Return to “[ENDGAME] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia”
I like Phantom.Golden wrote:I have found, sometimes, that I've caught people on intuition and there is no ability to frame it as easily as 'because you said this thing and it comes from a baddie mindset'. I think epi is particularly good with that kind of intuition.
@Dom - it was great. Great theme. Is this the point where I admit to liking Webber musicals?
I should have pressed the issue like Epi did.Dom wrote:Not the answer I was looking for, but that's kind of true.DFaraday wrote:Yeah, but I assumed it was also meant to thematically evoke East-West relations since then with the whole American imperialism thing, which is still an issue.Dom wrote:Pacific Overtures takes place in the 1800s.DFaraday wrote:I was so sure it was Pacific Overtures that I didn't even consider changing that answer.Dom wrote: #6) Stephen Sondheim writes politically. Which of his musicals is often looked at as a mirroring of American Foreign policy in the post-war era?
This was easily the hardest question. I ended up accepting two answers here. My intended answer was Merrily We Roll Along (if you view Frank has the current president for whatever year the show is currently in, it's quite interesting). Foreign Policy might have been a bit too restrictive of wording, but the show constantly reminds you of Vietnam, Cuba, and Kennedy.
Rob linked me to a scholarly article about The Frogs being an allegory for US foreign policy, so I allowed it.
Yeah, but I assumed it was also meant to thematically evoke East-West relations since then with the whole American imperialism thing, which is still an issue.Dom wrote:Pacific Overtures takes place in the 1800s.DFaraday wrote:I was so sure it was Pacific Overtures that I didn't even consider changing that answer.Dom wrote: #6) Stephen Sondheim writes politically. Which of his musicals is often looked at as a mirroring of American Foreign policy in the post-war era?
This was easily the hardest question. I ended up accepting two answers here. My intended answer was Merrily We Roll Along (if you view Frank has the current president for whatever year the show is currently in, it's quite interesting). Foreign Policy might have been a bit too restrictive of wording, but the show constantly reminds you of Vietnam, Cuba, and Kennedy.
Rob linked me to a scholarly article about The Frogs being an allegory for US foreign policy, so I allowed it.
I was so sure it was Pacific Overtures that I didn't even consider changing that answer.Dom wrote: #6) Stephen Sondheim writes politically. Which of his musicals is often looked at as a mirroring of American Foreign policy in the post-war era?
This was easily the hardest question. I ended up accepting two answers here. My intended answer was Merrily We Roll Along (if you view Frank has the current president for whatever year the show is currently in, it's quite interesting). Foreign Policy might have been a bit too restrictive of wording, but the show constantly reminds you of Vietnam, Cuba, and Kennedy.
Rob linked me to a scholarly article about The Frogs being an allegory for US foreign policy, so I allowed it.
Our team made sure it would be very difficult to link us at all.Yeah, but by the time we got to Day 11 or so, you had pretty much spreadsheeted your way to proving that Splints and I were bad. This game made me realize how much of an influence inactive players can have, since they pretty much gave away the roles by the end there.Golden wrote: @DF - well to be fair, noone needed to kill me - just like epi. You just needed to convince me to vote other people. I was quite persuadable (see my vote on MM, for example). I didn't want anyone to feel like they had to kill me.
You can say that again. If there's one thing I can't understand it's why I didn't kill Golden several times over in this game.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I will never let Golden survive past Day 1 again. EVER!
Well, Sloonei has been targeted by both teams but survived one and got rezzed on the other. I had thought Golden was targeted by both teams, but it looks like he's only been targeted by Wildhorn, oddly enough. But yeah, I'd have thought them both dead a long time ago.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to anyone: why are golden and sloonei still alive?
Because...?Golden wrote:And I have a renewed feeling that DF is the most likely option.
This. I would never see Dom giving out a living player's role like that. Anyway, the way the post was written made it sound like Burrs was a separate character from MM, so I imagine that Lippa did something, but isn't MM.S~V~S wrote: I just saw this. I was gonna say~ Dom is the LAST LAST LAST host I would ever expect to give hints in a host post. Except maybe me.
How do you know the underlined again?Golden wrote: linki @ MM - I believe it is literally impossible for daisy to be on wildhorn.
I'll be honest, from my perspective:
SVS, Devin, Daisy, Gumshoe were all absent at a time that three out of the possible four remaining baddies were definitely active. Only a maximum of one of these four can be bad.
I know Sloonei, Ninja and golden are good.
