The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

It's literally a question, one that was answered by multiple people, and I then stated I was proven wrong about all teams being equal.

I don't understand how any of this equates to you voting for me.

"All the recruiters are equally naughty," is not a question. And the question mark part of that post seems rhetorical, not an actual asking.

And that post seems like it's trying to move folks away from thinking baddies are, well, bad. And your posting that you never said that doesn't strike me as honest.

It's not necessarily a permanent vote. But it's a vote for now.

The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

Golden wrote:Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

This is also a very weak idea. So by this logic, anyone that talks a lot gains automatic suspicion, right?

Rey, I'm not going to engage in pedantry with you. I'm not going to talk about how weak all of my ideas are, how illegitimate you find my thought processes.

I already know there is nothing I could possibly say that will change your vote.

The only person who can change your mind on your vote is you. But you will not do it so long as you are intent on tunnelling into every sentence I say as some kind of grand idea with a million implications.

I will be voting for you today, unless I end up voting for me today. It's one or the other. So I imagine it will be in your interests to vote me. For that reason, it seems even less worth my time actually engaging with you on semantic points. It does me no good, and it would only serve to break my aura of calm that I feel today.

YOU ARE WRONG

But I think you are deliberately wrong because you are Azura.

There is no point in me trying to convince Azura not to vote for me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Boomslang!

Vote Boomslang

aapje is going to murder me

I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to defend my points on Golden when the guy is literally asking to be lynched. That's all I needed to know for today, honestly.
*votes Golden*

TinyBubbles wrote:damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

Wow. TinyBubbles suddenly has my attention based purely on the "I don't care if he's a baddie or not". Also, you realize that his high post= suspicion theory is fundamentally flawed, right? JJJ doesn't seem to be getting any heat.

Turnip Head wrote:The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

Because you posted day 3 with a post that seemed to be diametrically opposed to that post. Also, games are cumulative. And something that does not necessarily seem especially suspicious early on can become suspicious later.

Golden wrote:Rey, I'm not going to engage in pedantry with you. I'm not going to talk about how weak all of my ideas are, how illegitimate you find my thought processes.

I already know there is nothing I could possibly say that will change your vote.

The only person who can change your mind on your vote is you. But you will not do it so long as you are intent on tunnelling into every sentence I say as some kind of grand idea with a million implications.

I will be voting for you today, unless I end up voting for me today. It's one or the other. So I imagine it will be in your interests to vote me. For that reason, it seems even less worth my time actually engaging with you on semantic points. It does me no good, and it would only serve to break my aura of calm that I feel today.

YOU ARE WRONG

But I think you are deliberately wrong because you are Azura.

There is no point in me trying to convince Azura not to vote for me.

yeah, and I notice that ever since I freely admitted that sometimes I get tunnel vision, you use every opportunity that you can to say that I have tunnel vision while implying that that fact alone makes me wrong. You also completely ignore that I've successfully sniffed you out (and others). I guess I'm just a shitty player in your mind, right?

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

Because you posted day 3 with a post that seemed to be diametrically opposed to that post. Also, games are cumulative. And something that does not necessarily seem especially suspicious early on can become suspicious later.

It is cumulative. That's why I think it's relevant that I later said I was wrong about all teams being equal.

nutella wrote:Guys don't freak out, LC answered somewhere that the thread lock would only be 4-6 hours.

Still good to register early votes though. I'd consider a vote for Rey since I could totally see him having killed Epi.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.

I think I haven't come across as waffley this game because of its setup. We started out with a majority of players being unrecruited, so I basically assumed most people were unrecruited, rather than being pressured into having civ or baddie reads of people, which are always difficult early in the game. It's not that I'm not uncertain about a lot of players, it's that the things I've been talking about are the things I have stronger convictions about. In more typical games that start out with full civvie and baddie teams, there's a lot more pressure in the thread to decide on stuff like rainbow lists and a definitive perspective on players who are under scrutiny, and that's the stuff that I tend to waffle on and get in trouble for (and btw @ Lorab yes in fact I have still been getting lynched as a civ for these reasons in the last couple games I've played recently). In this game I'm just observing things on my own, and there are certainly players/topics of discussion in the thread that I don't have strong opinions of either way.

