Dr. Who Mafia - Night 12

[S~V~S]

I think "Dalek" or "Cyberman" would be uncheckable, I think "robot" or "cyborg" (which would be more accurate ) would not be, but that is my opinion.

And the reason i made a big deal out of it is that Epig seemed to be being evasive . Evasion is something baddies do. zeek probably should not have asked him to say that, but he did ask. So had he just answered it as asked, none of this would have been an issue.

Rox has made some good points about Epi 2.0, but for me, the evasion, the attempt to tell us he did what he did not do, not just once, but twice, leads me think he has something to hide.

[Tangrowth]

I agree that Epig 2.0 seems more evasive than his previous counterpart.

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now. Of course, that's just my opinion. We may be fine either way.

[Marmot]

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now.

How close-minded of you.

[Long Con]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

This would break the game if these were checkable statements.

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with the checkable LD statements. No host in their right mind would allow these kinds of statements to be checked.

It would not break the game, those are perfectly fine statements.

How do you define an acceptable LD statement? It has to be in the context of a paragraph and a separate idea? If that were enforced, then people like MM would just ensconce it in a paragraph and the intention and result would be the same.

The Lie Detector can only detect one lie per night. So say he/she checks ONE of MM's statements tonight and finds it to be a lie. Then what? He or she joins the chorus of voices against him?

What if they check Epig's statement and find out he's lying? How does that break the game, someone new suddenly comes into the thread with the biggest Epig thrust yet, and they get killed by his team for it? Or they remain subtle, trying to build a case to convince people to lynch him, and maybe still gets killed before anyone is convinced?

The Lie Detector role is a challenging one, given there's no infodumping or "I'm really sure he's bad but I can't say why" or any crap like that. But that kind of stuff gets severe scorn from the entire community, so it shouldn't be a problem. Group-policed, host-policed, the role is a fine and balanced one. You just have to not be an asshat.

Now that I think about it, I'm not against LD statements either. I'm not comfortable with trying to force someone to make one, but I think making one is an acceptable strategy. People will automatically think you're a little more Civvie for it. Great cover for a baddie, with little chance of negative repercussion given that there's a whole bunch of other players.

Someday I'm going to make a Lie Detector role who doesn't know that he's really bad at it and always gets the wrong answer.

[Tangrowth]

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now.

How close-minded of you.

Lol.

I've been anything BUT closed-minded, and I'm even now willing to hear you out, but you continuously refuse to contribute anything other than irrational fixation on one post Enrique made which does not hold up to scrutiny.

[Tangrowth]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

This would break the game if these were checkable statements.

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with the checkable LD statements. No host in their right mind would allow these kinds of statements to be checked.

It would not break the game, those are perfectly fine statements.

How do you define an acceptable LD statement? It has to be in the context of a paragraph and a separate idea? If that were enforced, then people like MM would just ensconce it in a paragraph and the intention and result would be the same.

The Lie Detector can only detect one lie per night. So say he/she checks ONE of MM's statements tonight and finds it to be a lie. Then what? He or she joins the chorus of voices against him?

What if they check Epig's statement and find out he's lying? How does that break the game, someone new suddenly comes into the thread with the biggest Epig thrust yet, and they get killed by his team for it? Or they remain subtle, trying to build a case to convince people to lynch him, and maybe still gets killed before anyone is convinced?

The Lie Detector role is a challenging one, given there's no infodumping or "I'm really sure he's bad but I can't say why" or any crap like that. But that kind of stuff gets severe scorn from the entire community, so it shouldn't be a problem. Group-policed, host-policed, the role is a fine and balanced one. You just have to not be an asshat.

Now that I think about it, I'm not against LD statements either. I'm not comfortable with trying to force someone to make one, but I think making one is an acceptable strategy. People will automatically think you're a little more Civvie for it. Great cover for a baddie, with little chance of negative repercussion given that there's a whole bunch of other players.

Someday I'm going to make a Lie Detector role who doesn't know that he's really bad at it and always gets the wrong answer.

