Rocky and Bullwinkle - The Legend of Frostbite Falls [Day 8]

[Sloonei]

RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

You forgot one:

Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.

funny, i remember saying a lot more about it than this.

[Sloonei]

Wait, I stood out because of my final vote? The one you missed? How do I stand out because of a vote you failed to notice? And why do I stand out more than the three other people who voted for Epi yeaterday?

[Epignosis]

RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

You forgot one:

Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.

funny, i remember saying a lot more about it than this.

I wasn't making the claim that you didn't.

[Sloonei]

RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

You forgot one:

Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.

funny, i remember saying a lot more about it than this.

I wasn't making the claim that you didn't.

Fair enough, I just wanted it to be acknowledged. What are your Scotty thoughts? Scoughtys, if you will.

[Scotty]

RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

I never voted for Golden. Golden is not playing in this game. How could I have voted for Golden?
I voted niju as an early pressure vote and zebra as a joke. Everything else was a serious effort to contribute to the poll. How can you say that I did not apprar to put any thought or effort into my votes for you and Epi when I have more posts explaining my reasoning for both of those than anything else, I think. I was "all over the place" because that's just the way the day went down. I woke up and had a couple hours to make a decision, so I went about doing that as best I could. I think my posts and my votes are a pretty good representation of my thought process during the day, but you seem to be only looking at the quantity of votes I cast rather than the quality of anything I said or did.

The fact that golden isn't even in this game (I didn't even notice lol) is my point exactly. You were jokey, and you used that tactic yesterday. So calling the kettle black, my man.
I didn't find anyone inherently suspicious about the day 1 antics, though you were such an eager beaver and calling me out on not jumping around and adding to whatever conversation you felt like I should have been a part of that it's perking up my ears a bit.

Also I'm interested in the bwt kill. I too am glad that the Mafia were being merciful and killed off a non-poster. That seems to be a very rare thing on here.
I'd didn't inherently find

[Scotty]

Wait, I stood out because of my final vote? The one you missed? How do I stand out because of a vote you failed to notice? And why do I stand out more than the three other people who voted for Epi yeaterday?

Oh wow I totally missed that you put it back on Epi. Huge oversight on my part, I'm sorry.

[Sloonei]

I was being jokey early. Most people were. I don't see this as a scum tell for anyone, ever. I am accusing your posts of being padded with fluff, like you were trying to appear present, but you never really comtributed anything on Day 1.
Now you've come out on Day 2 pointing fingers at the only person to have pointed fingers at you, without having read all of my posts, it seems. That is fishy behavior in my book.

[Sloonei]

Wait, I stood out because of my final vote? The one you missed? How do I stand out because of a vote you failed to notice? And why do I stand out more than the three other people who voted for Epi yeaterday?

Oh wow I totally missed that you put it back on Epi. Huge oversight on my part, I'm sorry.

Unfortunately for you this just strengthens my feeling that you are simply OMGUSing/NO Uing me right now. You named me as your top suspect despite not having read any of my most substanital posts.

[Epignosis]

I do not presently have an opinion on Scotty one way or the other.

[Sloonei]

@scotty again: Care to share what that unfinished thought after your bwt comment was?

[Sloonei]

I do not presently have an opinion on Scotty one way or the other.

What do you have an opinion on?

[Tangrowth]

FYI I haven't had a chance to catch up yet today and probably won't. I am not feeling well (unexpectedly) and it's thrown a wrench in my whole schedule. Sorry about that. I'll see what I can do.

[Sloonei]

Would you at least have anything to say to the votes against you?

[Sloonei]

It looks like my flight is boarding in a moment, so I'm out for the day most likely. Thank you for indulging me, dudes. And vote for Scotty.
Or don't. Keep talking about him and everyone else though.

[S~V~S]

Wilgy voted without posting. Is it possible someone was Scrooched so early?

[S~V~S]

Oh wait, Scrroching also includes no vote?

I am not seeing a silencing mechanic. The vote with no post seems weird. Wilgy has not posted since before the night post.

[Sloonei]

I see two roles, one scum and one town, that can rediredt a player's vote, but yeah the lack of post is what's most striking about Wilg's vote right now.

[Sloonei]

okay, now my flight is boarding. Peace out!

[Epignosis]

Would you at least have anything to say to the votes against you?

Okay. I'll see what I can do.

[Epignosis]

I do not presently have an opinion on Scotty one way or the other.

What do you have an opinion on?

I have an opinion on your vote for me. You cast it and then came up with an explanation for it later. And since you are quick to remind viewers that you said more than announcing your vote, it's worth looking at what you said.

