The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote: I will also have an eye thellama because of his defense of bwt and his vote for Epig in the previous lynch. I'd like to see more about this, though, because his comments after the fact sound civ to me.

This is for anybody really, but isn't trying to "sound civ" what bad guys try to do? If so, then a bad guy sounding like a good guy would just mean he's doing a good job, right?

That doesn't leave me with a whole lot of options for defending myself then does it? If I sound civ, it must be because I am a clever baddie, but if I sound baddie it must be because I am baddie?

Despite the fact that you were right about BWT very early and pushed hard to lynch him, comments like these make me think maybe I was right to suspect you after all.

I have explained myself to my satisfaction, and if you think it's worth voting for me, go ahead. I realized the risk I was taking when I defended BWT.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote: I will also have an eye thellama because of his defense of bwt and his vote for Epig in the previous lynch. I'd like to see more about this, though, because his comments after the fact sound civ to me.

This is for anybody really, but isn't trying to "sound civ" what bad guys try to do? If so, then a bad guy sounding like a good guy would just mean he's doing a good job, right?

That doesn't leave me with a whole lot of options for defending myself then does it? If I sound civ, it must be because I am a clever baddie, but if I sound baddie it must be because I am baddie?

Despite the fact that you were right about BWT very early and pushed hard to lynch him, comments like these make me think maybe I was right to suspect you after all.

I have explained myself to my satisfaction, and if you think it's worth voting for me, go ahead. I realized the risk I was taking when I defended BWT.

First, I didn't make a comment. I asked two questions.
Second, my questions were not in reference to you. They were a rhetorical criticism of the "I think so and so sounds like a civ" observation in general.
Third, you may have explained yourself to your satisfaction, but you didn't explain yourself to mine. Not yet anyway, and you see that I've yet to vote.
Fourth, you are mighty jumpy.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Anything else I missed that I should keep an eye out for?

I can think of something else to keep an eye out for, if you know what I mean.

Epignosis wrote: First, I didn't make a comment. I asked two questions.
Second, my questions were not in reference to you. They were a rhetorical criticism of the "I think so and so sounds like a civ" observation in general.
Third, you may have explained yourself to your satisfaction, but you didn't explain yourself to mine. Not yet anyway, and you see that I've yet to vote.
Fourth, you are mighty jumpy.

First, questions can be comments too, if they express an opinion or reaction. I interpreted your questions as rhetorical, meaning that they were comments.
Second, okay, but then how do you prose we read people early in the game?
Third, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them, but I don't know what I can say other than that I made a bad read and pursued it confidently.
Fourth, you are mighty pedantic today.

Devin the Omniscient wrote::OT:Sorry for not being around at all yesterday! Busy busy weekend!:OT:
IYWG to LT and Juliets Neither of you pinged me yet.

At this point there are several people I will be looking at for today's lynch.
I still have an eye on Aces although I completely agree that we should look at Aces voters for bwt's teammates. They seemed to be desperately trying to avoid his lynch.
I will still be looking at Dex. Although I am weirded out by his suddenly relatively normal posts
I will also have an eye thellama because of his defense of bwt and his vote for Epig in the previous lynch. I'd like to see more about this, though, because his comments after the fact sound civ to me.

Anything else I missed that I should keep an eye out for?

Which aces voters sound desperate to you? And where did you see relatively normal posts by Dex?

All of then mata

Ebwop them*

Oh wow my post count is going through the roof

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: First, I didn't make a comment. I asked two questions.
Second, my questions were not in reference to you. They were a rhetorical criticism of the "I think so and so sounds like a civ" observation in general.
Third, you may have explained yourself to your satisfaction, but you didn't explain yourself to mine. Not yet anyway, and you see that I've yet to vote.
Fourth, you are mighty jumpy.

