The Syndicate

Also wanted to say sorry we lynched you MR! You've been going early in a lot of games, but I think it'll get better sooner or later. People just need to get used to your style. You're pretty active, which is awesome, but it draws attention, which can be bad when people don't know you

Also, llama, you keep voting for Mongoose. Why exactly? This is strongly reminding me of the distancing tactics you used with teammates in AG and Grimm.

Your repeated votes for her for no discernable reason are a big part of why I suspect you.

S~V~S wrote:Also, llama, you keep voting for Mongoose. Why exactly? This is strongly reminding me of the distancing tactics you used with teammates in AG and Grimm.

Your repeated votes for her for no discernable reason are a big part of why I suspect you.

I've explained why I think Mongoose is bad a bunch of times, but my explanation has been laughed off or ignored each time.

Russtifinko wrote:Hi guys! I better vote now, since I'll be out for a day pf tourism here. Going with Mr Thomas for now. It's Day 3, and by that point people should be doing things. I also just don't know where to fall on boo/llama yet. My brain says boo is making strong points, but ky gut os reading llama as sincere, which is unusual.

Wow, you took the words straight out of my mouth. That is exactly how I feel about the Boo/llama issue.
Is Boo always like this? I am such a sucker for logic, and I should know better. Sometimes, it's the most logic arguments that are the baddies' ones. So, to anyone who knows Boo, does his accusations come with such logic when he's a baddie as well? Also, how good is he at finding scum?

llama, if you were so sure about Mongoose, why'd you stand on the side and let people lynch MR instead of trying to convince them harder that she's the one they should go for?

I'm not going to be here for about 30 hours or more, so my vote goes on Lizzie again. Sorry. You're probably not going to like it, but I have my reasons.

This is why I keep voting for Mongoose. I am convinced I'm right about it and her actions since have not changed my mind. If you say that's "no discernible reason" than you either haven't read the thread or you are just making a baddie push to see me lynched. It's a rare game where both the civvies and the baddies are trying to kill me at the same time.

thellama73 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:I went to the first page to the roles to see if any items were listed. After re-reading through it, these are my thoughts:

Well if he really used a cigarette (and we believe that), we can guess he's not Shawshank personnel as they cannot receive contraband, per the role list.

You've gone to painstaking lengths to demonstrate that you know this from rereading the role page instead of because you are a member of Shawshank Personnel.

Linki: it wasn't a wish, it was a prediction.

FZ. wrote: llama, if you were so sure about Mongoose, why'd you stand on the side and let people lynch MR instead of trying to convince them harder that she's the one they should go for?

I've been pushing for Mongoose consistently for a long time. My suspicions have been ignored. I'm not sure what else I could do. You could poiont to a lot of players who made less of an effort to save MR than I did, like those who voted for him for example.

Also, I had no reason to think MR was particularly civ, so I didn't want to go all out trying to save him. I am just going to vote my conscience and my conscience says Mongoose. I don't really understand why Boo thinks identifying suspects and non-suspects is a baddie move. I thought we were all trying to do that.

I guess the civvie move is to make no effort whatsoever to find baddies, like A Person, Lizzy and Vompatti. They are so incredibly helpful to the civvie cause, aren't they?

For those of you interested in actual evidence, consider this:
On Night 1, the baddies tried to kill me.
On Night 2, the baddies killed Nevinera, who vocally defended me in the thread on more than one occasion and would certainly not have voted to lynch me.
It would appear that both baddie teams want me out of the picture. Why? Could it be because I am literally the only person pushing Mongoose as a suspect, and if I go she will be able to recede into the safety of the shadows?

In any case, I don't see how any rational person can conclude that the go who both baddie teams wants to kill must also be bad. I'm on your side, civvies, I swear it.

Aso, John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt has been voting for me without explanation from the beginning of the game. Why has no one called him on this?

thellama73 wrote:I'm just frustrated because I think I have been more obviously civ this game than in any other game I've played, so obviously so that the baddies tried to kill me on the first night. Now three people jump right out of the gate and vote for me, having made no case so far as I can see to defend against. I honestly don't know what it takes to not get lynched early around here. Maybe next game I'll just be like Thomas and not say anything. It seems to work, and it's ever so much fun for all involved.

There are two baddie teams, are there not? I'm not calling you a baddie of one of those teams, just saying it is possible.

thellama73 wrote:
Aso, John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt has been voting for me without explanation from the beginning of the game. Why has no one called him on this?

JJ, what your your suspicions of llama?

Elohcin wrote: There are two baddie teams, are there not? I'm not calling you a baddie of one of those teams, just saying it is possible.

