The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:Guys come on. Long Con isn't a baddie. I think if anyone can read him, I can. I know I voted for him yesterday, but his gameplay since then has not been baddie like in the slightest.

Oh, as if you know how to read me. :P

Ha ha jk thanks for the vote of confidence.

Turnip Head wrote:@LC: That's an answer I suppose I'll have to be okay with... Because that was indeed my concern re: you. You have asked many in-thread questions, and this one if asked would have had to have been behind the scenes. Somewhere you connected some dots by yourself if that's the case, and I can't prove that you ever asked for clarification on your certainty.

Hey, be in my colour-group and search me, and in our wonderful new BTSC I will show you all the proof you need.

And as for why I think you could be a utility LC... well, because the utilities learned my role, and if I'm lynched they'll get a bonus added to their bid on my property. And LC has already said that he's interested in buying and selling properties for personal gain. From my perspective it's a conspiracy theory that makes some sense. I'll admit I've also pointed out things that could make me think you're a railroad, and I understand that you can't be both.

linki: Sure man, I'll check you out tonight

Long Con wrote:

zeek wrote:More interesting is the TH-LC argument. Interesting developments.

Just want to say, for the record (although my vote makes it obvious) that I think TH has reacted better to my theory about them than Metalmarsh. MM just didn't even acknowledge the theory/case and just went right into attacking me.

Admittedly I meant to mention MM in my post there. BR's involvement is also noteworthy to me. I don't see TH trying to make anyone feel stupid, feels like a bit odd thing to say. I'm always wary of these things, always wondering whether the baddies are just letting people go at it.

@Llama - Agreed. Mafia is all about disagreements, but this thing seems to have blown up out of nothing. If you're reading LC as good, what are your thoughts on TH? Kinda feeling like it might be civ-on-civ.

zeek wrote: @Llama - Agreed. Mafia is all about disagreements, but this thing seems to have blown up out of nothing. If you're reading LC as good, what are your thoughts on TH? Kinda feeling like it might be civ-on-civ.

My instinct is to distrust TH, but the more I think about it, the more I agree that it is probably civ-on-civ. This is how these games always work. Two gung ho civs go after each other and both end up getting lynched, which doesn't help anybody.

Just incase it wasn't clear, the blown up out of nothing remark was about Epi-Lorab.

Turnip Head wrote:And as for why I think you could be a utility LC... well, because the utilities learned my role, and if I'm lynched they'll get a bonus added to their bid on my property. And LC has already said that he's interested in buying and selling properties for personal gain. From my perspective it's a conspiracy theory that makes some sense. I'll admit I've also pointed out things that could make me think you're a railroad, and I understand that you can't be both.

linki: Sure man, I'll check you out tonight

It would be very awesome if we were in the same colour group, old friend!

Also, your reason for thinking I'm a possible Utility inadvertently gave me a new reason to think Civ thoughts of you... if you were a Railroad, and you thought that I (a presumed Utility) learned your role, then the obvious expectation would be that I'd come after you hard for the lynch. But you shared your reasoning after I had already backed off on you to a degree. In other words, your attitude about me being a possible Utility doesn't mesh with what I think a Railroad would be thinking after landing on EC. If that makes sense to you.

zeek wrote:Just incase it wasn't clear, the blown up out of nothing remark was about Epi-Lorab.

Good clarification, I took it to mean TH and I.

zeek wrote:BR's involvement is also noteworthy to me. I don't see TH trying to make anyone feel stupid, feels like a bit odd thing to say. I'm always wary of these things, always wondering whether the baddies are just letting people go at it.

BR was just leaving to go to the store as I came in to check, and she said something about her making a post to TH, and she hopes she got her point across clearly. I saw it after she was gone, and I don't really understand what she means. Either she read something of TH incorrectly, or she didn't get her own point across clearly enough, but she'll be back soon enough to clarify what she meant.

We need to discuss what we're going to do if we lynch a railroad or a utility today and their card is put up for auction.

I liked the idea of letting them just sit there, but it also seems risky to do that.

Turnip Head wrote:We need to discuss what we're going to do if we lynch a railroad or a utility today and their card is put up for auction.

I liked the idea of letting them just sit there, but it also seems risky to do that.