I have a question (the same one I keep asking everyone): Why me?Sloonei wrote:I want to be asked questions about things. Does anybody have questions for me?
is anybody here at all? I'll take up this whole dang page.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:This seems like sound thinking. It might be worth noting that DFaraday seems to have been around the whole game (unless I'm missing something). He's barely posted in recent memory, but those posts have been pretty evenly spread between the cycles. And if I'm choosing between splints and Marsh, I think I go Marsh.Golden wrote:It's possible, and it's possible it doesn't point to any single player. But with sig and G-Man dead earlier, I still believe that my logic holds even if that is true - it just means that either webber or the phantom is one of those three. Or to be more precise, that team could not have executed a kill on every odd night unless one of those three is on it.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Another question about Syndicate norms: When mafia issue a kill, is a specific killer supposed to be given to the mod by the team?
i.e., could Webber simply tell Dom: "[Phantom] kills Player X"?
I'd like to ask again for reasons why.Golden wrote: I'm thinking that I'm still most likely to vote DF today, and I'm very comfortable with that vote. But I'm still persuadable.
I told the thread I had no Internet for like 4 days, yet people keep talking about me as if I'm deliberately ignoring the game or something. Anyway, I am here, and would be happy to know if anyone has a particular reason to think I'm the Phantom (which I'm not, although that would be cool since it's one of my favorite musicals).JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I've suspected DF as long as I've been in this game, so I've no major beef with that notion. He's posted maybe twice since I last spoke with him here so my feelings haven't changed.
You knew ALL of them? And I thought I was a musical theater geek...Scotty wrote:That feel when you know all the answers but you can't do anything about it
Good deal.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My own responses to DFaraday's defenses in bold sky blue. I've rearranged his responses into a new order so I can categorize them in a way I find sensible. Refer to his original post for the proper context if necessary.
DFaraday wrote:I'm glad you like my early posts. And I'm not one for closely examining posts, so I typically only bring up people who have either done something egregiously shady or who have already been brought up, at which point I'll look at them more. Hence my lack of original suspects.
I think it's probably because so many of the vocal players have died, and when the thread is dead, I tend not to come in and draw attention to myself. But hey, you've got me talking again!
Yeah. I usually don't go out of my way looking for new suspicions.
I think the general gist of my response is that I often play intuitively and defensively, neither of which are a super civvie look.
I place all of these responses together because there is a troubling theme among them: you're describing your own meta in such a way that it excuses you for doing things that are inherently suspicious. I underlined some specific sentences in which you describe your own style in the same way I might describe the quentissential anti-town player. You acknowledge this in the last comment here: your style does not give you a "super civvie look". Indeed, to focus specifically on players who are already being discussed by most others is counterproductive for a townie. To avoid drawing attention to oneself is one of the basic tenants of how an anti-town player is supposed to perform. To avoid "going out of your way" looking for new suspicions is essentially to say you just pick a few names to cast suspicion on and hope you've rolled the dice well.
I struggle to see how a civilian can consistently play this way -- even in this Syndicate environment where townies sometimes seem to hate playing openly.
I can consistently play that way because when it comes to Mafia, I'm usually more concerned with staying alive than putting myself out there to try to help the town. If I survive to the late game, I feel better about taking a front and center role. I also avoid making attention-grabbing comments because I very much dislike confrontation, although since I have no intention of changing my playstyle we will probably have this discussion in every game we play together going forward.
I'm sure this response is not satisfying to you, but I'm just going to accept now that you will never like my style and leave it at that.
Do players never vote on vibes where you come from? TB insisting she was civ and doing nothing to defend herself struck me the wrong way. I didn't have a stronger suspicion at the time, since I hadn't caught up on the Sig case when I voted (and by the time I did catch up, I still wasn't convinced about Sig).
Players do vote on vibes where I come from, sure. Many of them are mafia-aligned. "Vibes" represent the vaguest possible suspicion anyone can have of anyone else, and it doesn't make me feel good when people employ them as a reason for a vote. Moreover, genuine "bad vibes" have to be inspired by something specific. You didn't merely look at TinyBubbles' username and say to yourself "Hmmm, she looks fishy". The vibes must have a real origin that you can point to which would justify her being your Day 3 vote. And if it's just that one little ping you mentioned from Day 1 -- I'm not satisfied with that.
I was hardly the only person to vote TB because of her over-insistence on being a civvie. If you don't think that's a good enough reason to vote someone, fine, but people have voted for flimsier reasons than that in this and every other game. I still maintain that it was better to vote for someone I had a slight suspicion of than someone I had no read on at all (in that case Sig).