Yes, there are two. One of them tried to kill me and the other killed someone who was defending me.

thellama73 wrote:I'm just frustrated because I think I have been more obviously civ this game than in any other game I've played

Even though I think you are misguided on the case you have built on me, I really agree with that statement ^. I hope others will pause before voting you.

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote: There are two baddie teams, are there not? I'm not calling you a baddie of one of those teams, just saying it is possible.

Yes, there are two. One of them tried to kill me and the other killed someone who was defending me.

I know your defense, I read your other post. The killing of Nev could have had nothing to do with you though....could have been coincidence. I am not saying you are a part of the baddie team that did not try to kill you, I am just saying it is a possibility. I will not be voting you today FWIW.

Elohcin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote: There are two baddie teams, are there not? I'm not calling you a baddie of one of those teams, just saying it is possible.

Yes, there are two. One of them tried to kill me and the other killed someone who was defending me.

I know your defense, I read your other post. The killing of Nev could have had nothing to do with you though....could have been coincidence. I am not saying you are a part of the baddie team that did not try to kill you, I am just saying it is a possibility. I will not be voting you today FWIW.

Yeah, it is a possibility. But I can't understand why people are so eager to construct contrived explanations to make the evidence fit their conception of me as a baddie, rather than taking the simplest answer at face value. Of all the players in this game, there is more concrete evidence pointing to me being civ than for anyone else. Does it make sense to go after that guy when there are so many other options?

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote: There are two baddie teams, are there not? I'm not calling you a baddie of one of those teams, just saying it is possible.

Yes, there are two. One of them tried to kill me and the other killed someone who was defending me.

I know your defense, I read your other post. The killing of Nev could have had nothing to do with you though....could have been coincidence. I am not saying you are a part of the baddie team that did not try to kill you, I am just saying it is a possibility. I will not be voting you today FWIW.

Yeah, it is a possibility. But I can't understand why people are so eager to construct contrived explanations to make the evidence fit their conception of me as a baddie, rather than taking the simplest answer at face value. Of all the players in this game, there is more concrete evidence pointing to me being civ than for anyone else. Does it make sense to go after that guy when there are so many other options?

No, but this is Mafia. Players will read into things too much. They will make up suspicions that aren't really there (like what I see you doing with Mongoose ). Many civs will be lynched in the beginning. It is how it goes. :/ I am one of those players who is often gets lynched early as a civ. It is what it is.

Elohcin wrote: No, but this is Mafia. Players will read into things too much. They will make up suspicions that aren't really there (like what I see you doing with Mongoose ). Many civs will be lynched in the beginning. It is how it goes. :/ I am one of those players who is often gets lynched early as a civ. It is what it is.

It sounds like you are saying that you don't care whether an innocent civilian gets lynched and intend to make no effort to stop it.

thellama73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote: No, but this is Mafia. Players will read into things too much. They will make up suspicions that aren't really there (like what I see you doing with Mongoose ). Many civs will be lynched in the beginning. It is how it goes. :/ I am one of those players who is often gets lynched early as a civ. It is what it is.

It sounds like you are saying that you don't care whether an innocent civilian gets lynched and intend to make no effort to stop it.

You must have heard me wrong then

I have to say I am not feeling the case against Llama.

While boo makes very strong logical points and I do feel relatively good about boo, I have been getting nothing but civvie vibes from Llama, and it's true that boo could make a similar argument against AP (who I actually think may be bad this game and has been far from contributing), Lizzy, etc., but somehow is stuck on Llama.

Yes, Llama survived an NK and it is far from confirmation, but it's more concrete than what we know about other players.

I am voting for MrThomas because I agree that a refusal to play, even if you are new, can't continue on. Hopefully he gets the message and comes to join us! And either way, we obviously can't tell if someone is civ or bad when they don't post at all.

Vote MrThomas

MovingPictures07 wrote:I have to say I am not feeling the case against Llama.

While boo makes very strong logical points and I do feel relatively good about boo, I have been getting nothing but civvie vibes from Llama, and it's true that boo could make a similar argument against AP (who I actually think may be bad this game and has been far from contributing), Lizzy, etc., but somehow is stuck on Llama.

Yes, Llama survived an NK and it is far from confirmation, but it's more concrete than what we know about other players.

I am voting for MrThomas because I agree that a refusal to play, even if you are new, can't continue on. Hopefully he gets the message and comes to join us! And either way, we obviously can't tell if someone is civ or bad when they don't post at all.

Vote MrThomas

Well... I probably could construct a similar argument for anyone in this game. It just wouldn't hold up in fact based terms. You can have all the vibes you like, and I don't disagree that they have their place, but placing vibes before logic makes very little sense in practical terms, and that's what I care about.

