Page 53 of 169
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:22 am
by Draconus
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:We're 9 hours to the deadline and I'm set to be lynched.
That's dumb. Those who've voted for me or vote for me later bear an obligation to explain why, and if LC's case is a significant reason they need to show me why my response was inadequate. Anything less is opportunistic bullsuit. LC not included in this demand, I've already talked to him enough.
FWIW I don't see you as being bad. I have nothing to back this up, unfortunately. It's mostly gut/tone/vibe. But I have enough faith in my gut to help you out. That and I need to vote now because
my bosses moved our Wednesday deadline to tomorrow due to one person being out of town. So I will be here at work all night. I have had zero energy this week and I'm quite fed up with these bs last minute changes.
Anyway, JJJ, I'll give you a chance to tie the vote. It will be up to fate or the others after that.
Voting llama.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:25 am
by Draconus
Should probably also mention that if I had to make a rainbow list, Jay would be yellowish and llama would be orange. Again, gut, but this is why I'm willing to vote this way.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:35 am
by JaggedJimmyJay
Draconus wrote:Anyway, JJJ, I'll give you a chance to tie the vote. It will be up to fate or the others after that. Voting llama.
Chance accepted. Voting
thellama73.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:37 am
by JaggedJimmyJay
I can't find a Shawshank Redemption themed game on this site. I might just be clueless. It's the one FZ referenced when I asked for the sake of getting meta information on llama. If it was multiple years ago it's probably not very useful anyway. If anyone could provide a more recent town llama game that might provide me with any insight, that'd be swell.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:51 am
by Draconus
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:05 pm
by juliets
HamburgerBoy wrote:So, re-reading llama's post history, particularly the day 3 stuff, the biggest issue I have isn't what he's saying as much as how he's staying on this one "target painting" issue, not to mention focusing just on golden rather than considering that many people were leaning town on Fuzz after the early day 0 stuff. llama is at least consistent though; he pressed the same suspicion of golden
day 1 so it's not like he came up with this view only just now. I still find Dom's day 0 intention to vote for llama among the most suspicious things against the latter. I don't trust Dom in this game, and that early stuff looked like transparent distancing/soft-bussing to me. The other thing would be the word of Syndicate players that know what town llama looks like; FZ and golden both look fairly sure, I'm not too suspicious of either of them, and I also trust both quite a bit when it comes to their meta-game. llama isn't my top pick, but I feel keeping my vote here for now isn't a bad idea.
Ham Boy who is your top pick and why wouldn't you put your vote on them?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:14 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Thanks, Draconus.
I have a big case on Boomslang right now, but when I preview the post the format is all jacked up and the text is all over the left margin. WTF.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:16 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Boomslang, part one
Boomslang's name is getting tossed around a lot and I have participated by calling him an orange. Tasty fruit, less-than tasty rainbow position. I'll check his posts out to see if the blank gut read can be given substance.
Here's his Zebra interaction review, which I called "team mate-compatible, but not necessarily team mate-indicative".
Boomslang wrote:MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.
Sure am glad you can determine that off of one post. Surprised you haven't retired off of lottery winnings, with psychic powers like that.
Sarcastic response to a Night 0 poop fling from Mac. He engages the accusation without rejecting it. I don't know that this is telling to me, but if there's any credence to the notion that baddies are more proned to awkward avoidance of lying in their answers to "you're bad", then this is seemingly a valid example.
Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.
If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?
But if the "case" against me, as far I understand it, is that I "buddied up" to Tranq as a Mafia defense, why aren't you including him in this list?
MM lists three relatively arbitrary names for lynch candidacy including Boomslang, and Boom offers a somewhat curious response -- insisting that a Tranq connection should exist. This says to me that if Boomslang is mafia-aligned, Tranq is probably not on his team.
Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.
But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.
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.
Boomslang wrote:Anyway, back on topic. I'm going to add my strength to the Watari vote. First reason is sentimental: I was that guy! Second reason is practical: he's a great role. Even on the off chance that this poll does let us determine a role that gets added, I think he's a good choice.