If the LD is not an asshat, yes, but I also don't like how then the on-topic discussion will be filled by people making statements and then people overanalyzing why someone refuses to make a statement or whether that statement is checkable, etc. In that way, IMO, it breaks the "fun" of the game to me.

At least with a role check, it's practically the same, but it doesn't steer the thread away with statement-checking talk.

I just really, really don't like LD check roles, but that's only my opinion.

[keys56000000000]

For all you guys know, the LD is dead. If I were a mafioso, I'd take the risk and make the statement. Even if the LD is alive, and checks my statement, they still have to get the info into the thread, and I can still counter it.

[Tangrowth]

For all you guys know, the LD is dead. If I were a mafioso, I'd take the risk and make the statement. Even if the LD is alive, and checks my statement, they still have to get the info into the thread, and I can still counter it.

This is a good point, keys.

[Marmot]

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now.

How close-minded of you.

Lol.

I've been anything BUT closed-minded, and I'm even now willing to hear you out, but you continuously refuse to contribute anything other than irrational fixation on one post Enrique made which does not hold up to scrutiny.

Oh really.

But I can also envision a scenario where you are the teammate, and that whole description you just posted was planned by you and Enrique in a rough way before Enrique's first post in the series. WIFOM by definition, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I still believe you're civ for reasons I stated earlier, but I just thought I'd share another point of view.

Fair enough. Not true, but sometimes playing devil's advocate is helpful, especially since I realize I can get tunnel vision quite often.

I'll let my thoughts on MM sit since I realize I may be feeling vindicated in error on it, and I'd like others to actually offer me feedback, but I do find his actions suspicious.

I don't want to get caught up in this sort of thing if that's alright with you.

As for the Enrique bit, well that actually reinforced the case I made on Dana before. It is not the centerpiece of my argument, but it provided an additional layer.

Also I'm actually trying to find your defense of Dana. Could you save me the trouble and link it for me?

[Marmot]

I'm even now willing to hear you out, but you continuously refuse to contribute anything other than irrational fixation on one post Enrique made which does not hold up to scrutiny.

I honestly don't think you are. I think you are saying that to justify being critical of my statements even more. You've said many times today that you are 99% sure, convinced and certain that I am a Dalek. I don't think you'd back out on it now.

[Marmot]

Also, in regards to Epi: I am not ignoring that issue, but I am pursuing other things right now.

[Snow Dog]

i have not posted for a while but i am reading and following the plot.

[Tangrowth]

MM, here is my major defense of Dana, but I have had other posts that have defended her: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=445&p=89662#p89662

And you say you don't want to get "caught up" with this sort of thing and that I wouldn't back out now, but here's the thing: I gave you plenty of time to defend your actions, and you have not offered any adequate explanations at all for the main tenants of my suspicion against you. I've defended myself against my accusers plenty, including you, yet you don't consider alternative explanations. And you're going to try to argue that I wouldn't back out? I'm baddie hunting. I've backed off cases where defenders have logically torn apart my arguments against them and reconsidered PLENTY of times this game, so much in fact that it was a major point of suspicion against me. So... your point is invalid. If you had what I found to be adequate explanations for your behavior, I'd believe you. And I didn't start out "99%" certain, but as you've continued to post and I've analyzed your behavior, I'm sorry, but so many things you've done just do not compute if you are a civvie this game.

[Tangrowth]

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 662#p89662

Well, that's weird.

[Marmot]

Quick question for you MP, why do you think Enrique voted for Snow Dog and not you on Day 3? At the time of his vote, you had 3 votes on you while Snow Dog had one, and Made had 5.

[Tangrowth]

Quick question for you MP, why do you think Enrique voted for Snow Dog and not you on Day 3? At the time of his vote, you had 3 votes on you while Snow Dog had one, and Made had 5.

He had been casually defending me all game, so a vote for me would have been completely unexpected.

[Chris]

I think I understood, Chris. Epig 2 is different and sketchy and you're voting him to put it to rest, but you still suspect MP.