I think you're giving me too much credit if you think I'm trying to psychologically manipulate people into associating them. Also, when I have teammates I never post repeatedly that I think they're civ. On that point I think you're giving me too little credit.
The former point here is fair. Not everyone would think to try this particular method of manipulation. The latter point is not something I can do anything with though. I don't think it would be a foolish maneuver for you to play a little defense for at least one mafia team mate. When a player insists upon his or her own mafia methods, I tend to just drone it out. At face value, how am I supposed to trust that assertion?
There's nothing I can really say here, since apparently it would have been suspicious if I'd voted for either of the baddies on the chopping block that day.
This isn't necessarily true. I wasn't suspicious of you because you voted for G-Man. I was suspicious because the progression of your suspicion against him struck me as awkward for the reasons I mentioned. And if there is reason to wonder about your sincerity when you cast suspicion, there is reason to be suspicious of you -- even when you help lynch a mafioso.
But you set it up so as to indicate that my vote suggested me as a possible teammate for both teams.
I'd say it was a combination of tone (Cobalt's aggression made me think badly of him) and his vote switch which seemed contrary to all of his posts up until then. Since he came off as more suspicious to me already, I thought it was more likely that Cobalt would be framing LC rather than vice versa.
This is fair. You state the truth when you assert that you'd voiced suspicion of Cobalt prior to the Epignosis 1.0 kill, so I can believe that you really felt this way.
My top suspects are Splints, who is coming off as opportunistic and blendy, and Nutella, who has seemed to have very few original thoughts this game (if she has I just haven't noticed them). If I'm alive I'll be voting for one of them tomorrow.S~V~S wrote:Faraday, I do not suspect you for your inherent Faraday-ness. Before last night, you had 40 posts, and of them 10 mention Ninja. I found it interesting and rather slippery reading. That is why I suspect you.
If it turns out that I am wrong about Ninja, my suspicion of you will pretty much evaporate, since it is mainly based on a bad Ninja.
If not Ninja, who would you have us look at? What alternative to Ninja in tomorrows lynch do you think you may vote for?
I think the general gist of my response is that I often play intuitively and defensively, neither of which are a super civvie look.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:A number of people including me have expressed some vague misgivings about DFaraday. So I'll look into him now.
This guy seems like a pretty no-nonsense type player. Almost every single one of his posts are directly relevant to game discussion. That's just an observation, it doesn't mean anything. Anyway, I highlight his third post here because it exemplifies that: he entered Day 1 with some immediate thoughts to share. The good thing here is that he took some real stances and made decently specific observations. This indicates to me that he was paying close attention to the content of other players more than to his own content: the mark of a townie. The only negative point to be made is that the four people he chose to comment on were perhaps the 4 most often discussed in the game to that point. His originality can be questioned.Spoiler: show
I'm glad you like my early posts. And I'm not one for closely examining posts, so I typically only bring up people who have either done something egregiously shady or who have already been brought up, at which point I'll look at them more. Hence my lack of original suspects.
The night kill of Epignosis 1.0 seemed to be a hot topic on Day 2, probably because of Epi's small handful of significant suspicions and the implications associated with him in his death. DFaraday suggested it might have been an intentional frame job perpetrated by Cobalt to smear Long Con. This turned out to be exactly the opposite of the truth, but DF wasn't alone in that perspective. Faraday: I'd ask you if you could revisit your mindset from this early stage and explain why you felt it was Cobalt doing the framing rather than Cobalt being framed?Spoiler: show
I'd say it was a combination of tone (Cobalt's aggression made me think badly of him) and his vote switch which seemed contrary to all of his posts up until then. Since he came off as more suspicious to me already, I thought it was more likely that Cobalt would be framing LC rather than vice versa.
One thing that interested me about DFaraday in the first half of his ISO is this progression in his read of TinyBubbles. We know now due to her Day 6 lynch that Bubbles was town, so it's especially important to verify the thought processes people displayed in this thread leading to her lynch to determine whether they were sincerely suspicious of her. I think there is some decently suspicious content here for Faraday. He played with a decent degree of thoroughness early in the game, so that he went for this Bubbles case and placed that vote on Day 3 is troubling -- especially because this was the phase in which sig was lynched. When Faraday placed his vote for Bubbles, it placed Bubbles in a 4-2 lead over sig (before the landslide eventually swept sig away). That's a pretty bad look.Spoiler: show
It can be forgiven if his case against Bubbles is significant enough to warrant his vote... but I don't see it. In fact -- there isn't a case at all. The only distinct negative comment Faraday made about Bubbles' content in this game was that very minor Day 1 "ping" at the top of this quote pile. Otherwise, the only things he says about her are either positive, or negative without any reason given. So, in a phase in which a mafia was eventually lynched, Faraday gave a confirmed townie a 4-2 tally lead over that mafia player without ever actually mounting any kind of case against her. Faraday is definitely going to need to answer to this.
