The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:The real options are

Position 1

Position 2

Position 3

Position 4

DHPLS

linki: what's your favourite fruit, MM? Answer carefully.

juliets wrote:I'm a little confused by what some people are saying about forcing a position. What does it mean to force a position?

juliets wrote:I'm a little confused by what some people are saying about forcing a position. What does it mean to force a position?

Long Con wrote:He had no problem with people theorizing he was Duncan before due to his lynch stop, but now he doesn't know what Duncan Idaho is. Uh-huh. You decide whatcha gonna do.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:He had no problem with people theorizing he was Duncan before due to his lynch stop, but now he doesn't know what Duncan Idaho is. Uh-huh. You decide whatcha gonna do.

Actually I had every problem with it -- I claimed my role because I was sick to death of people speculating about the freaking lynch stop. And we're still doing it. This has seriously been the most annoying game I've ever played in.

Long Con wrote:

juliets wrote:I'm a little confused by what some people are saying about forcing a position. What does it mean to force a position?

Lorab has been lynched. She was:

Ozymandias - Watchmen BADDIE
Every time two civilians in a row are lynched, Ozymandias can force the game into the Position of his choice. If he cannot use this ability, he may spy on a player to see who they target.

The idea is that there are 5 Positions, and we are in one each phase (day and night). Certain roles have powers that are different depending on which Position we're in - see a2thezebra.

a2thezebra has been killed by an odd person with a paper airplane. She was....

Roger Rabbit - Who Framed Roger Rabbit~ A BADDIE
In position 4, Roger Rabbit can frame a player by making them appear bad to alignment checks.
In any other Position, he may target a player and force them to post using only emoticons for the next Day.

The Night Polls are 5 options, and it's likely that these are used to determine the Position for the next phase.

Lorab gets to choose the Position after 2 Civ lynches (Rico and sig). If she is on Kubrick's team...

Stanley Kubrick, A BADDIE:

On Position 1, cannot be lynched. On any other position, cannot be night killed

... then it's likely she would force Position 1. And JJJ was not lynched on the day that Lorab had the opportunity to force the Position.

And that's what I think Lorab did for JJJ. He sends those chills up and down my spine.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

FZ. wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really have to go. I'm set for 6 hours of sleep if I can fall unconscious right... now.

Nope.

Anyway, I'm going to leave my vote on Boomslang. I've decided I prefer him over llama, and I think he's a more viable candidate right now than LoRab (I'd support her lynch too). I encourage y'all to continue having this productive discourse all the way to the final buzzer of the phase. Make EOD exciting, that's when people crack.

G'night folks. Beware shenanigans.

If Golden feels Boomslang is a civ, maybe we should switch to someone else? If you split your votes, you'll end up being lynched

LoRab?

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:He had no problem with people theorizing he was Duncan before due to his lynch stop, but now he doesn't know what Duncan Idaho is. Uh-huh. You decide whatcha gonna do.

Actually I had every problem with it -- I claimed my role because I was sick to death of people speculating about the freaking lynch stop. And we're still doing it. This has seriously been the most annoying game I've ever played in.

Ok, so you survived a lynch, and a baddie role has been revealed that can survive a lynch, and another baddie has been revealed that could control the Position for the phase in which you were lynched... and you don't want anyone to talk about it. A man's got a right to talk about what's on his mind, and this is pretty relevant stuff to consider.

But oh yeah, I forgot. You already told us that you're a civ that survives a lynch. We must be deaf or something.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab and thellama73

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:LoRab and llama have not butted heads over who is the better writer and poster.

confirmed fishy

I don't to butt heads. The market has determined that I am the better writer, since I get paid for it.

I get paid for it, as well. So the market hasn't determined anything.

LoRab wrote:

sig wrote:So zebra was mafia, that most likely means JJJ wasn't on her team. I did see the idea that she picked him, but this makes little sense for day 1. I think it is worth looking into the players who after Rico flipped made comments, like saying how they hope he isn't as spammy or it would be better to have lynched a baddie. I find the first group to almost be trying to weaken Rico's credit thus giving him less of an opinion and basically neutering him, and the second group to just be scummy.

I think a few mafia members were on the Rico wagon, however I also think there is a good chance that either LoRab or Llama are scum.

I don't have many civ or scum reads right know, but I do think Long Con is a civilian, and I'm leaning scum on Llama. Know here is my question do you think the early snipping that Llama and Zebra did was fabricated? It was only a little bit, but I'm curious what people think of it.