That said, I don't agree with your suspicion of Unfurl, I think she is genuine.

and I guess this means that you can also totally not see Golden killing Epig?

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

Because you posted day 3 with a post that seemed to be diametrically opposed to that post. Also, games are cumulative. And something that does not necessarily seem especially suspicious early on can become suspicious later.

It is cumulative. That's why I think it's relevant that I later said I was wrong about all teams being equal.

'
Yes, but only because you had to, because evidence was shown you were incorrect. I still suspect you were trying, in your original post, to attempt to sway people away from thinking about bad vs good.

If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I don't know about The Syndicate, but in my experience appeal to emotion is a town tell far more often than an anti-town tell. That doesn't mean players should be exonerated for making emotional posts, but those emotional posts shouldn't be doubted simply for being emotional.

Really? That is not what i took away from watching the Championship Series. I recall people being dismissed for the appeal to emotion, it was considered a tactic, iirc, and a weak one at that. I am Ok with saying this since I know it is something I have been known to do as a baddie myself.

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

It's literally a question, one that was answered by multiple people, and I then stated I was proven wrong about all teams being equal.

I don't understand how any of this equates to you voting for me.

Your question contains a lot of suppositions--statements.
i must have missed where you backpedalled on this issue.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:That's nice, and I appreciate your honesty here.
I truly think you are bad. I think you are cornered and have freaked out. You also lashed out at me, saying you agreed with "others" (nutella) about my posting. When I addressed this with you, I don't recall a response.
Why is that?
Did I miss it?

No

I do think your posting had been - keeping things close to your chest, I would call it. Which is what I think nutella was seeing. I wanted to draw more out of you. When I've directly asked you questions, you've answered them completely. So while I think nutella was accurate in describing your style of play, I don't find you suspicious. Earlier on, I couldn't gauge whether or not your suspicion of me was sincere. Now I believe it is.

I don't think that's at all what Nutella brought up.
Nutella basically said that my contributions are random, unhelpful, and have no bearing on whether people are bad or not. She did not seem to imply that I don't explain myself a lot except she didn't understand my suspicion of Scotty. Upon explanation, she still thought my contributions sucked.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:SVS, the killing of epi derailed the thread. Are you telling me that what has occurred would not be a desirable outcome?

Also, if my goal was to kill epi so as to minimise the amount of attention on me in the thread (which has to be the reason, right?) then why do I immediately go and say something that will inevitably immediately reinvite that attention?

See.... it is NOT desirable if you're bad.

That's my point. Do you still think I'm bad having caught up today?

Yeah.
I think your plan didn't work.

Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

Golden wrote:Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

Why?

I moved my vote off of you, and there's a whole 24 hours left. I don't know the vote count off hand, until the image of day 1 is posted, but I don't think you were very far ahead. Or that the sway of the thread was towards your direction.

I am confused.

TinyBubbles wrote:damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

I'm having a hard time seeing where you are emotionally invested in this game. I'm sure it's my fault and not knowing you or your play style.

Are you voting rey soley because Golden (whom you voted for last round) thinks he's bad?

Who do you think is bad? And why?

I know, I have no clear answers to those questions myself. But voting someone soley because someone else thinks it's a good idea doesn't feel like a move from someone who is - as you said - emotionally invested in the game.

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?

I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.

Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.

Scotty wrote:

aapje wrote:

Scotty wrote:A name that pop up to me as I read his posts:
aapje

aapje wrote:So what is up with DF and DP? DF has missed both polls and DP hasn't contributed anything so far. I honestly wouldn't mind lynching either of them. If we are lynching neutrals anyway we might as well get rid of people who aren't really playing the game to begin with

I gave Russtifinko a pass since he asked to be replaced.

I disagree with the strategy of lynching no-shows this game. While they haven't been strictly no-shows, and I usually operate under the mode of "Come to play" I thought we were actively looking for baddies, not just neutrals. As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.

No if they were total no shows they would be modkilled / replaced. Although I have good hopes of DF missing his 3rd vote in a row
Also if the last recruitment games are any indication all teams have a limited number of recruits.