First, questions can be comments too, if they express an opinion or reaction. I interpreted your questions as rhetorical, meaning that they were comments.
Second, okay, but then how do you prose we read people early in the game?
Third, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them, but I don't know what I can say other than that I made a bad read and pursued it confidently.
Fourth, you are mighty pedantic today.

1. They were interrogative criticisms that anyone was welcome (and still are welcome) to answer. I frequently criticize methodologies mid-game and have no intention of stopping.
2. I like prose. (Sorry, I'll stop- I know I'm being cheeky. All in good fun I hope. Seriously, I don't "get a read" on people. I look for contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups, and patterns (generally in that order). birdie committed three of those sins (the first three). You have committed two so far (the first two, in case you are wondering). That's generally how I "read" people. Someone simply saying, "I was reading so and so as civ" tells us almost nothing, and for me is vague, bereft of specified evidence, and thus unhelpful at the time.
3. I don't at the moment. However, there was something you might have pointed out that could have ameliorated my feelings about you, but you didn't.
4. I'm sorry- there's no one arguing about anything on PA right now.

Zany Dex wrote:Oh wow my post count is going through the roof

Yes, I know I didn't close my parenthetical comment.

Yes it bothers me.

Epignosis wrote: 2. I like prose. (Sorry, I'll stop- I know I'm being cheeky. All in good fun I hope. Seriously, I don't "get a read" on people. I look for contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups, and patterns (generally in that order). birdie committed three of those sins (the first three). You have committed two so far (the first two, in case you are wondering). That's generally how I "read" people. Someone simply saying, "I was reading so and so as civ" tells us almost nothing, and for me is vague, bereft of specified evidence, and thus unhelpful at the time.

Of course it's all in good fun!

I don't mind being lynched so much now that it will show that your methodology is every bit as flawed as mine.

Epignosis wrote: This is for anybody really, but isn't trying to "sound civ" what bad guys try to do? If so, then a bad guy sounding like a good guy would just mean he's doing a good job, right?

Epignosis wrote:Seriously, I don't "get a read" on people. I look for contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups, and patterns (generally in that order). birdie committed three of those sins (the first three). You have committed two so far (the first two, in case you are wondering). That's generally how I "read" people. Someone simply saying, "I was reading so and so as civ" tells us almost nothing, and for me is vague, bereft of specified evidence, and thus unhelpful at the time.

But isn't trying to consciously avoid making contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups and patterns what bad guys try to do? If so, then a bad guy not doing any of those things would just mean he's doing a good job, right?

When I am a baddie, I am generally more worried about "what other people will think" of my posts and votes than when I am a civ and have nothing to hide, and thus more careful.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: 2. I like prose. (Sorry, I'll stop- I know I'm being cheeky. All in good fun I hope. Seriously, I don't "get a read" on people. I look for contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups, and patterns (generally in that order). birdie committed three of those sins (the first three). You have committed two so far (the first two, in case you are wondering). That's generally how I "read" people. Someone simply saying, "I was reading so and so as civ" tells us almost nothing, and for me is vague, bereft of specified evidence, and thus unhelpful at the time.

Of course it's all in good fun!

I don't mind being lynched so much now that it will show that your methodology is every bit as flawed as mine.

My methodology is not as flawed as yours. The last lynch showed that much.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: This is for anybody really, but isn't trying to "sound civ" what bad guys try to do? If so, then a bad guy sounding like a good guy would just mean he's doing a good job, right?

Epignosis wrote:Seriously, I don't "get a read" on people. I look for contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups, and patterns (generally in that order). birdie committed three of those sins (the first three). You have committed two so far (the first two, in case you are wondering). That's generally how I "read" people. Someone simply saying, "I was reading so and so as civ" tells us almost nothing, and for me is vague, bereft of specified evidence, and thus unhelpful at the time.

But isn't trying to consciously avoid making contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups and patterns what bad guys try to do? If so, then a bad guy not doing any of those things would just mean he's doing a good job, right?