The only preface you made before voting me was this:

I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

I want people to keep the context in mind here:

-sig claimed that I was being saved and therefore must be bad
-I asked how many of my teammates would know to save me if I were bad (the implied answer being "one")
-sig then claimed that Fearless Leader would know who his teammates were
-I argued that there is no evidence supporting that claim, and that if Fearless Leader knew who his teammates were, his role ability would be superfluous, and he might as well have just had standard BTSC.
-sig did not agree with me

Irony notwithstanding, this comment...

I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

...oversimplifies what sig and I were debating, gives a vague reason to vote sig or me ("either way"), and does not elaborate on why discussing the roles as they are written on the front page makes someone bad.

Now here is what you posted after you voted for me:

I feel pretty good about Epi, and fairly neutral about sig.

I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

But since you voted for Epi, you feel it is LESS suspicious when sig mentions it, even though he brought it up first?

I am moving my vote to sig, this vote of Slooneis feels save-ish.

I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.

But you said that to make a point about it either way strikes you as suspicious; not that one is more suspicious than the other. And you did not mention this aspect of your thoughts at all when you voted for Epi. I still think this was a save vote. Although there is a lot of civ BTS here, I don't think you would have waited so long to put in a save for a civ.

It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.

So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

I already commented on the initial post, so now I want to dissect the responses to S~V~S:

I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.

Here, you are answering for sig with soft language ("it's more likely he simply failed..."). What exactly did sig fail to notice? And if he failed to notice something, how could I be wrong about it?

What claim did I stake? I made no claim. sig did. I refuted the claim by arguing that, if I were bad, I could not be getting saved by a bevy of teammates, because only one person would know to do so.

Fearless Leader does not start out knowing who his teammates are for four reasons:
1. The front page doesn't say he does.
2. He doesn't have BTSC with the rest of his team.
3. There are no *Secrets* next to his description.
4. His knowing his teammates would render his first ability redundant.

Why do you find discussion of the above inherently suspicious then? Isn't it in the civilians' best interest to discuss the roles? Isn't there a remarkably different dynamic in trying to catch a mafia team with full BTSC than there is when one member is in the dark?

I cannot fathom why you would find such discussion inherently suspicious, when the context of my argument was defending myself from sig's baseless accusation.

It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.

In this response, you are articulating what everyone had already admitted. Some people were voting to save me. But what does it mean? Does it mean I have civilian BTSC? Is a save vote inherently suspicious when civilian BTSC outnumbers Mafia BTSC three to one? Which people attempting the save are my teammates, and why do you think this?

Your post doesn't provide any answers to those questions, and instead repeats what some of sig's voters openly admitted.

In the second sentence, you claim you don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing. But I don't think you even understood the case against sig.

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

The outrageous part of this is that you let sig slide for not noticing the configuration of the mafia (again, you're speaking for him with soft language), even though I told him to go look at the roles.

You then claim I built a case on one side of the debate being true. That's demonstrably false. sig accused me first. The argument about the roles was the basis of my defense, not my case against sig. Here is what I said against sig:

Furthermore, sig is suggesting that a dead, active player is less valuable than a player who hasn't visited the site since the 16th, and may not ever show.

Do you know who likes dead active players? Mafia.

I'm like yeast man. Active, fast-acting, and on the rise to being cooked.

Notice that my reason for voting sig had nothing to do with the configuration of the Mafia team. His reason for voting me was rooted in the configuration of the Mafia team.

So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

Reading the roles though, I read Fearless Leader the exact same way Epi did.

Fearless Leader - Can send one message to Boris and Natasha each night. Survives his first death.

He doesn't have BTSC with them, and likely will only learn their identities by some code he tells them to use to identify themselves in the thread. (Well, that's what I would do.) He will probably identify himself to them tonight in his message (assuming he's present) and then Day 2 Boris & Natasha will identify themselves to him in the thread somehow. I don't see why it's odd to use explained game mechanics as a defense. It's actually (maybe?) one of the few defenses that is solid and makes sense. (Not saying Epi is civ, just that that defense doesn't ping me a bit. Not sure it's one I would use, because my brain works differently, but the defense itself isn't pingy to me.)

I didn't find that part suspicious at all. I think Epi is likely one of those players who analyzes the roles right away to try to see where things fit. Not all players play that way, and clearly sig is one who didn't in this game.