Scotty wrote:

Spoiler: show

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote:I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.

I can see why people could be suspicious of TH.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't want to be recruited. Y'all better leave me alone.

Could it be he doesn't want people to try and recruit him because he's already on a team?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Doesn't sound very civvie minded either.

All in all not a whole lot to go on but I can see why people would consider voting for him.

I had to manually create linkbacks for this post like some kind of peasant

He lists reasons why "people" would be suspicious of voting TH, and even admits that he "doesn't sound very civvie minded either"
He follows this up by VOTING FOR DisgruntledPorcupine for not posting.

When TH responds with a "yeah, it wasn't a very civ-thing to say," aapje says:

aapje wrote:Fair enough. Wasn't planning on voting for you over it anyway. Was just checking what you actually said when people were voting for you.

Ho-hum. To state that he thinks something sounds not civ-like to immediately discrediting himself when TH literally admits to such claims is sketchy at best. It's not enough to warrant a vote, ok. But to say he wasn't going to vote for him at all for sketchy behavior raises my red sails.

Here is the full response TH made:

Turnip Head wrote:You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

A reply which made sense to me. As you have already noticed, I am not yet in baddie hunting mode. I'm sure I will get around to it, if I had to guess I'd say somewhere after the weekend. As for now I'd rather get rid of some non-contributors.

This comes off as baddie to me because you're still making compromises like it's Day 1, but it is not. There are ample posts in this thread so far that could give you info to baddie-hunt. The fact that you are just openly choosing not to baddie hunt is troubling to me.

Our strategies are very different, and you could just come back and say as such and move on. But in your strategy, you're picking off people that talk very little. That is not only the easiest fallback option if you're bad, but also the longer we wait to look for scum, the more scum will be recruited. I think you understand that reasoning, and are just choosing to ignore it. It doesn't make sense to me if you are good.

See...to me, aapje's stragagy kinda makes sense. If he's not recruited, he's not activley baddie hunting because he might yet be a baddie. He's not actively trying to lynch people he thinks are civ because he's not yet a civ. If he were a recruiter or already recruited, he's tying to play like he's not because most of us haven't been yet at day 3. And it's still numerically the neutrals that out weigh the factions. (right? i did the maths right here? I suck at the maths so I could have effed that up.) Low posters vote is the most netural spot one could be in really....

Dom wrote:I feel uneasy about voting Golden after his meltdown post, but... I still suspect him.

Is that what it was?

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?

I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.

Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.

TH, surely you see the difference in your position from then until now.

reywaS wrote:

Dom wrote:I feel uneasy about voting Golden after his meltdown post, but... I still suspect him.

Is that what it was?

What would you call it?

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?

I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.

Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.

Only inasmuch as I'm looking for pings on my suspiciometer in general. Nothing against you in particular. You just happened to be my ping. And I'm pretty sure we all have thoughts that we don't post. I mean, I realize I don't always have an extant filter for my thought process, but even I keep some ideas close to the chest. However, that's not even the case with you.

Here, I post that I agree with Daisy's post about eyeballing people advocating that this is a non good vs bad game:

LoRab wrote:I agree with daisy's analysis of people trying to push the this isn't a civ c bad game. It clearly is. Most of us don't know what team we will be on yet, but we will be either bad or good.

I think golden is mistaken to assume he and epic will definitely not be on a team together. especially assuming they are both neutral at this point, the could both be recruited by one of the civ recruiters. And because many of the recruitments happen in ways that are not necessarily the choice of the recruiter or even a contest.

and la and Dom are all grown up. Which I guess I knew intellectually. But yes, is old feeling making. And it's so hard to believe how young they were back when they both started. La especially (she started sooner I think)

Linkitis: one does not need to be artsy for a contest like this. Ability to google search images is just as useful.

Linkitis 2: I'm not accusing you of anything but I do want to point out that random ozone and voting someone for a reason are not the same. They are kind of opposites.

And here I even name you:

LoRab wrote:I'm just going to throw out there that The Seemer is a position 1 power. Which really might make for interesting lynch analysis or lack thereof the possibility for.

@JJJ (can I call you JJJ?) I'm not sure I get what you find suspicious about Bass's post. Could you elaborate?