Someone buys it and immediately auctions it off to a private and anonymous bidder of their choice. They don't HAVE to sell it to the highest bidder, right? Maybe a private seller can just receive all bids, and choose one person to sell it to (preventing a Railroad or Utitlity from outbidding all Civvies with their wonderful income stream). There's still a chance they could end up selling to a baddie randomly, but at least it would get it out of the hands of the buyer and the baddies would be killing everyone who buys property publicly.

I'd like to advocate leaving it but somebody would just come in and pretend they didn't know. I think someone buys and auctions is probably best.

thellama73 wrote:Also, Lorab's argument amounts to:
"If you disagree with me, you think I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I must be stupid. Therefore, disagreeing with me is tantamount to calling me stupid."

That way, madness lies. We have to be able to disagree with each other, or else mafia has no point. Lighten up.

That's not generally how Lorab works. I'm not sure what happened there, but not sure I want to or to get involved

Also TH isn't generally one to call people stupid either. he likes games to be light and fun, and I don't see him taking it to a name calling level like that. Would have thought BR would have known him better then that.

I agree with the need to lighten up. This game is getting kind of tense already.

I don't see LC's baddie game at this point. Not saying I am the best at reading him, but I am just not seeing it.

Lorab, I apologize if my direct approach in your prior experience with me had been off-putting. I mean that. However, you're rather direct too.

LoRab wrote: But show me one time when I have had an opinion and you haven't told me that I'm wrong.

All of here that I can tell, for one. I can pull up more if need be.

Okay, yay game!

First off, nice job on Made! And RIP S~V~S.

So the utilities know the roles of TH, Elo, LoRab, and zeek? Something to keep in mind, especially to see what players think of these individuals.

Not totally sure what I think about TH and LC at the moment, or Epig and LoRab for that matter, but I doubt I'll be voting there today (more on that in just a bit here).

Interesting thoughts on searching vs. not searching. keys made some good points, but so did llama. I suppose every player will inevitably decide what they think here each night, and this discussion seems to be gone, so I won't continue the debate unnecessarily. However, I will say that this post I agreed with wholeheartedly:

thellama73 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:Llama, it's cool that you're invoking Nash equilibrium, I dig it. However, unless you can show me the spreadsheets where you've gone over every potential scenario in the game, just saying "game theory" doesn't actually mean much. You need to have studied this particular game to know its theory.

You don't. You just need to understand that when individual interest trumps group interest and there's no way to detect cheaters, individual interest wins out.

I think it's a very, very, very poorly considered strategy to focus our lynches on trying to prevent Monopolies. The mafia can prevent monopolies just fine using their kills. Lynches are the only way we have to kill off the railroads and utilities.

Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what the mafia would want to push in that discussion.

On that note, I really think FZ. may be bad. The way she contributed to the discussion backing keys's POV somewhat subtly in addition to her D1 vote struck me as not genuine:

FZ. wrote:I'm going to bed. Voting Epi for using so much money.

I have a hard time believing a civvie FZ. would have used something flimsy/illogical like this for a D1 vote, even if it was D1.

I also don't like:

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I can't help but be a little $u$piciou$ of the people voting for Epigno$i$. Fell$ like an ea$y lynch train, if you know what I mean.

I actually find Boogs a little suspicious for voting Epig as well, but on the other hand, don't we all want to bandwagon on a lynch to get something out of it? So voting for someone who didn't get a vote yet seems like bad strategy for a player. That's what you get when all you care about is money and power

This. She doesn't address her reasoning but drops this little post I found insincere as well.

FZ. wrote:

zeek wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I don't think Epi is bad, or at least I don't think he has BTSC yet... but if he has a majority vote 10 minutes before deadline you can bet your $weet bippy that I'll vote for him and then try to take his card.

Yeah, pretty sure this will be standard. Not criticising at all, but we'll all probably do this at some point and vote patterns won't be that helpful. It's also going to make bandwagons very likely amd less likely to result in a mafia lynch.

I understand the thoughts on Epi but don't necessarily agree. I expected some people to flash the cash early and I'm not that surprised its him. Dunno, as usual he's not defending himself so its hard to tell what to make of it

He bid freaking 500$. That's half of the money we initially got. Just strikes me weird when all people talk about is how we need the money to not die

Weird? Since when did weird = suspicious? And why didn't she say this when she voted him then? And how does this make Epig bad?