I think with Zebra's lynch it also makes it less likely that Mac is on her team.

One last thing, if Roger Rabbit was a civ role last game wouldn't it be odd for it to be a scum role this game? Could this be some sort of seemer/prankster thing? Remember Night 0 scum was able to do actions in theory they could have targeted Zebra and then killed her today. This could be a seemer role where it replaces the scum who used it, just switched the alignment, or let the seemer pick a role.
I think the chances of this are low, but then again the chances of hitting a mafia night 1 is also small.

It is possible that Llama is mafia--I am not.

LoRab wrote:

bea wrote:

LoRab wrote:What the absolute fuck?

I've caught up and holy bandwagon, batman!! Seriously, people.

There is more than one person who voted for me who either hasn't mentioned me at all and should know better (Tranq) or who has never played with me before and can't even give me the benefit to answer votes (motel room). A few others who are somewhere in the middle, but that was the most obvious late lynch bandwagon I have ever seen.

And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Hi lorab. NIce to see you again. (been waiting for this post in my catsup since I read you missed the vote. All I could think is....well...she's in for a surprise..... )


Pretty clear what you think of JJ - what do you think of the rest that voted you? Who's most likely scum? Who's most likely mislead civ?

Most suspish: JJJ (though not for voting me...mainly because of the bandwagon against me which looked like it was to save him), motel room, Tranq....Golden sort of started the bandwagon, so that concerns me and bumps him up. Although maybe llama, too, for being the next to vote going by the first follower theory.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.

I don't have BTSC with Dom. We are not on a baddie team together. If he is civ, then we are on the same team.

I will say that suspish is a word that was used a lot on LP and TP, which is where Dom learned to mafia. So it doesn't strike me as odd language from Dom. He also could have picked it up from me during our BTSC time in the last game.

All that said, it's not a word I'd expect to hear from Llama...so...an interesting note to keep in mind.

The first post here is just banter. The next three are all important I think. In response to sig's suspicion, LoRab felt the need to say "llama may be bad but I'm not" instead of just "I'm not bad". In response to bea, she names a number of people she "suspects" on her bandwagon, and at the end tacks on another addendum about llama as a suspect. Then in the last quoted post here it's the same deal.

I think that last post is critically important. Click here to see why from within my Dom review.

Spoiler: show

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Voted LoRab for no reason.

I like your line of reasoning.

thellama73 wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:RIP sig, sorry to see that you were town.

Now we just need to make sure that the wave of bandwagoners doesn't stay set in their ways and go back to LoRab again.

Also, the sig flip, taken together with other things, seems to strongly imply there were two intended nightkills night 1, and that DFaraday's death may have been due to something weird/unrelated.

Back?

People have been rumbling about LoRab for a while now, and she still managed a few votes day 1. Considering how many people just showed up to pile on sig, I think there's a decent chance of that happening to LoRab tomorrow if people don't broaden their horizons a bit.

Maybe the fact taht people piled on Sig means that teammates were trying to protect Lorab from her nigh inevitable lynch?

thellama73 wrote:I don't really have an opinion on Lorab at this point. I haven't found the case on her compelling. But I have noticed that sometimes when a person keeps getting almost-lynched and avoiding it, they turn out to be bad.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, I need to read a few people. I haven't given Lorab too much of a look yet, but I feel it's time I did. Epi's instincts are usually good enough not to be ignored. I agree with Rico that FZ's comment about the kills was weird, but I don't know if it's bad weird yet.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, I read Lorab, and while I'm not sold on her being bad, the thing that stuck out to me in her posts was the way she quickly got defensive, and then suddenly switched to "suspect me all you like, I don't care! I'm civ and have nothing to hide!" It's a course correction worth noting.

thellama73 wrote:Switching my vote to Lorab because I'm more familiar with the case on her than with Boomslang and because Epi's instincts are usually good.

