A Mafia of Unfortunate Events [END GAME]

[sprityo]

Let me rephrase that, why quin would be scum in association with another player, cause I don't think t was just a blatant "I think quin is bad" thing

[Tangrowth]

I don't like that sprityo 2.0's first handful of posts of any game-related content are all a combination of salt over his 1.0 self dying and discussing his former self rather than attempting to generate reads on anyone. I'd say that's a bad look.

And continued posts on the matter, though he does eventually get around to some other posting... it's underwhelming though.

Overall I'd say my read is a sprityo 2.0 (slight mafia). I don't feel remotely inspired to call him town, but I don't feel compelled to call him a good lead for a mafia member either. Nonetheless, as much as it sucks to be lynched right off the bat and lynched immediately again, I don't want to let that keep me from considering a potential legitimate lead, so I could vote for him if I don't find anything better.

[Epignosis]

Posting my intention to vote DDL per Quin's argument and Snow Dog's horrendous defense of himself.

That really surprises me a lot, after the post of yours which I just quoted above... which states that your town read of DDL just got townier.

It wasn't that strong of a town read on DDL.

And yeah, even if DDL and Snow are likely not on a team (my previous thought) and not likely are on a team (where I'm trending to but not 100% sold on), it doesn't mean Snow being mafia makes DDL not mafia. It just makes it more likely.

I'm much more sold on Snow = bad because no defense, not being helpful or scumhunting and the possible connection with DDL than

DDL = bad because of a possible connection with Snow and misrep of LC plus pinging others

But that second one is better than Gloryo = bad cause replacement, Sig = bad cause his case on Gloryo is reaching or LC is bad cause not being committal enough. None of that is even slightly convincing to me.

If most people think DDL + Snow Dog = super unlikely w/w combo, I'll not go that direction. Like I said, struggling with the meta a bit and the argument that this is too obvious of a play for them or too obvious of a solution for Quin is something that I'm having to take everyone's word for as I've never played with any of them before.

Someone convince me whom to vote for. What's out there?

Snow Dog's posts in the last two pages suck.

I don't know that what you just saw about Snow Dog could be considered a defense, but there you are.

Part of my problem with it.

He's drunk. He's Welsh. It's Christmas. He's Snowy. Nothing I saw there worried me.

To give you some perspective, Snow Dog is one of the best people I've ever been bad with. He shows up for his team. He doesn't roll over and just get lynched. I'd say he's on his own there. Perhaps even independent where he doesn't feel like he has to care all that much.

Could he be bad? Of course. But none of what you're throwing out there about him alarms me, and I know him better than you do.

[Tangrowth]

It's alright MP I'll replace you if I get lynched two days in a row

:Noble:

Haha, that's the spirit.

I don't want to be replaced. Normally I would when I cannot be totally on top of a game, but I'm going to try to become as engaged as possible. Maybe you can replace someone else though if that does happen.

Why shouldn't you be lynched? Specifically, point me to something in your 2.0 incarnation's batch of posts that should lead me and others to believe you to be town.

[Elohcin]

Effective immediately, Sprityo is replacing Glorfindel.

And yeah, dead members of factions win too.

I have to wonder why Sprit replaced Glor. Glor was pretty active. I know glor has a hard time being mafia, so maybe it was too much pressure.

This is all I have to go on right now, unfortunately. So, *voting Sprit*

[Tangrowth]

Posting my intention to vote DDL per Quin's argument and Snow Dog's horrendous defense of himself.

That really surprises me a lot, after the post of yours which I just quoted above... which states that your town read of DDL just got townier.

It wasn't that strong of a town read on DDL.

And yeah, even if DDL and Snow are likely not on a team (my previous thought) and not likely are on a team (where I'm trending to but not 100% sold on), it doesn't mean Snow being mafia makes DDL not mafia. It just makes it more likely.

I'm much more sold on Snow = bad because no defense, not being helpful or scumhunting and the possible connection with DDL than

DDL = bad because of a possible connection with Snow and misrep of LC plus pinging others

But that second one is better than Gloryo = bad cause replacement, Sig = bad cause his case on Gloryo is reaching or LC is bad cause not being committal enough. None of that is even slightly convincing to me.

If most people think DDL + Snow Dog = super unlikely w/w combo, I'll not go that direction. Like I said, struggling with the meta a bit and the argument that this is too obvious of a play for them or too obvious of a solution for Quin is something that I'm having to take everyone's word for as I've never played with any of them before.