This is a minor inconsistency in his mindset about the Night 0 vote. I didn't place a great deal of significance upon the Night 0 vote (it's a continuing struggle for me to commit myself to that phase, I haven't cared about it in any game yet), so I can't bring myself to be too bothered about this. But the observation is made, so there you go.
Boomslang wrote:Look, Tranq didn't make any other contribution to Night 1, and his only post today is commenting how many pages are up already.If we were actually bad together, I would've encouraged him to post a lot more and engage with my "defense." I, as a civ, was giving him the benefit of the doubt, nothing more.
DH suggested Boom was being too defensive of Tranq on Night 0, and this was Boom's response. The highlighted portion is WIFOM, which isn't inherently a red flag for me. People do this as town often including me. WIFOM must be judged for how realistic it seems within one's perspective of the player employing it. In this case I'd say Boom's claim is mildly believable, but only mildly. My concern is that Boom seems willing to grant here that he still
would defend Tranq in the same way if they're both Mafia, but he'd encourage his team mate to respond to it differently. This means he's assessing Tranq's behavior and not his own -- even assigning responsibility for his own self-meta to the non-contributions of Tranq. I would say this is relatively suspicious.
Boomslang wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:Also, since when is "Indy" synonymous with "Better let this person win the game"
THANK YOU.
Also, been reading over the llama/sig exchange. Sig starts out strong, with some good points about the Vocaroo medium, then devolves into fluff/talking about fluff. I'm kind of surprised Sig hasn't taken other swings at people, instead keeping the conversation primarily about that single jokey post. I'd say that's worth one 
out of three.
Linki @Rico: What makes you say that? There have certainly been indie roles in the games from which this one is drawing.
Linki @Mac: This is a guessing game, but if a role gains power from votes, then it's least powerful at the start. Easier to actually lynch?
This doesn't read well to me. Boom acknowledges that sig started out strong, but allows the focus of his comment to be distinctly and entirely negative by the time the reader has finished it. He criticizes sig's focus upon responding to accusations of fluff, which strikes me as unfair -- sig was being accused and he responded to those accusations. That's what people do in Mafia games regardless of alignment. That he didn't "take other swings at people" is a direct result of his focus upon combating his accusers. That's the nature of defending oneself substantively.
Boomslang wrote:Also, since Mac is around: do you still think I'm bad? Your basis for that was the presumed me-Tranq teamup, IIRC; Tranq has given us no comment on anything of consequence, while I'm calling him out for that.
Linki w/Rico: I don't think you answered the question (unless it was with that shrug, in which case why would you make an unsubstantiated claim?): I asked what made you think there were no indies in the game, not if you wanted them to win.
Second linki w/rico: Mac hasn't added anything to his Lorab suspicion in this phase as far as I can tell. There was a lot of stuff in Night 0, but nothing in Day 1. In fact, the only interaction besides his vote during the day seems to be vaguely jokey/defensive?
MacDougall wrote: Fiend, you are using Lorab's own smiley against her!
ARRGH SO MUCH LINKI
He's engaging suspicion, and his focus remains upon the perceived link with Tranq. He is again asking someone to get a read on him based upon
Tranq's actions. This does not make sense to me, and it strikes me as a contrived approach to alleviating suspicion.
Boomslang wrote:Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.
See, now this is interesting. "More relevant opinion." If you believe I'm bad, why aren't you trying to convince more people? You seem like you could have the support of Mac and Zebra, at the very least. Some of these llama votes, particularly yours, feel rather opportunistic.
I think Boom raises a point about LC here that I think could prove rather useful at a later juncture of this game. I think the potential alignments of LC, Boom, and llama can all be checked against this post, because there is an opportunity here to investigate team mate relationships between all three -- particularly given the inclusion of Zebra in Boom's thought process.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:17 pm
by Marmot
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Thanks, Draconus.