And all of her subsequent questioning seems OTT:

FZ. wrote:

Epignosis wrote:It probably won't. You wanted to know how I would get money- I plan to get money the very way anyone in Monopoly would get money. Luck.

Yep, your answers definitely make me want to take my vote off...or not. I don't like lynching civs, so I'm trying to get to the bottom of your actions. What was the point in your bid? Did you just not think it through and went with it at that moment? Would you do it again now?

We all know Epig can be aggressive; I saw his $500 bet as totally in character and not indicative of alignment, personally. Most players, if given the utility role, would be that aggressive to publicly drop that much money on something so trivial if they had the extra money. This suspicion falls into the analyzing someone's behavior and pegging them into a role even though they'd likely act that way regardless -- like when a lot of people thought I was the unlynchable role in Homestar Runner because I was playing so aggressively, even though everyone knows I post a ton and act aggressively often regardless of alignment.

Additionally...

FZ. wrote:Nice job lynching Made.

Here's a thought. There are 3 players who would love to get their hands on the card. What if we pick someone who is the most trusted in the game (of course we vote on that), which granted is hard to pick at the moment, but still, and we let them make the bid. It's a risk, because we could end up picking a baddie, but on the other hand, all other players can't hide behind "I'm trying to prevent the baddies from getting it" excuse, and if one of the players falls on it later on, and the money is doubled, we know that person was bad in the first place.

I found this line of thinking suspicious right from the get go, but ESPECIALLY so considering S~V~S nabbed Made's card and now she's dead.

The civvie FZ. I know would be wary about trusting anyone.

FZ. wrote:

zeek wrote:Hold on, this protect power is only good for protecting someone else? Glad I was outbid :P

I'm not sure where I stand on suspicions, not many standout things in my mind. This is the main one:

FZ. wrote:Nice job lynching Made.

Here's a thought. There are 3 players who would love to get their hands on the card. What if we pick someone who is the most trusted in the game (of course we vote on that), which granted is hard to pick at the moment, but still, and we let them make the bid. It's a risk, because we could end up picking a baddie, but on the other hand, all other players can't hide behind "I'm trying to prevent the baddies from getting it" excuse, and if one of the players falls on it later on, and the money is doubled, we know that person was bad in the first place.

This may have been a way to ensure the baddies could kill two birds with one stone: NK and take the card, and eliminate a trusted person. This has my attention.

No, it was just a bad idea apparently, first, because I didn't think through the fact that they would just kill the person who won the bid, and second, because I didn't know that the RR would still show 25. If you want a lynch me for being being stupid, go ahead, I deserve it

I also found this response not genuine, especially the last line. Seems totally out of character for FZ.

I feel bad because it's so awesome to be playing a game with her again after so long on TS, but I think I'll be voting FZ. today. In fact, since we can change votes and due to my level of confidence, I'll vote her now.

Epignosis wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:Yeah make it rain!

$60 on the extra die role power!

I'll make $ure you get an extra die.

you gonna keep up he $$$$$ all game Epi?

Ca$h rule$ everything around me.

Also, this.

MP, nice of you to show up, and nice to know that you're consistent and wrongfully suspect me on every site
I can't defend my actions, just say that this game is taking too much energy in terms of game tactics and strategy. I'm really trying to work my way through this and actually contribute, but as it seems, it's not really working out.

I hate to do this, because in other circumstances, I would love to play this game, because it's thought provoking and intense, but like I said, I don't think I'm doing very good, and I actually wouldn't mind being lynched.

That said, while I'm still here, what do you guys make of Mongoose? I don't think she's posted anything on topic. All I remember from her is fluff. Is that how she usually plays?

As for TH, in recent games I've played with him, he's been a baddie, and I kept waiting for civ TH to deliver (which he didn't because he was scum). I don't know if I think LC is a baddie, but TH is making me feel pretty good about him.

Turnip Head wrote:And I don't know why, BR, you threw in that line about me trying to make everyone else feel stupid with my knowledge... I don't know what that has to do with anything, or what you're specifically referencing, or why you think I would want to do something like that...

I'm sad that you feel I'm a player who has those sorts of intentions.

