Felt Mafia 2 [ENDGAME]

[Quin]

Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.

I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.

[thellama73]

Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.

I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.

Which of your posts do you think I'm ignoring, the ones in which you postulate a ludicrous theory that the baddies wasted two of their role powers by trying to kill one of their own and then blocking themselves, taking the chance that their blocker would in turn be blocked and their own teammate would be killed?

I've read all of your posts and I'm not ignoring any of them. I just think they stink.

[Quin]

Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.

I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.

Which of your posts do you think I'm ignoring, the ones in which you postulate a ludicrous theory that the baddies wasted two of their role powers by trying to kill one of their own and then blocking themselves, taking the chance that their blocker would in turn be blocked and their own teammate would be killed?

I've read all of your posts and I'm not ignoring any of them. I just think they stink.

No, the one where I called you out for lying about being aware that I was 'baiting' you.

[thellama73]

Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.

I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.

Which of your posts do you think I'm ignoring, the ones in which you postulate a ludicrous theory that the baddies wasted two of their role powers by trying to kill one of their own and then blocking themselves, taking the chance that their blocker would in turn be blocked and their own teammate would be killed?

I've read all of your posts and I'm not ignoring any of them. I just think they stink.

No, the one where I called you out for lying about being aware that I was 'baiting' you.

That's easily addressed. I wasn't lying. Happy?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Buh? I was talking about whether or not MM's "Llama is evil" was real or jokey. I wasn't accusing you of being bad, and I wasn't implying that MM is Civ. Those are elements you have added in after the fact.

You shouldn't state falsehoods when you're arguing with a person who thoroughly analyzes every word in a game thread over and over. Refer to the highlighted portion and then read your own material:

I didn't take him seriously.

What is your point?

You're pursuing this as though it was a real read. It was a joke read. You should be able to see the difference, and govern yourself accordingly.

If a joke read like that signals that MM is bad to you, then accuse him of that. Don't act like "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!" I don't believe you really think that.

These are clear, undeniable accusations made by you against me.

This is a backtrack.

You don't need a "telepathic superpower" to get when a joke is a joke. I can't believe what an overdefensive knot you have tied yourself in over this.

You're confusing offense with defense. This is not defense. I am 100% offense against you right now, because you're the scummiest player in the thread and I want you lynched.

I'll get to your DDL comments regarding me at some point. I read them on my phone while out in the woods, so I didn't respond directly. You can employ a little patience, or you can try and spin it into an accusation, totally your call.

You've had time to make a pile of posts arguing with me, so you've had time to answer my accusation. I have no time for patience in a 24/24 game. The clock is ticking.

No, no straw man. You said:

"Ask yourself what an observing player who is not you is supposed to think when seeing an assertion that llama is evil immediately after llama renders a harsh accusation on Day 0."

That is a leading question. Or a leading... something. What I mean is that this sentence implies an answer. Yes? No? That's how I read it.

The sentence implies there is an answer beyond the one Marmot was projecting upon me. Some people can interpret his post as a joke. Some people can interpret it as serious. I wasn't the only player who fell into the latter category.

It implies that when he asks himself what an observing player is supposed to think, he will come to the conclusion that the observing player will take him seriously.

That is not all that different than saying "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!"

Your logic is terrible and your interpretation is worse. The conclusion he would ideally come to is that the interpretation he intended for his post isn't the only possible interpretation. When you stick gross adverbs like "obviously" in your fake JJJ quote, you paint me as a person who isn't even attempting to play the game with any semblance of reason. That's the very nature of a straw man. You converted my commentary into something much dumber than it actually was and then you argued against the dumb version.

If that's not something you believe, then why ask that leading question? What was your goal?

I've already answered this. My goal was to help Marmot understand where my head was at when I suspected him on Day 1 -- that was likely the entire purpose of him questioning me about that stuff in the first place.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

llama and Quin, while you argue with each other could you please comment on Long Con? Everything he has said in recent memory screams mafia to me. It is rare that I am pinged so severely about anything.

[Quin]

Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.

I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.

Which of your posts do you think I'm ignoring, the ones in which you postulate a ludicrous theory that the baddies wasted two of their role powers by trying to kill one of their own and then blocking themselves, taking the chance that their blocker would in turn be blocked and their own teammate would be killed?

I've read all of your posts and I'm not ignoring any of them. I just think they stink.

No, the one where I called you out for lying about being aware that I was 'baiting' you.