Someone convince me whom to vote for. What's out there?

Snow Dog's posts in the last two pages suck.

I don't know that what you just saw about Snow Dog could be considered a defense, but there you are.

Part of my problem with it.

I'm not one for teammate building without a confirmed mafia flip, because in my experience those speculations (made by myself and others) are very often inaccurate. Why are Snow Dog and DDL individually suspicious?

[sprityo]

It's alright MP I'll replace you if I get lynched two days in a row

:Noble:

Haha, that's the spirit.

I don't want to be replaced. Normally I would when I cannot be totally on top of a game, but I'm going to try to become as engaged as possible. Maybe you can replace someone else though if that does happen.

Why shouldn't you be lynched? Specifically, point me to something in your 2.0 incarnation's batch of posts that should lead me and others to believe you to be town.

From me personally or in Florida posts? Because I'm pretty sure we've established he was just having a bad time. Unless you're dig, and insist on following a meta

[sprityo]

Glorf*


My signature is never the more truer

[Elohcin]

ooo, I just broke a three-way tie. I had no clue.

[Long Con]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

Why would you "want to believe it"? Because it's Christmas?

MP07, you should vote for DDL, because he's probably bad.

[sprityo]

(In my experience with pairings, you just put people either together or against, so if player a is town and player b is supposed to be opposite, you pursue player B if player A flips town)

Albeit this is a flawed method that can be misconstrued

[Tangrowth]

OK, I'll be here for a bit longer than I thought. Still won't be too long though. I'll continue digging through ISOs.

Linki w/ sprityo: You. Don't worry about Glorf. Or even just tell me now. Doesn't have to be something you've written already. Show me town spark.

Linki w/ LC: Can you give me a fast and dirty on DDL? I'll look at him next in fact and see what I find.

[Long Con]

From me personally or in Florida posts? Because I'm pretty sure we've established he was just having a bad time. Unless you're dig, and insist on following a meta

Also, *sig

[Long Con]

OK, I'll be here for a bit longer than I thought. Still won't be too long though. I'll continue digging through ISOs.

Linki w/ sprityo: You. Don't worry about Glorf. Or even just tell me now. Doesn't have to be something you've written already. Show me town spark.

Linki w/ LC: Can you give me a fast and dirty on DDL? I'll look at him next in fact and see what I find.

Fine, gimme five mins and I'll tally up my triple-whammy.

[sig]

Of course, I had to fiirst pick the guy that was lynched and then replaced back in.

Who did sprityo replace?

Glorf

[Tangrowth]

In fact sprityo, if you want to give me just a few quick town/mafia reads and very quick blurbs on why you have those reads, that'd be great. What about your lynch was illuminating to you? Do you feel anyone unfairly voted for you or not?

[Tangrowth]

Oh shit, DDL has been posting like I normally would. This will take me a bit to even quick-read.

[sprityo]

@MP give me 30 minutes to get home and open my laptop

It shouldn't be too hard to provide a small sum of reads and/or questions about why so and so said what.

The game has been stifled in activity due to Christmas I feel

[sprityo]

*and that's why it wouldn't be hard since there's limited people to interact with

[sig]

From me personally or in Florida posts? Because I'm pretty sure we've established he was just having a bad time. Unless you're dig, and insist on following a meta

Also, *sig

dog*

Posting my intention to vote DDL per Quin's argument and Snow Dog's horrendous defense of himself.

That really surprises me a lot, after the post of yours which I just quoted above... which states that your town read of DDL just got townier.

DDL = bad because of a possible connection with Snow and misrep of LC plus pinging others

But that second one is better than Gloryo = bad cause replacement, Sig = bad cause his case on Gloryo is reaching or LC is bad cause not being committal enough. None of that is even slightly convincing to me.

Explain how this makes me bad? I'm quite confused with this logic.

[Tangrowth]

OK, I'll be here for a bit longer than I thought. Still won't be too long though. I'll continue digging through ISOs.

Linki w/ sprityo: You. Don't worry about Glorf. Or even just tell me now. Doesn't have to be something you've written already. Show me town spark.

Linki w/ LC: Can you give me a fast and dirty on DDL? I'll look at him next in fact and see what I find.

Fine, gimme five mins and I'll tally up my triple-whammy.

That'd be great, thanks.