Maybe I should have not said stupid, but I felt that what you were getting at was basically that you thought LC jumping to those conclusions without asking the host a bunch of questions was stupid. Maybe it's the wrong word but I'm feeling crafty with words today. I also read it the same way as LC had, and it would seem that's how it works because the card did not go back up for auction.

I also felt while you were accusing him of jumping to conclusions with out asking the host questions you were doing the exact same thing. The only difference is you were using your conclusions as evidence. That reads baddie to me. The only reason I'm not voting you right now is the fact in other games when I didn't agree with you it was civvie TH and when I did like your arguments you were a baddie. So I disagree with a lot of your thoughts this game, you are likely civvie.

Not to belabor this for too long, but here was my whole thing with that. Yes it was a reasonable assumption to make about the mechanics, and yes it's likely indeed what happened, but it still wasn't mentioned EXPLICITLY within the rules. But LC answered my question quickly and definitively like he knew for certain. It stood out to me.

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:And I don't know why, BR, you threw in that line about me trying to make everyone else feel stupid with my knowledge... I don't know what that has to do with anything, or what you're specifically referencing, or why you think I would want to do something like that...

I'm sad that you feel I'm a player who has those sorts of intentions.

Maybe I should have not said stupid, but I felt that what you were getting at was basically that you thought LC jumping to those conclusions without asking the host a bunch of questions was stupid. Maybe it's the wrong word but I'm feeling crafty with words today. I also read it the same way as LC had, and it would seem that's how it works because the card did not go back up for auction.

I also felt while you were accusing him of jumping to conclusions with out asking the host questions you were doing the exact same thing. The only difference is you were using your conclusions as evidence. That reads baddie to me. The only reason I'm not voting you right now is the fact in other games when I didn't agree with you it was civvie TH and when I did like your arguments you were a baddie. So I disagree with a lot of your thoughts this game, you are likely civvie.

By feeling crafty I meant NOT feeling crafty...

Ok TH, fair enough. I just disagreed and maybe I read more into what you were saying than there was.

I'm voting FZ. This is the second pity post when someone suspects her. Not really buying it, no defence at all to what MP has said and a "lynch me for being stupid" when I questioned her

Having a lot of long days at the moment so it's bedtime for me.

Zeek, I'm not a baddie, and if I didn't think by voting myself I would be screwing the civs, I would do it. I have no problem going down, but lynching me is not going to help the civs in any way. That said, go ahead and lynch me, I really shouldn't have agreed to play.

I need to go, so I'm voting Mongoose, because I feel like she stops by, says nothing, and goes away.

Hey LC, what do you make of all these people vouching for the both of us?

Turnip Head wrote:Hey LC, what do you make of all these people vouching for the both of us?

I'm curious about that. I have no idea on either of you at this point, but do you think any of the people vouching for you two could be utilities?

Also, I'm not sure who I'm voting for today. Right now, I'm leaning towards FZ. I didn't think too much of disagreeing with her opinion from before on searching for teammates vs. not searching for teammates. But given her reason for voting Epig on Day 1, and her emotional pleas now, I'm not so sure that may have been all for nothing.

My mind isn't totally made up though. I'm still going to see if anything else develops.

Heck with it. Since I can change my vote if I decide to later, I'll go ahead and vote FZ for now. And if I get a better idea on a different person, then I can change it to someone else.

Ok, I see I am still alive. I apologize for being absent. I was in San Antonio visiting Alex and I just got home today. I will try to get into the swing of things and get engaged in the game.

Lorab, please tell me where I defended Made in hopes that I could have BTSC with him? Where do you even get this kind of evidence that I am trying to get BTSC with him?

For the record, you are incorrect. I have no BTSC or connection to the baddies and have no desire for it.

I am voting myself because I don't want to miss another vote and I don't foresee being able to get caught up in time to cast a more informed vote.

I don't think too much on these vouches, it's just opinion and that can change like the breeze. Some of them may be baddies trying to get cred, but it's just hard to tell. Llama's trust surprises me.

Elohcin wrote:Lorab, please tell me where I defended Made in hopes that I could have BTSC with him? Where do you even get this kind of evidence that I am trying to get BTSC with him?

For the record, you are incorrect. I have no BTSC or connection to the baddies and have no desire for it.

Are you not searching for btsc?