Now yes, for some players I could construct cases on, the entire reason the case would fail to work is because they don't feel the need to participate, which it seems is llama's biggest issue with my case. He hasn't actually argued that I'm wrong, he has come from a point of frustration saying what is applicable to him is applicable to others, and the reality of it is, that is not true. His participation hasn't helped him in the case I was able to build, and he uses that fact to try and ignore the actual reasons behind it, and instead put focus on people who have a consistent style of trying to coast.

Now, we can argue about the merits of coasting along quietly. I despise it, it adds nothing to the game, and in its more extreme forms, I find it baffling why the people who do it even bother signing up. However, for all I, and people who have a tendency to post a good deal (ie, llama), know, they despise all the talking that goes on and find it overwhelming, and would be happier if everyone played their game. I have no idea, because if they tried telling me, they would cease to be coasters. I'm always happy to kill them off, it's why I like voting no-shows, specifically habitual no-shows, on D1. When an actual case comes up though, and that can be against anyone, the tendency of course being the vocal, because there are things to use to establish reasons they should be killed, continuing to put focus on the quiet and the absent, who can easily be dealt with later if they remain the same (and this is why I don't trust someone who my expectation is to be vocal, but remains quiet, in this game that being rey), is foolish. Even worse, trying to stand behind that as a defense, while complaining about having nothing to defend against (he does, and you acknowledging that I make good logical points also means you have to acknowledge that he is willfully choosing not to defend himself against those points), only adds to the refusal of dealing with anything that is not vibe-based, which I place firmly in the realm of baddie behaviour. The facts will always inherently favour the civvies if they are accurate, while anyone can bend a vibe to suit their needs. Certainly, facts can be bent as well, but when no one, including the person the case is being built against, shows any sign of trying to point out flaws in my logic, my only conclusion is they have tried and failed to find anything logically wrong with it, and either follow the case and vote against him, or do exactly what he's doing, and turn instead to using vibes.

Most of this is applicable to things outside this particular game, and apologies for the rambliness of it, but these are the kind of posts I try to avoid heavily editing, but I just start going around in circles when I do.

YOu talk of facts boo. I say again that the facts of both baddie teams trying to kill off me and my defenders point to me being civvie. No other player can point to those facts in their own defense. You've singled out the person most factually-likely to be civ, so don't pretend you are not bending things or going on vibes.

I'm on a rubbish phone (butt I kinda like it. It's so... Me) butt shan't jump on another bandwagon although this might be yet another wasted vote. Anyway, for the reasons behind my vote, go a few pages back k. Baaaaai.

lol, butt rubbish

FZ. wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Hi guys! I better vote now, since I'll be out for a day pf tourism here. Going with Mr Thomas for now. It's Day 3, and by that point people should be doing things. I also just don't know where to fall on boo/llama yet. My brain says boo is making strong points, but ky gut os reading llama as sincere, which is unusual.

Wow, you took the words straight out of my mouth. That is exactly how I feel about the Boo/llama issue.
Is Boo always like this? I am such a sucker for logic, and I should know better. Sometimes, it's the most logic arguments that are the baddies' ones. So, to anyone who knows Boo, does his accusations come with such logic when he's a baddie as well? Also, how good is he at finding scum?

llama, if you were so sure about Mongoose, why'd you stand on the side and let people lynch MR instead of trying to convince them harder that she's the one they should go for?

I'm not going to be here for about 30 hours or more, so my vote goes on Lizzie again. Sorry. You're probably not going to like it, but I have my reasons.

I like to think I know me, so I'll take a stab at this.

As far as I'm concerned, I play exactly the same game regardless of alignment. In the second game I ever played, I was a baddie, and a teammate I had got killed I think D2, but quite early anyways, because he played a drastically different game when he was a civ vs when he was bad, or that was the common consensus. Playing these different games gets people killed. Trying new strategies gets people killed, and they ultimately go back to what they did quite quickly, or they go game after game of getting killed early (Dom was like llama when I started playing with him, and that's what people expected. When he became a quiet player, it got him killed a fair bit, and suspected a good deal more).

My point being, a single style of game has always struck me as the only way to play. I still wind up dead early more often then I would like, usually a result of playing with new people, or people who don't like being told what to do (I tend towards forcing cases to have 2 camps, my side and the wrong side. It's not pronounced at this point, but I already see it forming, and while it isn't something I like, I find it's inevitable so I just accept it).

