The Syndicate

@SVS, re: the Epig post you linked to:

"Eloh signed up so her pouting husband could have something fun to do. I decided I would kill her Night 1 if I could, or, if that couldn't happen, I would try to get her lynched."

The way I read this is that he means that if he saw a reason to lynch her, as in, a decent possibility that she were bad, he would focus on lynching her. He can feel free to correct or support this idea if he wants. So he came up with his probability case and figured it was actually decent enough to lynch her since he thought she didn't want to be here. I don't think, if he felt that she was civ, and if he was civ, that he'd have gone ahead with his plan. Again, he can feel free to correct me if he wants.

Either way, he's wrong. He freely admits in his line of thinking that there is a certain chance of Eloh/me being certain good roles, and a certain other chance that we are not. He's basing his entire purpose in this game on it, and what he will eventually have to accept, either during the game or afterwards when the roles are revealed, is that the numbers didn't work out the way he thought they would. Just like my Oilers won the draft lottery despite only having a 10% chance, sometimes someone is a good guy even if the list of roles he could be includes many bad ones, as well.

Bullzeye wrote:If the detectives insist on vengeance, at least let me be lynched so I can defend myself and eventually have everyone proven wrong so I don't have to deal with smug posturing every time I read the thread post-death.

Good luck, since llama thought you were bad.

timmer wrote:@SVS, re: the Epig post you linked to:

"Eloh signed up so her pouting husband could have something fun to do. I decided I would kill her Night 1 if I could, or, if that couldn't happen, I would try to get her lynched."

The way I read this is that he means that if he saw a reason to lynch her, as in, a decent possibility that she were bad, he would focus on lynching her. He can feel free to correct or support this idea if he wants. So he came up with his probability case and figured it was actually decent enough to lynch her since he thought she didn't want to be here. I don't think, if he felt that she was civ, and if he was civ, that he'd have gone ahead with his plan. Again, he can feel free to correct me if he wants.

Either way, he's wrong. He freely admits in his line of thinking that there is a certain chance of Eloh/me being certain good roles, and a certain other chance that we are not. He's basing his entire purpose in this game on it, and what he will eventually have to accept, either during the game or afterwards when the roles are revealed, is that the numbers didn't work out the way he thought they would. Just like my Oilers won the draft lottery despite only having a 10% chance, sometimes someone is a good guy even if the list of roles he could be includes many bad ones, as well.

In case you haven't noticed, Epignosis has shifted gears.

In my opinion, the reason for lynching llama was just silly. "He was acting too civvie" as some (notably Roxy) would say. The case on Epignosis wasn't great, but I still think there was more there, at the time. I say "at the time", because late in the day, Epignosis dropped some other ideas in the thread seemed to justify some of his reasoning.

Anyway, so the reason for lynching llama was because "He was acting too civvie". That sounds like the perfect lynch-wagon for a baddie who doesn't know his/her BTSC mates to hop on.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:If the detectives insist on vengeance, at least let me be lynched so I can defend myself and eventually have everyone proven wrong so I don't have to deal with smug posturing every time I read the thread post-death.

Good luck, since llama thought you were bad.

For no real reason though. His case on me was awful and backed up with very little, but I'm probably going to die tonight because of that and because he chose to try too hard to look good, drew tons of attention to himself, and BF tried to shut down anyone who questioned him.

Linki - When you have a guy going round eyeballing people for suspecting someone and making out anyone who accuses that person to be bad, outright calling them liars, it's pretty easy to "hop on".

Bullzeye wrote:Linki - When you have a guy going round eyeballing people for suspecting someone and making out anyone who accuses that person to be bad, outright calling them liars, it's pretty easy to "hop on".

Who are you talking about?

Now that I've said all that, let me reverse course and use Epig's own number theories to see if he is bad.

He says that he felt Eloh wasn't invested and that it likely meant that she didn't have BTSC. He thus ruled her out of being Capt. Cold or Heat Wave, or Golden Glider. He then suggested that that meant that, going by probability, there was a much bigger chance that Eloh/me was not an Old Rogue. And then when I didn't vote to save llama he added the "not a detective, either" to that.

So Epig is very happy to see Eloh/me be lynched base on a single guess at probability. SVS feels that a civ Epig would not do that. Let's see if she's right.

So who would pull a gambit like Epig's?