Long Con wrote:Llama's trust surprises me.

I am a very surprising man. It's what makes me so dangerous.

I think I will place my vote on Lorab for now, for asserting that we can't disagree without implying the other person is stupid.

I thought Lorab's point was we need to be able to disagree without implying the other is stupid?

JC where are you looking for your vote?

fingersplints wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Lorab, please tell me where I defended Made in hopes that I could have BTSC with him? Where do you even get this kind of evidence that I am trying to get BTSC with him?

For the record, you are incorrect. I have no BTSC or connection to the baddies and have no desire for it.

Are you not searching for btsc?

I am, just not with baddies. Although when I play monopoly IRL, I love the railroads.

Has anyone heard from Keys?

Turnip Head wrote:JC where are you looking for your vote?

Right now I'm looking at three things:
1. Why there are votes for Lorab - I need to go back and revisit why people might think she's bad, I sure don't see that. She was right on the money with Elo's trying to build a case where there was nothing and i completely understand what she was saying to Epi. I would not vote for Lorab but might consider voting someone who voted her depending on what I find.
2. Eloh - the things she brought up about me were contrived and it's unlike a civ Elo to try and bring up a case. I have to re-read what else she has had to say and decide whether this is worth a vote.
3. Metalmarsh - all I have is gut feel about Metalmarsh. I'm re-reading him to try and find what might be giving me those gut feelings that he is bad. I very rarely vote on gut but I'm willing to if my feeling is strong enough.

A note on FZ - I have considered voting for her but she is asking us to lynch her. In my experience that is not a baddie move because if she were on a baddie team they would ask for her to wait and be replaced.

TH those are my thoughts now but I'm open to other ideas. What are your thoughts at the moment?

juliets wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:JC where are you looking for your vote?

Right now I'm looking at three things:
1. Why there are votes for Lorab - I need to go back and revisit why people might think she's bad, I sure don't see that. She was right on the money with Elo's trying to build a case where there was nothing and i completely understand what she was saying to Epi. I would not vote for Lorab but might consider voting someone who voted her depending on what I find.
2. Eloh - the things she brought up about me were contrived and it's unlike a civ Elo to try and bring up a case. I have to re-read what else she has had to say and decide whether this is worth a vote.
3. Metalmarsh - all I have is gut feel about Metalmarsh. I'm re-reading him to try and find what might be giving me those gut feelings that he is bad. I very rarely vote on gut but I'm willing to if my feeling is strong enough.

A note on FZ - I have considered voting for her but she is asking us to lynch her. In my experience that is not a baddie move because if she were on a baddie team they would ask for her to wait and be replaced.

TH those are my thoughts now but I'm open to other ideas. What are your thoughts at the moment?

I've reread Lorab and I am still not seeing what she said about me to start with, only what she has said about what she has said about me...does that make sense. Can you please direct me to what you are talking about Jules? And, yes....I do build cases against people, just not often, but I have gotten better at noticing things and bringing them up. However, I am usually overlooked when I do.

Elohcin wrote: I've reread Lorab and I am still not seeing what she said about me to start with, only what she has said about what she has said about me...does that make sense. Can you please direct me to what you are talking about Jules? And, yes....I do build cases against people, just not often, but I have gotten better at noticing things and bringing them up. However, I am usually overlooked when I do.

Sure, I'll look for it now.

I agree about Elo, juliets. I just don't see why she wouldn't vote Made, and how she is playing seems unlike what she herself has described to be a civvie her.
I found it interesting she said she doesn't have or want btsc. I had thought for a minute she might have gained it with Epig (why wouldn't they check each other first) so was giving her the benefit of doubt based on that, but if she doesn't have btsc still :/
He could still be just defending her based off knowing her well.

TH I have heard from keys.

Elo, I think this is the post you are looking for.

LoRab wrote:Following through on my thoughts in the post-lynch post. Didn't want to make overt accusations at the start of night. I think that elohcin is Made's teammate. Even if they didn't have BTSC yet, Made had clearly made a slip, and elo was trying to prevent the lynch on the chance that they would, indeed, gain BTSC and be teammates.

So, I think Elo was trying to deflect attention away from Made and towards others, and stopping the growing opinion against Made.