Tranq wrote: As for the LMS debate, i really disagree with Spacedaisy's post. Especially the first couple of Days you're going to find players with this sort of mindset, yet people keep getting lynched because of it (i think myself in RM1 or RM2, and as Typhoony pointed out Timmer in RM3). It's a fun way to play early in the game. I'm not voting for someone that's clearly enjoying and embracing a different setup.

I think what SD was trying to get at (or what I took from it and agree with) is the people who seem to be insisting that this is not a Good vs Bad game at all. Commentary on and enjoying the setup is something different. But there could be some nafarious goal in those pushing that there are no baddies and civies (TH comes to mind). Or that there are just factions not teams (Roxy comes to mind).

I'm not sure I want to vote for either of them, because I think that in a complex game, with the added idea of clans, it's not impossible to be confused. I do, however, think that it's possible that a baddie might want to perpetuate the confusion and get people to believe that there aren't baddies.

So, yeah. I did have you in the back of my mind since then. And your recent post pinged you forward in my thinking.

Thoughts on today -

Golden - wtf why the self vote? I really hate when players do it but I get you are sick of playing under constant scruntiny. I personally have not and still do not see what they see. I do feel like you are playing Neutral aorn.

Golden wrote:PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

also this is just antagonizing your accusers tbqh. I just do not get it.

unfurl - I am not seeing what others are. I do feel like you have been trying to get into the game but I think the set up leaves you at a loss because of your usual play style isn't really applicable in this type of game. You are right to say to llama that your game is usually full of contradictions. It is just your style especially in the early stages of a game.
One thing that does seem to be missing is your paranoic attitude and the questions that usually come about when you are in that "zone". I agree about Teeth but apparently Imma have to get out of lazy mode and pull quotes to get others to see what I saw. I really feel like you are Neutral atm.

Scotty - Your posts have a good vibe to them I am not feeling anything bad for you. I find myself agreeing with most of what you say.

JJJ - I am not if like unfurl the set up of this game seems to be affecting your usual rhythm of playing. I am just not feeling "it". Can't put my finger on it or point to any one post but something feels wrong about your game this time around.

Rey - I was agreeing you most of the game up to the point of when you started going after Golden. I see you had progression to your thoughts but it still baffles me and even though there was progression it still felt abrupt. I am not sure about you. You could be a recruit or Neutral. What type of recruit? I am not sure quite yet.

Bubbles - I disagree with the case against you and feel your words were blown way out of proportion. People say you said you were invested - remind them that you do not have to be a high poster to be invested. Just keeping up with the thread shows an investment in a game like this. I think you have played fairly well for this game. I do not think you have been recruited nor do I get any bad vibes from your posts.


Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?

LoRab wrote:

Golden wrote:Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

I'm tempted to vote for you, not so much because I think you've been recruited to the baddies--I don't actually. I think you're still unrecruited neutral. But I don't think you're playing in the best interest of the civies at this point. And I think that discussion of you is becoming a distraction from focusing on actually finding baddies.

Spacedaisy wrote:

nutella wrote:Guys don't freak out, LC answered somewhere that the thread lock would only be 4-6 hours.

Still good to register early votes though. I'd consider a vote for Rey since I could totally see him having killed Epi.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.

I think I haven't come across as waffley this game because of its setup. We started out with a majority of players being unrecruited, so I basically assumed most people were unrecruited, rather than being pressured into having civ or baddie reads of people, which are always difficult early in the game. It's not that I'm not uncertain about a lot of players, it's that the things I've been talking about are the things I have stronger convictions about. In more typical games that start out with full civvie and baddie teams, there's a lot more pressure in the thread to decide on stuff like rainbow lists and a definitive perspective on players who are under scrutiny, and that's the stuff that I tend to waffle on and get in trouble for (and btw @ Lorab yes in fact I have still been getting lynched as a civ for these reasons in the last couple games I've played recently). In this game I'm just observing things on my own, and there are certainly players/topics of discussion in the thread that I don't have strong opinions of either way.

That said, I don't agree with your suspicion of Unfurl, I think she is genuine.