When I am a baddie, I am generally more worried about "what other people will think" of my posts and votes than when I am a civ and have nothing to hide, and thus more careful.

There is a difference between a positive action (trying to do X) and a negative action (trying NOT to do Y).

"Seeming civ" is a vague thing, easy to pull off early on, and on top of it all, bad guys can vouch for one another.

Contradicting oneself is a screw up.
Saying something that makes no sense is a screw up.
Slipping up is a screw up.
Patterns are not screw ups, per se, but you asked about how to read people early on, which is why patterns was at the end of my list.

Epignosis wrote: There is a difference between a positive action (trying to do X) and a negative action (trying NOT to do Y).

"Seeming civ" is a vague thing, easy to pull off early on, and on top of it all, bad guys can vouch for one another.

Contradicting oneself is a screw up.
Saying something that makes no sense is a screw up.
Slipping up is a screw up.
Patterns are not screw ups, per se, but you asked about how to read people early on, which is why patterns was at the end of my list.

Semantics. "Trying to seem civ" is the same thing as "trying not to seem bad."

Innocent people contradict themselves all the time. Innocent people say things that make no sense all the time (just look at Dex.) That does not necessarily imply malice.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Sander doesn't want to get his 5 votes. It really depends on who is playing him. A ballsy player who enjoys being rogue might want to do it for fun and excitement, even if (or because) it makes it more of a challenge for him to win. Just a thought.

Devin the Omniscient wrote::OT:Sorry for not being around at all yesterday! Busy busy weekend!:OT:
IYWG to LT and Juliets Neither of you pinged me yet.

At this point there are several people I will be looking at for today's lynch.
I still have an eye on Aces although I completely agree that we should look at Aces voters for bwt's teammates. They seemed to be desperately trying to avoid his lynch.
I will still be looking at Dex. Although I am weirded out by his suddenly relatively normal posts
I will also have an eye thellama because of his defense of bwt and his vote for Epig in the previous lynch. I'd like to see more about this, though, because his comments after the fact sound civ to me.

Anything else I missed that I should keep an eye out for?

Wanted to respond to this, because I had kind of forgotten about Aces after BWT went down. Since there are 2 (or even possibly 3, though I doubt that for now) baddie teams, Aces could still be bad. BWT did get a lot of votes right near the end of that lynch, which could've been a counter-save. However, the idea that 2 baddies were the top 2 candidates on a Day 2 lynch in a 30-person game strikes me as pretty optimistic. I'll just be keeping an eye on him for now, and hope others won't forget him either.

Someone also mentioned Dex voters. If I recall correctly, Dex, Aces, and BWT were nearly tied when I voted, so I think it's reasonable that BWT's teammates would have been as likely to vote Dex as Aces in hopes of saving him.

A close friend of mine is visiting somewhat unexpectedly from out of town tonight through Thursday afternoon. I would imagine this will decrease my ability to play mafia until then. Luckily that only covers the rest of this lynch and Night 3, more or less.

Epi, you say your criteria for lynches are contradictions, things that do not make sense, slip-ups, and patterns. What's your take on the other players in this game who don't seem to be making sense to the rest of us? I specifically have Lizzy and Dex in mind. I'm also curious about what you thought of Aces's accusation of boo on Day 1 (after boo's revenge vote).

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: There is a difference between a positive action (trying to do X) and a negative action (trying NOT to do Y).

"Seeming civ" is a vague thing, easy to pull off early on, and on top of it all, bad guys can vouch for one another.

Contradicting oneself is a screw up.
Saying something that makes no sense is a screw up.
Slipping up is a screw up.
Patterns are not screw ups, per se, but you asked about how to read people early on, which is why patterns was at the end of my list.

Semantics. "Trying to seem civ" is the same thing as "trying not to seem bad."

Innocent people contradict themselves all the time. Innocent people say things that make no sense all the time (just look at Dex.) That does not necessarily imply malice.