LoRab wrote:And sometimes, baddies do slip. Nice catch, all! Let it never be said that there's no such thing as a baddie slip.

Forgot the lynch was ending. So sorry for missing the vote.

Elohcin wrote:
I'll tell you what I found to be a weird little conversation:

juliets wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

juliets wrote:Black Rock, speaking of hunting down baddies, do you have any suspicions at this point?

At this point? No.

Thanks BR. I don't either.

Sounds like severe distancing. I don't have much more time to catch up and I think this is a pretty good suspicion for a Day 1 vote, so... *votes Juliets*

limki: and now she is bandwagoning IMO

Sounds to me like 2 people who have played several games together over the years seeing where the other stands. And is it really jumping on a bandwagon if the person is actually bad and slipped up, fairly blatantly (I will make a chubbz/vanilly/smells like danhm reference here for the 5-ish players that might chuckle at that). I have no read on either of them, but I don't think this exchange makes them look bad.

Would have likely voted Made, btw. Especially after this post:

Made wrote:God damn it... Got home exhausted, caught up and said what I was thinking before hopping into homework. I didn't want to hint how many people were on my team so I chose a random number.

Day 1 lynch 3 games in a row. GG everyone

Civvie RA RAhasdl;kjsrg;lkerlk;dsfgsd etcetc

Voting Epig to save.

Hint how many people were on team pretty much admits you're bad. So. Yeah.

By diverting attention to JC and BR, it seems she was trying to drop seeds of suspicion on them, hoping for a second bandwagon, and not have to actually defend Made. Which, by the way, she doesn't mention the slip at all in her post--which is odd. And to accuse JC of bandwagoning--when, in fact, there was clear reason to vote for Made, just doesn't make sense.

She makes a case out of 2 players who have played a lot together and have similar thought processes often, asking for each other's opinions early in the game. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. It seems even less reason for suspicion.

Right now, Elo is my biggest suspicion.

I am inclined to believe FZ because back in the day I sorta played the pity card when I was civvie as well when I felt overwhelmed with the game and everything, plus it is also an indicator FZ doenst have BTSC.
The person I am mostly looking to right now is juliets, now I am nor familair with the style juliets normally plays, but looking through the posts I find it weird that most of them are either questions directed at other players who they find suspicous without really contributing anything substantial or info about votes and/or money. To me this feels like a good baddie tactic, posting without revealing too much about yourself so I am gonna go ahead and vote juliets. I'm not 100% convinced but so far this has spiked my baddie-sensor the most.

HannaK wrote:I am inclined to believe FZ because back in the day I sorta played the pity card when I was civvie as well when I felt overwhelmed with the game and everything, plus it is also an indicator FZ doenst have BTSC.
The person I am mostly looking to right now is juliets, now I am nor familair with the style juliets normally plays, but looking through the posts I find it weird that most of them are either questions directed at other players who they find suspicous without really contributing anything substantial or info about votes and/or money. To me this feels like a good baddie tactic, posting without revealing too much about yourself so I am gonna go ahead and vote juliets. I'm not 100% convinced but so far this has spiked my baddie-sensor the most.

That's actually par for the course from juliets. She tends to start of slower in games and asks a lot of questions to try and get an understanding of other players. It's how she develops her thoughts and cases later on in the game. So while you don't know her and haven't played with her, you're essentially voting for someone because of the way they play mafia.

I can understand how it looks very baddie-appropriate. But I've made that same mistake before.

HannaK wrote:I am inclined to believe FZ because back in the day I sorta played the pity card when I was civvie as well when I felt overwhelmed with the game and everything, plus it is also an indicator FZ doenst have BTSC.
The person I am mostly looking to right now is juliets, now I am nor familair with the style juliets normally plays, but looking through the posts I find it weird that most of them are either questions directed at other players who they find suspicous without really contributing anything substantial or info about votes and/or money. To me this feels like a good baddie tactic, posting without revealing too much about yourself so I am gonna go ahead and vote juliets. I'm not 100% convinced but so far this has spiked my baddie-sensor the most.

HannaK, my mafia style is to ask questions. Also, I got lynched once for being too nice. These two things are hallmarks of my style, i.e., regardless of my alignment I ask a lot of questions - that's how I process information - and I am normally polite when playing. You can ask the people who play with me often and I'm pretty sure they will say the same. I'm not sure what you mean about revealing anything about myself - did you read the post I just posted about who I am thinking about right now?