I have a big case on Boomslang right now, but when I preview the post the format is all jacked up and the text is all over the left margin. WTF.
That usually means you didn't end a quote inside of a spoiler tag that started in the same one, or something like that.
Linki: Never mind.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:19 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Boomslang, part two
Boomslang wrote:Alright, I have to go record some music and must vote. I don't think Rico is mafia, I think Llama is civ, and haven't really considered the Lorab arguments. Therefore, I'm going to leave a protest vote on Mac: as has been noted previously, his playing is not that different from Rico's, but he's being very defensive of it and was blatantly hypocritical when he compared his own baseless accusation to the one MM made about him. *votes Mac*
Linki w/Rico: Tranq should speak up, true facts.
[/quote]
His Mac vote is rather throwaway, but he does provide reasons for placing this vote and for avoiding the bigger options.
Boomslang wrote:I'm all caught up now as well. People are doing a good job following up on the Rico and Zebra aftermath (skimming through JJJ's posts in particular, dude put in a load of work.
Must be working out the frustration over that Bengals game... I'm from Cincy, and my heart is utterly broken.) So I want to poke at the issue Matt raised about Draconus faking the curse.
Matt definitely raised that suspicion midway through Day 1, so it's not a random shot in the dark.
Matt wrote:
Anyone notice that Draconus has posted in nothing but questions since the Day started? Another curse?
So either there are two curse roles, or one of Drac and 3J are faking. Or it's just wildy coincidental that Drac has posted in all questions since Day started. I guess he can clear that up with his next post.
He then asks Drac who could have cursed him. Drac responds with what I read as an honest and reasonable post, based on evidence from before the curse could have happened:
Draconus wrote:Just scrolled the last page and saw this. Good question, Matt. I haven't the slightest clue. But it may have something to do with me saying "I already know what I'm going to say on Day 1" during Night 0. So maybe they wanted to make me look bad by preventing me from getting my thoughts across. Just speculating here.
However, the first post he makes after that response, Matt talks right past Draconus. He doesn't engage the point about Draconus's Day 0 post, instead taking what seems to me like an arbitrarily skeptical stance:
Matt wrote:I disagree with 3J and think we should look at Draconus next. In the signup thread, SVS said there were up to 60 roles, so when it came down to cutting thirty of them, she and Turnip decided to keep TWO curse roles?
Eff that, lynch that Drac!
So, two questions:
1) To Matt: what makes you so sure the hosts didn't use two curse roles? Why would Draconus intentionally draw attention to himself through odd posting behavior, especially given the timing of JJJ's first smiley post?
2) To Draconus: what would you have said Day 1 had you not (presumably) been cursed? Or is that still relevant?
Into Day 2 Boom's focus fell upon Matt. I can understand why someone who doesn't know Matt well (and his affinity for outside-the-box theorizing) might perceive this as suspicious. I don't know how familiar Boom and Matt are with one another. That information would help me to make a judgment about this.
Boomslang wrote:Juliets and Golden, I agree. The question that follows, then, is why Matt doesn't seem to agree with this line of reasoning.
Matt wrote: I disagree with 3J and think we should look at Draconus next.
This bit suggests to me that Matt's looking to devalue JJJ's analysis of Zebra interactions. Perhaps he's worried that JJJ will dig something up that could damage him or his team?
This is a bit of a reach, I think. Matt disagreed with my perspective of Draconus, who Matt had already been casting suspicion on. I don't think his disagreement with me on a player he was focusing on before my analyses was an effort to devalue my analyses. He just didn't agree with them. I might call this an effort by Boom to devalue Matt's suspicion of Draconus.
Boomslang wrote:I'm running low on time before class, and I don't think I'll be able to vote after that. Quite disappointed in Drac's lack of posting today. I think the JJJ case is overblown; his effort with the smiley curse alone, when as a baddie he could have safely played it cool, makes me lean civ on him. Lorab's defense seems genuine, while sig is much more flippant. I don't like the games he played with smileys in a recent post, in particular; it's self-conscious, not natural. I'll put my vote *on sig* unless I find time on a class break to read more and change my mind.