Well, the Arch-Villains, for starters. There are three of them. If Epig is one of them, he wouldn't need to do anything about Eloh's role. He wouldn't care if she were an Old Rogue, a New Rogue, a Detective, it wouldn't matter, she could die and it would presumably help his cause. While their win condition is secret, I can't think it involves jeeping people alive.

Would he do this as a New Rogue? I'm not so sure. It doesn't look like they have BTSC, but some will come if they find each other. And there are 7 of them, a very big faction, so if Epig were a New Rogue, I doubt he would pull this on Eloh, especially if his numbers indicated a good chance of her being one. So I'll rule Epig out of being a New Rogue right now.

Let's rule Epig out of being a detective here, as well, since he didn't fight to save llama. This uses his own logic about the situation. So he is not a detective, and not a New Rogue.

How about an independent rogue? They are a big group. they don't seem to have BTSC. And their job is simply to survive, it seems. Epig could definitely have used his gambit if he were an indy, since what would he care?

And finally, the old rogues. If Epig were an old rogue, he would know that he needs to eliminate the new rogues and Gorilla Grodd. The question becomes, if he felt Eloh/me wasn't an old rogue, would this gambit make sense?

New Rogues+Grodd equals 8 players.

Indy Rogues+other 2 archvillains+detectives+3 old rogues who don't have a btsc factor=14 players

So no, if Epig is an old rogue, and really thought this through and was truly banking on numbers, he would have seen that promoting an Eloh lynch would have a less than 50% chance of hitting someone he needs dead to win the game. Thus, I doubt he is an old rogue.

So, going by numbers, Epig is either an arch-villain or an indy rogue.

I look at this two ways. From a win condition POV, there are NO indy rogues who need to die. And apparently the only arch villain who actually needs to die is Grodd. So in terms of win conditions, I see only a 1 in 9 chance (Grodd vs other arch villains combined with indies) that an Epig lynch would contribute to a win. However, the flip side is that there is almost NO chance that an Epig lynch would harm the cause, in that I don't see him as a detective or an old rogue.

Thus, an Epig lynch would not be a bad thing, but the odds of it being a GREAT lynch are low.

Sorry for the maths.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Linki - When you have a guy going round eyeballing people for suspecting someone and making out anyone who accuses that person to be bad, outright calling them liars, it's pretty easy to "hop on".

Who are you talking about?

BF:

blindfaeth wrote:

Roxy wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Bullz or Epi. That doesn't mean everyone else has to think the same way. I just don't think their suspicion of llama over someone else is genuine.

Here you say you want people to vote Bullz or Epi, but you go on to say not everyone has to think this way.

But then you continue and say that their suspicion of llama or someone else is not genuine.

Well which is it? How do you feel? Can others have suspicion of someone else and be genuine or must they vote how you wish them to in order to be considered genuine by you?

Of course, you can suspect whoever you want. All I'm saying, I think the non case on llama is crap.

blindfaeth wrote:I see what you're saying. He has definitely been over the top. I just don't believe that they genuinely think he (Llama) is the best candidate for their vote at this point.

blindfaeth wrote:

Long Con wrote:My vote is going to Llama, not that it will matter much for now, for playing the "just like Civvie Llama in X-Men" too hard. I also thought that the post about other ways Llama is "acting too Civvie-Llama" was a good read.

These are a sample of the reasons why. I basically felt like he was trying to shut down any conversation about Llama by questioning the intent of anyone who suspected him, threatening to suspect people for voting him, claiming people's suspicions of Llama weren't genuine, and essentially saying that people can vote for/suspect whoever they want as long as it isn't Llama. I felt like he had a strong interest in keeping Llama alive, and it influenced my decision to vote.

While BTSC is a little hard to pin down in this game (neither the arch villains or the detectives actually say they have btsc, for instance, though I assume they probably do, being small groups), I'm a little surprised that you still are pushing bf as suspicious for this, bullz.

Timmer I already did the math on an Epi lynch.

DharmaHelper wrote:Timmer I already did the math on an Epi lynch.

LOL yes you did. Maybe consider my numbers as a backup for your own very clearly stronger ones!

timmer wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Timmer I already did the math on an Epi lynch.

LOL yes you did. Maybe consider my numbers as a backup for your own very clearly stronger ones!