That's easily addressed. I wasn't lying. Happy?

Yes. Especially happy because there was more to that post and you just chose not to address it. You gave me what I wanted and nothing more than that. You don't care. You're not open to discourse. You're bad.

linki: I'll look through his posts again later, I'm failing at marinating chicken breasts right now. Right now I'll say I don't suspect him.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

More straw man garbage. I didn't say that or anything like that.

Uh... yeah you did:

You're pursuing this as though it was a real read. It was a joke read. You should be able to see the difference, and govern yourself accordingly.

If a joke read like that signals that MM is bad to you, then accuse him of that. Don't act like "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!" I don't believe you really think that.

I want someone to tell me if a civilian ever makes this post. ^^^

I criticized you. You called me a non-Civ.

I speak plainly. You try to use fancy debate terms and ask open-ended questions that you don't take responsibility for when confronted with it.

Your comparison is again well separate from The Point. This is the problem with you in this game. Your interpretations of these posts is so hyperbole that I can't fathom how you'd be doing it by mistake. You know how to read.

I didn't say "no civilian would ever criticize me". That statement would be nonsense, and you know that I know that. Everybody knows that. It's speaking the complete obvious and has no value as an attribution to me. What I said, translated in the manner you're employing, was this:

"No civilian would ever make this post that Long Con just made".

That's not the same thing. I didn't call you bad because you criticized me. I called you bad because your criticism reeked of fakeness and manipulation.

[thellama73]

llama and Quin, while you argue with each other could you please comment on Long Con? Everything he has said in recent memory screams mafia to me. It is rare that I am pinged so severely about anything.

Delighted too. Long Con hasn't really rung any alarm bells for me yet, though I admit I am bad at reading him and he has fooled me more than once. I do agree with him that Marmot's read on me was obviously a joke, and I worry that you are in danger of overanalyzing that remark, and his explanation of it, although I think you do so with the best of intentions.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

llama and Quin, while you argue with each other could you please comment on Long Con? Everything he has said in recent memory screams mafia to me. It is rare that I am pinged so severely about anything.

Delighted too. Long Con hasn't really rung any alarm bells for me yet, though I admit I am bad at reading him and he has fooled me more than once. I do agree with him that Marmot's read on me was obviously a joke, and I worry that you are in danger of overanalyzing that remark, and his explanation of it, although I think you do so with the best of intentions.

I understand your perspective of Marmot's joke. That's not the issue. Here's the issue:

Do you believe that I should have obviously known Marmot's post was a joke?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I didn't take him seriously.

What is your point?

You're pursuing this as though it was a real read. It was a joke read. You should be able to see the difference, and govern yourself accordingly.

If a joke read like that signals that MM is bad to you, then accuse him of that. Don't act like "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!" I don't believe you really think that.

The highlighted portion may genuinely be the scummiest thing I have ever seen in a Mafia game. I am serious. I have played a lot of Mafia games.

If a civilian brain produced that sentence then I am genuinely baffled.

[thellama73]

Yes. Especially happy because there was more to that post and you just chose not to address it. You gave me what I wanted and nothing more than that. You don't care. You're not open to discourse. You're bad.

I'm extremely open to discourse but I'm not interested in playing baiting games with you, where you call me bad if I refuse to answer your questions in exactly the way you want. It's not how I play. Don't like it? Lynch me. Oh wait, you can't. :P

linki JJJ: I wouldn't presume to say what you should have obviously known. I took it as a joke, possibly because I know Marmot quite well. I wouldn't demand thta you have a similar interpretation, but I don't think Marmot would have expected anyone to take him seriously, including you.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I won't expect everyone to see Long Con the way I do. I understand the game doesn't work that way. I just have one request (for all observers):

Read the exchange. Don't just see a big argument and discard it as a civ-civ squabble. That happens way too much.

[thellama73]

I won't expect everyone to see Long Con the way I do. I understand the game doesn't work that way. I just have one request (for all observers):

Read the exchange. Don't just see a big argument and discard it as a civ-civ squabble. That happens way too much.

Believe me, I'm reading it and I'm not dismissing it. It is very interesting, but I have yet to reach the same conclusion as you.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Yay! No kill. I guess the kill was blocked.

I know I haven;t been here much, but I have been following along today and I think JJJ's summary of the votes on Day 1 was nicely detailed enough to catch me up. I have an idea of someone I think could be bad. Quin. His vote, his sneaky tone, and the fact that his defenses haven't sounded genuine to me.