Linki w/ sig: That'd be awesome, but it's unlikely I'll still be around. I'll be happy to read it either way though, whether I'm around to read it now or later when I return (sometime tomorrow during N2).

[Spacedaisy]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie. If civ I would expect something about wanting to know reasons, maybe a little protesting against a gut suspicion. Instead the response I've seen has been almost like don't make any sudden moves and maybe I'll get through it. I don't know. It's so weak a case, I'm finding myself in this weird place where my gut yells bad, but my brain can't bring myself to vote him because I can't see a good reason to. I'm finding it frustrating.

Argh, this game.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your view on LC, since you are wanting to vote for the people voting him I assume you lean civ and I want to know why. I need some reasons to help me sort this out one way or another.

LC: I want to believe it because I feel like I can't figure out the why of my own suspicion. It is exceedingly frustrating to me.

[sprityo]

I willsay, however, I won't be voting for Sig. I feel his vote is justified, albeit wrong.

[Tangrowth]

At face value I don't like DDL's early posts on Snow Dog because they could be nefariously opportunistic. I don't like Snow Dog's "not reading my role" gambit which is annoying and has become frequent recently, but I don't think Snow Dog should be policy lynched by any means. He has a role and an alignment which should be attempted to be discerned.

[Epignosis]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie. If civ I would expect something about wanting to know reasons, maybe a little protesting against a gut suspicion. Instead the response I've seen has been almost like don't make any sudden moves and maybe I'll get through it. I don't know. It's so weak a case, I'm finding myself in this weird place where my gut yells bad, but my brain can't bring myself to vote him because I can't see a good reason to. I'm finding it frustrating.

Argh, this game.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your view on LC, since you are wanting to vote for the people voting him I assume you lean civ and I want to know why. I need some reasons to help me sort this out one way or another.

LC: I want to believe it because I feel like I can't figure out the why of my own suspicion. It is exceedingly frustrating to me.

I think my opinion about LC is less important right now than your opinion on 21 people who are not LC. Even if you are torn on LC, there are eight Mafia. Eight.

Not sure about LC? Pick someone else to lynch. This is Day 2. Not Day 12.

[Spacedaisy]

Yeah sounds nice, but when you're gut only wants to talk about one person, simply choosing someone else is not so easy. Nice avoidance of my question though. Duly noted.

[Long Con]

Why LC?

He is around, he is paying attention at every big discussion, and he is posting his opinions, but not committing to anything. He spent a long time talking about how he didn't know who to vote for on d1, but then at the end he was okay with pushing the nearest wagon around.

That's not accurate, I wasn't "pushing the nearest wagon". You're straining to phrase things in a way that makes me look guilty of something which I am not. I decided to go with a low/non-poster, and sprityo was in the short list of folks that I was considering for that. Then ONE person voted sprityo, and I decided that was the best "low-poster" way to go... rather than pick a different one and split that slice of the vote up. It wasn't a wagon at that point - that's why your analysis is inaccurate. I would go so far as to say "intentionally inaccurate", but I may get back to that when I have more time to devote.

Number 1: Saying I was "pushing the nearest wagon". That makes me sound bad. It is also inaccurate. I was the second vote on a low poster, I had already stated that I wanted to vote a low poster and that I would prefer to pick the same low poster as other like-minded individuals.

And right after that, he was accusing Glorf of voting for bad reasons:

And there you go... vindicated again!

Damn, yo, what vindication? What if DDL is a baddie? Your vote would have tied them up, and maybe changed EVERYTHING. It's a scotche early to be proclaiming "vindication".

What if I was bad and you had "randomly" voted for me instead of spirit, LC? Wouldn't that have changed everything either?

Once again, you are intentionally shifting away from the real truth. I didn't accuse Glorf of voting for bad reasons. Glorf didn't vote. AND I didn't accuse him. Not in the conventional Mafia sense. I wasn't stating a suspicion of him, I was telling him that it was not cool or accurate to proclaim "vindication".

Number 2: He said that I was "accusing Glorf of voting for bad reasons". That's completely untrue in every way, and he's using it to try and make me look bad.

I just cared that you had enough commitment to the game to judge people but not enough to make more commited votes than the one you made. That came across as rather hipocritical.

You know what, we're coming back to this as well.

If I had been accusing someone else of not having enough suspicions, or not being involved enough to make an informed vote, THAT would be hypocritical.

