The Syndicate

Save me by voting zebra or Quin, everyone. Or, when I flip, use that to inform the trustworthiness of MP's reads. Wilgy and Nacho could be buddying up, as we saw in very early thread.

DrWilgy wrote:I'm glad you followed through Boomslang.

How was I covering tracks Boomlingo friend?

By continuing to press for MP as bad, despite strongly suggestive evidence to the contrary (him getting NKed), based on (in my opinion) misinterpreted evidence, his early rainbow list. You're trying to justify your previous desire to vote for him.

In any case, I have family to attend to. Voting Wilgy. Scotty, I'm sorry to see you voted for me; I really was around N1 and chose not to post, and I think you're being uncharitable about my position towards BR.

DrWilgy wrote:*Wilgy patiently awaits Boomslang's ever so insightful iso of himself while also squeezing himself into a latex newt costume*

Hold on to your mustache, smarty-pants :P

First two posts - Laying out an early claim to "meme play" of not checking his role.

Third post - A non-serious challenge to LC (Why are you not suspicious of me ) and a bit of banter with Nacho.

Four through seven - Banter banter banter, no content.

Eight through ten - Complains about getting votes, interacts a bit more with Nacho, who supports a target other than Wilgy. Possible teaming, given earlier context?

Eleven and twelve - Apologizes for missing vote, says he would've voted MP, says he'd "help town" regardless of what he knows. Which is meaningless, because trying to help town without the most basic of knowledge (whether you're town or mafia) is just adding noise to the signal.

Thirteen and fourteen - Banter

Fifteen - "Saved my teammates by voting BR. Byeeeeee" Well, he contributed to a good lynch result, but how would he know who his teammates were if he didn't check his role? This is either contradictory or diversionary, and I don't like either of those.

Sixteen - Emoji.

Seventeen - Threatens MP, who dies in the night, which reeks of WIFOM.

Eighteen and nineteen - "WIlgy vouchers" to Epi and Marmot, still very jokey, no real info.

Twenty through twenty-two - One-line, meaningless posts.

Twenty-three - "I predict Boomslang will go in on me today." Which is an easy prediction, given I said I'd look at him...

Twenty-four and twenty-five - Reiterates suspicion of MP based on early rainbow, which I don't like. MP was testing the waters with some early reads; of course they were non-committal. Misinterpretation of his intent.

Twenty-six - Challenges me to do this ISO, despite me saying I had Thanksgiving fatigue.

Twenty-seven - Doesn't quote the post that would make "Ji-san" bad.
---
Overall, Wilgy is unhelpful to the civ cause despite saying he would be, and in one important instance he claims knowledge (of teammates) that he wouldn't have without checking his role, which he said he wouldn't do. And covering his tracks regarding MP for a weak reason looks bad to me. I'm comfortable with a vote there today.

Friggin' Thanksgiving travel. I'll take a look at this stuff tomorrow morning. Brain not in place to rational thought.

Mods plx. This is certainly unhelpful to the game.

Also, voting Thievery here in honor of Stealy from Rick and Morty :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Quin wrote:nice ok.

Feel better about Epi. Bussing BR seems unnecessary so I'm inclined to lean civ on him as a result.

Leaving to get 'the thing' done in half an hour, I guess I'll still be involved afterwards but people shouldn't expect the same level of investment as I usually put in

True, leading the bus on BR would've been unnecessary for a baddie team. But contributing to the bus, as Epi points out, is almost a no-brainer. I'll be assisting his exploration of those voters tomorrow.

How will you be doing that? Just curious.

I'd sure love someone to help me out with these ISOs. There's too many damn players in this game and I feel like I'm spending too much time making posts.

Probably by running some ISOs, especially of Wilgy. As the last voter on the BR wagon, he could easily have added the vote as a shot for civ cred.

Quin wrote:nice ok.

Feel better about Epi. Bussing BR seems unnecessary so I'm inclined to lean civ on him as a result.

Leaving to get 'the thing' done in half an hour, I guess I'll still be involved afterwards but people shouldn't expect the same level of investment as I usually put in

True, leading the bus on BR would've been unnecessary for a baddie team. But contributing to the bus, as Epi points out, is almost a no-brainer. I'll be assisting his exploration of those voters tomorrow.

Epignosis wrote:

All hail the supatown! :P But seriously, excellent result. Glad we all learned something from Three Kingdoms!

MP, I am perusing your stuff; currently at work, however, and unable to give it the attention it deserves. Gotta make a vote, and will do so at Wilgy for previously stated suspicions.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Am I being too harsh on sig? Are there town interpretations of his behavior where I thought he seemed like he was manufacturing his thoughts? Or do you agree with me that he looks bad? Or does he look even worse than I am assessing? What do you all think? This is important, especially if people are going to come in here and just hop on the wagon. Don't do that. Talk to me and the thread.

BBL for now, more ISOs incoming once I return.