Do players never vote on vibes where you come from? TB insisting she was civ and doing nothing to defend herself struck me the wrong way. I didn't have a stronger suspicion at the time, since I hadn't caught up on the Sig case when I voted (and by the time I did catch up, I still wasn't convinced about Sig).
This is the second time I've seen Faraday refer to the LC/Golden "feud" as being a likely civilian versus civilian affair. This bugs me a little bit on two fronts: it is a subtle means of linking Golden with LC, and also it obviously serves as an indirect soft defense of confirmed mafia LC.Spoiler: show
I think you're giving me too much credit if you think I'm trying to psychologically manipulate people into associating them. Also, when I have teammates I never post repeatedly that I think they're civ. On that point I think you're giving me too little credit.
This is somewhat curious treatment of G-Man on Day 4. It's decent enough that he placed his vote for a mafia player, but the progression here seems at least a little inconsistent. The first post asserts that G-Man has "no interest in defending himself", which in itself is really not a terribly scathing accusation. We've all seen townies do that many times I'm sure. The primary point of interest is that he said G-Man was at best an "unhelpful" civilian. So it's noteworthy then that in the next quoted post, he maintains his anti-G-Man stance despite calling his vote chart "helpful". "Helpful" is the opposite of "unhelpful", which was a key component of his prior accusation. So if that changed, I am curious why he didn't seem to budge at all in his stated suspicion (as he reiterated in the last quoted post).Spoiler: show
As far as I could tell, G-Man had no interest in finding suspects or contributing to discussion, and was unhelpful as such. But since I don't like parsing through players' posts and vote records, that chart was helpful to me, just because I didn't have to scan through all the other stuff. I didn't take G-Man's chart as an attempt at contributing to the game in any significant degree, I just found it convenient for myself.
This is the phase in which Long Con (the mafia team of which G-Man was not a member) ended up lynched. DFaraday's vote for G-Man made it a 5-4 tally lead for LC -- quite close and still swingable into a G-Man lynch. I think there's valid reason to suspect based on the above that Faraday's suspicion of G-Man was somewhat disingenuous. That might indicate he was bussing G-Man to improve his credibility, or it might indicate he was protecting Long Con.
Either way, that's a bad look.
G-Man was eventually lynched the next day phase, but it was such an avalanche tally that it's really not possible to give anyone credit for it based on just their votes.
There's nothing I can really say here, since apparently it would have been suspicious if I'd voted for either of the baddies on the chopping block that day.
When pressed for suspects on Day 6, Faraday offered the same two names he'd been saying since Day 1. Is he known for long-term tunneling of this sort? We don't know yet how his treatment of Hedge will reflect on him, but we know Cobalt was an easy target townie.Spoiler: show
Yeah. I usually don't go out of my way looking for new suspicions.
His BR votes might be his strongest point of defense right now, which isn't great because I'd only call them a small positive in a game with two mafia teams. Nonetheless, they happened and that should be acknowledged. On Day 6 he helped pursue Black Rock instead of TinyBubbles; the latter ended up lynched. Faraday can't be blamed though, because his vote extended the lead for BR before others came in and took out Bubbles.Spoiler: show
On Day 7 he stuck to his guns and helped generate the BR lynch.
Yes I did.
0 for 2.Spoiler: show
DFaraday's rate of contribution has fallen off quite a lot in recent phases. I'll leave him to explain why. One troubling result of this is that his focus has been consistently narrowed. Over the last three day phases, he has said very little about any player other than the three in the above quote: Cobalt, Bass, and ninja. We already know two of them were town, and it's entirely plausible three of them were. Given the highly suspicious, easy nature of the Cobalt and Bass lynches and Faraday's lack of thoroughness as they were perpetrated, I view this with suspicion.
I think it's probably because so many of the vocal players have died, and when the thread is dead, I tend not to come in and draw attention to myself. But hey, you've got me talking again!