I simply would not draw the conclusion that FL is unaware of their teammates' identities. Not having BTSC =/= not knowing who they are. All that we can see is that the scum team has a member that is excluded from the regular BTSC. I do not see this as a strong indictment on Epi, but I found it more suspicious that he was accusing a player of being suspicious for either being unaware of the setup or making an assumption about it, when at the very best he (Epi) was making the reciprocal of that exact same assumption. I also think, since he was emphasizing this point in his vote against sig, that he was stating it with much more conviction, which can be taken to mean either he studied the roles and came a strong conclusion, or he is privy to such information, meaning he's one of those bad guys.
This does not mean Epi is my strongest scum read, but voting anyone other than him or sig would have accomplished nothing, so I made my choice.

I'm either bad or I studied the roles and came to a strong conclusion.

Gracious me, it can't possibly mean that I possess above-average reading comprehension skills and refrain from adding phrases to the role descriptions that aren't there that would render the Fearless Leader role ability itself superfluous!

This does not mean Epi is my strongest scum read, but voting anyone other than him or sig would have accomplished nothing, so I made my choice.

Uh-uh. Not buying this honey child.

You had a "strongest scum read" and did not advocate lynching that person all day? You thought a better way to spend Day 1 was to vote everybody with two legs? After that exercise, you excused yourself by saying voting anybody other than me or sig would have accomplished nothing, even though before you voted me, I had a grand total of two votes, and several others had one or two at the time you voted?

Epignosis
4
indiglo (7), sig (12), Sloonei (17), MovingPictures07 (19) 21%

No. You didn't have a biggest suspect. You didn't have to vote me or sig to accomplish something. You pushed a false dilemma. You voted me for a reason you didn't understand at best, and a phony reason at worst.

++++

This all leads me to another, perhaps more sinister reason birdwithteeth11 took the kill: When crunch time came, people were setting up a save of me by voting him, but after I decided I wanted to get sig lynched, I voted him, and others came alongside me. Now that sig was lynched, I look worse, and recency bias gives people the subconscious notion that the other option was the better choice. Killing birdwithteeth11 removes a second shot at saving myself if it came down to it.

Finally, if I am bad, does it make sense to go out of my way to get sig lynched when I could have rallied the troops to vote out bwt and then save my night kill for someone more troublesome?

[Elohcin]

Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

[Long Con]

Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

Eloh, this reads to me like this:



I also feel like Epi at least implied this already, so shooting the question right back at him is odd behaviour to me.

[Long Con]

Who do you think is Boris? Or his buddies?

I don't know yet. Right now I'm feeling a bit suspicious of Elohcin, and I'll plop a vote down there to put a pin in it.

[indiglo]

What is the reason for asking about missing PMs?

Because of curiosity. I was also wondering about whether or not BWT could have been a modkill, or a true NK. Plus, I always like to know that stuff to see if I can figure anything out.

Do you not ever wonder about missing PMs?


PS - I am posting as I read the thread, so apologies if I do a ton of multi-posting, but I don't want to forget my thoughts.

[indiglo]

Upon seeing the kill, I was transported back to another llamagame, Frisky Dingo, in which the Mafia consciously took out people who were not participating or were not participating much.

The mafia team there consisted of Cookie, S~V~S, Russtifinko, Movingpictures07, and ika.

Only two of those are present here. You'd have to ask yourself if either of them would employ the same rationale for kills as before.

Interesting. My brain (without knowing this already) immediately went to: SVS and/or MoPi.

1) I got a slight ping off SVS for her less than OTT reaction to Zebra's poking. I would have expected civ SVS to react even more strongly.

2) I got a slight ping off MP for his rushed, un-informed vote Day 1.

A) I could also see this NK being SVS because it is the gentlewomanly thing to do, and she likes for players to play a game.

B) I could also see it being a MoPi move because you could have done it quickly without thinking if you were in a rush.


My only other thought was perhaps Boris is MIA and therefore didn't send in his kill, and BWT got modkilt. Would Llama do that so quickly though? Or would he give a player more time to check in first? (BWT never even got his role yet, so far as we can tell, right?)

[Elohcin]

LC, I'm always confused by your thoughts on me. I never understand why you feel the way you do. And this time is no different. Also, the video....just static. Is that what you think I am? You're just always a bit over my head so I am going to ignore it.

[S~V~S]

Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

I am not. Your initial thought process was the right one

[Elohcin]

Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

I am not. Your initial thought process was the right one

Well, Epi brought up basically two scenarios. Either the baddies killed BWT to be classy (like LC said) and let the participating players keep playing (which I can see you doing). OR they killed BWT so that If Epi is suspected, there is no go to person to vote for to save Epi. I can see MP doing that. This is why I asked for more clarification from Epi on his thoughts about you and MP being bad.