This answer made me feel miles better about you. It was the set up with neutrals at the start that kept me from feeling 100% about you, and I didn't mention it because I wanted to see how you would respond. This rings true to me.

Lorab, your response about her age doesn't hold water for me because in the recent games I have played with her this meta has still been there. That is not to say her game play hasn't evolved, she is a great player for sure, but even in the last game I played with her she herself admitted to this meta? She was explaining why she comes across blendy, they didn't believe her, she got lynched and flipped civ.

Good to know. I haven't played with her for a while. and she attests to he same patterns. I will keep this in mind.

By the bolded part do you mean that everyone who keeps bringing up Golden suspish is also civ or unrecruited? Could there be no baddie manipulation from the people who keep keeping his name in the conversation?

ebwop

JJJ - I am not SURE if like unfurl the set up of this game seems to be affecting your usual rhythm of playing. I am just not feeling "it". Can't put my finger on it or point to any one post but something feels wrong about your game this time around.

nutella wrote:Yeah, I think the point Canuck is trying to make is that he could easily be recruited right after being rezzed.

or recruited as part of his rez. I still read Golden's comments as Golden not playing a recruitment game before and not understanding all the insane possible ways our hosts have of messing with our expectations. fwiw.

Roxy wrote:also this is just antagonizing your accusers tbqh. I just do not get it.

I know. At the point I self-voted (both times) I believed there was no chance of me surviving this day. Honestly, there isn't. If I know I'm going to die, I may as well have fun with it. Maybe the baddies will enjoy it too? (Especially if one of them is DH!)

I've been enjoying this entire day period immensely so far.

Golden wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Golden the point I was trying to get was if someone were setting you up who do you think it is?

I think rey is the most likely. Particularly because the starting points for his suspicion against me (especially on day 2) have been a big stretch to see them as legitimate pings, and also because he himself claimed you should be looking at motivations not words/actions to find baddies, but when I ask him to explain why a baddie would say the things he has claimed are suspicious, he has never been able to come up with any explanation (or has chosen not to). I didn't think DH was very likely before yesterday, but the conversation from yesterday has me seeing him as a possibility too. I find it hard to buy that he was legitimately scared of me, but also its just such a strange thing to make a big deal out of. Like, even if I'm so scary, why would I target him specifically? Before he said that, he wasn't even really on my radar.

I have a very specific reason in mind for why I do not think it is SVS, but it isn't out of the question I'm wrong about that.

I do agree with JJ that there it could be in anyone's interests to set me up, but I would be very surprised if at least one member of that team is not one of those pushing for my lynch.

Right, so I framed you. Went hard after you myself. To what end? To see you falsely lynched? Then what?

And here you go again claiming to have this false recollection of what I said. I'll say it again..and perhaps you need all caps so that it might stick more clearly in your brain. WHEN I SAID "MOTIVATION", I DID NOT MEAN "WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL CIVVIE/BADDIE MOTIVATION FOR YOUR ACTION"...AS IN "WHY WOULD A BADDIE MAKE THIS MOVE?" WHEN I SAID I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YOUR MOTIVATION, I MEANT EXACTLY THAT. WHAT WAS GOLDEN'S MOTIVATION FOR SAYING THE THINGS YOU SAID...NOT WHAT IS THE BADDIE MOTIVE?. WERE YOU BEING DISHONEST OR HONEST IN YOUR POSTS ABOUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN THE GAME.

Obviously, I do not think the caps were necessary and I apologize to everyone else for having to suffer them. Golden is a very smart person, and I think he knows very well what I meant when I used the word motivation. He continues to misrepresent me, and he knows this.

Roxy wrote:Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?

Exactly this. And LoRab can try to turn the tables on me all she wants, but she's the one who just said this about Golden (emphasis mine):

LoRab wrote:Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

And this about herself:

LoRab wrote:And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

But what she says is not true. Lynching neutrals ONLY helps the baddies. If Golden is neutral like LoRab says she thinks he is, then he could still just as easily be recruited by the civs, and he would HAVE to play a pro-civ game. Voting for this reason is a fallacious argument. Lynching neutrals only gives the baddies more time. LoRab is saying she's playing a civ-friendly neutral game, but her vote for Golden doesn't reinforce that stance.