Eloh, could you please point to a defense made by Quin that didn't like?

[Quin]

Yes. Especially happy because there was more to that post and you just chose not to address it. You gave me what I wanted and nothing more than that. You don't care. You're not open to discourse. You're bad.

I'm extremely open to discourse but I'm not interested in playing baiting games with you, where you call me bad if I refuse to answer your questions in exactly the way you want. It's not how I play. Don't like it? Lynch me. Oh wait, you can't. :P

linki JJJ: I wouldn't presume to say what you should have obviously known. I took it as a joke, possibly because I know Marmot quite well. I wouldn't demand thta you have a similar interpretation, but I don't think Marmot would have expected anyone to take him seriously, including you.

I'm not playing baiting games. I'm giving you opportunities to show a civilian mindset and you're failing at every opportunity. I couldn't care less about *what* you said at either opportunity. You could have told me to shut the fuck up and I'd be content because at least I know you've acknowledged the post. The thing I dislike is that both times you didn't say anything. That's my gripe.

The first time, I think that because I'd been giving you good signs all day, you were content thinking I'd have voted to save you. You didn't even inquire the littlest bit. For someone who had a 50 percent chance of being lynched that day, that's pretty complacent. And that's not a good thing.

The second time, right now, you're not giving the person you suspect the time of day. That shows disinterest and complacency, yet again, both bad signs.

[thellama73]

Quin, in your view, what is the correlation between someone not responding to a couple of your posts, and being a member of the mafia team?

[thellama73]

I don't see any reason why begging you to lynch Dragon instead of me would have ben a civ move. In fact, I did not assume you would vote for Dragon. Nor did I assume you'd vote for me. I just didn't particularly care who you voted for.

[Quin]

I don't see any reason why begging you to lynch Dragon instead of me would have ben a civ move. In fact, I did not assume you would vote for Dragon. Nor did I assume you'd vote for me. I just didn't particularly care who you voted for.

Brzzzz. Never said that's what I wanted from you.

@3J - I said I'd break the tie. DDL aside - for llama, that's significant, not only because it tells him that I'm keen on lynching one of the two of them, but because it tells them I have a reason to want to be involved in that wagon-war beyond what my posts showed at the time. Llama acknowledged neither of those things even though he was right there in the thread and had every reason to. I was just waiting for civilian behaviour from him, and I got none.

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

[thellama73]

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

[Quin]

Quin, in your view, what is the correlation between someone not responding to a couple of your posts, and being a member of the mafia team?

Oversimplified question. Try again.

[Quin]

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

[thellama73]

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

Very well, why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

[Quin]

If Eloh role blocked me, but Boomslang's survival was the result of a doctor protection, it would probably mean Elohcin calling me out wasn't an attempt at a frame job. That would make her civilian. Any reason I shouldn't think this?

[thellama73]

If Eloh role blocked me, but Boomslang's survival was the result of a doctor protection, it would probably mean Elohcin calling me out wasn't an attempt at a frame job. That would make her civilian. Any reason I shouldn't think this?

Why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

[Quin]

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

Very well, why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

There are more baddie traits than malevolence, llama. I made a statement entailing an intention to lynch one of two people (one of which was you) and you did not care because of all the good things I'd had to say about you prior. A baddie does that. A civilian says 'hang on, this guy has said nothing at all but threatened me or DDL with a vote. What are his motivations? I want to talk about this while I'm still alive.'

[Long Con]

Buh? I was talking about whether or not MM's "Llama is evil" was real or jokey. I wasn't accusing you of being bad, and I wasn't implying that MM is Civ. Those are elements you have added in after the fact.

You shouldn't state falsehoods when you're arguing with a person who thoroughly analyzes every word in a game thread over and over. Refer to the highlighted portion and then read your own material:

I didn't take him seriously.

What is your point?

You're pursuing this as though it was a real read. It was a joke read. You should be able to see the difference, and govern yourself accordingly.

If a joke read like that signals that MM is bad to you, then accuse him of that. Don't act like "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!" I don't believe you really think that.

These are clear, undeniable accusations made by you against me.

This is a backtrack.