In addition to my math:

If you don't think that Epi is a bad role, that must be because you yourself have a bad role. Therefore, anyone who does not think Epi is bad (thereby anyone who disagrees with my maths) Must be a baddie.

Wow this is really fun I can see why Epi does it every single game.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:In my opinion, the reason for lynching llama was just silly. "He was acting too civvie" as some (notably Roxy) would say. The case on Epignosis wasn't great, but I still think there was more there, at the time. I say "at the time", because late in the day, Epignosis dropped some other ideas in the thread seemed to justify some of his reasoning.

Anyway, so the reason for lynching llama was because "He was acting too civvie". That sounds like the perfect lynch-wagon for a baddie who doesn't know his/her BTSC mates to hop on.

Just want to clarify (not for the first time) that what made me vote Llama wasn't that he was acting too Civvie - it's that he seemed to be pushing the idea of his Civvieness in an artificial way. They are very different things.

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Linki - When you have a guy going round eyeballing people for suspecting someone and making out anyone who accuses that person to be bad, outright calling them liars, it's pretty easy to "hop on".

Who are you talking about?

BF:

blindfaeth wrote:

Roxy wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Bullz or Epi. That doesn't mean everyone else has to think the same way. I just don't think their suspicion of llama over someone else is genuine.

Here you say you want people to vote Bullz or Epi, but you go on to say not everyone has to think this way.

But then you continue and say that their suspicion of llama or someone else is not genuine.

Well which is it? How do you feel? Can others have suspicion of someone else and be genuine or must they vote how you wish them to in order to be considered genuine by you?

Of course, you can suspect whoever you want. All I'm saying, I think the non case on llama is crap.

blindfaeth wrote:I see what you're saying. He has definitely been over the top. I just don't believe that they genuinely think he (Llama) is the best candidate for their vote at this point.

blindfaeth wrote:

Long Con wrote:My vote is going to Llama, not that it will matter much for now, for playing the "just like Civvie Llama in X-Men" too hard. I also thought that the post about other ways Llama is "acting too Civvie-Llama" was a good read.

These are a sample of the reasons why. I basically felt like he was trying to shut down any conversation about Llama by questioning the intent of anyone who suspected him, threatening to suspect people for voting him, claiming people's suspicions of Llama weren't genuine, and essentially saying that people can vote for/suspect whoever they want as long as it isn't Llama. I felt like he had a strong interest in keeping Llama alive, and it influenced my decision to vote.

Maybe llama's role had something to do with it? I don't know what else to say.

Linki @LC: Did he play that card himself, or did someone else draw that comparison and accuse him of the behavior?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Maybe llama's role had something to do with it? I don't know what else to say.

Linki @LC: Did he play that card himself, or did someone else draw that comparison and accuse him of the behavior?

Was I supposed to know Llama's role before he got lynched? I had no idea why BF was so desperately defending him, and that's kinda the point. I'm not accusing BF of anything now, but his defensiveness at the time did neither of them any favours.

It was the tale from the X-Men game about him really wanting to be the King of the Morlocks, and he had a Civ role, and got lynched for the Morlock thing (and later rezzed and some other stuff, it got a little confusing but I felt like that stuff was less relevant)... So, it seemed like he was trying to set up a parallel situation in the hopes that people would think "Damn, he did that last time and we lynched him and he was Civ, better not make that mistake again!"

And I guess the parallel situation was too completely parallel for his liking, because we lynched him as a Civ again. It's not without its dark irony.

As long as we're throwing out reasons for voting for llama, I'll add to the pile:

I voted for llama because I suspected him and he did nothing to refute that suspicion. His fault, not mine.

@ Long Con. Well then let's hope there is a rezz for him this time around too.

I do recall the situation in that game. Actually, I don't think anyone would have drawn any comparisons if llama hadn't specifically said that he wanted to be King of the Morlocks again. In hindsight, it seems clear that he was just being funny.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:@ Long Con. Well then let's hope there is a rezz for him this time around too.

I do recall the situation in that game. Actually, I don't think anyone would have drawn any comparisons if llama hadn't specifically said that he wanted to be King of the Morlocks again. In hindsight, it seems clear that he was just being funny.

IIRC SVS lead the "Hey this looks awfully like Llamas civvie game from this one time" train.