[Snow Dog]

I was curious about Roxy's sudden change of heart and being SURE that Hedgeowl was bad to voting Made and now her single minded certainty about Epi 2. Now she refused to vote Enrique because of she didn't trust Epi, even though his case as pretty good imo. This is something Chris noted at the time.
First she wasn't sure about Made, but to possibly? save Enrique she dropped her Hedgeowl case and went for Made for playing differently.

[Marmot]

MM, here is my major defense of Dana, but I have had other posts that have defended her: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=445&p=89662#p89662

And you say you don't want to get "caught up" with this sort of thing and that I wouldn't back out now, but here's the thing: I gave you plenty of time to defend your actions, and you have not offered any adequate explanations at all for the main tenants of my suspicion against you. I've defended myself against my accusers plenty, including you, yet you don't consider alternative explanations. And you're going to try to argue that I wouldn't back out? I'm baddie hunting. I've backed off cases where defenders have logically torn apart my arguments against them and reconsidered PLENTY of times this game, so much in fact that it was a major point of suspicion against me. So... your point is invalid. If you had what I found to be adequate explanations for your behavior, I'd believe you. And I didn't start out "99%" certain, but as you've continued to post and I've analyzed your behavior, I'm sorry, but so many things you've done just do not compute if you are a civvie this game.

Before I read that let me explain. Those are two different things.

I did not want to get caught up in getting heated and throwing insults back and forth at each other. It seemed like our conversation might have been heading that direction and I wanted to stop it.

That next bit is about your read on me. I don't expect you to change it. I really don't. You can keep saying that I have the ability to change your mind, but you keep following it up with statements that your certainty of my alignment (you did it again in the above quote). Also let me point this post out. You may have had time to sit and wait for a response, but I haven't necessarily had time to post one.

Linki: You stated somewhere (or maybe it was Epi) that Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt. That doesn't make any sense to me. You would have been the better choice at the time.

[Tangrowth]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

[Tangrowth]

Now I really have to go. I'm leaving my vote on you because I firmly believe you're bad. If you're not, sorry, but there's no changing your actions or your lack of adequate defenses. I'll likely be back before the vote, but it'll be late tonight. I have a lot of work to get done today, and haven't really had a productive start that I was intending.

[Marmot]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

[Marmot]

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 662#p89662

Well, that's weird.

You know what else is weird, I DID respond to that.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 671#p89671

[Snow Dog]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

I did a 180?

[Snow Dog]

Also, I do agree it's odd that he didn't name hardly any suspects in his analysis, mostly people he thought were good or likely good.

Hey, that sounds a lot like Dana...

Linki: I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but I will now. I think you've got the wrong adjective there. And because I've got a strong suspicion that you and Dana or on a baddie team together (with Enrique), I'm taking whatever you say with a grain of salt.

I will admit I wish Dana would actually come back to playing with us this game, but that doesn't sound a lot like Dana, considering she's not really making any analysis.

And she's not bad.

But you have practically no evidence to believe that other than buying into the WIFOM that Enrique defended us both all game only to flip on us at the end.

Dana is not bad and i think you also affirmed that daisy is not bad? I presume you "know" this somehow.

[Snow Dog]

It's ok MP, I just read your Dana defence. Which lynch is this about, Enrique's?

[Snow Dog]

I mean Made's failed lynch. MM voted himself in that one.

[Hedgeowl]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

I did a 180?

I think he means Enrique, not you.

[sabie12]

Hey guys still not feeling all that well. Anyway I'm gonna have to go through and read things. My current suspicion has been rox because she was so adament abiut the lie detector thing but wasn't making statements herself. Ill have to actually look backfor sure to make my decision though. Just want to have a vote in for now.

[Roxy]

Sabie - you have to go through and read thing yet somehow you know that lie detectors are being discussed and that I have not made one???
How very pingalicious!
I am not a robot.
I am a good girl.
I am not cyber.
I am not a master.

Since you are so concerned with mine why not add yours to the mix sabie?

[Roxy]

Forgot some:
I am not an indy.
I am not dalek.
I am not a secret role.

[Epignosis]

Yes, I'm sure the lie detector would like to spend 8 Nights checking those.