Linki w/Golden: Good illustration of the difference between civ read/buddying. Worth keeping in mind, imo.
At least he's on my side.
I do somewhat like that he went against the grain a bit by standing up for LoRab, but he also went very much with the grain by returning to his anti-sig stance.
Boomslang wrote:Long Con wrote:*votes Boomslang*
Boomslang was the first vote I cast in the game, as I recall, because he made me suspicious back then:
Long Con wrote:Epignosis wrote:Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.
What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
And 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.
Do you think Tranq is civ? Do you think his behavior over the past few nights has changed the value of that (very early) post of mine?
It's Day 3.0 and I'm still seeing this -- Boomslang asking people to read him based upon the behavior of someone else (Tranq). I do not like that.
Boomslang wrote:MacDougall wrote: 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?
Boom is giving Mac a little more flak for his part in the sig lynch than I would expect from someone
who participated in the sig lynch.
Boomslang wrote:Can we get anything out of nijuukyugou, Spacedaisy, or Tranq? Doesn't it feel like at this point in the game we should be able to have some sort of read on any of them? Hasn't Tranq not claimed business as an excuse, opposed to the other two of them?
Tranq wrote:sig wrote:The people voting for me are either lurkers who voted for the largest lynch wagon or people I've suspected or Mac who thinks he can read my scum game but can't.
Did i vote for the wrong player?
Does this feel kind of sarcastic/mocking to anyone else? Do we have anything else to go off of regarding Tranq?
Obligatory
mention the lurkers post, including yet another instance of asking people to read Tranq.
~~~
There are more pings than positives. My brain agrees with my gut, Boomslang is a suspect. I'd probably be willing to call him a red even.
I hope I didn't lose any content or jack up the format when I split this in half.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:31 pm
by thellama73
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:thellama73 wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Llama, what is your read on me?[/quote
Civ.
Based on what?
Basedon that I don't see anything about you to make me thin you're bad and my default read is civ unless I have reason to think otherwise.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:32 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
I'm probably not going to be available at the deadline, so if anyone wants to engage me in discussion it needs to happen soon.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:35 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
thellama73 wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:thellama73 wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Llama, what is your read on me?[/quote
Civ.
Based on what?
Basedon that I don't see anything about you to make me thin you're bad and my default read is civ unless I have reason to think otherwise.
You're not concerned that I am trying to frame you as being connected to my curse, or that my suspicion of you is otherwise motivated by evil?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:41 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
People keep calling someone else in this game "JJ" and it's confusing me. 
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:55 pm
by Ricochet
JJJ, why switcheth thou from Lo'Rabh to Llhama?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:03 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:JJJ, why switcheth thou from Lo'Rabh to Llhama?
They're both red reads and one of them currently is in position to be lynched over the only confirmed townie in the game for me aside from you (JJJ). I could consider a mass exodus to Boomslang if anyone is interested. I like my case.
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:08 pm
by Epignosis
I'll start with this.
a2thezebra wrote:Boomslang
sig
Long Con
MacDougall
Matt
juliets
a2thezebra wrote:In order of most to least suspicious.
Reverse order.
juliets is switching it up, with her "ISO" business to appease MacDougall. That alone is enough to make me suspicious of her. juliets got a soft suspicion from zebra:
a2thezebra wrote:juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.
I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.
Posts like these offer mafia (like zebra) an open door to pivot to a harder suspicion in case a teammate is going down.
++++
zebra didn't have any meaningful interactions with Matt.
++++
MacDougall and zebra went back and forth organically enough for me to believe they're not on the same team.
++++
If Long Con's mix-up in his exchange with zebra was manufactured, then bravo- it's fooled me. I don't think they are on a team. I also feel like his case against 3J is genuine.