So, for your actual question, yes, I would argue my cases usually come with similar logic when I'm a baddie. And when I'm a civvie. And when I'm and independent. If you still think of yourself as a civvie regardless of your real alignment, most of the time (being a baddie in a game with a single baddie team and no indies being the only real exception) you can actually convince yourself that's the case. I suppose I take it a step further, and really just think of myself as an indie. If I don't have to worry about making mistakes that kill civvies (and that's never the goal. Getting a civvie lynched as a baddie is just as bad as getting a civvie lynched as a civvie from how I approach the game), because I always place the responsibility of their getting killed on them and not me, it's much easier to treat mistakes as mistakes, and not let them get you bogged down. Mix it with keeping thoughts outside of the game, but written down (BTSC when I'm a baddie or a civ with BTSC, just writing down thoughts the thread isn't ready for yet otherwise), allows for speculation that putting into the thread would probably get me killed for, but I need down so I've written it. I don't even go back to it (things I've already said in BTSC or notes), I just need it said. The one benefit of BTSC is having people to play off of, and reminding me of things I've said, but even without it I can generally manage if I can reach a point where I can put into the thread things I previously couldn't.

As for actually finding baddies. It's hit and miss, same as everyone else. I don't have some weird inherent gift for calling people out (and there are players who manage it. Although I really think it's only a result of familiarity + wild speculation + luck), I just deal with the facts as I see them, and when I think the thread is in a spot where it can handle them, I share it.

Boo and I have remarkably similar views, it turns out. The main difference is that he tries to play the same game every time, and I try to vary my game, at least a little, every time. This is partly strategy, but mostly boredom.

When I am bad, I can generally force myself to actually forget my alignment and play just like a civvie. That tends to help immensely. As George Costanza once said: "It's not a lie, if you believe it."

thellama73 wrote:YOu talk of facts boo. I say again that the facts of both baddie teams trying to kill off me and my defenders point to me being civvie. No other player can point to those facts in their own defense. You've singled out the person most factually-likely to be civ, so don't pretend you are not bending things or going on vibes.

If you were factually-likely to be civvie, you would reply to my actual points, and not rely on stuff like this.

You survived a NK. That proves nothing. It makes it likely you are not on a single team of 3 baddies. I am not arguing you are on that team, so it is irrelevant to my argument of why you should be killed.

You suspected Nev. He thought you were civ. He was killed. You also suspect Mongoose, and she also stands by you. If she and not Nev had been killed, I would be no more convinced by that point than I am because Nev was killed. Therefore, this is not a line of defense.

Every suspicion you have had, and every person you trust you have mentioned, have been about vibes.

You can argue that I'm not dealing in facts and you are, but even people in your corner are not taking that stance, and I really believe even you don't believe what you're saying. If you want them to stay in your corner, then actually accept the fact that you are wrong about the issue you keep going back to, and defend yourself. Otherwise it's inevitable that they will reach my conclusions, put aside their vibes about you when they are forced to recognize those vibes don't hold up in the face of facts, and then they will lynch you.

thellama73 wrote:Boo and I have remarkably similar views, it turns out. The main difference is that he tries to play the same game every time, and I try to vary my game, at least a little, every time. This is partly strategy, but mostly boredom.

When I am bad, I can generally force myself to actually forget my alignment and play just like a civvie. That tends to help immensely. As George Costanza once said: "It's not a lie, if you believe it."

And that's the difference between us this game. I actually believe what is true, you are trying to believe a lie. Either you aren't doing it as well as you would like, the fact we do things essentially the same way makes it easier for me to spot it, or I'm wrong and this is a game where your boredom or some weird strategy is causing you to fail to follow the strategy you say we share.

Sorry (I'm not sorry) for not being around all day, have been out with friends celebrating the end of the semester. Gonna catch up now and see what's what.

boo wrote: And that's the difference between us this game. I actually believe what is true, you are trying to believe a lie. Either you aren't doing it as well as you would like, the fact we do things essentially the same way makes it easier for me to spot it, or I'm wrong and this is a game where your boredom or some weird strategy is causing you to fail to follow the strategy you say we share.

Nope, I am not trying to believe a lie. I don't have to this game. I am following the same strategy I always do.

boo wrote: You can argue that I'm not dealing in facts and you are, but even people in your corner are not taking that stance, and I really believe even you don't believe what you're saying. If you want them to stay in your corner, then actually accept the fact that you are wrong about the issue you keep going back to, and defend yourself. Otherwise it's inevitable that they will reach my conclusions, put aside their vibes about you when they are forced to recognize those vibes don't hold up in the face of facts, and then they will lynch you.

Then I guess it's inevitable they will lose and the baddies will win. I've defended myself all I feel like for today. I have no inclination to dance for your amusement. You can take my life, but you can't make me perform.