[S~V~S]

Upon seeing the kill, I was transported back to another llamagame, Frisky Dingo, in which the Mafia consciously took out people who were not participating or were not participating much.

The mafia team there consisted of Cookie, S~V~S, Russtifinko, Movingpictures07, and ika.

Only two of those are present here. You'd have to ask yourself if either of them would employ the same rationale for kills as before.

Interesting. My brain (without knowing this already) immediately went to: SVS and/or MoPi.

1) I got a slight ping off SVS for her less than OTT reaction to Zebra's poking. I would have expected civ SVS to react even more strongly.

2) I got a slight ping off MP for his rushed, un-informed vote Day 1.

A) I could also see this NK being SVS because it is the gentlewomanly thing to do, and she likes for players to play a game.

B) I could also see it being a MoPi move because you could have done it quickly without thinking if you were in a rush.


My only other thought was perhaps Boris is MIA and therefore didn't send in his kill, and BWT got modkilt. Would Llama do that so quickly though? Or would he give a player more time to check in first? (BWT never even got his role yet, so far as we can tell, right?)

You think I did not overreact strongly enough? LOL damned if I do damned if I don't. Maybe I am just jaded and wasted my OTT with her in Arkham. She and I are never going to understand each other. After losing my shit one time too many recently, I am over it, and over trying. Everyone else seems to be able to just shrug & walk away from this type of thing, why not me? Why bother trying? With some people no matter what I say they will never get it, and moreover, I don;'t think they even try at times. Recently whenever I am a civ people go after me for some ludicrous stupid thing they should know I would never do when I was bad. This looks like more of the same, tbh.

And in a recent game I spent the whole game happily NKing low posters, and Epi made note of it. That would not be a smart move on my part, and I have a reputation for being a good baddie becasue I am good at it. I avoid stupid shit when I am bad, or at least I try to.

Maybe MP is bad, maybe Sloonei is. I am not. But I am tired of having to defend myself every single freaking game when I am a civ so I never have any fun anymore.

Linki, I got that. I am just saying your initial reaction to me YESTERDAY was the correct one. Go back and look to see why you felt that way.

[indiglo]

I can 100% understand that, SVS. And I do not want to encourage anyone to get MORE upset or affected about an online game. I think being more zen is a GOOD thing, and wouldn't want to make anyone feel that they need to be less zen.


Also, here's another thought. I could see bea doing a BWT NK as well. Again - it would be kind, and quick for busy baddies. Cue commercial:

"Are you a Busy Baddie? Do you have a lot going on in your real life, but you still want to play mafia online? You want to send in a nightkill, because fake murdering your friends is FUN!! But who has time to read a long thread and analyze all those posts? Just take out a no-show! It's the best option for Busy Baddies. Even the civs will love you if you take out no-shows!" :P

[Long Con]

Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

[Long Con]

I can 100% understand that, SVS. And I do not want to encourage anyone to get MORE upset or affected about an online game. I think being more zen is a GOOD thing, and wouldn't want to make anyone feel that they need to be less zen.


Also, here's another thought. I could see bea doing a BWT NK as well. Again - it would be kind, and quick for busy baddies. Cue commercial:

"Are you a Busy Baddie? Do you have a lot going on in your real life, but you still want to play mafia online? You want to send in a nightkill, because fake murdering your friends is FUN!! But who has time to read a long thread and analyze all those posts? Just take out a no-show! It's the best option for Busy Baddies. Even the civs will love you if you take out no-shows!" :P

I agree that any kill that seems predicated in kindness would turn my mind first to bea.

[Epignosis]

Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

Maybe you killed bwt so you could point the finger at me for pointing the finger at S~V~S and MP. Isn't this fun?

[Long Con]

Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

Maybe you killed bwt so you could point the finger at me for pointing the finger at S~V~S and MP. Isn't this fun?

And you fell for it, hook, line, and index finger!

[Epignosis]

Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

Maybe you killed bwt so you could point the finger at me for pointing the finger at S~V~S and MP. Isn't this fun?

And you fell for it, hook, line, and index finger!

Nah, I never pointed the finger at S~V~S or MP. I only posted what first came to my mind when I saw the kill.

[Epignosis]

Wow, that's a lot to think about Epi. I especially like your defense in the end. So do you think SVS or MP could be bad based on your thoughts as to why BWT was killed and the fact that they were both on a past team who killed non-participants?

I am not. Your initial thought process was the right one

Well, Epi brought up basically two scenarios. Either the baddies killed BWT to be classy (like LC said) and let the participating players keep playing (which I can see you doing). OR they killed BWT so that If Epi is suspected, there is no go to person to vote for to save Epi. I can see MP doing that. This is why I asked for more clarification from Epi on his thoughts about you and MP being bad.