It's only an accusation if you are feeling defensive about it, which you clearly are. You're the one who curtly responded with "what is your point?" when I dared to offer my opinion on the matter. And to make that opinion clear, it's that you were wasting time arguing with MM about his "Llama is evil" post, and since you were focused on arguing that his point would be read as serious, I decided to let you know my perspective. So, to address your colourful greens up there:

1. Are you able to tell the difference between a joke post and a real one?
2. Do you really think that MM's post was a real one?

If your honest answers to those questions are what I think they are, then my "accusations" were bang on.

You don't need a "telepathic superpower" to get when a joke is a joke. I can't believe what an overdefensive knot you have tied yourself in over this.

You're confusing offense with defense. This is not defense. I am 100% offense against you right now, because you're the scummiest player in the thread and I want you lynched.

I understand why you want it to be seen as offense and not defense. But... no. You saw my comments as an accusation, and you reacted accordingly. I'm sorry, that is defensive. Your defensiveness is allowed to be offensive in nature. Epignosis advises us to defend ourselves that way, actually.

I'll get to your DDL comments regarding me at some point. I read them on my phone while out in the woods, so I didn't respond directly. You can employ a little patience, or you can try and spin it into an accusation, totally your call.

You've had time to make a pile of posts arguing with me, so you've had time to answer my accusation. I have no time for patience in a 24/24 game. The clock is ticking.

Yeah yeah yeah... ok, I'll go there after this post, I promise.

No, no straw man. You said:

"Ask yourself what an observing player who is not you is supposed to think when seeing an assertion that llama is evil immediately after llama renders a harsh accusation on Day 0."

That is a leading question. Or a leading... something. What I mean is that this sentence implies an answer. Yes? No? That's how I read it.

The sentence implies there is an answer beyond the one Marmot was projecting upon me. Some people can interpret his post as a joke. Some people can interpret it as serious. I wasn't the only player who fell into the latter category.

Ok, let's leave that one up to the rest of the players to decide, since we disagree.

It implies that when he asks himself what an observing player is supposed to think, he will come to the conclusion that the observing player will take him seriously.

That is not all that different than saying "Well what are we all supposed to think when you say Llama is evil; obviously everyone will think you think Llama is evil!"

Your logic is terrible and your interpretation is worse. The conclusion he would ideally come to is that the interpretation he intended for his post isn't the only possible interpretation. When you stick gross adverbs like "obviously" in your fake JJJ quote, you paint me as a person who isn't even attempting to play the game with any semblance of reason. That's the very nature of a straw man. You converted my commentary into something much dumber than it actually was and then you argued against the dumb version.

First, it wasn't a "fake quote". If you think anyone read that and said to themselves "Gee, JJJ literally said that" then you have a really low opinion of your fellow players' intelligence. If you think that I tried to trick everyone into thinking you literally said that, then you think that I have a very low opinion of everyone's intelligence.

"You paint me as a person who isn't even attempting to play the game with any semblance of reason" That's some fine hyperbole, along with some exquisite language choice. Again... I'm not trying to "paint you" as anything. The way I phrased it is the way that I understood your post. I just used unambiguous language where you used ambiguous language. It is convenient to use ambiguous language when you might need to clarify things later in the way you want it to be seen, but I think it would be more helpful, and take up less space in the thread, to speak more plainly.

Don't ask open-ended questions and then get upset when someone interprets it in a way you don't like. If you just talk in a straight-up way, it would never be an issue.

If that's not something you believe, then why ask that leading question? What was your goal?

I've already answered this. My goal was to help Marmot understand where my head was at when I suspected him on Day 1 -- that was likely the entire purpose of him questioning me about that stuff in the first place.

He was questioning you? I thought he was defending his posts against the idea that he was seriously accusing Llama.

Metalmarsh89

~ His fourteen posts seem to go nowhere. He threw an early accusation at llama and has not followed up. He joined Long Con in even briefly caring about the position of my username on the player list.

Willingness to lynch: Worth considering

You called llama evil in your first post. What of that?

Just... tell me straight up. Did you ever think that MM's post was a serious accusation of Llama? Don't answer with a question, or an open-ended hypothetical. Ooo, also, did you/do you think that our talk about you being the secret role was serious?

This shit takes lots of my time, JJJ. Lemme go look at that DDL thing you are hankering for.

--------------------------------------
SOME BONUS QUESTIONS

1. MM, what is the deal with you adding a 'v' after the 'f' in your words? If it's a joke I don't get it. Please explain.