DharmaHelper wrote:As long as we're throwing out reasons for voting for llama, I'll add to the pile:

I voted for llama because I suspected him and he did nothing to refute that suspicion. His fault, not mine.

I thought you might change your mind after llama changed his approach Day 1, but clearly you still felt the same. Your vote doesn't ping me though. I feel similarly about TH's vote. Unfortunately, I think we'll lose activity from him with the Championship game coming up.

I wonder who timmer would have voted for if he had joined the game sooner.

Timmer already said who he would have voted for:

timmer wrote:Long Con, if I had been caught up, I think I'd have voted Roxy or SVS.

When the main Day 1 cases are based on jokey stuff or people playing out gambit-type stuff, which is how I would class both llama and Epig, I look to see who was pushing those cases from "that guy is acting weird" to "he is suspicious".

While plenty of people were about Epig, right after Day 1 started, I noticed that Roxy's tone in particular was more built to make him look bad. Roxy, MM and SVS all used the term distracting around the same time, in a negative way. And then later, both Roxy and SVS leaned on the idea that Epig wanted Eloh to die. Like, they were putting his words in an undeniably negative, suspicious light.

Does it make them all bad? No. But for a Day 1, I found that push to bump Epig from weird to suspicious... suspicious. I'd have voted one of them.

Long Con wrote:Timmer already said who he would have voted for:

timmer wrote:Long Con, if I had been caught up, I think I'd have voted Roxy or SVS.

When the main Day 1 cases are based on jokey stuff or people playing out gambit-type stuff, which is how I would class both llama and Epig, I look to see who was pushing those cases from "that guy is acting weird" to "he is suspicious".

While plenty of people were about Epig, right after Day 1 started, I noticed that Roxy's tone in particular was more built to make him look bad. Roxy, MM and SVS all used the term distracting around the same time, in a negative way. And then later, both Roxy and SVS leaned on the idea that Epig wanted Eloh to die. Like, they were putting his words in an undeniably negative, suspicious light.

Does it make them all bad? No. But for a Day 1, I found that push to bump Epig from weird to suspicious... suspicious. I'd have voted one of them.

He didn't really specify.

I was more wondering how the day would have played out differently if timmer had subbed in sooner.

S~V~S wrote:Was Llama good or bad in the Morlock game? I can't recall, I think I have to go look.

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Was Llama good or bad in the Morlock game? I can't recall, I think I have to go look.

He was Professor X, a civilian.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Was Llama good or bad in the Morlock game? I can't recall, I think I have to go look.

For some reason, people thought my not being interested in anything besides being King of the Morlocks was somehow sinister and they lynched me for it.

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.

This was how the Llama/X Men thing started, DH. Not exactly "leading a train". YOU started that train, iirc. After this I made two posts where I was wishy washy. Like how Llama does this to amuse himself when he has no BTS, which does not mean much in this game. Personally he looked exactly like he did in that game to me. But it is possible as well that he was doing it on purpose as some thought, which is pretty much all I said about the situation.

Don;t be blaming me for this one, the five people who voted him at the end, when Epi was clearly in the lead, are where the fingers should be pointing (not even at you, tbh). If finger pointing needs to be done.

So SVS, since I was one of the last 5 voters you're saying I was trying to save Epignosis? So because I made a mistake and thought Llama was bad I clearly had other intentions? I don't think you're right about Epig, and I think if he was lynched there still would be an upset. The fingers would be pointing in the other direction. I still think Llama was acting shifty, obviously now I know it was an act but I was comfortable with my vote at the time.

S~V~S wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Was Llama good or bad in the Morlock game? I can't recall, I think I have to go look.

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Was Llama good or bad in the Morlock game? I can't recall, I think I have to go look.

He was Professor X, a civilian.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Was Llama good or bad in the Morlock game? I can't recall, I think I have to go look.

For some reason, people thought my not being interested in anything besides being King of the Morlocks was somehow sinister and they lynched me for it.

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.

This was how the Llama/X Men thing started, DH. Not exactly "leading a train". YOU started that train, iirc. After this I made two posts where I was wishy washy. Like how Llama does this to amuse himself when he has no BTS, which does not mean much in this game. Personally he looked exactly like he did in that game to me. But it is possible as well that he was doing it on purpose as some thought, which is pretty much all I said about the situation.

Don;t be blaming me for this one, the five people who voted him at the end, when Epi was clearly in the lead, are where the fingers should be pointing (not even at you, tbh). If finger pointing needs to be done.