Not semantics, and your straw man is effectively tautological. "Trying to seem civ." is not the same thing as "trying not to contradict oneself" (and you admit that innocent people contradict themselves all the time, so you're undermining your own thought). May I ask you your own question? How do you propose we read people early on?

Innocent people may contradict themselves and say things that make no sense, but they should refrain from doing so when I am a participant along with them.

As for your example, he has only committed one sin.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Still plenty of room for the event! Don't forget to PM me to enter!

You have roughly 24 hours to decide whether or not to join. Remember, those who excel will be rewarded. But that person who fairs most poorly... don't say I didn't warn you.

Is it only the very bottom person in this event that will be punished, or will it be the bottom 1/3, etc.?

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: There is a difference between a positive action (trying to do X) and a negative action (trying NOT to do Y).

"Seeming civ" is a vague thing, easy to pull off early on, and on top of it all, bad guys can vouch for one another.

Contradicting oneself is a screw up.
Saying something that makes no sense is a screw up.
Slipping up is a screw up.
Patterns are not screw ups, per se, but you asked about how to read people early on, which is why patterns was at the end of my list.

Semantics. "Trying to seem civ" is the same thing as "trying not to seem bad."

Innocent people contradict themselves all the time. Innocent people say things that make no sense all the time (just look at Dex.) That does not necessarily imply malice.

Not semantics, and your straw man is effectively tautological. "Trying to seem civ." is not the same thing as "trying not to contradict oneself" (and you admit that innocent people contradict themselves all the time, so you're undermining your own thought). May I ask you your own question? How do you propose we read people early on?

Innocent people may contradict themselves and say things that make no sense, but they should refrain from doing so when I am a participant along with them.

As for your example, he has only committed one sin.

I didn't say that trying to seem civ is the same thing as trying not to contradict oneself. I don't think it is. I was just pointing out that there is no real difference between trying to do something and trying not to do something as you asserted. It just depends on how you phrase it.

I am not saying your method is without merit. I look for all those things too, but I also think there is a role for intuition, tone and deviations from past or usual behavior. My main point was to flip your criticisms of methodology around on your own method, to show that no system is immune from failure.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Still plenty of room for the event! Don't forget to PM me to enter!

You have roughly 24 hours to decide whether or not to join. Remember, those who excel will be rewarded. But that person who fairs most poorly... don't say I didn't warn you.

Is it only the very bottom person in this event that will be punished, or will it be the bottom 1/3, etc.?

It would be funny if only one person signs up.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: There is a difference between a positive action (trying to do X) and a negative action (trying NOT to do Y).

"Seeming civ" is a vague thing, easy to pull off early on, and on top of it all, bad guys can vouch for one another.

Contradicting oneself is a screw up.
Saying something that makes no sense is a screw up.
Slipping up is a screw up.
Patterns are not screw ups, per se, but you asked about how to read people early on, which is why patterns was at the end of my list.

Semantics. "Trying to seem civ" is the same thing as "trying not to seem bad."

Innocent people contradict themselves all the time. Innocent people say things that make no sense all the time (just look at Dex.) That does not necessarily imply malice.

Not semantics, and your straw man is effectively tautological. "Trying to seem civ." is not the same thing as "trying not to contradict oneself" (and you admit that innocent people contradict themselves all the time, so you're undermining your own thought). May I ask you your own question? How do you propose we read people early on?

Innocent people may contradict themselves and say things that make no sense, but they should refrain from doing so when I am a participant along with them.

As for your example, he has only committed one sin.

I didn't say that trying to seem civ is the same thing as trying not to contradict oneself. I don't think it is. I was just pointing out that there is no real difference between trying to do something and trying not to do something as you asserted. It just depends on how you phrase it.

I am not saying your method is without merit. I look for all those things too, but I also think there is a role for intuition, tone and deviations from past or usual behavior. My main point was to flip your criticisms of methodology around on your own method, to show that no system is immune from failure.