Llama never quite provided a substantive read on LoRab. The second last quote is decently close I guess, but it doesn't inspire me. Llama seems to be precariously perched on the fence about LoRab at all times, particularly by the time Day 3.0 rolled around and the lynch became a JJJ/LoRab dichotomy. I've illustrated the duality of his LoRab posts in color. Green represents a pro-LoRab statement, yellow represents a neutral statement, and red represents an anti-LoRab statement. He could be setting himself up for either scenario -- LoRab surviving the attempts at lynching her (allowing him to maintain a semi-positive outlook), or LoRab actually being lynched (allowing him to nod to the red sections of this analysis).

~~~

llama's Day 3.0 vote was for LoRab. On Day 3.5 it was for DharmaHelper. It should be noted that his Day 3.0 vote came before most of the quick counterwagon on LoRab formed. I don't know if he could have foreseen that taking place, and after it did it'd have been hard for him to justify moving his vote again.

~~~

I think this is highly team mate-compatible, and perhaps the most team mate-indicative of any analysis I've done for LoRab interactions. LoRab's posts bear the appearance of sprinkled-in distancing efforts, because they show her talking about llama in a capacity that doesn't strike me as naturally flowing from a mindset to smear a non-team mate. The post I linked that also might implicate Dom is also a heavy factor in this perspective. I think LoRab may have accidentally exposed llama there. Llama's posts only strengthen this read for the reasons I've displayed in colors.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab and Dom

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.

I don't have BTSC with Dom. We are not on a baddie team together. If he is civ, then we are on the same team.

I will say that suspish is a word that was used a lot on LP and TP, which is where Dom learned to mafia. So it doesn't strike me as odd language from Dom. He also could have picked it up from me during our BTSC time in the last game.

All that said, it's not a word I'd expect to hear from Llama...so...an interesting note to keep in mind.

This is the only non-OT post in which LoRab acknowledges Dom, but it's a fantastic post for analysis.

She straight up said Rico's "suspish" thing should not implicate Dom. Of course she'd say that because it also implicated her, but that doesn't inherently mean she's lying about this.

This is the most interesting sentence in the entire game so far, in my opinion. I feel like llama's relationship with LoRab, and perhaps even Dom's by association, can be found in this content.

We've confirmed that LoRab was a baddie. She pooh-poohed Rico's "suspish" point as a point against Dom. She encouraged it as a point against llama. This has to mean something. Pool your minds upon this post and tell me what you think. Is she protecting team mate Dom and redirecting attention to non-team mate llama? Is she buddying non-team mate Dom and redirecting attention to team mate (but unlikely-to-be-lynched) llama? What inspired her to say this about llama? I feel like this is a billboard sign with a fluorescent light perimeter and blinking text on a busy highway that reads: "EITHER DOM OR LLAMA IS MY TEAM MATE."

Now I don't think LoRab did this on purpose of course. I'm asserting this would be a significant error by her. Y'all talk to me about this. I'm excited.

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.

This is a good point.

I await LoRab's response.

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Oi real quick before I clock out tonight, Anybody wanna talk about why the fuck the thread says "Day 3.0" and not "Day 3"

you could read the thread and find out!

Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.

I suspected LoRab earlier, so I'll look into those reasons again.

Dom wrote:Sorsha, I do think it's weird. It's almost like the pile on of votes on Lorab was a paper thin save attempt on JJJ.

I could have included more quotes/content here, but they're all related to Dom's suspicion of the LoRab wagon relative to FZ and I. Check his ISO if you want to see more of them -- it's also a heavy component of current discussion. I've left them out so the spoiler isn't unnecessarily huge.

Dom lent a little support to one of Epi's earliest points against LoRab, but he didn't seem to revisit this suspicion later. He acknowledged it again on Day 3.0 and pledged to revisit the case, but after that he went full speed ahead against me instead. He never voted for her either as far as I can tell. That's not the best look. He really didn't do much of anything with LoRab other than accuse other people for their votes on her based upon the notion that I was saved. This means he wasn't necessarily defending LoRab, he was just attacking me. That could mean he was genuinely perturbed by her wagon similarly to DH, but if that's the case I'd ask the same questions about his willingness to critically think that I've asked about DH.

~~~

Dom voted for me on Days 3.0 and 3.5.

~~~

I think this relationship is team mate-compatible and perhaps even team-mate indicative. My biggest doubt stems from first colorful point I made in which LoRab defended Dom and attacked llama instead. That's a calculated move, because if both of them or neither of them are on her team then I don't know what would inspire her to say that. I want to hear about that component of this analysis from a number of people -- I would really appreciate it. I think it's very useful data and it would be wasteful not to discuss it thoroughly.

I'm going to post this analysis by itself to encourage that.