Me called Glorfindel out on his "vindicated" claim was a self-contained disagreement with one post. There is NOTHING hypocritical about that. Maybe if I had also made a similar post earlier somehow wherein I claimed to be vindicated in my views, and THEN put Glorf down for the same.... THAT would be hypocritical.

However, none of that happened. Your assessment of "that came across as rather hypocritical" is yet another example of DDL intentionally twisting things to make me look bad.

Number 3: Calling me a hypocrite for invented reasons with, yet again, the intention of making me look bad.

Reason for suspicion: DDL is playing like a baddie who needs to make a case in order to not look bad, but has chosen to contrive and twist reasons because he thinks it will be easy to make people see me as bad. The absolute weakness and dishonesty of his points against me indicate that he is not approaching this from an honest perspective, hence, he is bad.

[sprityo]

whoa sorry I am late, going to catch up when I get off work

Also,

[Tangrowth]

Now despite not liking DDL's early posts, I can't explain why, but I get a genuine vibe from DDL. I don't feel comfortable voting for him at this time. I'll see what LC has to say though.

I also think this set of posts:

Spoiler: show

I'm trying to get a read on Zebra but I'm arguing with her in two games at once and it's confusing the hell out of me.

I'm pretty sure I deduced she was civ in one game and scum in the other one a couple hours ago, but I can remember which game was each now. I'll let you guys know when I figure it out.

Spoiler: show

Also she is voting for me in both games at the same time, so I have to evaluate whether my own suspicions aren't being clouded by OMGUS. In both games, separately.

Help.

Would be a convoluted lie if he were lying about them.

Linki w/ LC: Good timing. I'll look at these after posting.

[Epignosis]

Yeah sounds nice, but when you're gut only wants to talk about one person, simply choosing someone else is not so easy. Nice avoidance of my question though. Duly noted.

I am rescinding my civilian opinion of you after that.

I didn't avoid your question. I gave you an an answer that will help me develop my opinion on you better, and I'd say it did the trick.

[Quin]

Effective immediately, Sprityo is replacing Glorfindel.

And yeah, dead members of factions win too.

I have to wonder why Sprit replaced Glor. Glor was pretty active. I know glor has a hard time being mafia, so maybe it was too much pressure.

This is all I have to go on right now, unfortunately. So, *voting Sprit*

I think there are much more significant topics being discussed right now which make for better votes than than voting based on a flimsy hypothesis on why someone might have subbed out.

[Tangrowth]

Holy fuck, that new spoiler tag is majestic.

[Epignosis]

whoa sorry I am late, going to catch up when I get off work

Also,

Homie works some long hours.

[Tangrowth]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie. If civ I would expect something about wanting to know reasons, maybe a little protesting against a gut suspicion. Instead the response I've seen has been almost like don't make any sudden moves and maybe I'll get through it. I don't know. It's so weak a case, I'm finding myself in this weird place where my gut yells bad, but my brain can't bring myself to vote him because I can't see a good reason to. I'm finding it frustrating.

Argh, this game.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your view on LC, since you are wanting to vote for the people voting him I assume you lean civ and I want to know why. I need some reasons to help me sort this out one way or another.

LC: I want to believe it because I feel like I can't figure out the why of my own suspicion. It is exceedingly frustrating to me.

I think my opinion about LC is less important right now than your opinion on 21 people who are not LC. Even if you are torn on LC, there are eight Mafia. Eight.

Not sure about LC? Pick someone else to lynch. This is Day 2. Not Day 12.

One could argue that your post here, Epi, is unnecessarily unhelpful. You could have still said all of this and provided a quick opinion on LC yourself, which Daisy desperately wanted.

[Long Con]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie.

I'm not responding to weak suspicions; I am responding to willful twisting of the truth.

[Epignosis]

Hey Eater of Hats:

Is Spacedaisy good or bad?

[sprityo]

Effective immediately, Sprityo is replacing Glorfindel.

And yeah, dead members of factions win too.

I have to wonder why Sprit replaced Glor. Glor was pretty active. I know glor has a hard time being mafia, so maybe it was too much pressure.

This is all I have to go on right now, unfortunately. So, *voting Sprit*

I think there are much more significant topics being discussed right now which make for better votes than than voting based on a flimsy hypothesis on why someone might have subbed out.

Okay I somehow managed to miss eloh saying this and I agree with quin. This is lazy playing, an easy out.