I don't think my system is immune from failure (never claimed that). I think it is far superior to people vaguely saying "so and so read civ to me."

I thought you would have understood and agreed with that.

Epignosis wrote: I don't think my system is immune from failure (never claimed that). I think it is far superior to people vaguely saying "so and so read civ to me."

I thought you would have understood and agreed with that.

I understand nothing.

What a pity.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Still plenty of room for the event! Don't forget to PM me to enter!

You have roughly 24 hours to decide whether or not to join. Remember, those who excel will be rewarded. But that person who fairs most poorly... don't say I didn't warn you.

Is it only the very bottom person in this event that will be punished, or will it be the bottom 1/3, etc.?

Just the very bottom person.

Event? Did I miss something?

OK..found it. Missed it completely.

Snow Dog wrote:Event? Did I miss something?

It's here:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 720#p24439

Addendum: Never mind!

nutella wrote:@ Boomslang / general public interest: Referring to page numbers is unhelpful for those of us who set the posts per page differently from the forum default -- if it's really important link to the post(s) in question. thanks

My apologies, and I'll keep that in mind for the future. I was referring to the following argument:

juliets wrote:Well, bwt made that statement about random early voters being suspicious but he basically said Vomps was an exception. That makes it look to me like maybe Vomps was a teammate though I don't think I would vote for him based just on that evidence. It just makes me have an eye out for him.

Zany Dex wrote:Oh wow my post count is going through the roof

This one is

And Wow. I have a lot of responding to do! Please forgive the multi posts that will occur once I have caught up again.

Thank you to Epig and llama for giving me much to consider between the 2 of you. I am very glad to see it is all in good fun! Although I will need a lot of time to think these arguments over. Epig, I only said that to provoke further arguments on the topic (which I did so rather successfully). So as a relatively new player I don't appreciate the criticism.

@Matahari - The Aces voters that jumped on near the end of the Day seemed like they were desperate attempts to save bwt. I'm not saying everyone who voted for Aces seemed desperate (response to someone else. nutella I think).

@Russ - Thank you for pointing out the tail-end voters for Dex and bwt! I had begun to consider these, as well at work after I had made my post earlier today. I will be looking at the last 2 or 3 voters for each of them, too.

Also, I have no idea what to think of Lizzy's playing style in this game. I haven't had many opportunity's to get to know many players and their styles so Lizzy especially perplexes me.

I have so many people to consider at this point!!!

Okay, I expect I will need to hold my vote to save my own sorry hide tomorrow, but in case I don't I will likely be giving it to bea for the following reasons.

1. She was the last person to vote for Aces. The vote was Aces:6 BWT: 7, so her vote tied it up. The rationale for her vote was vague and non-specific.

bea wrote:Between Dex, Aces, and BWT - I waver on all their cases tbh. Of the three though, I have the least warm fuzzies about Aces.

2. I agree with what Elohcin said about her reaction to BWT's lynch being forced and awkward sounding, tonewise.

Elohcin wrote:And if we go for llama and he turns out civ, I think we ought to look at bea. Her post which I quote below seems just a bit forced. However, if llama turns out baddie, then I guess she is being genuine.

bea wrote:well crap. I either chose wrong or we were lucky and there were two baddies in that mix. I do have to say, David had me fooled.

well done epi for not letting up on his gut feeling. As rusti asked, I wouldn't mind knowing if there was anything besides gut that kept you going on.

llama - I've got no problems with you looking my way. I'm a civ this time round. If there's anything specific I can address, I'd be happy to.

I will turn out civ, so Elohcin is right on the money there.

3. On the A Person Vote, she expressed suspicion of AP, missed the vote and then tried to distance herself from it afterwards.

bea wrote:As far as day 1 cases go, the ones on A person and llama are as well made as they can be.