2. What is the connection between Brett Favre and jeans?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

If Eloh role blocked me, but Boomslang's survival was the result of a doctor protection, it would probably mean Elohcin calling me out wasn't an attempt at a frame job. That would make her civilian. Any reason I shouldn't think this?

If all of these assumptions are granted, sure. I'm not certain we have the data necessary to just call Elohcin a roleblocker (for either faction). She emerged into this day phase with two primary comments of relevance:

1. Appreciative of my reviewing of the progression of votes on Day 1, which included a lengthy description of Quin emerging looking less than stellar.

2. She is suspicious of Quin.

My inclination is to tie these together -- she agreed with the concerns I expressed about Quin's vote and expressed suspicion accordingly. Elohcin, please correct me if this is not accurate.

[thellama73]

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

Very well, why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

There are more baddie traits than malevolence, llama. I made a statement entailing an intention to lynch one of two people (one of which was you) and you did not care because of all the good things I'd had to say about you prior. A baddie does that. A civilian says 'hang on, this guy has said nothing at all but threatened me or DDL with a vote. What are his motivations? I want to talk about this while I'm still alive.'

You are asserting that a baddie is more apt to be complacent than a civilian. I reject that assertion, and believe that you have provided no evidence for it.

I didn't feel threatened by you. I was quite confident I would survive. I rather assumed you would reveal your reasons before voting, and was surprised when you didn't. But I felt no need to address your original comment. I still feel no need to address it.

[Quin]

If Eloh role blocked me, but Boomslang's survival was the result of a doctor protection, it would probably mean Elohcin calling me out wasn't an attempt at a frame job. That would make her civilian. Any reason I shouldn't think this?

If all of these assumptions are granted, sure. I'm not certain we have the data necessary to just call Elohcin a roleblocker (for either faction). She emerged into this day phase with two primary comments of relevance:

1. Appreciative of my reviewing of the progression of votes on Day 1, which included a lengthy description of Quin emerging looking less than stellar.

2. She is suspicious of Quin.

My inclination is to tie these together -- she agreed with the concerns I expressed about Quin's vote and expressed suspicion accordingly. Elohcin, please correct me if this is not accurate.

I'm pretty sure we have the data necessary to call her a role blocker.

[Mongoose]

...What is the connection between Brett Favre and jeans?

Yes, please omg I'm dying to know.

[Quin]

I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

Very well, why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

There are more baddie traits than malevolence, llama. I made a statement entailing an intention to lynch one of two people (one of which was you) and you did not care because of all the good things I'd had to say about you prior. A baddie does that. A civilian says 'hang on, this guy has said nothing at all but threatened me or DDL with a vote. What are his motivations? I want to talk about this while I'm still alive.'

You are asserting that a baddie is more apt to be complacent than a civilian. I reject that assertion, and believe that you have provided no evidence for it.

I didn't feel threatened by you. I was quite confident I would survive. I rather assumed you would reveal your reasons before voting, and was surprised when you didn't. But I felt no need to address your original comment. I still feel no need to address it.

I don't care that you reject it. Of course you're going to reject it. That on its own doesn't help me.

If your civilian participation is dependent on how intimidated you are by a person, you're not particularly helpful. Whether you show civilian behaviour should have shit all about whether you feel threatened by me. You should be showing it even if I've got every single vote on the lynch poll.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Just... tell me straight up. Did you ever think that MM's post was a serious accusation of Llama? Don't answer with a question, or an open-ended hypothetical. Ooo, also, did you/do you think that our talk about you being the secret role was serious?

Everything you're saying ties back to this, so I'll give you the same straight answer I've already given you. This is not a question, and it is not an "open-ended hypothetical".

On Day 1 I thought it was a serious read.

Yes, I thought your discussion of me being a secret role was serious. I didn't think it was something you were really hankering to pursue with a great deal of gusto, but I thought it was serious.

I'm leaving this discussion here. We've already devoured enough thread space with it; everyone else can judge for themselves.

2. What is the connection between Brett Favre and jeans?

Spoiler: show

[thellama73]

If your civilian participation is dependent on how intimidated you are by a person, you're not particularly helpful. Whether you show civilian behaviour should have shit all about whether you feel threatened by me. You should be showing it even if I've got every single vote on the lynch poll.

I have been participating, although I suspect my definition of "civilian behavior" is different than yours. Where's your outrage at the lack of "civilian participation" by all the players with fewer than 5 posts?