I think maybe LoRab eventually realized this, because after being called out on it by a few players (including myself), she quickly tried to move her vote elsewhere.

Sorsha wrote:I see that golden is heading out and might not be back much but I have a question or two. Anyone else can weigh in on the answer as well. I have been away from mafia for a while and don't know/can't remember all the player dynamics.

First of all I'm of the mind that golden is not on the team that killed epi night one. I know golden still claims responsibility like that team is going to do his bidding for him but I'd think their motive was more to frame him. Anyone in particular come to mind as one who would do that?

My thoughts on the matter is whoever is really hounding golden in the thread did it. But is it a silly question to ask who would set golden up?

I think they are both legit questions. Sadly I think the answer to "who would set up golden?" is "anyone who's ever played with golden or epi or both." which is pretty much all of us. Some of us as baddies would have done the set up and pushed to make golden look bad. Some of us would have set up golden and sat back and giggled as others fell for the bait.

I think the question as far as golden goes, is if any of is accusers have nefarious motives which ones are they? Is someone pushing an agenda or are they all being manipulated? I don't have an answer for that question either, but it's what's currently on my mind.

LoRab wrote:

Golden wrote:Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

Why?

I moved my vote off of you, and there's a whole 24 hours left. I don't know the vote count off hand, until the image of day 1 is posted, but I don't think you were very far ahead. Or that the sway of the thread was towards your direction.

I am confused.

LoRab, unfortunately polls don't always tell the full story. Five people are thoroughly determined to lynch me. I expect that some other people will add drive by votes. I think there is enough, I just really do. And even if there isn't, the fact that these five people absolutely refuse point blank to listen to any rebuttal means I just get lynched tomorrow. And by asking you to do something nice for me, I've only confirmed by 'emotional manipulation' in the eyes of some others.

I really do appreciate you doing it, though.

Honestly, I am going to try to get a rezz and even if I do take heat and people think it is a baddie rezz, at least I have a clean slate, which is what I really want at this point. (Well, that, and to prove a whole lot of people wrong).

reywaS wrote:Obviously, I do not think the caps were necessary and I apologize to everyone else for having to suffer them. Golden is a very smart person, and I think he knows very well what I meant when I used the word motivation. He continues to misrepresent me, and he knows this.

Bullsuit.

If you can't find baddie reasons for it, it's because there are none. Prima facie, the conduct is not suspicious.

You have never explained what you meant by 'motivations', and I've brought it up plenty of times. It's nice that you've finally said what your intended meaning is after all this time. Now I will not 'misrepresent' and explanation you never previously made.

PS the easy way to not make people suffer all caps is to not use them.

I will be posting another legacy post shortly. I intend it to be the last post I make for now. Let me be very clear, my view of you is not a good one for you. I very much hope people will look at your posts very carefully and with a fine tooth comb after I am lynched.

Golden wrote:Honestly, I am going to try to get a rezz and even if I do take heat and people think it is a baddie rezz, at least I have a clean slate, which is what I really want at this point. (Well, that, and to prove a whole lot of people wrong).

I think being rezzed as an uncrecruited role isn't as much of a clean slate as you think it is. I know things must suck at this moment from your perspective, but your solution might ultimately become a cautionary tale to be careful what you wish for.

One thing I implore everyone.

Don't take 'oops, I was wrong' for an answer. There have been several people who have tunneled so deeply on me that they have ignored all rational arguments, and all reason. I will be setting this out in my legacy post. Pursue it, please.

@TH - why, you think people will still continue to claim I'm Azura and killed epi after they see my role and know that is not true?

Whatever, if people would like me not to go for a rezz, then I'll leave the game in peace and leave you to it. I don't know why people keep hassling me about wanting a rezz.

Roxy wrote: Bubbles - I disagree with the case against you and feel your words were blown way out of proportion. People say you said you were invested - remind them that you do not have to be a high poster to be invested. Just keeping up with the thread shows an investment in a game like this. I think you have played fairly well for this game. I do not think you have been recruited nor do I get any bad vibes from your posts.

thanks babe <3

Golden wrote:@TH - why, you think people will still continue to claim I'm Azura and killed epi after they see my role and know that is not true?

