LC reasons for voting for me is the scummiest reason ever which gets him out of blame when I flip civ. So you should stop over half of the thread from making this decision to allow things to start fresher? This is even more foolish since Epi, a dead civ who caught a baddie, disagreed with my lynch.Long Con wrote:I'm disappointed with the activity in here. Sig hasn't even posted, I'm thinking maybe we should just do the Main Thread a favour and lynch him today, to end the sig debate and get to start a little fresher on Day 3.
What if I have a powerful civ role? What if I was silenced? There is no good reason for a civ to use this logic, this is again LC trying to go after a low hanging fruit who isn't around to defend himself. I'd also point out LC could get away with this and not incur any blame very easily, since he could just use the defense he already set up in the above post to get out of blame.
This is one example that comes to mind right away of baddie LC trying to lynch me. It was in Talking Head and I was getting attacked for certain wording, LC very close to the end of the phase jumped on my bandwagon and voted for me and he ended up getting lynched the next phase and flipping mafia.Long Con wrote:I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...
My real vote today will go to sig. Despite the reasonable explanation he had for my original suspicion of him (that he was crafting his posts too much, in a baddie way), I've found a few of his reactions suspicious. His reaction that I was "distancing" from him when I forgot he was the third player involved in an earlier discussion was bizarre, as was his assertion that I (and others) are "desperate to try and get him lynched".
sig, saying we're desperate to try and get you lynched strikes me in two ways, neither of them making me feel comfortable about you. On one hand, it's overdefensive and paranoid, and on the other, it's a way to buffalo us out of voting for you... because who wants to looks "desperate" to lynch someone on Day 1?
It's not much, but it's the behaviour I found most suspicious today, and it's time for me to lock in a vote.
Sorry for using you, bea!
Long Con wrote:I agree, in that Mafia have more need to "craft" their posts than Civvies. Sig's accidental reveal that he was going back over his post before posting it to make sure it's just right is a little suspicious to me.birdwithteeth11 wrote:This might be small, but I've seen people get lynched for wordplay on Day 1 enough in the past.sig wrote:Matt F wrote:Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?sig wrote:...I understand it is Day 1 and we have little to go on but this seems kinda very weak.
Also It could read is very weak, but it isn't very weak it just seems kinda weak. Writing is very weak is more confrontation in my opinion as well as implying it was meant to be weak. While seems kinda weak is just that is seems weak but it might not be.
This is quibbling over something very small, why if I'm civ would I right it the first way instead of the second way?
Same as it ever was.
I should also point out that I suspected LC based on very weird/gut reasoning, which I'm getting again here.
Another factor is that I don't think in a single game I've played with LC when he is a civ and he has never lynched me when we are both civs and someone gives weak reasoning. In fact he's defended me in the past agaisnt these accusations, I'm pretty sure this happened in BSG.