++++
sig was good RIP
++++
Boomslang is my top civilian read.
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:13 pm
by juliets
Epignosis wrote:I'll start with this.
a2thezebra wrote:Boomslang
sig
Long Con
MacDougall
Matt
juliets
a2thezebra wrote:In order of most to least suspicious.
Reverse order.
juliets is switching it up, with her "ISO" business to appease MacDougall. That alone is enough to make me suspicious of her. juliets got a soft suspicion from zebra:
a2thezebra wrote:juliets wrote:Zebra, I would also like to know why I am on your list if you have time right now to tell me. If not now, later would be fine.
I'm still waiting to hear (see) from Lorab before i vote but i'm getting uneasy about the time squeeze.
I'm the least confident about my baddie read of you, but you have made some posts that have stood out to me as waffly in a careful-baddie sort of way. I can't remember who said it but someone said that your posts were just mimicking others' observations and opinions, and that's not my issue because like you said yourself, it isn't alignment-indicative. However, I do think some of your suspicions are "safe" for lack of a better word. You've given me a sense that you're aiming to follow what trains are going to be the most prominent by the end of the day. In other words, following the pack while making it look like you're borderline leading it.
Posts like these offer mafia (like zebra) an open door to pivot to a harder suspicion in case a teammate is going down.
++++
zebra didn't have any meaningful interactions with Matt.
++++
MacDougall and zebra went back and forth organically enough for me to believe they're not on the same team.
++++
If Long Con's mix-up in his exchange with zebra was manufactured, then bravo- it's fooled me. I don't think they are on a team. I also feel like his case against 3J is genuine.
++++
sig was good RIP
++++
Boomslang is my top civilian read.
I don't know why my agreeing to do ISO's at MAc's request should make you suspect me. I asked him what it would take for him to consider my civvieness since most of his suspicion against me is tone and style, hardly things I can defend beyond say thats just me, and that's what he suggested. Should I not have asked that question? Should I have refused to start doing ISO's?
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:13 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Epignosis wrote:Boomslang is my top civilian read.
That's fun. Is it something you see in his Zebra interactions?
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:15 pm
by Epignosis
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:Boomslang is my top civilian read.
That's fun. Is it something you see in his Zebra interactions?
I just said that so maybe somebody would night kill him.
I actually didn't read him myself because I saw you had just posted a novel on the subject, which I'm reading now, Dumas.
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:17 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Epignosis wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:Boomslang is my top civilian read.
That's fun. Is it something you see in his Zebra interactions?
I just said that so maybe somebody would night kill him.
I actually didn't read him myself because I saw you had just posted a novel on the subject, which I'm reading now, Dumas.
Oh. Well go get 'em.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:20 pm
by Ricochet
I want a writer's name, too, once I start ISO'ing. 
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:25 pm
by Epignosis
juliets wrote:I don't know why my agreeing to do ISO's at MAc's request should make you suspect me.
It's not normal. Unusual juliets makes me nervous.
Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:49 pm
by juliets
Epignosis wrote:juliets wrote:I don't know why my agreeing to do ISO's at MAc's request should make you suspect me.
It's not normal. Unusual juliets makes me nervous.
There was another game, I can't remember which and you probably didn't play it, where SVS was suspecting me and i asked her what I could do to convince her I was civ. She said I could vote somebody (can't remember who) right then without hesitation. I did so. I was civ.
I will say though that it's not something I do a lot so I can see why you might think it's weird. I just haven't thought about doing it lately but this game I did.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:00 pm
by Epignosis
3J, one thing that stands out to me (that it looks like you left out) regarding Boomslang is that his suspicion of MacDougall sounds
disingenuous. How does Mac's sense of superiority and aggression make him look bad?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:09 pm
by Golden
Epignosis wrote:Golden wrote:Epignosis wrote:Golden wrote:Epignosis wrote:Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.
There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.
I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?
Yes to both. It was a time when I had an amazing role and played it to the best of my ability. I am proud of my performance in that.