Before the self vote, I was thinking that the case on A Person was stronger than the one on llama. Now AP's self vote has me scratching my head. It feels like a desperate attempt, but I am unsure of if it's a desperate civ attempt or a desperate baddie attempt.

bea wrote:RIP A Person.

FWIW - I was leaning away from A person. I think my last post could see that.

This is the strongest case I have at the moment, and I will vote for bea unless I need to protect myself or something else exciting happens in the meantime..

thellama73 wrote: 3. On the A Person Vote, she expressed suspicion of AP, missed the vote and then tried to distance herself from it afterwards.

Isn't that exactly what birdwithteeth11 did with you?

Expressed suspicion:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Okay LT. I re-read your case against llama and the only part that sticks out to me is the "pointing fingers" comment. That definitely strikes me as attempting to squash discussion.

Missed the vote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Have to vote now, because I get off work about 45 minutes after the poll ends, and I don't want to have to rush it. I think I could go either way with llama or A Person, but I'm going to go with llama this time.

Votes llama

And tried to distance himself:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry I missed the vote everyone! I voted by bolding it in a post, but forgot to vote in the poll. Oh well.

I guess I was wrong in suspecting AP. And from reading back on everything else, I'm starting to think I was wrong about llama as well. I will be reading up more on Dex and other suspicions tomorrow. For now it is bedtime, since I work in 8 hours.

Epignosis wrote: Isn't that exactly what birdwithteeth11 did with you?

Excellent point.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Isn't that exactly what birdwithteeth11 did with you?

Excellent point.

Yes it is- and a subtle difference too. A Person was a security bot, while birdwithteeth was Suchong. One was good while the other was not.

Do you recall fourth sin in my list?

A pattern.

I have voted for thellama73.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Isn't that exactly what birdwithteeth11 did with you?

Excellent point.

Yes it is- and a subtle difference too. A Person was a security bot, while birdwithteeth was Suchong. One was good while the other was not.

Do you recall fourth sin in my list?

A pattern.

I have voted for thellama73.

You have it backwards.
I asserted that bea (a baddie, imo) distanced herself from AP (a civ.)
You pointed out that BWT (a baddie) distanced himself from me (a civ.)
The difference you assert doesn't exist.

Do you recall the first and second sins from your list?

Ok - so here's the thing about Lizzy and Vompi that has me all scratching my head.

I get that they have a creative play style. But see, here's my problem. All anyone seems to talk about regarding them is their play style. To me, their creativeness gives me no indication of what their alignment might be as from what I remember they are always pretty creative.

I get the whole point with Vomp about his day 1 vote being dismissed by Teefies even though Vomp voted under the exact circumstances that Teefies said he would vote a random voter for, but is this alone enough to lynch Vomp?

I would really like to hear from both Vomp and Lizzy as to whom they suspect and why. I feel like with all the talk of the "unusual" whether it's them, or Dex or whomever, that these players are able to keep the focus on the wacky and not necessarily on the whole "hunting baddies" thing. Am I making sense?

I'm feeling a bit frustrated because we're working to the part of the game where I should have some clue or theory as to what's going on and my minds singularly at a blank. I can't help feeling there's something I'm missing and tbh it's frustrating the heck out of me. Every day of this game has felt like Day 1.

linki - llama - is there anything besides the timing of my vote that makes you think I'm bad? When I'm around (IE - not at work) I tend to wait as long as I can to vote no matter what. I like to get every bit of info I can before I make a decision. Granted, I didn't vote Teefies, but I was not the only person tricked by him. Truth be known, I almost followed you and voted Epi because I thought you'd caught something. So I guess you could call me doubly dumb there. But being dumb doesn't make me a baddie.

I am really confused by Epig's reasoning right before his vote. Did he misread llama's post?

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Isn't that exactly what birdwithteeth11 did with you?

Excellent point.

Yes it is- and a subtle difference too. A Person was a security bot, while birdwithteeth was Suchong. One was good while the other was not.