[Quin]

If your civilian participation is dependent on how intimidated you are by a person, you're not particularly helpful. Whether you show civilian behaviour should have shit all about whether you feel threatened by me. You should be showing it even if I've got every single vote on the lynch poll.

I have been participating, although I suspect my definition of "civilian behavior" is different than yours. Where's your outrage at the lack of "civilian participation" by all the players with fewer than 5 posts?

Changing the subject. Nice.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Thoughts on Quin vs. llama:

I am seeing points made by both parties that I think are valid, even those in direct conflict. For example:

~ llama called Quin's baiting tactic "obvious" and implied that he doesn't like to be manipulated. This isn't my favorite statement of llama's in that it suggests he was willfully evasive of the hunting practice of a player who at that point I believe llama read as a civilian (correct me if not).

In contrast:

~ llama observed that Quin's bait only seemed to apply to him and not to DDL, at a time when both players would have had similar reasons to care about Quin's vote (within the framework Quin has constructed for the scenario). Quin's assertion of complacency only seems to travel in one direction here, and I'm not sure that's sensible.

~~~

In the ongoing battle over whether llama has been adequately responsive, and whether responsiveness is a civilian or mafia indicator in the first place, seems to me to be a little bit of projection. I think Quin is projecting his own strategic mindset as a player upon llama and suspecting him for not operating within that framework -- this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for Quin because civilians can often be proned to doing that (myself very much included).

The most pressing concern I have is this:

Quin's read on llama had to change significantly and at a time which is not readily visible to facilitate the EOD scenario we saw. Quin was highly positive in his regard for llama earlier in the day phase, and the abrupt change resulting in his "test" tactic and eventual vote can only be attributed to his mental world beyond our textual view. I don't quite understand what happened in Quin's head to cause this.

[Quin]

DDL wasn't in the thread. I think I said that already.

[thellama73]

Fine, this is unproductive and circular. Quin has made up his mind and refuses to respond to any of my questions with a straight answer. I'm done with this conversation. I will gladly answer any question from anyone else, but I don't wish to clog up the thread with any further rehashing of the same point. I didn't respond to "I might just break the tie" because I didn't regard it as important, and didn't feel like participating in what to me was an obvious attempt to elicit my response. If people think that means I'm bad, so be it, but I have nothing further to say on the subject.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Just to ensure that the viewing audience is clear on the reads emerging from this conflict, could each of you please confirm or deny the following statement associated with you:

~ Quin, you currently believe llama is bad.

~ llama, you currently believe Quin is bad.

[Quin]

Just to ensure that the viewing audience is clear on the reads emerging from this conflict, could each of you please confirm or deny the following statement associated with you:

~ Quin, you currently believe llama is bad.

~ llama, you currently believe Quin is bad.

Oh yeah.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

A separate set of questions for Quin:

~ Prior to the EOD sequence we're discussing, who was your top suspect on Day 1?

~ What in the end inspired you to participate in either of the prevailing wagons rather than the player you name above? You've established a reputation for sidelining your vote in lynches when you don't like the most popular options.

[thellama73]

Just to ensure that the viewing audience is clear on the reads emerging from this conflict, could each of you please confirm or deny the following statement associated with you:

~ Quin, you currently believe llama is bad.

~ llama, you currently believe Quin is bad.

Confirmed. I believe Quin's arguments against me are inconsistent and tenuous. I believe the initial reversal of his read on me at exactly the time Dragon was in trouble is suspicious. And I believe that Quin's theory that boomslang was the victim of an elaborate mafia plot to target themselves smacks of desperation.

[Quin]

Fine, this is unproductive and circular. Quin has made up his mind and refuses to respond to any of my questions with a straight answer. I'm done with this conversation. I will gladly answer any question from anyone else, but I don't wish to clog up the thread with any further rehashing of the same point. I didn't respond to "I might just break the tie" because I didn't regard it as important, and didn't feel like participating in what to me was an obvious attempt to elicit my response. If people think that means I'm bad, so be it, but I have nothing further to say on the subject.

I love it when people do this. They make a big point about how this sucks and they won't interact with a person anymore, yet they say another five things that I want to continue talking to them about. So I will.

I think you're bad. Don't expect one conversation to magically transform that read.