The point being, there is a mentality to staying alive even if civilians win as a group.
I agree. If I have a powerful role, I will play the game in a way I think might keep me alive.
But, lets say in that game, I called someone else 'my top town read'. Lets say, Fuzz. If you are the one with the amazing role, is it now in the civs interests that I did that?
Given that set of data alone, no. However, a number of people will have expressed their opinions on who is good, just as they have here. Kill any one of those, and does your rationale still hold up?
The entire "somebody killed Fuzz because I said he was my top town read" is based on speculation. Unless you are Mafia, you don't know why Fuzz was killed. Two other people got killed at the same time. When I'm bad, I kill people for the whole gamut of reasons: He was putting his nose where it didn't belong, I thought he was on the other team, nobody would trace the kill back to me, my teammates like that option better than my suggestion, it'll mess with their heads, I literally pulled his name out of a hat, or maybe just because I owed the bastard one.
So I'm not entertaining this business about Fuzz getting killed because someone said he was good. Y'all can keep up with that if you want to. I'm going to do work.
Exactly. Well said epi.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:12 pm
by Golden
thellama73 wrote:Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.
OK, so now, to be clear, you have moved on from it being because a number of people called him civ to Fuzz dying specifically because I called him civ?
Fact: The only way you know why Fuzz died is if you are on the team that killed him.
Fact: You've so far said that Fuzz died because lots of people said he was civ, because I buddied him, and now because I alone called him civ.
If others cannot see what I am seeing - that you are driving a specific narrative to put suspicion on me... I don't know what else I can say.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:17 pm
by DharmaHelper
I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:20 pm
by Golden
thellama73 wrote:Also, am I the only one who noticed that Golden said civilians shouldn't care if they die? That might be the craziest thing I've ever heard anyone assert in a mafia game. I guess civ night powers mean nothing and don't contribute to the victory, and being able to post in the thread and vote is pointless.
I'm sorry, but that's just insane.
Llama, I'm sorry - but you seem to be relying on the idea that if noone is called a civ by anyone, the baddies will just put up their hands and say 'guess I'll kill no-one'. Civs die in this game more or less every night, and with them go their role powers.
I'm not so arrogant as to assume my role power is the important one, no. And playing the game in a survivalist way when its a team victory will absolutely actively hurt the chances of the civs winning.
But, your attitude towards this doesn't even track into a survivalist game. If I should absolutely care about survival, then I should primarily care about the survival of the one person I know is a civ... me. In which case, if your theory is that I put the target on Fuzz... well, better him than me, eh? Because from my perspective, he might be bad and I'm definitely not. That's where your survivalist perspective gets me.
I literally cannot conceive of any game scenario where calling people a civ is detrimental to my chances of winning as a civ.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:22 pm
by Golden
thellama73 wrote:Ricochet wrote:thellama73 wrote:Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.
If you're positive Fuzz died because of Golden calling him civ (wait, wasn't him
buddying with Fuzz the issue earlier??).
This is starting to stink of Recruitement, when Golden was hounded for behaviour that others could not fathom. And the main hound was top bad...
Of course I'm not positive. But the facts are hta several people, most prominently Golden, went on record as being extremely confident that Fuzz was civ, and the next night he died. Maybe there's no connection, but that's not what I believe. It's a shame SVS is hosting and not playing. She is usually the first to call people out for target painting and completely agrees with me on this. Right, SVS?
SVS does completely agree with you on this.
I think both of you are wrong.
But, once again, no several people were 'extremely confident'. I was never extremely confident. I called him my top town read on day ONE. At that point, he was literally the first person I felt good enough about to put a town read on. So stop making it out to be something it isn't.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:27 pm
by Golden
Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand
I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.
You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.
Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while
I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:28 pm
by Ricochet
DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
That's an odd angle. I vote Sorsha for second fiddle in the Golden debate, but can't make "heads or tails" of the main fiddler in that same debate (llama) and don't mention what you make of the debate itself (Golden - llama) at all.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:29 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
People keep calling someone else in this game "JJ" and it's confusing me.