Speaking of that TH, TH there is one other person who has caught my eye depending on how he answers my question and that is llama. I forgot to include that in my last post.

Glad I had time to pop on.

zeek wrote:Hey MP, interested to hear your thoughts when you get back to the thread.

I'm not interested in the content of the Epi-Lorab argument, more the context. Personally see an overreaction on Lorab's part but that doesn't mean he's bad at all. Also:

LoRab wrote:<snip> If I cannot be correct, then how can I be intelligent?

You can be intelligent but wrong, and really dumb but right. Two aren't mutally exclusive.

More interesting is the TH-LC argument. Interesting developments. I was under the impression the cards of a NK'd player would be taken by the killer as well, but there you go.

Not sure how I'll vote, could both be civ on civ. Still mulling over FZ's plan of letting the most trusted player win the bid as well. Probably be voting for one of the people mentioned in this post however.

First of all, I'm female. Second of all, it's a tone thing. You can't possibly be correct and why would someone possibly do that have an implication that the person who came up with the idea is not thinking.

And if you only read this thread, I could see it as being seen as overreacting. But it's happened in MANY games and I reached my breaking point.

thellama73 wrote:Also, Lorab's argument amounts to:
"If you disagree with me, you think I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I must be stupid. Therefore, disagreeing with me is tantamount to calling me stupid."

That way, madness lies. We have to be able to disagree with each other, or else mafia has no point. Lighten up.

Is this why you voted for me without posting about it?

And I'm not saying not to disagree. I'm saying that you can disagree by saying, "I don't see it that way," or "I don't think that's what's happening." You don't have to tell the other person that they have come up with a ridiculous idea that can't possibly be right.

Elohcin wrote:Lorab, please tell me where I defended Made in hopes that I could have BTSC with him? Where do you even get this kind of evidence that I am trying to get BTSC with him?

For the record, you are incorrect. I have no BTSC or connection to the baddies and have no desire for it.

I didn't say you had BTSC. I theorized that you believed Made to be your teammate and wanted to save him. You did not defend him--that's exactly my point. You didn't even mention him--which at that point in the conversation was odd. And a nice way for a baddie to distance from a teammate--by avoiding the conversation and mentioning someone else you find suspicious.

juliets wrote:I thought Lorab's point was we need to be able to disagree without implying the other is stupid?

Exactly.

Although I think this goes back to being an immigrant to this forum. And why I strongly consider leaving it every game. The friendly tone that exists on the other forums where I've played just isn't that same here. Attacks often seem personal and disagreements aren't done in a way that are disagreeing with the ideas. I think that my style just doesn't fit in here. but I like a lot of my friends here and I don't have anywhere else to play right now, so I keep sticking around. Maybe I should just learn my lesson and either accept that it's ok to tell others that they can't possibly be right and not understand that doing so is different from disagreeing with someone.

And that one can respect that another player, with a whole crap ton of experience, who happens to think differently than you, might just be right sometimes. Especially when you've seen it happen (and related to ideas that you called stupid).

Epignosis wrote:Lorab, I apologize if my direct approach in your prior experience with me had been off-putting. I mean that. However, you're rather direct too.

LoRab wrote: But show me one time when I have had an opinion and you haven't told me that I'm wrong.

All of here that I can tell, for one. I can pull up more if need be.

I'm not going to reread that whole game, and I don't remember specifically. I was perhaps exaggerating. And it's not so much your direct approach but the way you say things. And whatever. I'm not going to change you. You don't seem to have an interest in changing. I'll just ignore it. I just don't do well with people who are insulting to my intelligence and insight--and you often have insulted both through your reaction to my ideas.

And I'm not even sure how expressing anger after being told that an idea that I had can't possibly be correct (when, it can actually be correct...just like a night poll, in the game when we had BTSC, resulting in a protection that led to a failed kill was an idea you thought couldn't possibly be true--and was, in the end, true).

My brain works differently than yours. It doesn't make me smarter. It doesn't make you smarter. We are probably of equal intelligence--you seem to be about as smart as I am, at least. We just think through things entirely differently. It would be nice to appreciate the diversity instead of attacking it.