If there doesn't need to be finger pointing, why did you just point the finger back at me rather defensively, if I don't deserve it, according to you?

I voted for thellama because I did not and still do not believe Epignosis is bad - despite his questionable methods - and I felt much less sure about Llama, and sometimes all the options on Day 1 suck.

I agree that options on day one suck most the time. I think it might be worth looking at the peopple who avoided the two top vote getters. I would almost bet one out of the six are bad. I'm not counting timmer because he wasn't caught up.

Wow, wasn't expecting this Possibly the worst outcome we could think of.
I'm sorry llama. That "couldn't sleep" comment was really something I used as a baddie before, and I thought I was on to something. I feel awful, yet recalling what happened last game we played together, I feel less awful ...kidding, I still feel bad.

I still need to finish reading what happened before the lynch to see what went down, because I started reading after the lynch post and skimmed from there, but this post really pinged me:

timmer wrote:Okay, so I've caught up. I'm also tired and achey so I'll just do one sort of sum up post for now.

I think all three of the main cases of Day 1 (Epig, llama, bullz) were crap, tbh. While YES, this was Day 1, and I know those are always a mess, these three cases were each built on meta-information that had a chance of error roughly the same as just picking a name out of a hat.

Both Epig and llama are notorious for a) shaking up their game b) being active posters and c) stirring the shit. But none of those things are an indication of alignment. So the case against llama, that mentioning the monkey so often must = bad, is about as bad as when Vompatti decided to try posting more "normal" as a civ and got lynched for it. And Epig's idea, he'll be sorry to find out, is clever but completely wrong. He's forgetting that probability is called probability because it indicates what is probable, not what actually IS. But is he bad for saying it? I can't say. On one hand, he didn't really try to pursue any other leads or ideas, but on the other, every time someone else brought it up, he was obliged to respond. A Catch-22.

The case on bullz involved so much talk of some previous game and the line "always play my baddie game" that there is no way I would ever follow it.

Something that I noticed. Roxy really honed in on the idea that Epig was suspicious, and so did SVS. They both posted regarding Epig at the start of the day, Roxy more boldly than SVS. But I mention them because they also BOTH pursued later in the day this idea that Epig had said he would rather lynch or NK an absent Eloh than have her replaced.

Now, please, if I've missed a key post point it out to me, but I don't see anywhere where Epig actually ever said that? Sure, he never wavered from his stance about her, but he never said he'd rather kill her than replace her? Where is that?

Both Roxy and SVS brought that up as fact, and it feels very twisty, like maybe they took something else he said and tried to attach different meaning to it to make him look worse. Please point out where I'm wrong, if I am.

And finally, I'm surprised tbh that more people didn't actually Elohcin MORE, as her responses to Epig actually made little sense. Either she completely misread his posts regarding her or completely misunderstood them, because her response was actually backwards from what he had said? Anyway, I'm heading to bed now, but those were the pings I caught.

What's the purpose of the underlined? If you're not bad, why do you care how other people responded to Eloh? If she was bad, then people not responding to it, should make you suspicious of them, but if she wasn't, what's the point in talking about it?
Seems to me like a baddie trying to do a reverse psychology on us, by making her indeed suspicious reply (like some of us in fact did call out) smaller than it was, and by acknowledging it and telling people they should have reacted to it, thereby making us think he's genuine.

I'm not too confident with my suspicions after how my last one ended, so I'd like to hear what others think about this

I pointed it out, because I see a roomful of people arguing over past games and whether llama would say monkey is he were the monkey, and almost no one really talked about how garbled Eloh's reply was. It's a sign that maybe some of the people who were the most active were choosing not to branch out to other cases/suspicions and also not even looking for others, but adamantly sticking to their chosen one, something that is more of a baddie tell, to me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:In my opinion, the reason for lynching llama was just silly. "He was acting too civvie" as some (notably Roxy) would say. The case on Epignosis wasn't great, but I still think there was more there, at the time. I say "at the time", because late in the day, Epignosis dropped some other ideas in the thread seemed to justify some of his reasoning.

Anyway, so the reason for lynching llama was because "He was acting too civvie". That sounds like the perfect lynch-wagon for a baddie who doesn't know his/her BTSC mates to hop on.