[Roxy]

Epi - what do you think of sabie saying she needs to read through things but knows enough to know that we are discussing lie detectors?
They would not waste 8 nights if they just check the one that says I am a good girl.

[Epignosis]

Epi - what do you think of sabie saying she needs to read through things but knows enough to know that we are discussing lie detectors?
They would not waste 8 nights if they just check the one that says I am a good girl.

She didn't vote for me, so she's doing better than you regardless of what she's read or hasn't read.

[Epignosis]

I want to remind people why Roxy is voting for me.

I see you suspect me as a Cyberman, Roxy.

I have been gunning for Enrique since the beginning. And I had Made pegged as Enrique's teammate for some time (since this post, if you want to know). A couple other posts reinforced that view, and even after I died, I still kept up. Unlike what you are accusing me of, I don't reveal all of my cards before the flop. I often bide my time on a given suspicion and see how things will play out. Now given that much, with Enrique's lynch and Made's lynch so close, I observed that Enrique voted quickly for Made, but Made refrained from voting for Enrique. A civilian with no BTSC would vote to save himself (except Ep1 ). Under the impression that they were teammates, that refusal to vote for Enrique made things clearer.

Let's assume your theory, that I am now a robot (well...I was a robot but never mind ) is true, and that I had info on Enrique and Made. This means that in three nights, the robot role checker would have had to have checked BOTH Made and Enrique, the latter of whom Ep1 happened to openly suspect- hard. My domain is language, not mathematics, but accounting for deaths and the fact that they wouldn't check their own crew, I estimate that the chance of both checks happening by Day 4 is 4.2%. Of course, that doesn't account for role blocks or the panoply of human interaction over the Internet. Finally, your theory means that I would have had to be willing to tip my hand to accomplish something that would happen without my intervention.

Which scenario is more likely?

[Roxy]

If you don't mind I would rather people read MY posts to know why I voted foryou not a carefully worded post you made.

Unusual answer from you inre: sabie.

[Epignosis]

If you don't mind I would rather people read MY posts to know why I voted foryou not a carefully worded post you made.

Unusual answer from you inre: sabie.

I don't want people to read your posts. They're threats to my existence.

And yes it was. What could it mean?

[Marmot]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

I did a 180?

I was referring to Enrique, not you.

Pronouns fail me again.

[Marmot]

If you don't mind I would rather people read MY posts to know why I voted foryou not a carefully worded post you made.

Unusual answer from you inre: sabie.

I don't want people to read your posts. They're threats to my existence.

And yes it was. What could it mean?

What about my existence?

[Long Con]

I think I forgot to say: voting Epig because he's my biggest personal suspicion.

[Snow Dog]

Done a read through of MP and i think i trust him. Roxy i don't. She didn't want to follow epi's well reasoned suspicions of Enrique because she didn't trust him. I will not follow Roxy's suspicions of Epi because i don't trust her. Besides, i think it is reasonable to apply some logic to the votes being made, read the roles and come to those conclusions. don't forget IT ISN'T PROVED YET THAT MADE WAS THE DALEK EMPEROR. Are you confirming he was Roxy? It seems that way.

Anyway, tired and need to sleep. I will vote Metalmarsh as I just don't think civ. I think MP is spot on.

[juliets]

I have taken another look at how I'm evaluating the evidence against Epi and I still feel that there is not enough for me to vote for him. I'm leaving my vote where it is but I'll make sure if anything unexpected happens that makes me suspect someone more I will change my vote.

[nijuukyugou]

Howdy do, everyone! Sorry for being MIA - I meant to get on last night and catch up, but I went to a haunted house instead with someone unexpected visitors. Based on the wait time, the amount I paid, and the attraction itself...I wish I'd been here instead :P

I see many are gunning for Epi's lynch. From what I've read, many people are getting on him about not making a lie detector statement about being a robot/Cyberman, and others are claiming that his second coming (haha he'll dig that) is more evasive than the first. I'll say he's a slippery fish until I figure him out, which I assume will be never. With that being said, I don't see him as being any more evasive than his first self/usual self, and I am not surprised he's refusing to give a straight answer to the LD. That's pretty him if you ask me, and I don't know why people are so sure that he's bad right now. The guy's already been lynched this game, and I think others are more probable candidates.