Dom wrote:

Draconus wrote:I missed a 4 way tie?? I love ties. But great result folks

I saw a couple of mentions of me and Lorab so allow me to address what I read. I thought I explained this clearly on Day 0 but there still seems to be some confusion. I didn't want to vote Lorab on Day 1 because she was doing exactly what I went after her for doing in our previous game together. I had convinced Golden to switch to her and we lynched a civ. (I should say "convinced" as Golden was bad at the time. Anyways, I've had no further mention of Lorab due a lack of time to read up on her.
For the record and for those who don't remember I gave Jay a chance to save himself with a tie on 3.0 with a vote for llama. I didn't have time to come back before the end of the Day, but if I had a chance to I woud've voted for Lorab at that time. Before anyone says "it wouldn't have mattered. Jay was up by 2 votes" 1. We still don't know for sure what caused the lynch to be cancelled. Sure we know what Jay claimed, but we can't take those at face value. 2. Matt was also still on llama. Had he come back in time, he, too could have switched to Lorab and caused a tie. Would he do that? Idk.
My point with all of this is that I felt better about Jay than I did about both Lorab and llama.

As for who I think should be lynched next: I think DH looks the worst after this result. Typing this on my phone so I'll go look for quotes after posting this to back up my argument. But I recall DH defending Lorab pretty hard core early on and a bit recently. Be back in a few.

This doesn't sit right with me.

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

Dom wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

Why not just look at JJ?

Ricochet wrote:The curse scenario needs to be clarified. Also, what are you implying? That it wasn't real? Wasn't the curse real because you posted in a cursed way?

Ricochet wrote:Com'on, that's a stretch. We already have a dead civvie (Barry Allen) who could have tried to work his guessing magic and revealed roles. Why not assume another, or an indy, can be up to the same task (either via checking, tracking, or [Secrets])? Intentional mafia smearing? This is a bit of an anxious viewpoint, coming from you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:The curse scenario needs to be clarified. Also, what are you implying? That it wasn't real? Wasn't the curse real because you posted in a cursed way?

FFS. No I'm not freaking saying the curse wasn't real. What? *beats face against brick wall over and over*

Ricochet wrote:Com'on, that's a stretch. We already have a dead civvie (Barry Allen) who could have tried to work his guessing magic and revealed roles. Why not assume another, or an indy, can be up to the same task (either via checking, tracking, or [Secrets])? Intentional mafia smearing? This is a bit of an anxious viewpoint, coming from you.

I said I don't know how it happened. That's literally what I said. Those things you listed are possibilities. So is the thing I said. I don't know why it's any more a "stretch" than any other theory would be, especially when there's clearly a scenario that can be drawn out right now to describe what I suggested -- perhaps Long Con's mafia team pulls this move so he can yet again design a theory for me being a bad guy based around something I can't control or defend against.

Sorry Rico I'm not trying to lose my shit here. Oh my goodness this is frustrating.

FZ. wrote:In addition, jjj, I think this is a clash of cultures. I sometimes have no idea how people here come to the reasoning they do.


What do you think about what I said regarding the people who voted for you+ Drac and Matt (who voted for llama, but way before Lorab had the votes pile on her)? I realize you think llama is bad, but what about the others?

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

Draconus wrote:I missed a 4 way tie?? I love ties. But great result folks

I saw a couple of mentions of me and Lorab so allow me to address what I read. I thought I explained this clearly on Day 0 but there still seems to be some confusion. I didn't want to vote Lorab on Day 1 because she was doing exactly what I went after her for doing in our previous game together. I had convinced Golden to switch to her and we lynched a civ. (I should say "convinced" as Golden was bad at the time. Anyways, I've had no further mention of Lorab due a lack of time to read up on her.
For the record and for those who don't remember I gave Jay a chance to save himself with a tie on 3.0 with a vote for llama. I didn't have time to come back before the end of the Day, but if I had a chance to I woud've voted for Lorab at that time. Before anyone says "it wouldn't have mattered. Jay was up by 2 votes" 1. We still don't know for sure what caused the lynch to be cancelled. Sure we know what Jay claimed, but we can't take those at face value. 2. Matt was also still on llama. Had he come back in time, he, too could have switched to Lorab and caused a tie. Would he do that? Idk.
My point with all of this is that I felt better about Jay than I did about both Lorab and llama.