S~V~S wrote:I never said that. Not once. I am not sure, tbh, what i think. but i really hated the way people were trying to imply you were confirmed when that is not the case.

i can change my vote, and i might. But at this juncture i trust boo and his instincts more than i trust you.

I was one of the people who voted Llama last night and said I think he might be a civ but I definitely didn't imply he was confirmed. Being the target of a baddie team on night one sort of narrows down the options though. I also don't necessarily buy into his conspiracy theory that both baddie teams are out to get him, Nev's death could have been coincidence.

Haven't decided my vote yet but I may reverse my earlier position and stick a vote on MrThomas, he ought to know by now after all the discussion of him that we expect him to post. Even if it's just to say he's lost and unsure what to do.

I have to leave soon. Since every faction appears to be gunning for me, and since there are potentially vote manipulating contraband items floating around, I'm taking no chances and moving my vote to MrThomas. I'll get you tomorrow, Badgoose!

boo wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I have to say I am not feeling the case against Llama.

While boo makes very strong logical points and I do feel relatively good about boo, I have been getting nothing but civvie vibes from Llama, and it's true that boo could make a similar argument against AP (who I actually think may be bad this game and has been far from contributing), Lizzy, etc., but somehow is stuck on Llama.

Yes, Llama survived an NK and it is far from confirmation, but it's more concrete than what we know about other players.

I am voting for MrThomas because I agree that a refusal to play, even if you are new, can't continue on. Hopefully he gets the message and comes to join us! And either way, we obviously can't tell if someone is civ or bad when they don't post at all.

Vote MrThomas

Well... I probably could construct a similar argument for anyone in this game. It just wouldn't hold up in fact based terms. You can have all the vibes you like, and I don't disagree that they have their place, but placing vibes before logic makes very little sense in practical terms, and that's what I care about.

Now yes, for some players I could construct cases on, the entire reason the case would fail to work is because they don't feel the need to participate, which it seems is llama's biggest issue with my case. He hasn't actually argued that I'm wrong, he has come from a point of frustration saying what is applicable to him is applicable to others, and the reality of it is, that is not true. His participation hasn't helped him in the case I was able to build, and he uses that fact to try and ignore the actual reasons behind it, and instead put focus on people who have a consistent style of trying to coast.

Now, we can argue about the merits of coasting along quietly. I despise it, it adds nothing to the game, and in its more extreme forms, I find it baffling why the people who do it even bother signing up. However, for all I, and people who have a tendency to post a good deal (ie, llama), know, they despise all the talking that goes on and find it overwhelming, and would be happier if everyone played their game. I have no idea, because if they tried telling me, they would cease to be coasters. I'm always happy to kill them off, it's why I like voting no-shows, specifically habitual no-shows, on D1. When an actual case comes up though, and that can be against anyone, the tendency of course being the vocal, because there are things to use to establish reasons they should be killed, continuing to put focus on the quiet and the absent, who can easily be dealt with later if they remain the same (and this is why I don't trust someone who my expectation is to be vocal, but remains quiet, in this game that being rey), is foolish. Even worse, trying to stand behind that as a defense, while complaining about having nothing to defend against (he does, and you acknowledging that I make good logical points also means you have to acknowledge that he is willfully choosing not to defend himself against those points), only adds to the refusal of dealing with anything that is not vibe-based, which I place firmly in the realm of baddie behaviour. The facts will always inherently favour the civvies if they are accurate, while anyone can bend a vibe to suit their needs. Certainly, facts can be bent as well, but when no one, including the person the case is being built against, shows any sign of trying to point out flaws in my logic, my only conclusion is they have tried and failed to find anything logically wrong with it, and either follow the case and vote against him, or do exactly what he's doing, and turn instead to using vibes.

Most of this is applicable to things outside this particular game, and apologies for the rambliness of it, but these are the kind of posts I try to avoid heavily editing, but I just start going around in circles when I do.

Incredibly well-illustrated.

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:YOu talk of facts boo. I say again that the facts of both baddie teams trying to kill off me and my defenders point to me being civvie. No other player can point to those facts in their own defense. You've singled out the person most factually-likely to be civ, so don't pretend you are not bending things or going on vibes.

If you were factually-likely to be civvie, you would reply to my actual points, and not rely on stuff like this.

You survived a NK. That proves nothing. It makes it likely you are not on a single team of 3 baddies. I am not arguing you are on that team, so it is irrelevant to my argument of why you should be killed.

You suspected Nev. He thought you were civ. He was killed. You also suspect Mongoose, and she also stands by you. If she and not Nev had been killed, I would be no more convinced by that point than I am because Nev was killed. Therefore, this is not a line of defense.