I call you JJ.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:30 pm
by juliets
DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
DH i understand why you are placing a vote on Sorsha but llama has really been pushing the idea that Golden is culpable for Fuzz's death. Why choose Sorsha over llama?
I am similarly not sure about JJJ vs. llama but my good opinion of llama is starting to slide with this seemingly relentless push of Golden. I say seemingly because everyone may not agree with what I'm seeing. I will have to see what the rest of the day will bring.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:32 pm
by Ricochet
Golden wrote:Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand
I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.
You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.
Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while
I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.
So you would have vote literally anyone opening their mouth and saying the words?
Also, llama's theory was not an attack on you specifically, at that point, I think, but a general angle, unlike people freaking out about you in Recruitment post-Epig's death and following your comments. So I still feel you were a bit of a bobcat jumping from the bushes.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:33 pm
by Ricochet
juliets wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
DH i understand why you are placing a vote on Sorsha but llama has really been pushing the idea that Golden is culpable for Fuzz's death. Why choose Sorsha over llama?
Paraphrasing my own suss, ey, former confirmed baddie?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:33 pm
by DharmaHelper
Ricochet wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
That's an odd angle. I vote Sorsha for second fiddle in the Golden debate, but can't make "heads or tails" of the main fiddler in that same debate (llama) and don't mention what you make of the debate itself (Golden - llama) at all.
I don't think Golden is guilty of what he's been accused of. I also don't think Llama is bad for having accused him of it. Llama's actions fit with what I'd expect from him. Golden's response makes me just about certain of his innocence (because I've seen this exact scenario before), and Sorsha's attachment to such an accusation doesn't gel with me.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:35 pm
by juliets
DharmaHelper wrote:Ricochet wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
That's an odd angle. I vote Sorsha for second fiddle in the Golden debate, but can't make "heads or tails" of the main fiddler in that same debate (llama) and don't mention what you make of the debate itself (Golden - llama) at all.
I don't think Golden is guilty of what he's been accused of. I also don't think Llama is bad for having accused him of it. Llama's actions fit with what I'd expect from him. Golden's response makes me just about certain of his innocence (because I've seen this exact scenario before), and Sorsha's attachment to such an accusation doesn't gel with me.
This also answers my question DH.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:35 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Epignosis wrote:3J, one thing that stands out to me (that it looks like you left out) regarding Boomslang is that his suspicion of MacDougall sounds
disingenuous. How does Mac's sense of superiority and aggression make him look bad?
I'll leave Boomslang to answer to your point and mine, assuming he shows up.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:36 pm
by DharmaHelper
juliets wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:Ricochet wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
That's an odd angle. I vote Sorsha for second fiddle in the Golden debate, but can't make "heads or tails" of the main fiddler in that same debate (llama) and don't mention what you make of the debate itself (Golden - llama) at all.
I don't think Golden is guilty of what he's been accused of. I also don't think Llama is bad for having accused him of it. Llama's actions fit with what I'd expect from him. Golden's response makes me just about certain of his innocence (because I've seen this exact scenario before), and Sorsha's attachment to such an accusation doesn't gel with me.
This also answers my question DH.
I'm aware
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:37 pm
by juliets
Ricochet wrote:juliets wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not sure where I sit on the JJJ vs. Llama debate just yet. I was leaning JJ until his posts on Boom which read honest. And I haven't made heads or tails of the case on llama at all. So in the meantime I'm placing a token vote on Sorsha for her odd comments regarding Golden's culpability in Fuzz's death.
DH i understand why you are placing a vote on Sorsha but llama has really been pushing the idea that Golden is culpable for Fuzz's death. Why choose Sorsha over llama?
Paraphrasing my own suss, ey, former confirmed baddie?