In retrospect, lynching him for acting too civvie like is dumb, but to me, it was more than that, and I think I'v said it enough. Moreover, I completely didn't get his reasoning for suspecting Bullz. But I do agree on the bandwagoning, though people avoiding the big names could also be suspicious, and so can the people who voted for Epi. I really don't put much into the first day votes, especially when the person lynched is not a baddie, and when the baddies don't have BTSC

Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me, he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him. Telling the baddies to kill another detective. I'm very happy to report however that I am not a detective and his plot is a failure. I was defending llama because I could have sworn he was captain cold. The role mentions being obsessed with "the score", and llama first couple posts were about the participation score. Also, one of the points in the host post for old rogues is they want to kill gorilla grodd. Llama obsessively mentioned the monkey. I could have sworn he was signalling to Golden glider, thus drawing so much attention to himself. I would have bet money on it frankly. In any case, because I thought he was the civ searchee, I figured if epig was in fact signalling, he had to be the bad version. Now, it's clear this isn't the case. I still don't trust epig, but I'm less sure of myself.

Thats all to say, the reasons I pushed so hard to defend llama aren't because I had btsc with him, it's because I thought I'd figured out his role.

timmer wrote:I pointed it out, because I see a roomful of people arguing over past games and whether llama would say monkey is he were the monkey, and almost no one really talked about how garbled Eloh's reply was. It's a sign that maybe some of the people who were the most active were choosing not to branch out to other cases/suspicions and also not even looking for others, but adamantly sticking to their chosen one, something that is more of a baddie tell, to me.

Say I accept that, another baddie tendency is to throw out general accusations like this, instead of saying who exactly is catching your attention by doing so, which is what you're doing.

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Why expend so much energy discussing a particular player if you don't plan on lynching them?

To signal to someone else to NK them?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Why expend so much energy discussing a particular player if you don't plan on lynching them?

To signal to someone else to NK them?

I've discussed him in the context of explaining my Llama vote. I thought it was suspicious that he was defending Llama. Given that Llama wasn't bad, I obviously don't suspect BF but that doesn't remove the fact that his behaviour towards Llama voters was an important factor in my vote. Should I not say that? Should I lie about why I suspected Llama, at cost to myself?

FZ. wrote: Say I accept that, another baddie tendency is to throw out general accusations like this, instead of saying who exactly is catching your attention by doing so, which is what you're doing.

Uhm, yeah I just broke down Day 1 and listed Roxy and SVS as my suspects, FZ. Maybe you should go read that.

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Yes, you did fail. If there was any doubt in someone's mind, you made sure it say painfully obvious. And if you were civvie you wouldn't have done so IMO.

blindfaeth wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Let's be real. Bullzeye isn't suspecting me

Correct. What gave that away? Was it all the posts where I've never once called you suspicious?

blindfaeth wrote:he is trying to proclaim to the entire thread that I am undoubtedly a detective and had btsc with llama thus why I defended him.

Aww man, you were on such a role as well. I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I was being careful to explain myself without stating that. If you think I failed, I'm sorry. If it gets you killed, I'm sorry. But with the way you did defend Llama, the baddies could've come to that conclusion by themselves. Your explanation of how you thought you'd figured out Llama's role seems legit.

Yes, you did fail. If there was any doubt in someone's mind, you made sure it say painfully obvious. And if you were civvie you wouldn't have done so IMO.

So what should I have done instead? I'd already said when I voted Llama that you were a big reason why. Then you came in trying to manipulate what I'd said because you're determined to come after me. Even if you hadn't, someone would've asked me to explain my vote unless I've been spite-killed already. Don't act like you know what I would or wouldn't do as a civ when you've played one game with me and I was bad in it.

Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

To be honest, I've probably already been killed by Llama's ninja friend and refused any defense despite being a civ and posing no threat to anyone, so I don't see why I should give a crap about helping the rest of my team if that's how things are going down. I will answer that question if I live to day 2.

timmer wrote:

FZ. wrote: Say I accept that, another baddie tendency is to throw out general accusations like this, instead of saying who exactly is catching your attention by doing so, which is what you're doing.

Uhm, yeah I just broke down Day 1 and listed Roxy and SVS as my suspects, FZ. Maybe you should go read that.