Every suspicion you have had, and every person you trust you have mentioned, have been about vibes.

You can argue that I'm not dealing in facts and you are, but even people in your corner are not taking that stance, and I really believe even you don't believe what you're saying. If you want them to stay in your corner, then actually accept the fact that you are wrong about the issue you keep going back to, and defend yourself. Otherwise it's inevitable that they will reach my conclusions, put aside their vibes about you when they are forced to recognize those vibes don't hold up in the face of facts, and then they will lynch you.

And again.

Have you considered though that perhaps llama tends to rely on vibes more, or even just as much, as a civilian as he is bad?

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I never said that. Not once. I am not sure, tbh, what i think. but i really hated the way people were trying to imply you were confirmed when that is not the case.

i can change my vote, and i might. But at this juncture i trust boo and his instincts more than i trust you.

I was one of the people who voted Llama last night and said I think he might be a civ but I definitely didn't imply he was confirmed. Being the target of a baddie team on night one sort of narrows down the options though. I also don't necessarily buy into his conspiracy theory that both baddie teams are out to get him, Nev's death could have been coincidence.

Haven't decided my vote yet but I may reverse my earlier position and stick a vote on MrThomas, he ought to know by now after all the discussion of him that we expect him to post. Even if it's just to say he's lost and unsure what to do.

I can relate here.

As insanely well argued Boo's case is, I just can't ignore MrThomas for today, nor the sincere vibe I have been getting from Llama.

I will admit, however, that it is definitely possible Llama is bad. I'm closer to buying it than I was. BUT I am still not sold.

Also, a huge heads up, I will be nearly entirely absent through Sunday evening.

I can't read anything yet between llama or boo. I feel like every time one of them posts, I start to feel more like that one is civ and the other becomes increasingly bad. And given this has happened at least half a dozen times now in my catching up, I'm inclined to dismiss it for now as a civ vs. civ debate.

I will be voting for MrThomas today. Not posting so far in this game at all, and to be on Day 3, is utterly unacceptable to me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, a huge heads up, I will be nearly entirely absent through Sunday evening.

OMG gonna go vote MP in every lynch then. :>0

If I seem less analytical and more vibes based this game, it's because in the past I have gone to great lengths to construct cases and defenses based on logic only to see them completely ignored by less logically minded players. For example, I have pointed out to A Person many, many times that the way he plays almost always flies in the face of game theory and logic, only to be met with shrugs and indifference. The effort is simply not worth the return on investment anymore. No one is going to listen to logical arguments anyway, so why make them?

thellama73 wrote:If I seem less analytical and more vibes based this game, it's because in the past I have gone to great lengths to construct cases and defenses based on logic only to see them completely ignored by less logically minded players. For example, I have pointed out to A Person many, many times that the way he plays almost always flies in the face of game theory and logic, only to be met with shrugs and indifference. The effort is simply not worth the return on investment anymore. No one is going to listen to logical arguments anyway, so why make them?

For fun?

@MP: My issue with his vibes is they are extremely self-serving. He is suspicious of Mongoose because she twice, in a single post, stressed that she went to the front page to check something, and that made her over-eager to come across as civ.

Since Nev has been killed, llama has stressed, over and over and over again, that Nev was his defender, and the baddies killed him. Somehow that correlates to llama being civvie.

By the same logic he has applied to Mongoose, based on absolutely nothing else, the case for llama based only on those comments are, by his own logic, as compelling as his reason for why Mongoose is bad.

Vibes have their place, but if I only started going after llama after Nev was killed, and only because of his Nev related comments, that would be an illogical case. If I did that, I would fully expect people to find me suspicious. It would be illogical nonsense, that would not help the civvies in any way, shape or form. So why is he getting away with it? Vibes.

Saying you find llama good because of vibes doesn't make sense though. The only fact-based compelling reason to lean civvie on him is because he survived a NK. There is nothing else. I made it clear in my case against him that I do not think he is on that team. Probability is worth taking into account, but only so far, and letting him get away with the things he has so far well exceed what BOTD he deserves for surviving a NK.