No, I'm just saying there's nothing stopping Azura or anyone else from recruiting you once you come back. Your lynch plus eventual resurrection, assuming you're telling the truth about being neutral, won't really prove anything; it would just be a waste of resources. If you're neutral, which team do you expect to use a rez on you?

If you're really neutral, I think you'd want to lynch anyone but yourself. It can be an uphill battle but that's kind of what you signed up for :P

@TH - I didn't sign up for an uphill battle when I'm going on holiday. No sir.

But I think you and I have a different view of clean slate. I already explained what I meant to Canuck. The current reasons for suspecting me will be shown up as (at best) wrong or (at worst) intentional baddie manipulation into lynching me. I doubt anyone will choose to rezz me (they may - hey, I'm all for any civvie rezzing me who has a rezz and recruit) but I am expecting rezz contests because I think that's what the hosts implied, and that leaves me in control of my own destiny.

Especially an uphill battle against five angry people with pitchforks who are determined they are right.

Roxy wrote: Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?

2 reasons, really. 1 is that I'm a sucker for personal need--it's my personality. And Golden's post about asking for another day spoke to me. I guess I remembered the very few times I've made such posts--and they were times when I really needed it. I can honestly only think of 2 such times, and they both involved deep mourning. It was a personal shift, not a strategic shift. I'm a softie at the end of the day.

2 is that that post he made felt emotionally honest in a way that a lot of his other posts didn't. It gave me pause and made me read him differently--even if just for the moment.

bea wrote:
By the bolded part do you mean that everyone who keeps bringing up Golden suspish is also civ or unrecruited? Could there be no baddie manipulation from the people who keep keeping his name in the conversation?

I don't mean that at all. My thoughts about Golden are about Golden--not about those that do or do not suspect him. Baddie manipulation could for sure be happening (and probably is--it usually is). My points about him have been about his posts.

Turnip Head wrote:

Roxy wrote:Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?

Exactly this. And LoRab can try to turn the tables on me all she wants, but she's the one who just said this about Golden (emphasis mine):

LoRab wrote:Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

And this about herself:

LoRab wrote:And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

But what she says is not true. Lynching neutrals ONLY helps the baddies. If Golden is neutral like LoRab says she thinks he is, then he could still just as easily be recruited by the civs, and he would HAVE to play a pro-civ game. Voting for this reason is a fallacious argument. Lynching neutrals only gives the baddies more time. LoRab is saying she's playing a civ-friendly neutral game, but her vote for Golden doesn't reinforce that stance.

I think maybe LoRab eventually realized this, because after being called out on it by a few players (including myself), she quickly tried to move her vote elsewhere.

No--lynching neutrals is neutral. It does not only help the baddies. An unrecruited player is equally likely to become bad as good. A neutral can be helping the baddies or helping the civies. Unrecruited players just need to survive--they do not need to be playing a game that is supportive of civs. Yes, I realize that people can suspect me just as much as anyone, but I am doing my best to help the civs. I don't think that has been the case with Golden overall, although I am giving him BOTD for the moment.

And it's cute how you say I'm turning the tables when that's exactly what you're doing.

Golden wrote:I would ask those who are less inclined to feel absolutely certain of me, like lorab and timmer, to consider giving me a pass today given I won't be around a whole lot more for robust conversation and defence. I ask this because I get the strong sense that (because I won't be around) I'm going to be the easy location for drive by votes at end of day.

It's ultimately up to you guys, but if you really want to lynch me more on a hunch or being the 'best option' than anything else, I'd really like if it can be on a day where I can have proper conversation around it, more than I'll be able to today.

Are you shitting me, Golden? So...give you a pass and lynch me instead...is that it?

For fuck's sake, man.

Actually, everyone please take Golden's advice and give him a pass because he isn't going to be around to defend himself anymore than he already is.

Seriously, lynch me. I really don't think that I was ready to come back to mafia yet...especially not in such a large game. I think I probably should have started with a small game. I'm getting way too worked up and seeing this post has really grated on my nerves.

Vote: reywaS and I urge the rest of you to do the same.