Sorry. I didn't even realize I was paraphrasing you.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:40 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
I didn't draw much useful data from the Shawshank game. llama was indy then, and I am not going to try to work that variable into a town meta assessment.
General question for all of the non-llama people: would you consider it typical or atypical of a civilian llama to do the following things:
1. Decline to address accusations
2. Remain detached from animated discussions about him between two or more other players
3. Read his loudest accuser as a civilian
4. Read a player as anti-civilian for espousing a strategic mindset that he doesn't find agreeable
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:42 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Another general question for all of the non-juliets people: would you consider it typical or atypical for a civilian juliets to develop her reads very gradually, and remain on the fence until highly convincing material is presented (or she produces that material herself)?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:44 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I didn't draw much useful data from the Shawshank game. llama was indy then, and I am not going to try to work that variable into a town meta assessment.
General question for all of the non-llama people: would you consider it typical or atypical of a civilian llama to do the following things:
1. Decline to address accusations typical
2. Remain detached from animated discussions about him between two or more other players typical
3. Read his loudest accuser as a civilian perhaps
4. Read a player as anti-civilian for espousing a strategic mindset that he doesn't find agreeable perhaps
Not sure he can't work most of those in his favor when being anti-civilian, as well.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:46 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Another general question for all of the non-juliets people: would you consider it typical or atypical for a civilian juliets to develop her reads very gradually, and remain on the fence until highly convincing material is presented (or she produces that material herself)?
I normally remember juliets as inquisitive and mulling over. Not sure as much about developing reads or putting actual ISO work. I don't think I ever played a game with baddie juliets, tho
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:46 pm
by Golden
Ricochet wrote:Golden wrote:Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand
I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.
You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.
Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while
I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.
So you would have vote literally anyone opening their mouth and saying the words?
Also, llama's theory was not an attack on you specifically, at that point, I think, but a general angle, unlike people freaking out about you in Recruitment post-Epig's death and following your comments. So I still feel you were a bit of a bobcat jumping from the bushes.
Yes I would have, but not necessarily kept my vote there long term. As I said, my vote is currently not on llama just for that theory, but for his responses and approach in the wake of that. And I know llama wasn't after me specifically at that point (at least, not overtly... I am not so sure if he wasn't in actuality, in hindsight), which should go to show you that it was genuinely me jumping on the theory I had in my own mind for why Fuzz was killed, and not a no u.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:49 pm
by Ricochet
Golden wrote:Ricochet wrote:Golden wrote:Ricochet wrote:On the otheeer haaand
I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.
You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.
Nah, I turned on rey immediately. I didn't turn on SVS because I perceived she held an honest opinion for quite a while
I will immediately go after things if I think they stink. I was waiting for someone to make the theory that llama did.
So you would have vote literally anyone opening their mouth and saying the words?
Also, llama's theory was not an attack on you specifically, at that point, I think, but a general angle, unlike people freaking out about you in Recruitment post-Epig's death and following your comments. So I still feel you were a bit of a bobcat jumping from the bushes.
Yes I would have, but not necessarily kept my vote there long term. As I said, my vote is currently not on llama just for that theory, but for his responses and approach in the wake of that. And I know llama wasn't after me specifically at that point (at least, not overtly... I am not so sure if he wasn't in actuality, in hindsight), which should go to show you that it was genuinely me jumping on the theory I had in my own mind for why Fuzz was killed, and not a no u.
But waiting to jump on a theory maker, whomever he/she may have been, doesn't make it... sound...better...?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:59 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Rico, do you think my Boomslang suspicions are
or
or
or
or something else?
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:07 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Rico, do you think my Boomslang suspicions are
or
or
or
or something else?
I think he's worth a check from everyone.
Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:17 pm
by Matt
I want to vote Epi but it looks like the big two are Llama and 3J, who I also believe are bad.
Going with
Llama. I still think Llama's suspicion of Mac early on, then both of them moving to sig while Llama's sus of Mac drops completely...is
Mac - Between Llama and 3J, if it was just between those two, who would you vote for?