You can lynch Mr Thomas today. It won't solve the issue going forward, and lynching the guy who hasn't posted at all, and only voted twice, is not going to give you any information moving forward regardless of the result, within the confines of this game (I do think it will make him understand he needs to actually play in future games, so there is that benefit). There are always lynches in the game where there are actually hard decisions, and I would have liked to forestall Thomas's lynch until that point. I really don't think this was a good one for it, even if people weren't ready to lynch llama, because it has led to no actual attempts at countering what I have said about him. Why should I think I'm wrong when I have facts and you have vibes? If you, or anyone else, had pushed for the lynch of a player that I could have any opinion of (and no llama, your Mongoose case, or any other vibe based case is not something I would include here), we could have had a discussion about them vs. llama. Lynching thomas makes that impossible, because none of can have an opinion on thomas beyond "wow, this guy isn't playing at all, so lets get rid of him". That isn't a debate, that's an inevitability.

thellama73 wrote:If I seem less analytical and more vibes based this game, it's because in the past I have gone to great lengths to construct cases and defenses based on logic only to see them completely ignored by less logically minded players. For example, I have pointed out to A Person many, many times that the way he plays almost always flies in the face of game theory and logic, only to be met with shrugs and indifference. The effort is simply not worth the return on investment anymore. No one is going to listen to logical arguments anyway, so why make them?

And this is another argument about the game as a whole, and not this specific one.

If your mentality is "I need to win this game, or else what's the point?", then sure, playing in a way you don't like because you think it increases your odds of winning makes sense.

But if that's the entire reason you play, go play solitaire. I'm interested in playing for fun. If, using your example, A Person has fun playing the game his way, and you have fun playing a logic-based game, then you should each play your respective games, and the enjoyment out of them that you do. Yes, I'd prefer if he and everyone else who doesn't played a logic based game, because it would increase my overall enjoyment of it, but it's a multiplayer game, and people have the right to play in the way that maximizes their enjoyment, even if you and I don't like, and don't even understand, how they play (and how it could possibly be fun).

But, you have more votes than just mine. Clearly, at least some people are willing to listen to fact based arguments.
Your case against Mongoose has resulted in a grand total of... literally only you voting for Mongoose.

So yes, my facts will eventually beat up vibes. It may take a while, but it will happen.

Based on nothing but you and A Person's banners, I count 6 wins for facts, and 0 for vibes.

You're just looking at things in a short-term way. You had things right before.

boo wrote: So yes, my facts will eventually beat up vibes. It may take a while, but it will happen.

Oh I know. You're not going to let up until I am dead. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm a dead man walking, because no one else has been willing to discuss anyone other than me. The entire discussion all day has been about me and no one else. What happens after I finally get lynched? The baddies have been able to hide behind the obsession with me and I'm sure they are very happy right now, because when I'm gone you will have zero leads to anyone else.

boo wrote: If your mentality is "I need to win this game, or else what's the point?", then sure, playing in a way you don't like because you think it increases your odds of winning makes sense.

But if that's the entire reason you play, go play solitaire. I'm interested in playing for fun. If, using your example, A Person has fun playing the game his way, and you have fun playing a logic-based game, then you should each play your respective games, and the enjoyment out of them that you do. Yes, I'd prefer if he and everyone else who doesn't played a logic based game, because it would increase my overall enjoyment of it, but it's a multiplayer game, and people have the right to play in the way that maximizes their enjoyment, even if you and I don't like, and don't even understand, how they play (and how it could possibly be fun).

Sometimes I enjoy playing a logic based game, but it is a lot of work and when I feel like people aren't willing to listen, it is not worth the effort. I think it would be wise to look at late MR voters (you were 5th, JJJS was 8th, SVS was 9th. Notice a pattern?), because it would be easy for baddies to hide in there. Too bad that discussion has been curtailed in a single-minded witch hunt.

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote: So yes, my facts will eventually beat up vibes. It may take a while, but it will happen.

Oh I know. You're not going to let up until I am dead. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm a dead man walking, because no one else has been willing to discuss anyone other than me. The entire discussion all day has been about me and no one else. What happens after I finally get lynched? The baddies have been able to hide behind the obsession with me and I'm sure they are very happy right now, because when I'm gone you will have zero leads to anyone else.

Had you brought up anyone other than low posters, i might have bit. But even if Mr T is bad, that does not preclude him from being your teammate, indeed, based on my experience of you, i would think it INCREASES your odds of being bad. I have never seen anyone who likes throwing people under the bus like you do (and i do NOT mean that as in insult, i have a name for it as well~ i actually can say that i drove one person from mafia who disliked my strategic bus throwing so very intensely).

But there have been so many suspicions being thrown in this game, yet you still clung to a low poster. You did not try very hard to convince anyone that Mongoose was bad. I knew you would switch your vote from her to Mr T before you as soon as you made it; you argued more for a Mr t lynch than you did for a "Badgoose" lynch. You "feel" like you are not sincere to me, like you are employing 'tactics", not truth.

I could be a zillion percent wrong, but this is how I feel and this is why you got my vote.

And TBH if Mr T turns up bad, i will be even more convinced you are bad.