[Spacedaisy]

Yeah sounds nice, but when you're gut only wants to talk about one person, simply choosing someone else is not so easy. Nice avoidance of my question though. Duly noted.

I am rescinding my civilian opinion of you after that.

I didn't avoid your question. I gave you an an answer that will help me develop my opinion on you better, and I'd say it did the trick.

:shrugs: I don't care, you would be wrong about me.

The only other person I would consider voting is MM (again), for the fact he is one of the top five posters and good luck finding some decent content in those posts...

[Tangrowth]

Spoiler: show

Why LC?

He is around, he is paying attention at every big discussion, and he is posting his opinions, but not committing to anything. He spent a long time talking about how he didn't know who to vote for on d1, but then at the end he was okay with pushing the nearest wagon around.

That's not accurate, I wasn't "pushing the nearest wagon". You're straining to phrase things in a way that makes me look guilty of something which I am not. I decided to go with a low/non-poster, and sprityo was in the short list of folks that I was considering for that. Then ONE person voted sprityo, and I decided that was the best "low-poster" way to go... rather than pick a different one and split that slice of the vote up. It wasn't a wagon at that point - that's why your analysis is inaccurate. I would go so far as to say "intentionally inaccurate", but I may get back to that when I have more time to devote.

Number 1: Saying I was "pushing the nearest wagon". That makes me sound bad. It is also inaccurate. I was the second vote on a low poster, I had already stated that I wanted to vote a low poster and that I would prefer to pick the same low poster as other like-minded individuals.

And right after that, he was accusing Glorf of voting for bad reasons:

And there you go... vindicated again!

Damn, yo, what vindication? What if DDL is a baddie? Your vote would have tied them up, and maybe changed EVERYTHING. It's a scotche early to be proclaiming "vindication".

What if I was bad and you had "randomly" voted for me instead of spirit, LC? Wouldn't that have changed everything either?

Once again, you are intentionally shifting away from the real truth. I didn't accuse Glorf of voting for bad reasons. Glorf didn't vote. AND I didn't accuse him. Not in the conventional Mafia sense. I wasn't stating a suspicion of him, I was telling him that it was not cool or accurate to proclaim "vindication".

Number 2: He said that I was "accusing Glorf of voting for bad reasons". That's completely untrue in every way, and he's using it to try and make me look bad.

I just cared that you had enough commitment to the game to judge people but not enough to make more commited votes than the one you made. That came across as rather hipocritical.

You know what, we're coming back to this as well.

If I had been accusing someone else of not having enough suspicions, or not being involved enough to make an informed vote, THAT would be hypocritical.

Me called Glorfindel out on his "vindicated" claim was a self-contained disagreement with one post. There is NOTHING hypocritical about that. Maybe if I had also made a similar post earlier somehow wherein I claimed to be vindicated in my views, and THEN put Glorf down for the same.... THAT would be hypocritical.

However, none of that happened. Your assessment of "that came across as rather hypocritical" is yet another example of DDL intentionally twisting things to make me look bad.

Number 3: Calling me a hypocrite for invented reasons with, yet again, the intention of making me look bad.

Reason for suspicion: DDL is playing like a baddie who needs to make a case in order to not look bad, but has chosen to contrive and twist reasons because he thinks it will be easy to make people see me as bad. The absolute weakness and dishonesty of his points against me indicate that he is not approaching this from an honest perspective, hence, he is bad.

LC, I'm not inspired. The problem that I have with all of this is that you are the subject of DDL's posts. I'd say it's difficult to fairly assess how genuine a suspicion is when that suspicion is of one's self. I would know; I have a tendency to fall into the OMGUS trap a bit myself when town.

Can you not see a town-compatible reason for DDL's thoughts of you?

[Epignosis]

Effective immediately, Sprityo is replacing Glorfindel.

And yeah, dead members of factions win too.

I have to wonder why Sprit replaced Glor. Glor was pretty active. I know glor has a hard time being mafia, so maybe it was too much pressure.

This is all I have to go on right now, unfortunately. So, *voting Sprit*

I think there are much more significant topics being discussed right now which make for better votes than than voting based on a flimsy hypothesis on why someone might have subbed out.

Okay I somehow managed to miss eloh saying this and I agree with quin. This is lazy playing, an easy out.

Homegirl is sick. She voted and went to bed. It's clear she isn't even reading the thread.