As for who I think should be lynched next: I think DH looks the worst after this result. Typing this on my phone so I'll go look for quotes after posting this to back up my argument. But I recall DH defending Lorab pretty hard core early on and a bit recently. Be back in a few.

This doesn't sit right with me.

Why?

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

Why not just look at JJ?

I just said why in the post above. Are you ignoring it deliberately?

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

I never "pushed" a counter wagon for MM. If you think I did please find me the quotes. Also, I did not even vote MM the day I ended up voting JJJ which was the day Lorab and JJJ were the main ones. I voted him the next day. I had voted Tranq before I moved to to JJJ. I explained the rules at the time that I moved and the timing was due to the fact that the posts that struck me to make me think JJJ was bad came late.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

Draconus wrote:I missed a 4 way tie?? I love ties. But great result folks

I saw a couple of mentions of me and Lorab so allow me to address what I read. I thought I explained this clearly on Day 0 but there still seems to be some confusion. I didn't want to vote Lorab on Day 1 because she was doing exactly what I went after her for doing in our previous game together. I had convinced Golden to switch to her and we lynched a civ. (I should say "convinced" as Golden was bad at the time. Anyways, I've had no further mention of Lorab due a lack of time to read up on her.
For the record and for those who don't remember I gave Jay a chance to save himself with a tie on 3.0 with a vote for llama. I didn't have time to come back before the end of the Day, but if I had a chance to I woud've voted for Lorab at that time. Before anyone says "it wouldn't have mattered. Jay was up by 2 votes" 1. We still don't know for sure what caused the lynch to be cancelled. Sure we know what Jay claimed, but we can't take those at face value. 2. Matt was also still on llama. Had he come back in time, he, too could have switched to Lorab and caused a tie. Would he do that? Idk.
My point with all of this is that I felt better about Jay than I did about both Lorab and llama.

As for who I think should be lynched next: I think DH looks the worst after this result. Typing this on my phone so I'll go look for quotes after posting this to back up my argument. But I recall DH defending Lorab pretty hard core early on and a bit recently. Be back in a few.

This doesn't sit right with me.

Why?

The tone doesn't real well.

FZ. wrote:In addition, jjj, I think this is a clash of cultures. I sometimes have no idea how people here come to the reasoning they do.


What do you think about what I said regarding the people who voted for you+ Drac and Matt (who voted for llama, but way before Lorab had the votes pile on her)? I realize you think llama is bad, but what about the others?

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

Draconus wrote:I missed a 4 way tie?? I love ties. But great result folks

I saw a couple of mentions of me and Lorab so allow me to address what I read. I thought I explained this clearly on Day 0 but there still seems to be some confusion. I didn't want to vote Lorab on Day 1 because she was doing exactly what I went after her for doing in our previous game together. I had convinced Golden to switch to her and we lynched a civ. (I should say "convinced" as Golden was bad at the time. Anyways, I've had no further mention of Lorab due a lack of time to read up on her.
For the record and for those who don't remember I gave Jay a chance to save himself with a tie on 3.0 with a vote for llama. I didn't have time to come back before the end of the Day, but if I had a chance to I woud've voted for Lorab at that time. Before anyone says "it wouldn't have mattered. Jay was up by 2 votes" 1. We still don't know for sure what caused the lynch to be cancelled. Sure we know what Jay claimed, but we can't take those at face value. 2. Matt was also still on llama. Had he come back in time, he, too could have switched to Lorab and caused a tie. Would he do that? Idk.
My point with all of this is that I felt better about Jay than I did about both Lorab and llama.

As for who I think should be lynched next: I think DH looks the worst after this result. Typing this on my phone so I'll go look for quotes after posting this to back up my argument. But I recall DH defending Lorab pretty hard core early on and a bit recently. Be back in a few.

This doesn't sit right with me.

Why?

The tone doesn't real well.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

Draconus wrote:I missed a 4 way tie?? I love ties. But great result folks

I saw a couple of mentions of me and Lorab so allow me to address what I read. I thought I explained this clearly on Day 0 but there still seems to be some confusion. I didn't want to vote Lorab on Day 1 because she was doing exactly what I went after her for doing in our previous game together. I had convinced Golden to switch to her and we lynched a civ. (I should say "convinced" as Golden was bad at the time. Anyways, I've had no further mention of Lorab due a lack of time to read up on her.
For the record and for those who don't remember I gave Jay a chance to save himself with a tie on 3.0 with a vote for llama. I didn't have time to come back before the end of the Day, but if I had a chance to I woud've voted for Lorab at that time. Before anyone says "it wouldn't have mattered. Jay was up by 2 votes" 1. We still don't know for sure what caused the lynch to be cancelled. Sure we know what Jay claimed, but we can't take those at face value. 2. Matt was also still on llama. Had he come back in time, he, too could have switched to Lorab and caused a tie. Would he do that? Idk.
My point with all of this is that I felt better about Jay than I did about both Lorab and llama.