Do you recall fourth sin in my list?

A pattern.

I have voted for thellama73.

You have it backwards.
I asserted that bea (a baddie, imo) distanced herself from AP (a civ.)
You pointed out that BWT (a baddie) distanced himself from me (a civ.)
The difference you assert doesn't exist.

Do you recall the first and second sins from your list?

Two parts in your claim are disputable, and my vote has already been cast.

And for those who skip things (yes, people skip things, as our last game showed when only four people bothered to read what the Hosts themselves put up):

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 285#p24285

bea wrote: I would really like to hear from both Vomp and Lizzy as to whom they suspect and why. I feel like with all the talk of the "unusual" whether it's them, or Dex or whomever, that these players are able to keep the focus on the wacky and not necessarily on the whole "hunting baddies" thing. Am I making sense?

I completely agree with this. The wackiness may not indicate alignment, but it certainly does nothing to help the civvie cause, and what good is it having civvies around who refuse to help?

bea wrote:linki - llama - is there anything besides the timing of my vote that makes you think I'm bad? When I'm around (IE - not at work) I tend to wait as long as I can to vote no matter what. I like to get every bit of info I can before I make a decision. Granted, I didn't vote Teefies, but I was not the only person tricked by him. Truth be known, I almost followed you and voted Epi because I thought you'd caught something. So I guess you could call me doubly dumb there. But being dumb doesn't make me a baddie.

Yes, I listed three points as to why I suspect you. The timing is one, combined with the lack of specificity for your reason for picking Aces over the other suspects you mentioned.

Another is a response that seemed forced (a weak point to be sure, but I think it is worth mentioning in combination with other things) and the third is the way you distanced yourself from the AP vote when he flipped civ, despite having expressed strong suspicion on him before. As Rob rightly pointed out, BWT tried the same tactic of distancing, and he flipped bad, so if pattern recognition can be believed, you might well flip bad too.

Devin the Omniscient wrote: I am really confused by Epig's reasoning right before his vote. Did he misread llama's post?

Have you read my case against him? I hope you actually read the thread, you know...because during the last game, we learned that only four people were reading what the HOSTS put up. That leads me to think that folks might ignore what participants put up.

But that's neither here nor there.

Here is llama's response to my accusation of him:

thellama73 wrote:I have no defense for myself other than to say I thought I was reading civ BWT, and I thought I saw a baddie railroading of him from Rob and others. I felt really sure of myself, but I was wrong. I'm sorry I cast doubt on Epignosis now. He had more insight than I did.

No defense except what he thought. Then he's sorry he cast doubt on me.

But not so sorry that he said

thellama73 wrote: Despite the fact that you were right about BWT very early and pushed hard to lynch him, comments like these make me think maybe I was right to suspect you after all.

Now he wants to go after bea...

Yeah, but those quotes didn't happen right after one another. Other things happened between them that affected my opinions. I feel like you are being uncharacteristically hostile this game, but I'm probably not going to vote for you. I'm probably going to vote for bea.

Epignosis wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote: I am really confused by Epig's reasoning right before his vote. Did he misread llama's post?

Have you read my case against him? I hope you actually read the thread, you know...because during the last game, we learned that only four people were reading what the HOSTS put up. That leads me to think that folks might ignore what participants put up.

But that's neither here nor there.

Here is llama's response to my accusation of him:

thellama73 wrote:I have no defense for myself other than to say I thought I was reading civ BWT, and I thought I saw a baddie railroading of him from Rob and others. I felt really sure of myself, but I was wrong. I'm sorry I cast doubt on Epignosis now. He had more insight than I did.

No defense except what he thought. Then he's sorry he cast doubt on me.

But not so sorry that he said

thellama73 wrote: Despite the fact that you were right about BWT very early and pushed hard to lynch him, comments like these make me think maybe I was right to suspect you after all.

Now he wants to go after bea...