None of that tells me whether or not she's good or bad, but I wouldn't lynch her for "lazy playing."

[Epignosis]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie. If civ I would expect something about wanting to know reasons, maybe a little protesting against a gut suspicion. Instead the response I've seen has been almost like don't make any sudden moves and maybe I'll get through it. I don't know. It's so weak a case, I'm finding myself in this weird place where my gut yells bad, but my brain can't bring myself to vote him because I can't see a good reason to. I'm finding it frustrating.

Argh, this game.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your view on LC, since you are wanting to vote for the people voting him I assume you lean civ and I want to know why. I need some reasons to help me sort this out one way or another.

LC: I want to believe it because I feel like I can't figure out the why of my own suspicion. It is exceedingly frustrating to me.

I think my opinion about LC is less important right now than your opinion on 21 people who are not LC. Even if you are torn on LC, there are eight Mafia. Eight.

Not sure about LC? Pick someone else to lynch. This is Day 2. Not Day 12.

One could argue that your post here, Epi, is unnecessarily unhelpful. You could have still said all of this and provided a quick opinion on LC yourself, which Daisy desperately wanted.

Let Daisy make up her own mind on LC. That's where I find out if she's good or bad. If I tell her what I think, then nothing is gained. She already guessed I don't think LC is bad, so why is she asking for more?

[Tangrowth]

Hey Eater of Hats:

Is Spacedaisy good or bad?

I don't know, and after the colossal failure that was my read of her in Lost Again, I'm not jumping at the opportunity to make an assessment of her without an ISO and engaging with her some more. She can clearly trick me better than I thought for me to be able to rely on any meta-based assessment whatsoever.

[sprityo]

Effective immediately, Sprityo is replacing Glorfindel.

And yeah, dead members of factions win too.

I have to wonder why Sprit replaced Glor. Glor was pretty active. I know glor has a hard time being mafia, so maybe it was too much pressure.

This is all I have to go on right now, unfortunately. So, *voting Sprit*

I think there are much more significant topics being discussed right now which make for better votes than than voting based on a flimsy hypothesis on why someone might have subbed out.

Okay I somehow managed to miss eloh saying this and I agree with quin. This is lazy playing, an easy out.

Homegirl is sick. She voted and went to bed. It's clear she isn't even reading the thread.

None of that tells me whether or not she's good or bad, but I wouldn't lynch her for "lazy playing."

I don't see it as ground to lynching, it's more so me noting that it's distasteful

[Tangrowth]

I could get behind an LC vote.

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie.

I'm not responding to weak suspicions; I am responding to willful twisting of the truth.

I get the impression that LC's suspicion of DDL is contrived. I don't see any real conviction behind LC's determination of this conclusion.

[insertnamehere]

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie. If civ I would expect something about wanting to know reasons, maybe a little protesting against a gut suspicion. Instead the response I've seen has been almost like don't make any sudden moves and maybe I'll get through it. I don't know. It's so weak a case, I'm finding myself in this weird place where my gut yells bad, but my brain can't bring myself to vote him because I can't see a good reason to. I'm finding it frustrating.

Argh, this game.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your view on LC, since you are wanting to vote for the people voting him I assume you lean civ and I want to know why. I need some reasons to help me sort this out one way or another.

LC: I want to believe it because I feel like I can't figure out the why of my own suspicion. It is exceedingly frustrating to me.

I think my opinion about LC is less important right now than your opinion on 21 people who are not LC. Even if you are torn on LC, there are eight Mafia. Eight.

Not sure about LC? Pick someone else to lynch. This is Day 2. Not Day 12.

One could argue that your post here, Epi, is unnecessarily unhelpful. You could have still said all of this and provided a quick opinion on LC yourself, which Daisy desperately wanted.

Let Daisy make up her own mind on LC. That's where I find out if she's good or bad. If I tell her what I think, then nothing is gained. She already guessed I don't think LC is bad, so why is she asking for more?

If you don't give your opinions, how are we supposed to know whether you are good or bad?

[Epignosis]

I could get behind an LC vote.

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie.

I'm not responding to weak suspicions; I am responding to willful twisting of the truth.

I get the impression that LC's suspicion of DDL is contrived. I don't see any real conviction behind LC's determination of this conclusion.

I suspect DDL far more than I do LC.

[Epignosis]

If you don't give your opinions, how are we supposed to know whether you are good or bad?

I gave my opinions. I didn't give why I hold those opinions.