As for who I think should be lynched next: I think DH looks the worst after this result. Typing this on my phone so I'll go look for quotes after posting this to back up my argument. But I recall DH defending Lorab pretty hard core early on and a bit recently. Be back in a few.

This doesn't sit right with me.

Why?

The tone doesn't real well.

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

Why not just look at JJ?

I just said why in the post above. Are you ignoring it deliberately?

No, I just think it's a WIFOM point to make.

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

I never "pushed" a counter wagon for MM. If you think I did please find me the quotes. Also, I did not even vote MM the day I ended up voting JJJ which was the day Lorab and JJJ were the main ones. I voted him the next day. I had voted Tranq before I moved to to JJJ. I explained the rules at the time that I moved and the timing was due to the fact that the posts that struck me to make me think JJJ was bad came late.

FZ. wrote:

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

I never "pushed" a counter wagon for MM. If you think I did please find me the quotes. Also, I did not even vote MM the day I ended up voting JJJ which was the day Lorab and JJJ were the main ones. I voted him the next day. I had voted Tranq before I moved to to JJJ. I explained the rules at the time that I moved and the timing was due to the fact that the posts that struck me to make me think JJJ was bad came late.

I think DH comes off looking much worse here. I think the bandwagon "hysteria" , where he doesn't know how the votes pile up so fast, could easily be fake. It legitimized his vote for LC in case things don't work out. "Hey, I was really worried that the votes were piling up to save JJJ". Anyone could see what was going on. Like Golden said, we were looking for a common player to agree on so we could save JJJ. No one was hiding their motives.
Dom and DH kept playing that card all the while, making me look bad in the process by accusing me for voting someone I started thinking could be genuine, and choosing to vote for her despite that. I think at least one of them is playing dumb, maybe both. I don't like how Dom is playing dumb now as well, with his WIFOM claim.

FZ. wrote:linki: no Drac, I didn't. I should though. I was just bringing up the list for now.

FZ. wrote:

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

I never "pushed" a counter wagon for MM. If you think I did please find me the quotes. Also, I did not even vote MM the day I ended up voting JJJ which was the day Lorab and JJJ were the main ones. I voted him the next day. I had voted Tranq before I moved to to JJJ. I explained the rules at the time that I moved and the timing was due to the fact that the posts that struck me to make me think JJJ was bad came late.

I think DH comes off looking much worse here. I think the bandwagon "hysteria" , where he doesn't know how the votes pile up so fast, could easily be fake. It legitimized his vote for LC in case things don't work out. "Hey, I was really worried that the votes were piling up to save JJJ". Anyone could see what was going on. Like Golden said, we were looking for a common player to agree on so we could save JJJ. No one was hiding their motives.
Dom and DH kept playing that card all the while, making me look bad in the process by accusing me for voting someone I started thinking could be genuine, and choosing to vote for her despite that. I think at least one of them is playing dumb, maybe both. I don't like how Dom is playing dumb now as well, with his WIFOM claim.

MacDougall wrote:What's evil Tranq been up to lately? That guy is evil.

DharmaHelper wrote:

FZ. wrote:

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:I suggest we start looking at the people who voted JJJ on day 3.0 who tipped it toward him instead of Lorab. That's the occam's razor logic you all like to use so much.


JaggedJimmyJay
10
Metalmarsh89 (5), Dom (7), Long Con (8), DrWilgy (10), HamburgerBoy (17), nijuukyugou (22), DharmaHelper (23), MacDougall (24), bea (25), juliets (27) 37%

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30

Also important to note is the fact that the only two who voted for someone else (for llama), were Drac and Matt, who voted relatively early on, when Lorab only had 1 vote. They too, should be viewed in my opinion. Not saying there can't be a baddie on the Lorab train, but less likely in my eyes.

I think I called bea and juliets for pushing an MM counter-wagon when JJJ and LoRab were the main ones, and oh look, there they are, tipping JJJ at two-vote distance.