Fair enough, I apologize. I'll look for it

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

To be honest, I've probably already been killed by Llama's ninja friend and refused any defense despite being a civ and posing no threat to anyone, so I don't see why I should give a crap about helping the rest of my team if that's how things are going down. I will answer that question if I live to day 2.

That's a really bad answer, in my opinion. I think that civvies should do everything in their power to help the civvie cause no matter how pissed they are at others for going after them. If you are a civvie, I would like to know if there's someone you suspect. You can choose to refuse, but how is screwing others going to make you feel better?

FZ. wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

To be honest, I've probably already been killed by Llama's ninja friend and refused any defense despite being a civ and posing no threat to anyone, so I don't see why I should give a crap about helping the rest of my team if that's how things are going down. I will answer that question if I live to day 2.

That's a really bad answer, in my opinion. I think that civvies should do everything in their power to help the civvie cause no matter how pissed they are at others for going after them. If you are a civvie, I would like to know if there's someone you suspect. You can choose to refuse, but how is screwing others going to make you feel better?

I never claimed I was particularly good at being a civ. I always look out for myself first. Being bad at being good doesn't make me bad. I'm not trying to screw anyone, if anything I'm trying to keep myself alive. I know Llama's team will want me dead because he was so sure his pop psychology case was bulletproof. So I've tried to convince them to not NK me by first asking nicely and now not-so-nicely. If they've killed me, I don't want to help them. Call it spiteful, call it petty, call it screwing my own allies over, I never claimed it wasn't either of the first two. As for screwing people, I don't think what thoughts I do have offer any profound insight that would be lacking in my absence.

Bullzeye wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Bullzeye. In this moment, do you suspect anyone?

If so, then who?

To be honest, I've probably already been killed by Llama's ninja friend and refused any defense despite being a civ and posing no threat to anyone, so I don't see why I should give a crap about helping the rest of my team if that's how things are going down. I will answer that question if I live to day 2.

That's a really bad answer, in my opinion. I think that civvies should do everything in their power to help the civvie cause no matter how pissed they are at others for going after them. If you are a civvie, I would like to know if there's someone you suspect. You can choose to refuse, but how is screwing others going to make you feel better?

I never claimed I was particularly good at being a civ. I always look out for myself first. Being bad at being good doesn't make me bad. I'm not trying to screw anyone, if anything I'm trying to keep myself alive. I know Llama's team will want me dead because he was so sure his pop psychology case was bulletproof. So I've tried to convince them to not NK me by first asking nicely and now not-so-nicely. If they've killed me, I don't want to help them. Call it spiteful, call it petty, call it screwing my own allies over, I never claimed it wasn't either of the first two. As for screwing people, I don't think what thoughts I do have offer any profound insight that would be lacking in my absence.

I didn't think llama's suspicion had any merit, but it turns out mine didn't either, so what do I know. Last game, llama (and Epig) went after me for days, it was frustrating as hell, but I didn't want to give them the satisfaction so I carried on. The opinions of people I think might be good are always important to me, and since I don't necessarily see you as bad, I think it is important to share. But it's your call, and I get your frustration.

Long Con wrote:It was the tale from the X-Men game about him really wanting to be the King of the Morlocks, and he had a Civ role, and got lynched for the Morlock thing (and later rezzed and some other stuff, it got a little confusing but I felt like that stuff was less relevant)... So, it seemed like he was trying to set up a parallel situation in the hopes that people would think "Damn, he did that last time and we lynched him and he was Civ, better not make that mistake again!"

And I guess the parallel situation was too completely parallel for his liking, because we lynched him as a Civ again. It's not without its dark irony.

This sort of reasoning has not worked for you in the last few games we have played together. I have to wonder why you would vote using it. Like trying to act a certain way by self voting la de da or all the other reasons.

I think you're bad.

The following letter was left at doorsteps throughout the Twin Cities this morning:

"Hello everyone, this is the Pied Piper. I received some news last night, but I need some time to digest it. In the meantime, I suggest you all take a look at Roxy.

Have a nice Day 2."

Wow. I am actually genuinely surprised. Thanks for not revenge-killing me Wally, that was a smart move

RIP Splints and DF.

Rest in peace splintsy and DF.

I agree with Pied Piper, I will be looking at Roxy today. I felt like she used a manufactured reason to vote for Epi yesterday, and her tone so far has had me concerned. I'd also like to hear more from ika and Soneji today.