Like Dana. I've read your adamant defense of Dana, MP, and it doesn't really change my mind about her. She might be RL busy, yes. But she has dropped off since Night 4, and who has been lynched/killed in the wake? The very people she had been defending - Enrique and Made (although when things started to go sour towards Made, she began to "see" that his behavior was strange). She has been very...what's the word? Agreeing? Blendy? Earlier she had pinged me for some reason and I couldn't quite remember why, but I went back and read posts from when she had made the following statement:

I really feel like they were both civ, and we should take a closer look at the people who have been more along the sidelines. I'm not sure exactly who that would be, but I don't think the Epig lynch was a save. It seemed more like two civ options, and for me at least, I went with the person I felt slightly more sure was bad.

The other person she referred to was Snow Dog. So, already drawing attention away from her bad vote for Epi with the ambiguous term "seemed," which could be interpreted as "Hey, I figured out I made a bad vote, so it seemed now like a Civ vs. Civ vote" OR "Oh, I wasn't sure about the vote, he seemed bad at the time I voted, but that's clear now that people are pointing out my behavior." Then, when splints called her out on it, she responded thusly:

Dana - It seemed like two civvie options, yet you still voted one? I'm a little confused with your wording here.

Correct. It seems now, after Epig's role has been revealed, that they were both civvie. I voted one because I was more sure SD was good than I was was about Epi, so I don't think we should vote SD today because the night post implied that we'd be in big trouble if we lynch another civ.

Called out again, then she responds thusly:

I didn't feel both options in the last lynch were civ at the time the lynch was happening. I explained already that I feel that way now that Epig's role has been revealed. Meaning I thought SD was civ and I still do even after what happened. I did vote for who I thought was bad, and I was wrong.

There are multiple posts defending Snow Dog (I will not quote all of them because they are very easy to find if you search her posts), but all of a sudden this post comes along Day 2:

Snow Dog's recent vote switch really bothered me. I said before how I was slightly suspicious of Snow Dog following MP's vote yesterday(?). The asking who to vote for and just placing his vote on whoever's the most likely to be lynched at that time is not sitting well with me. You're being super fishy, friend.

She then votes SD out of the blue, after multiple defense posts of him, and then seems surprised:

Okay, whoa, did not expect that to happen. I was strongly considering voting for Snow Dog back when I made the post saying his vote switched bothered me, but I got distracted with calc homework that was due at 11 and forgot to actually do the vote until the last minute. This was a really surprising turn of events, but hopefully we'll get a good result.

Surprised at what? The lynch? At the fact that others voted for SD? Because she voted pretty close to the deadline, out of nowhere, so I don't really know why any of that would be a surprise. She never really provided the explanation she promised about him, likely in hopes that people would stop taking notice of her second bad vote. Then, as others have pointed out, she asked if Snow Dog 2.0 could comment on his former self, which by itself is a pretty innocuous question, but thinking of it in the context of "Oh shit, I voted him for no plausible reason and he's back from the dead," I can see where others are coming from now.

And now she has disappeared. Busy? Maybe. Hiding? I believe so. Voting Dana.

[nijuukyugou]

Loving the new colors, by the way

[sabie12]

I read enough to know you were talking about the lie detector stuff that was a couple days ago. I just meant so far that was the thing I read that I found to be suspicious. Ill read through again and see if anything else catches my eye.

[Hedgeowl]

The dana votes are bit surprising to me considering the lack of recent conversation about her. It seems like its coming from folks who havent been around as much this weekend. I also wish she would be here to answer some of these thoughts. I find this vote to be very interesting so far between Epi and MM especially as it keeps tying up. I am not sure atm where my vote will go, but should have a wee bit of time to consider some of the cases being made.