Anyway, if I die. You'll all know that my reaction has been emotionally honest and that it is not indicative of my being bad. Because I'm not bad. I'm civ. I'm just a lonely, lowly street trying to do my best and have fun.

And I need to get back to work now.

I'm tempted to change my vote for the sake of self-preservation, but I don't particularly suspect FZ at this point and I do suspect elo. So, I'm keeping my vote where it is and hoping no one else votes for me and that there isn't any pesky vote manipulation.

fingersplints wrote:I agree about Elo, juliets. I just don't see why she wouldn't vote Made, and how she is playing seems unlike what she herself has described to be a civvie her.
I found it interesting she said she doesn't have or want btsc. I had thought for a minute she might have gained it with Epig (why wouldn't they check each other first) so was giving her the benefit of doubt based on that, but if she doesn't have btsc still :/
He could still be just defending her based off knowing her well.

TH I have heard from keys.

first of all, I didn't say I didn't want BTSC, I said I didn't want BTSC with BADDIES. And funny you mention Epi b/c that is the person I searched for first (sorry if I am not allowed to mention that.

Next, Juliets, I read that post.....I don't see where I defend Made at all. I didn't even MENTION Made. It was Day 1, yes? I was voting where I saw a bit of suspicion, that is all. Again, it was day 1!

Actually, I was surprised others didn't agree with me that your little back and forth with BR was distancing. There isn't much to go on Day 1 and that (to me) was something. Am I still looking at you after the Made lynch, though? Not really.....but it will stick in the back of my mind.

That's the point, not mentioning Made at all is telling in itself. I've been caught as a baddie for never talking about my teammate at all.

Elohcin wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I agree about Elo, juliets. I just don't see why she wouldn't vote Made, and how she is playing seems unlike what she herself has described to be a civvie her.
I found it interesting she said she doesn't have or want btsc. I had thought for a minute she might have gained it with Epig (why wouldn't they check each other first) so was giving her the benefit of doubt based on that, but if she doesn't have btsc still :/
He could still be just defending her based off knowing her well.

TH I have heard from keys.

first of all, I didn't say I didn't want BTSC, I said I didn't want BTSC with BADDIES. And funny you mention Epi b/c that is the person I searched for first (sorry if I am not allowed to mention that.

Next, Juliets, I read that post.....I don't see where I defend Made at all. I didn't even MENTION Made. It was Day 1, yes? I was voting where I saw a bit of suspicion, that is all. Again, it was day 1!

Elo, I think I recently read where Lorab explained the made-as-your-teammate component of her case. If I had time I would go back through her posts to find it for you but I'm now into making dinner and trying to re-read a couple of people. Look at her last few posts and I think you'll find it.

LoRab wrote: Is this why you voted for me without posting about it?

No, it's why I voted for you with posting about it.

Long Con wrote:That's the point, not mentioning Made at all is telling in itself. I've been caught as a baddie for never talking about my teammate at all.

No offense, but I've been bad enough times with others who are really good baddies to know that you always interact/talk about your teammates a little. I honestly didn't see the suspicions on Made to be any good. I thought I was onto something with Juliets, so I went with that and didn't think mentioning Made was needed. But whatever, you don't believe me, lynch me and you will find out.

@ Juliets: I read all of Lorabs posts. I didn't find anything that set up a good case for me and Made being teammates.

I have an idea. Epi, what do you think of me this game? Since everyone always seems to believe that you can read me so well.

Elohcin wrote:

Long Con wrote:That's the point, not mentioning Made at all is telling in itself. I've been caught as a baddie for never talking about my teammate at all.

No offense, but I've been bad enough times with others who are really good baddies to know that you always interact/talk about your teammates a little. I honestly didn't see the suspicions on Made to be any good. I thought I was onto something with Juliets, so I went with that and didn't think mentioning Made was needed. But whatever, you don't believe me, lynch me and you will find out.

well, I've already voted, and I never said you were a suspect of mine, so that last statement wasn't necessary.

I would not take offense at the other part either, I did it once a long time ago, got caught, and I'd like to think I learned my lesson. I'm happy for you that you already have that baddie landmine defused in your own game (at least you claim to), but it's still worthwhile to clarify that it's a point against you that you claimed as a point in your favour.