Then again, either of them have completely exposed themselves, if LoRab teamies.

I never "pushed" a counter wagon for MM. If you think I did please find me the quotes. Also, I did not even vote MM the day I ended up voting JJJ which was the day Lorab and JJJ were the main ones. I voted him the next day. I had voted Tranq before I moved to to JJJ. I explained the rules at the time that I moved and the timing was due to the fact that the posts that struck me to make me think JJJ was bad came late.

I think DH comes off looking much worse here. I think the bandwagon "hysteria" , where he doesn't know how the votes pile up so fast, could easily be fake. It legitimized his vote for LC in case things don't work out. "Hey, I was really worried that the votes were piling up to save JJJ". Anyone could see what was going on. Like Golden said, we were looking for a common player to agree on so we could save JJJ. No one was hiding their motives.
Dom and DH kept playing that card all the while, making me look bad in the process by accusing me for voting someone I started thinking could be genuine, and choosing to vote for her despite that. I think at least one of them is playing dumb, maybe both. I don't like how Dom is playing dumb now as well, with his WIFOM claim.

In all seriousness, how am I supposed to respond to this a fourth time? You do understand the fallacy here in condemning me (quite brutally) for thinking you and others (whose votes for LoRab look far more suspicious and had far less merit to them than yours did) piled votes onto LoRab to save JJJ, and then also claiming that I participated in literally the same thing, right?

Sorry, I meant JJJ. Did you just make a mistake here as well, or did I not follow the sentence in the parentheses?

What do you think about LC's suggestion regarding JJJ? Also, who looks the worst to you when looking at the JJJ voters?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Sorry, I meant JJJ. Did you just make a mistake here as well, or did I not follow the sentence in the parentheses?

What do you think about LC's suggestion regarding JJJ? Also, who looks the worst to you when looking at the JJJ voters?

I didn't make a mistake. Tranq's vote and Motel Room's vote had zero merit and zero meat behind them. Seeing a train being formed with those kinds of votes included looked incredibly suspect to me.

FZ. wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Sorry, I meant JJJ. Did you just make a mistake here as well, or did I not follow the sentence in the parentheses?

What do you think about LC's suggestion regarding JJJ? Also, who looks the worst to you when looking at the JJJ voters?

I didn't make a mistake. Tranq's vote and Motel Room's vote had zero merit and zero meat behind them. Seeing a train being formed with those kinds of votes included looked incredibly suspect to me.

But Motel Room voted after you did. This doesn't sound genuine.

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:What's evil Tranq been up to lately? That guy is evil.

Ask him directly.

nijuukyugou wrote:Okay, I have to finish these cookies and get myself outta here, and I've still got like four pages to read. Ugh. Thems the breaks, I guess.

Votes are a lot more spread out this round, which I suppose is good? Makes me less wary. During my read (and really, thinking about the no-lynch situation), I keep flip-flopping on JJJ. On the one hand, he appears as a frustrated civ who's half-given up. At the same time, he kept popping in to make points and (despite what he said upon his return) to defend himself. I'm torn because I don't like to let myself be swindled by tone, but at the same time, the tone's been consistent, and I was doubtful about that in particular yesterday. Ugh. Ugh, I say.

Well, I gotta make a decision, and I do like to make things *interesting*, especially with changeable votes being a factor. Lorab's fallen off the radar more than last phase, so let's give her a vote and see what happens when these votes get a bit closer.

DharmaHelper wrote:My point being I saw the general circumstances behind the LoRab train to be suspect. I pulled the two most suspicious votes as examples in retrospect, but at the time the train as a whole looked sketchy to me due to the quickness with which it formed and the flimsy nature of some of its supporters.

i.e the same point I've made six million times.

FZ. wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:My point being I saw the general circumstances behind the LoRab train to be suspect. I pulled the two most suspicious votes as examples in retrospect, but at the time the train as a whole looked sketchy to me due to the quickness with which it formed and the flimsy nature of some of its supporters.

i.e the same point I've made six million times.

Fine. I get your point. Sixth time is a charm.

You still didn't answer my question about JJJ's voters

FZ. wrote:If JJJ is on Lorab's team, why on earth would he push her out of all people? It also means that he would need to make sure he was the one to get more votes, which was a big risk when this would be found out, because we can clearly see who were the later votes for JJJ.