Where have I answered your questions without a straight answer? Don't pick on my statement where I said you were changing the topic. Because you were.

Not participating because you felt like I was doing it to get you to participate is just bullshit. It doesn't do shit for anyone. Question my motivations, sure, but don't just refuse to provide the meat because I wanted you to.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I see a situation right now where the mafia killed Boomslang, but was role blocked or protected. Elohcin's sudden appearance to show distrust towards me comes across to me as a role blocker claim. Put that in your back pocket, people.

I can see a situation where the baddies killed Boomslang and role blocked themselves so that a bad Elohcin could come out and say this, but she'd have some heavy collateral to deal with once I flipped. It's nothing she couldn't explain her way out of if she did it well enough, though. There's two role blockers and a civilian doctor still in the game.

An alternative is that she's a civilian role blocker, and role blocked me. This would be an interesting coincidence considering I didn't kill nobody, yet Boomslang still survived.

I'm just gonna wait on other thoughts on the situation before I commit to any line of thinking.

Okay I hadn't discussed this. I would be willing to call the highlighted text extreme tinfoil. It makes me imagine Quin standing in the center of an unfurnished, locked, windowless room staring at the door with tinfoil covering every wall and the empty boxes piled in a corner.

Extreme tinfoil on its own isn't necessarily a big deal, but I am less than amused that Quin employs this tinfoil to arrive at a conclusion akin to this is how I have been set up.

[Quin]

Just to ensure that the viewing audience is clear on the reads emerging from this conflict, could each of you please confirm or deny the following statement associated with you:

~ Quin, you currently believe llama is bad.

~ llama, you currently believe Quin is bad.

Confirmed. I believe Quin's arguments against me are inconsistent and tenuous. I believe the initial reversal of his read on me at exactly the time Dragon was in trouble is suspicious. And I believe that Quin's theory that boomslang was the victim of an elaborate mafia plot to target themselves smacks of desperation.

I gave two possibilities and said I wasn't committed to either. I don't even think that's what happened anymore. You're harping on about one as though I took it as the one and only truth and you're trying to misrepresent me by shoving it in everyone else's face. What's your take on my other possibility?

[Quin]

A separate set of questions for Quin:

~ Prior to the EOD sequence we're discussing, who was your top suspect on Day 1?

~ What in the end inspired you to participate in either of the prevailing wagons rather than the player you name above? You've established a reputation for sidelining your vote in lynches when you don't like the most popular options.

Counter question:

Are you llamas teammate?

[Quin]

I see a situation right now where the mafia killed Boomslang, but was role blocked or protected. Elohcin's sudden appearance to show distrust towards me comes across to me as a role blocker claim. Put that in your back pocket, people.

I can see a situation where the baddies killed Boomslang and role blocked themselves so that a bad Elohcin could come out and say this, but she'd have some heavy collateral to deal with once I flipped. It's nothing she couldn't explain her way out of if she did it well enough, though. There's two role blockers and a civilian doctor still in the game.

An alternative is that she's a civilian role blocker, and role blocked me. This would be an interesting coincidence considering I didn't kill nobody, yet Boomslang still survived.

I'm just gonna wait on other thoughts on the situation before I commit to any line of thinking.

Okay I hadn't discussed this. I would be willing to call the highlighted text extreme tinfoil. It makes me imagine Quin standing in the center of an unfurnished, locked, windowless room staring at the door with tinfoil covering every wall and the empty boxes piled in a corner.

Extreme tinfoil on its own isn't necessarily a big deal, but I am less than amused that Quin employs this tinfoil to arrive at a conclusion akin to this is how I have been set up.

You are going to justify this. It's the second most likely scenario.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Counter question:

Are you llamas teammate?

If he's a civilian, yes.

Now please give my questions a go.

[Quin]

Counter question:

Are you llamas teammate?

If he's a civilian, yes.

Now please give my questions a go.

I think I'll contradict myself and shrug your question off.

We're not talking about me anymore.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

You are going to justify this. It's the second most likely scenario.

Is it? Let me list possibilities that I would call more likely than that one:

~ Elohcin is a civilian roleblocker and blocked you. The lack of a night kill has made her suspect you.

~ Elohcin isn't a roleblocker at all and suspects you for reasons unrelated to night actions.

~ Elohcin is Denim Mini and somewhere in those *secrets* did she discover something that makes her suspect you.

At a certain point it becomes too speculative, but I still think those are more plausible than a mafia team (down a man already) using it's only known non-killing ability and its kill on Night 1 to leave nobody dead at all with the specific intention of jamming a finger of blame upon you.