[Bass_the_Clever]

Ok where to start . The two cases that make the most sense to me is the case on MM and the case on Epig 2.0. MP made some good points about MM maybe distancing from possible teammates. But the case on Epig is what I find myself agreeing with the most. The fact that he is an English teacher and knows how to word phrases is what makes me second guess him and his explanation for why he gave the statement he gave for the LD. I think he was trying to give a good enough answer without seeming like a liar to the LD.

Bass, what do you think of the fact that Epi has now said "I am not a robot"? That's the statement that others have been asking for.

Well since you have to check the whole sentence that its in then wouldn't that statement is useless?

Preface: This post deals with the lie detector business, just in case you don't care about that. If you do, here you are:

Epi I am looking forward to whatever you have for us this afternoon and I'm inclined right now to think you are civ. What I don't understand is why in hell you just don't make the robot statement so all of us can put that behind us. As a civ, do you really want us to spend so much time on that one issue? SVS said maybe you are possibly saying "I am what I am"; I just think you are being plain ole' stubborn. Or, you're not civ and there's a reason why you don't want to make that statement, a reason that I cannot see when I read your original statement about role-checking. I guess there is the possibility that you are civ and don't want to make that statement but I don't see any robots in the civ characters. I have to say the whole thing causes me some uneasiness because it could so easily be dispensed with.

When I made my statement, I noted that it's difficult to find a statement you're allowed to check. Some hosts do not allow "I am not a baddie" to be checked, for example. Furthermore, I have not seen a single minute of Dr. Who. I know that in my previous incarnation, I was a robotic canine. No way in hell was I about to research each of the characters to see if they were androids or some other non-biological entity. And are Daleks robots? I don't know. Three of them look like robots, but the Dalek Sec sure as hell doesn't. Is the Dalek Sec what those things look like underneath their armor? "I am not a robot" is a flawed statement from my perspective. Therefore, I crafted what I considered to be the most comprehensive sentence. In retrospect, I could have used a different verb tense in my statement to provide it the airtight nature Long Con was looking for, but I didn't. Sorry.

As I've said before, I don't reveal all of my cards before the flop. By refusing to capitulate, I get to watch how people react to that. I get to watch how people react to the reactions. Plus I get a little suspicion kept on me, which is a healthy thing, if you can dig it. If you're of the mindset that my refusal must mean I'm bad, then not only is your conclusion false, you're missing the forest for the trees.

The most recent criticism against me is that I didn't do exactly what zeek wanted. First, we don't know exactly what zeek wanted, but for once I'll be reasonable and not argue that particular point. Second, if you will consider the context of my statement, you may note that zeek did not ask me what he did out of the blue. He asked me because Roxy was under the impression that I had info. Nope- just paying good attention. When I phrased my statement, I was conscious of Roxy's suspicion. I had her in the forefront of my mind when I made it (even if she didn't notice it ). Third, zeek was around after I made my statement. He even posted to tell us that he's awesome at code cracking, that there are no lynch stops, and that there's not one single capote (thank God for that). It would not have been difficult for him to express dissatisfaction with my sentence; that he did not in the span of two hours leads me to believe that my statement satisfied him. Finally, zeek asking me to make another statement during the Day (i.e., when he wasn't insane) wouldn't be useful until the next Night (since lie detectors don't detect during the Day).

Regarding lie detectors in general: I like them, but I've decided that I don't like the way they are used: "Make a statement or you're bad!" Should I ever include them in one of my games in the future, it will be a secret. If the game maker wanted the lie detector to be a role or alignment checker, it would have been so. Also, people shouldn't harangue me about the wording of my statement until they've made statements of their own, but that's just one fellow's opinion. Moving forward, I refuse to offer statements for a lie detector, regardless of my alignment. Just a head's up.

So my refusal to comply with this request could be any combination of the above reasons.

Or spite.

[Bass_the_Clever]

I going to go ahead a vote Epig

[Epignosis]

I going to go ahead a vote Epig

Spoken like a drunken caveman.

[Bass_the_Clever]

I going to go ahead a vote Epig

Spoken like a drunken caveman.

Hey I resemble that.