??? really?

thellama73 wrote:So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

I have a past history of notoriously finding bad in DH that doesn't exist to the point of thinking he said things he didn't. I'm trying to keep an open and cautious mind about him.

thellama73 wrote:So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

LoRab wrote:And it's cute how you say I'm turning the tables when that's exactly what you're doing.

No, I brought you up first, remember?

Turnip Head wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

This.

As someone else already pointed out, lynching neutrals only helps the baddies.

A quite unneutral thing for LoRab to say

(Wait, did I just agree with something that llama said in a mafia game? )

linki: Will contemplate.

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

And then you voted for me. The underlined sentence is you trying to turn the tables.

Rey, the answer to your question is:

No, I do not think you are a shitty player, I think you are Azura.

I am going to be lynched today. Everyone will know that those who insist I'm bad are wrong, and then you should examine those people's motives and posts very carefully...

You should note that SVS said 'the civ golden she knows would fight not to get recruited bad' and then ignore the posts that point to me doing exactly that - including me trying to get epi killed. JJJ even outlined it very carefully - how me getting epi killed looks very much like an effort to not be recruited bad (this is definitely one part of my motivation). SVS next post is immediately after. She said she couldn't believe the level of my emotional manipulation, and she is very happy with her vote. She claims to be an expert in my civilian game, but she has been wilfully blind to everything I've given her to see I am playing exactly that game. SVS has mostly seemed sincere before, but she has demonstrated a particular hardheadedness that I'm beginning to find convenient. Her initial suspicion on me I found very easy to believe, but her refusal to hear any rebuttal is something I think everyone should be interested in.

Rey - I'll admit his recent self-vote makes me wonder. He has begun to sound a lot like me, telling me what I should know about him 'full well', which is a favourite of mine when I'm frustrated. Which might be a good sign for him. Nevertheless, his posts should be scrutinised. He found weak reasons to jump on me on both days, and he recently claimed I've been misrepresenting him on the matter of 'motivation' when I've been raising it over and over again for days and he hasn't responded to it once until now. It's hard to misrepresent someone on something when they don't represent themselves on it to begin with. Again, though, his explanation for what he meant by 'motivation' meshes with his actions. Maybe I've been harsh on rey.

Boomslang - I recommend everyone iso him, but particularly JJ. He has been pretty consistent on me, and his logic seems overall sound, but he hasn't talked about a lot else. Take the G-Man kill into account when you read it. Could be nothing, but I think this is very interesting when I did it.

DH - Read the number of interactions between DH and I before he declared he was scared of me, and see if any of you think that was a genuine statement. It didn't bother me because DH has said all sorts of random things today, and I took his vote for me as a neutral vote that was no skin off his nose. But then he started going after me for the difference between him being scared and a threat, and the more I pushed him on it, the less sincere I felt he was. Finally the dam burst and we got some honestly from him, which can only be a good thing. But everyone should consider whether any of you were legitimately scared of me killing you when DH said he was, and then consider how little interaction we'd actually had towards each other before then, and wonder what is going on there...

That's all. I think Dom's vote for me was really very genuine. Other votes haven't bothered me at all.

If I have the chance to vote again and think there is a realistic chance of my survival in doing so, then I will. I will say that my self vote is not that I WANT out. I really don't. It's just that I don't have a lot of faith that there is anything I can do to claw this back.

Golden wrote:??? really?

Yes. Reading that post completely removed all desire to play this game that had built up since the start. Maybe I have been away from the game for too long. I think that is a seriously shady move to appeal to real life situations to get a pass for the day considering you have had absolutely no problem defending yourself up to this point. I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm the one that would probably be getting the shaft for your free pass.

Again, I apologize to everyone for making this move, but I really don't have any desire to see this game through anymore. I will try again in a smaller game.

@rey - I did not ask LoRab to switch her vote for you, and she didn't switch her vote to you, and I am sure everyone is open to persuasive arguments about who is bad.

I do not see today as a you or me thing (although I admit I see it as a 'me' thing, and there are not many viable alternatives).

Can you not see why, from my perspective, it is rough to feel like I am going to be lynched on a day where I'll be able to do nothing about it?