[insertnamehere]

I could get behind an LC vote.

Epi, can I take this to mean you lean civ on LC? Can you give me an idea why because I really want to believe he is, but I'm having a hard time believing it.

What is giving you a hard time?

I couldn't put my finger on it originally, but it's completely a tone thing. His response to weak suspicions read to me like a baddie.

I'm not responding to weak suspicions; I am responding to willful twisting of the truth.

I get the impression that LC's suspicion of DDL is contrived. I don't see any real conviction behind LC's determination of this conclusion.

Same here. He's using the exact type of hyperbole he's accusing DDL of employing against him.

[Long Con]

Spoiler: show

Why LC?

He is around, he is paying attention at every big discussion, and he is posting his opinions, but not committing to anything. He spent a long time talking about how he didn't know who to vote for on d1, but then at the end he was okay with pushing the nearest wagon around.

That's not accurate, I wasn't "pushing the nearest wagon". You're straining to phrase things in a way that makes me look guilty of something which I am not. I decided to go with a low/non-poster, and sprityo was in the short list of folks that I was considering for that. Then ONE person voted sprityo, and I decided that was the best "low-poster" way to go... rather than pick a different one and split that slice of the vote up. It wasn't a wagon at that point - that's why your analysis is inaccurate. I would go so far as to say "intentionally inaccurate", but I may get back to that when I have more time to devote.

Number 1: Saying I was "pushing the nearest wagon". That makes me sound bad. It is also inaccurate. I was the second vote on a low poster, I had already stated that I wanted to vote a low poster and that I would prefer to pick the same low poster as other like-minded individuals.

And right after that, he was accusing Glorf of voting for bad reasons:

And there you go... vindicated again!

Damn, yo, what vindication? What if DDL is a baddie? Your vote would have tied them up, and maybe changed EVERYTHING. It's a scotche early to be proclaiming "vindication".

What if I was bad and you had "randomly" voted for me instead of spirit, LC? Wouldn't that have changed everything either?

Once again, you are intentionally shifting away from the real truth. I didn't accuse Glorf of voting for bad reasons. Glorf didn't vote. AND I didn't accuse him. Not in the conventional Mafia sense. I wasn't stating a suspicion of him, I was telling him that it was not cool or accurate to proclaim "vindication".

Number 2: He said that I was "accusing Glorf of voting for bad reasons". That's completely untrue in every way, and he's using it to try and make me look bad.

I just cared that you had enough commitment to the game to judge people but not enough to make more commited votes than the one you made. That came across as rather hipocritical.

You know what, we're coming back to this as well.

If I had been accusing someone else of not having enough suspicions, or not being involved enough to make an informed vote, THAT would be hypocritical.

Me called Glorfindel out on his "vindicated" claim was a self-contained disagreement with one post. There is NOTHING hypocritical about that. Maybe if I had also made a similar post earlier somehow wherein I claimed to be vindicated in my views, and THEN put Glorf down for the same.... THAT would be hypocritical.

However, none of that happened. Your assessment of "that came across as rather hypocritical" is yet another example of DDL intentionally twisting things to make me look bad.

Number 3: Calling me a hypocrite for invented reasons with, yet again, the intention of making me look bad.

Reason for suspicion: DDL is playing like a baddie who needs to make a case in order to not look bad, but has chosen to contrive and twist reasons because he thinks it will be easy to make people see me as bad. The absolute weakness and dishonesty of his points against me indicate that he is not approaching this from an honest perspective, hence, he is bad.

LC, I'm not inspired. The problem that I have with all of this is that you are the subject of DDL's posts. I'd say it's difficult to fairly assess how genuine a suspicion is when that suspicion is of one's self. I would know; I have a tendency to fall into the OMGUS trap a bit myself when town.

Can you not see a town-compatible reason for DDL's thoughts of you?

I cannot think of a town-compatible reason for him, three separate times, twisting the truth to make me look worse. It cannot be a genuine suspicion, because genuine suspicions are based on what actually happened.

Also... and I don't want to rock the boat or get you in trouble... but aren't you supposed to be posting backward, Spacedaisy?

[insertnamehere]

If you don't give your opinions, how are we supposed to know whether you are good or bad?

I gave my opinions. I didn't give why I hold those opinions.

Lemme revise my statement:

If you don't give the reasons behind your suspicions, how are we supposed to know whether you are good or bad?