LC, I find it worrying that you're able to see all that you have, yet you failed to notice what I just brought up.

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:If JJJ is on Lorab's team, why on earth would he push her out of all people? It also means that he would need to make sure he was the one to get more votes, which was a big risk when this would be found out, because we can clearly see who were the later votes for JJJ.

LC, I find it worrying that you're able to see all that you have, yet you failed to notice what I just brought up.

You find it "worrying" that I didn't include a point that is not even in the same area that I was looking at and talking about?

I was looking at Night/Position Polls, revealed roles, and lynch results when I made that argument. If I was looking through players' posts and ignored something then your statement would have some validity, but clearly you are referencing something that was completely separate from what I was saying. I'm having trouble believing that you found it "worrying", which makes your statement look like it's just intended to nudge people into thinking I'm deliberately leaving something out for baddie purposes - sometimes a smiling face is just a mask, and vice versa.

Lorab and JJJ were both under heavy suspicion for a while. It makes fine sense for JJJ to go after Lorab if it really looked like both of them were getting too much suspicion. Then, when she goes down, JJJ (or a teammate) could put forth the argument that it's unlikely for them to be teammates. Is this not something that happens in Mafia games you play?

FZ. wrote:I went back and looked at nijuu's post before her vote for Lorab, which supposedly made her look better.

nijuukyugou wrote:Okay, I have to finish these cookies and get myself outta here, and I've still got like four pages to read. Ugh. Thems the breaks, I guess.

Votes are a lot more spread out this round, which I suppose is good? Makes me less wary. During my read (and really, thinking about the no-lynch situation), I keep flip-flopping on JJJ. On the one hand, he appears as a frustrated civ who's half-given up. At the same time, he kept popping in to make points and (despite what he said upon his return) to defend himself. I'm torn because I don't like to let myself be swindled by tone, but at the same time, the tone's been consistent, and I was doubtful about that in particular yesterday. Ugh. Ugh, I say.

Well, I gotta make a decision, and I do like to make things *interesting*, especially with changeable votes being a factor. Lorab's fallen off the radar more than last phase, so let's give her a vote and see what happens when these votes get a bit closer.

The underlined could have been a set up for a change of vote later on. She voted for JJJ the previous day when it was between the two. She said she was going back and forth on JJJ. Possibly a set up for later as well. In addition, this was before all the tie shit started happening. I'm not even sure how many votes JJJ had at that point, but he had at least 5. Does anyone remember if he had more votes at different stages of the vote?

In any case, Nijuu is definitely not a strong civ read as one would expect after that vote.


DH, what is your point?

MacDougall wrote:Something something Donald Trump, something something.

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:If JJJ is on Lorab's team, why on earth would he push her out of all people? It also means that he would need to make sure he was the one to get more votes, which was a big risk when this would be found out, because we can clearly see who were the later votes for JJJ.

LC, I find it worrying that you're able to see all that you have, yet you failed to notice what I just brought up.

You find it "worrying" that I didn't include a point that is not even in the same area that I was looking at and talking about?

I was looking at Night/Position Polls, revealed roles, and lynch results when I made that argument. If I was looking through players' posts and ignored something then your statement would have some validity, but clearly you are referencing something that was completely separate from what I was saying. I'm having trouble believing that you found it "worrying", which makes your statement look like it's just intended to nudge people into thinking I'm deliberately leaving something out for baddie purposes - sometimes a smiling face is just a mask, and vice versa.

Lorab and JJJ were both under heavy suspicion for a while. It makes fine sense for JJJ to go after Lorab if it really looked like both of them were getting too much suspicion. Then, when she goes down, JJJ (or a teammate) could put forth the argument that it's unlikely for them to be teammates. Is this not something that happens in Mafia games you play?

As someone who is so sure JJJ is bad, and knows the ins and outs of the game, I'd expect you to check your theory before automatically voting again and again. You're not even trying to see whether you could be wrong.

And your suggestion here might happen in games I play, but not in the way this happened. There was absolutely no need for JJJ to risk Lorab that day. She was suspected by some, but there were so many names that day that could have been lynched instead of those two. It would be really mean to push her lynch like that. Sorry, I just don't buy them doing that. That's like bussing your team mate for no reason from the start, just to make yourself look better from the get go. It could be done, but do you really think it's likely? I can't believe you're a civvie and holding on to those convictions no matter what? It's ridiculous