It was just an observation from a previous outing- something that came to mind.

[Elohcin]

Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

The thought did cross my mind as I was reading his post actually.

Maybe Epi is the one who killed BWT, so that he could point the finger at S~V~S and MP.

Maybe you killed bwt so you could point the finger at me for pointing the finger at S~V~S and MP. Isn't this fun?

I can hear your voice as I read this Epi.

So Epi - if it was just an observation that came to mind, are you saying you don;t think MP or SVS are responsible for the kill? Or are you just thinking, "eh? It's possible"?

[a2thezebra]

Yikes, catching up right away.

[a2thezebra]

I try not to go more than 24 hours without posting but life calls sometimes.

[a2thezebra]

RVS just leads to people forgetting to move their votes.

But OK. Zeebs

I agree with this. I think that it leads to laziness too. Players will find that the day is near end and they don't want to take the time to catch up, so they say to themselves, "Oh well, I already have a vote on someone so I'll just leave it there."

I don't think I've ever seen this happen.

I also agree with this.

Voting for people for no reason just for lulz is my least favorite thing, tbh.

But SVS, the only think I hate worse than voting for lulz is self-voting :P Haha! But I'll let it slide this time.

Zebra, you are coming out at SVS pretty hard for this RSV issue. This is the first thing to register on my "concern" radar. Anyone else?

linki: WHats OMGUS?

Do I suspect anyone else, you mean? Not yet, no. Why does this concern you? Do you not see her words as contradictory to her actions? I haven't voted for her yet because I'm not sure it's alignment-indicative (for her) but I don't see how you can agree with contradictions.

OMGUS is "Oh My God You Suck" it's when someone votes for someone just because they voted for them. So my accusation of that towards Sloonei is a joke.

funny, b/c I usually read SVS as bad and I felt her posts have been civ-like this game

I agree, her overreactions were a definite civ tell. If it weren't for them I may be voting for her, but overreactions with some players tend to indicate being town.

The above highlighted section caught my eye. There is 19 minutes between the two posts and svs made no post in that time. So zebra, what made you go from "not sure it's alignment indicative" to its a "definite civ tell?"

One post is referring to her many contradictions, the other is referring to her overreaction. The former I don't think is alignment-indicative, the latter is a civ tell.

[a2thezebra]

I'm here and ready to vote and just for the hell of it I'm going to make this a three way. I'll be voting for indiglo. I'd rather vote for Zebra at this point, but I want to make it a three way tie so I won't. I should have more activity tomorrow unless someone night kills me then I won't have more activity.

linki: Ignore what I just said entirely I changed my mind, I don't like this last minute save of Epi, and the fact everyone is voting for a player who hasn't even made a post yet. I don't like this at all. I'll be voting for Epi. However, I'll be willing to switch to someone else I just very much disagree with voting for a player who hasn't even posted yet or apparently logged on.

Look at the roles. If I am bad, how many people are on my team?

Correct me if I'm wrong Epi, but does this post I'm quoting here pretty much sum up your entire reasoning behind voting sig and persuading others to do so as well?

[a2thezebra]

Do you know who likes dead active players? Mafia.

Is that why you voted for me earlier? It was only when you took your vote off that I stopped posting for a bit. :P

[a2thezebra]

Too many good points against Sig.

At this point catching up I've still only counted one, and I wouldn't call it a "good" point.

[a2thezebra]

That's annoying MP. If you can't devote the time to it, don't play. It's not fair to the rest of us.

What do you mean? He is playing.

[a2thezebra]

sig said the most suspicious things I've ever seen for a Day 1, tried to save an absentee and lynch an active civilian. I cannot believe I am tied with him. My voters should be ashamed of themselves and their half-baked votes.

This can't be genuine. There's no way you actually think that a simple logical error is anywhere near the most suspicious things you've ever seen for a Day 1.

[a2thezebra]

Why are you so concerned that Epi might be lynched?

I'm liking you in this game so far, MP.

[a2thezebra]

Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.

TRUTH.

[a2thezebra]

Damn.

Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.

Got screwed by his own role Day 1.

I'm sorry sig.

Okay, I try not to be pinged by this type of thing but this post came ONE MINUTE after sig's flip. That's pretty fast, Epi.

[a2thezebra]

Okay, how did I miss all the linki? RIP Sig. You acted suspicious as hell though.

No he didn't.

[a2thezebra]

I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

Yay! WIFOM! A WIFOM defense!