I think you have a very good point with sig's back-to-back posts re: Nacho. I also agree that sig's last sentence in the "I find that to be very odd" post about you is superfluous and is there only to create suspicion. As an alternative interpretation, sig may not have had time at the moment to develop the case and left that as a marker for others. He does develop that case in the later post, and I think we shouldn't gloss over the fact that you defend against a meta interpretation by saying you tend to roll scum. That's deflecting the point off of your behavior onto the vagaries of the game.

Epignosis wrote:I voted for Black Rock.

Who opposes her lynch, and why do you oppose it?

I don't oppose a Black Rock lynch, but I think we have a little more time to hunt before committing to a target. Reading over other people, I think there's a case to be made against Wilgy. Starting out with the bold not-checking-my-role gambit, then devolving almost immediately into fluff. He hasn't had a single post of substance all game, other than a "gut read" of MP as bad and claiming to "frown upon those that miss the vote" despite missing it himself. That continual jokey language of helping townies in "their" plight also seems too cute. I'd really like to see something solid out of him, and soon.

Just realized that eight PMs figure was from Epi and not confirmed for this game. Disregard, but I still think the odds of a baddie being hidden among the inactives are pretty good.

Looking at Golden's content... I don't see any particular reason baddies would see him as a threat. The LC defense is, as sig pointed out, the most notable move, but there's also some positive interaction with Nacho, some suspicion of sig, some pushing of Zebra... I guess what interests me most is that post about Zebra, who chose not to post in real words until today. The timing of Golden's death, followed by Zebra's posting, is very interesting.

Didn't post during the night phase because weekend, but RIP Golden. I tend to agree with Epi's line of reasoning about culling inactives, having just been part of the Three Kingdoms debacle. I think sig is way off-base with the following thought:

sig wrote:I think its just as likely one of the roles stopped the second night kill.

There are only three protectors, and one of them would need to successfully target a kill sender with only a single day of gameplay information. If there were eight missing PMs, that's a lot more possibilities for missed kills.

Well, I've got to get to work. I think MP is trying to make Epi's observation something it's not, but I know MP is prone to that sort of analysis and thus it doesn't ping very bad for me. Voting motel room for the aforementioned reasons; to MM, it's because he signaled engagement with the early check in, seems to have artificially boosted his post count when drunk, and then ducked out when asked to provide some content.

I find myself agreeing with Nacho's reasoning on Motel Room. Of the three people I called out for not contributing, sig responded with a beefy little post, zebra has been completely quiet, and Motel Room had a chance to contribute after the drunken escapades but didn't. Especially suspicious given Motel's comparatively early Day 0 check-in, which suggests some eagerness to get involved in the game. I'm comfortable with a vote there if nothing else changes.

Also, obligatory finger-pointing at a2zebra, sig, and motel room for either not posting in Day 1 or posting nothing of substance. Sig, I see you lurking. What's on your mind?

Nachomamma8 wrote:Town is a word that's interchangeable with civilian, apologies for failing my vocabulary test there.

I think that my train of thought is pretty weird - there's no reason for Quin to expect anyone like me to exist of have that train of thought, is there? I find voting to find the answer to whether votes are changeable or not is completely reasonable; do you disagree?

Nacho, you're defending this a lot more than I think it warrants. And you're conflating voting to find the answer with self-voting to find the answer. The former would be a side benefit of an early vote aiming to build momentum against a suspect; the latter is throwing away the power of the vote, possibly with less than honest intentions, to find the answer.

Nachomamma8 wrote:It was a rash move, but I don't really think that rash is equivalent to "more likely to come from a baddie".
I think that asking someone to wait until they have real suspicion in order to figure out votes are changeable or not is pretty unreasonable.

Why do you think that's unreasonable? If you have real suspicion of someone, it shouldn't matter if votes are changeable. You would gain that knowledge without sacrificing the efficacy of your vote.

Quin wrote:I self-voted for the sake of figuring out whether they're changeable or not. Votes are not changeable.

It seems like there's some disagreement over whether this is a good or bad move. I find it rash; why vote solely for that purpose when there's still over 24 hours of daytime to go? Surely someone else would vote for suspicion reasons in that time, then report as to whether that vote was changeable. My gut says this is a convenient way for Quin to get out of voting for anyone else Day 1, and thus drawing early aggro.

Linki w/ Nacho: See, I take the opposite read here. A self-vote just to self-vote might fit your justification, but Quin's rationale isn't logical to me.
Linki w/MP: What's up is I'm trying to post :P Yeah, the Quin thing is a bit WIFOMy, but I think the explanation pushes it more toward a baddie read.
Linki w/Snow Dog: AHHHH LET ME POST

Today has been very quiet so far... Not much to go on other than Vomps asking for volunteers. Which is asking people to do the civs' work for them, but in Day 1, I suppose it's just an opening gambit.

Epignosis wrote:I like mammas.

Mammas? Plural? Oh dear. Does Elo know about this?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Let's go to Melee Island, where we can play a more awesome video game called Super Smash Bros. Melee.

Apples to oranges. But oh, is Melee some delicious apples... Also, checking in :P