafia strategy... make a kill with a plan on how you can pin that kill on others afterwards, and then execute the plan. And llama has admitted the logical fallacy, but continued to say I'm probably bad for it anyway.
4. Llama was having disagreements with JJ in the thread. They looked to me like he was reading JJ as bad. He clarified since that he wasn't, and I accepted that. This is hardly 'misrepresenting him since then'... its being incorrect once and admitting it.

And I also have another point to make on point number 2, but I'll do it in a separate post.

[MacDougall]

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

Do you feel like you shouldn't have to explain your advocacy, especially as one of the earliest votes, for a train that turned out to be incorrect?

There was absolutely no context for HamburgerBoy mentioning it. And no, not really. The majority of the thread agreed. If I recall, you voted for him too?

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.

So just to be clear, your main issue is that you feel he's just saying the obvious and throwing what you already said right back at you, under the guise of making novel content?

Spoiler: show

In other words, what I'm doing right now to your post if I've read it correctly.

Was timmer not on our team?

Before you were recruited, birdswithteeth was on our team, but he had to leave so timmer rejoined as a replacement.

No, my main issue is that he is pretending to scum hunt.

Just read over the rest of the last two pages and I'm leaning against voting Jimmy now, especially in light of Dom jumping onto that. I'll vote thellama73 instead because I don't want to split things further, but I'll have more thorough reasons against at least a top 3 of suspects later. Mac is looking pretty scummy to me right now as well. I just arrived at work and don't need to get caught up in a big argument or post-search already.

Please elaborate.

[thellama73]

I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.

I already responded to that, but I'm happy to do so again. First, I didn't say calling someone a civ means buddying up. He didn't just say Fuzz was a civ. He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

[Marmot]

Quick question for anyone who cares to answer:

What Syndicate game comes to mind first when you think "civilian llama"? I'll use this information to check some gut suspicions of mine against meta.

Anything that is not Zelda Mafia (Ocarina of Time)

[Ricochet]

I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.

I already responded to that, but I'm happy to do so again. First, I didn't say calling someone a civ means buddying up. He didn't just say Fuzz was a civ. He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

As a civ, Fuzz has been wary before (Talking Heads Mafia) of receiving blank civ reads for his game, instead of being scrutinised, if that's a factor for you. Although, if Fuzz has been wary of Golden's praise specifically, I guess that's a different angle.

[Ricochet]

Quick question for anyone who cares to answer:

What Syndicate game comes to mind first when you think "civilian llama"? I'll use this information to check some gut suspicions of mine against meta.

Does not compute.

[motel room]

Reading through

Dom, I said I don't use appeal to emotion to progress a baddie strategy, not that I never express emotion in any game.

This is so subjective it hurts.

It also seemed like a shot at Bea, tbh.

I didn't read JJJ's stuff up there in any way as a shot at Bea. And that you'd frame it in that way seems gross.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Rico, you're obviously the most trustworthy player in the game. Everything you say can automatically be seen as a genuine perspective, and I value your reads significantly with that in mind. Who do you find suspicious right now from your undead roaming zombie abomination vantage point?

I have to get to bed. I'll leave a vote on LoRab. All three of my reds are vote-worthy, and I could probably be sold on some of the oranges.

[Golden]

He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

No I didn't 'repeatedly' go 'out of my way' to heap 'glowing praise' on Fuzz's civvieness. I had a conversation with Fuzz, mostly to disagree with his ideas by the way, because he was saying things I didn't agree with, and over the course of that conversation questions were asked which I responded to (not just from Fuzz) and reactions were given which I addressed.

I engaged him in conversation, and then at the end I was honest about my conclusions. He said he felt my read was artificial, and people asked me questions about why I had it, and I responded with the reasons I found him to be civ. After the point that I gave those reasons, neither Fuzz nor anyone else continued to claim that it felt artificial until you have now, and I did not after that point 'repeatedly' make claims about Fuzz's civvieness.

It was all part of a single conversation, in which I responded to questions and addressed Fuzz's concerns with me. I'll ask you again - would you prefer I just ignored the questions and ignored Fuzz's concerns?

In summary, if you want to call saying someone is my 'top town read' 'glowing praise', then ok, I'll cop to doing that... once.

But I neither did it repeatedly nor went out of my way to do it.

In addition, llama:

1) You have avoided addressing any of the points I've made against you, other than one - that you suspect JJ. You were happy to call that one out and respond to it. But you've ignored literally every other question without making a response. Interesting selectiveness. Notably, this is also what you were doing to JJ back on day zero.

2) You keep overstating things. In epi's terms, this might be 'use of adverbs' but I'd also say adjectives and other intensifiers. Things like "Fuzz was obviously killed because...", "golden has repeatedly", "golden has heaped glowing praise". These intensifiers have the effect of making your points look like facts, when in reality they are overstating the facts (or, in some cases, assuming them entirely).

[juliets]

I read through llama's posts and read him as neutral for now with a leaning toward good (top half of the yellows for those of you who like rainbow lists). However llama, I would like to hear your responses to Golden's points below. Some of them make me uneasy, like saying calling someone a civ means they are buddying yet you did it yourself.

I already responded to that, but I'm happy to do so again. First, I didn't say calling someone a civ means buddying up. He didn't just say Fuzz was a civ. He repeatedly went out of his way to heap glowing praise on Fuzz's civvienes, a fact which Fuzz pointed out as odd himself. JJJ asked me what my read on him was and I replied "civ." I'm sure you can see how those are not the same thing at all.

Sorry I had to make you explain it again and yes I can see how those two things are not the same.