I have read everything you said about thellama and was leaning to side with you in a vote against him. I was only referring to his last post regarding bea. I thought you might have misread the post to be referring to himself.
It is not my intention to provoke rude responses. I apologize if I said anything to offend you.

Ok - I can understand how you've drawn those conclusions.

Day 1 I really screwed the pooch by not voting. I waffled back and forth so I'm not sure where my vote was going to go because when I came back here to make my vote and saw I missed it, I still wasn't sure where it was going. I thought I had plenty of time, but believe it or not, I had the time settings on the forum all wonked out. I live in Arizona. The one state in the union that doesn't follow day light savings time. So part of the year we are on Pacific time - Part of the year we are on Mountain time. Some of the forums I belong to have a special "Arizona" time zone and when I use that I can set it and forget it. There's a trick to not having to set up the flip flop of time zones but honestly, it wasn't till both the host, the mod abstaining from playing and I realized that it was a time zone issue that caused me to miss the vote that I realized what was up. Somehow, believe it or not, I hosted the entire Grimm game and all my posts were posting as an hour later than the time I thought I was posting them. Thank you again svs and socky for helping me. I think I missed it because when I was posting stuff - I was always looking at my microwave clock and counting back for EST because I was on the phone with Rox etc.

Day 2 - If you want more behind my thoughts - I thought both the Aces case and the Teefies case had equal merit. That said, I believed then that you were civ as well. Your vouch for Teefies made no sense if you were both teammates to me. So there were 2 people I had a ? by with one of the people I was leaning civ on saying "I'm pretty sure Teefies is in his civ game." I could have gone either way on that vote and your case on Epi at the time made some sense but to *me* at that point in the vote, voting epi would have been equivalent to throwing my vote away. If it felt like my Day 2 vote lacked specicivity it was because it was. It was made slightly less informed than a random coin flip.

I'm not joking. Every lynch in this game has felt like a Day 1 lynch to me. I'm no more clear on leads this game than I was at the start of it. I have no team bts. I have the thread. And I know that there are those in the thread who are purposely trying to mislead me. I usually have half a feel on some civs by now, and I don't. And I feel lost.

I can see why you think like you do. And if I am lynched, I at least die knowing you will know that I was telling the truth. Thankfully there are no seamers that I know of in this game so I've got that.

Besides me, who else are you looking at?

also - epi - if you hadn't already voted, and voting llama wasn't an option, who would you be looking at this lynch?

most of that - btw - was at llama. except the bit at the end where I was talkign to epi.

silly linki is silly.

Whew, family reunion over, so hopefully I will be around more this week.

You all are getting so chatty that it's making my head swim just skimming. This is going to require some serious time to actually digest what is being said. Looks like none of my suspects have been cleared, but definitely some noteworthy discussion. Lots of very quiet people too and some without explanation. I will look back at some of the quieter folks as well. Would love to see more discussion and ideas from them.

Not that we don't all love the Epi-llama show.

Thanks for addressing those points, bea. FWIW I merely mentioned the fact that you missed the vote in passing, and not as evidence for your baddieness I fully believe you about that. I hate daylight savings time myself and have fallen victim to its wickedness in the past. It was the comments directly before and after the lynch that had me worried.

As far as who I'm looking at, Rob is acting weird, but he was right about BWT from way early so maybe he's on the other baddie team or maybe he's just acting weird. Lizzy is up there on my list, because I feel like her success in Thomas has led her to believe she can act the way she has been acting without consequence. Nevinera's prolonged silence still has me worried, and I have a vague hunch on Hedgeowl as well, but I can't pin it down to anything yet.

Going to post in more detail after I do my read up tomorrow leading into the lynch.

bea wrote:
also - epi - if you hadn't already voted, and voting llama wasn't an option, who would you be looking at this lynch?

One of the three nutty professors. Code Yellow regarding their minds if you ask me.

Would you kindly answer your own question as well?