MovingPictures07 wrote: As insanely well argued Boo's case is, I just can't ignore MrThomas for today, nor the sincere vibe I have been getting from Llama.

I will admit, however, that it is definitely possible Llama is bad. I'm closer to buying it than I was. BUT I am still not sold.

MP, I can't believe you're buying the nonsense Boo is selling. The bulk of his arguments are not "here's why llama is bad" but rather, "here's why the evidence that makes llama look good might be wrong." Well the evidence that makes Boo look good might be wrong too.

He suspects me because I survived a night kill and he sees no mechanism for a civvie to do that. Just because he doesn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Not all game mechanics are public.

He suspects me because I am trying to convince people I am civ. I am doing that because at this point I believe a lynch is more dangerous to me than an NK. The baddies tried that once, and failed. I think they are unlikely to try again for a while. However, I have historically been a magnet for lynch votes (as we see here) so I am trying to prevent that from happening. I think the evidence paints me as more civ than just about anyone else here, as I explained before.

He suspects me because I mentioned some people who I trust and do not trust. You should know I always do this. It is good to stimulate discussion, and I had reasons for every name I threw out. I still think I caught Mongoose in a slip. I still think my initial suspicion of Boo was reasonable, based on his tone. I was flat out asked how I felt about BWT, and I answered that I thought he seemed sincere. That is not the same as trying to vigorously defend him, just giving my opinion in response to a direct question. I think I am seeing your civvie game this time and I said so. Why any of that makes me bad is beyond me. I like to discuss people, which is better than sitting around in silence.

You can argue, as boo has, that these are not great reasons. In general, I agree that they are not great reasons. I have not seen a single person give a great reason for a lynch vote this game so far. Certainly not the people who actually lynched a civ in what appeared to be a very bandwagony way.

I don't know why, but I believe the baddies ear me and want me dead. I fully expect another person who has defended me to be targeted tonight (although to be honest, I kind of hope me saying this out loud will prevent this from happening.)

You've played with me and hosted me in a lot of games now. I think you can tell when I'm being sincere, and as persistent as Boo is being, I don't see anything compelling about his case against me. I'm amazed you do.

linki SVS: I don't know what you mean about pushing for low posters. The only thing I said about MrT is that I was losing patience with his non-participation and the only reason I voted for him was to protect myself. I am not at all covinced that he is bad. I am convinced that Mongoose is bad and that is who I have been pushing. She is not a low poster.

Addendum: I actually appreciate your post, S~V~S. I understand where you are coming from at least, although I can assure you that you are very, very wrong about me.

We're getting close to the end of the day and it looks like Thomas is not going to show up and that he will most definitely being lynched. So...I am going to change my vote to JJ. He hasn't been as active lately and I am curious why. Maybe his baddie teammates are telling him to lay low.

Elohcin wrote:We're getting close to the end of the day and it looks like Thomas is not going to show up and that he will most definitely being lynched. So...I am going to change my vote to JJ. He hasn't been as active lately and I am curious why. Maybe his baddie teammates are telling him to lay low.

Why would you do this? Why shift your vote at the last minute to where it will make no difference?

Everyone: If vote manipulation ends up seeing me lynched instead of Thomas, mark well what Elohcin has done and ponder why she might have done it.

Ironically enough, Elochin moving her vote makes me feel more comfortable about voting for Thomas. And less good about Elochin.

It's okay y'all...calm down. No baddie behavior here. Actually, it is pure civvieness that is causing me to want to change my vote. And, Llama, I picked someone with NO votes on purpose to try to make sure that Thomas is still the one that gets lynched.

Oh and Llama, it makes a difference for me, hopefully not for Thomas' fate.

Posting from phone, nearly forgot to vote. Gonna stick with MrThomas for not posting.

Who will be lynched?

Poll ended at Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:09 pm

A Person
0
No votes

birdwithteeth11
0
No votes

boo
0
No votes

Bullzeye
0
No votes

Dom
0
No votes

Elohcin
0
No votes

FZ.
0
No votes

johns2jj
1
Elohcin (13)
7%

Lizzy
1
FZ. (8)
7%

Mongoose
0
No votes

MovingPictures07
0
No votes

MrThomas
6
Mongoose (2), Vompatti (7), MovingPictures07 (9), thellama73 (11), birdwithteeth11 (12), Bullzeye (14)
43%

reywaS
0
No votes

Russtifikno
0
No votes

S~V~S
1
Lizzy (10)
7%

thellama73
3
boo (3), S~V~S (4), johns2jj (5)
21%

Vompatti
0
No votes

James Sawyer (The Host, the Mod, the Dead)
2
Epignosis (1), Mister Rearranger (6)
14%


Total votes : 14