DFaraday's final votes for reference:
Day 1: S~V~S (2nd of 7)
Day 2: Cobalt (6th of 9)
Day 3: TinyBubbles (4th of 4)
Day 4: G-Man (4th of 6)
Day 5: G-Man (4th of 13)
Day 6: Black Rock (4th of 4)
Day 7: Black Rock (2nd of 7)
Day 8: No vote
Day 9: Bass_the_Clever (3rd of 6)
~~~
Overall, I think DFaraday plays a tight game. He conveys the right sort of pro-town persona. However, there is a significant amount of dirt I just dragged up without having to look very deep. He has 42 posts in this thread, and I still had all of those issues with his content. I think he's suspicious and will call him an anti-town read.
I encourage him to address my points. I'm always open to hear rebuttals.
How have I been pro-Ninja? At no point before have I said or implied that Ninja was civ, just that I was feeling less sure about her than I had been. After her recent posts I would put her on the civ side of my rainbow list, if I had one.S~V~S wrote:"Starting to think"?DFaraday wrote:Ninja sounds very sincere, which could be excellent baddie acting, but I'm starting to think she may be civvie. I also think her points on Splints are good, as Splints has often voted late and in a bandwagony way. At the very least, this suggests that they're not teammates.
Early on, you mentioned Ninja very mildly as a "ping". You mention her on and off, more or less remaining pinged by her, while still finding excuses for her. Then you pretty much come out as pro-Ninja after Sloonei died, and have remained that way, so not sure where "starting to think" is coming from, tbh.
@JJJ I think you asked me who else I am wary of? Well, Faraday is one. I am someone who is a fan of not talking much at night, old school, I know, but I am old :P
I'm a little confused here. Are you saying her one really good post wasn't enough of a defense? Or that the tone is what made it a good post?S~V~S wrote: I think Sloonei was 100% right. I think Ninjabloop is as bad as they come. I am not feeling the Golden connection that Epi posits, but I think Ninja made one really good post in defense, and the only thing that sets her defense apart from Black Rocks to me is tone. And having played a few games with Ninja, I will say that I admire her ability to keep it light and bantering at all times, civ or bad. Her tone is fairly level & light regardless. So if you remove tone from the equation (as was not done with Cobalt), her defense it not all that.
I think he was referring to how reluctant you were to vote LC or pursue leads on him., which is true.fingersplints wrote:I don't recall being standoffish to LC. I'm trying to look back to see what you mean.
Most definitely interested!Dom wrote:Question for you all:
I had planned Night 9 to be the night where I give anyone who wants the chance to compete for a prize. It would be trivia based. I want to ensure there's enough interest before I put it together. Is there interest? There would be three prizes available-- all are good-- and the first place winner would have first pick, the second would have second, and the third-- third.
The tone was different, for starters. BR's responses to accusations felt snippy and dismissive, and while there was a bit of that attitude in Ninja's reply, I thought she came off as very earnest. I didn't get that sincerity with BR. Also Ninja didn't NO U the people who were suspecting her.S~V~S wrote:Holy Cow, I had no idea you were playing! (Take that punctuation hater!!!)DFaraday wrote:I think Scotty makes a good case on Bass, but I'd want to hear from Bass before deciding. For me it's between Bass and Cobalt, since I think Ninja acquitted herself fairly well.
Exactly what about her defense was so persuasive to you? The part where it was really similar to Black Rocks defense, or the part where it was pretty much the same as Black Rocks defense?
I'd have to agree with Ninja here. She's been pretty prominent the last couple of days. I still have Ninja on my suspect list though.nijuukyugou wrote:"Don't stand out as much"? Really? Because my name's been thrown around quite a lot for several days. Your attempt to be subtle is a no-go.nutella wrote:I'm honestly not sure who I suspect most right now. I'm afraid the baddies are hiding in the people who don't stand out as much, like Niju and Hedge, maybe splints. Going to look at them again.
It makes it unlikely that you are on the team that tried to kill you. Although, I once hosted a game where a baddie team NKed their teammate Night 2, so I wouldn't put it past any Mafia team to fake a kill.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i am sure this has been addressed already but: in a two-mafia-team game, how is it a relevant defense to survive a night kill?
I think you may have mistook my meaning. I meant that since she's has relatively little to say and nothing pingy lately, I'm feeling a bit better about her.Sloonei wrote: If you look at the content of Hedge's posts, do you see anything in particular that raises any suspicions? There have been a number of players in this game who've been lurking in the shadows, and I don't think it's fair to only suspect Hedgeowl for this.
He suspects the same people as I do, and he seems genuine enough.Sloonei wrote:Why don't you find Epi 2 suspicious, DFaraday?
Timmer's point was that you had no mention of Sig, but threw a vote on him as soon as it was convenient. And I don't think you misunderstood what Timmer meant, this sounds very much like misrepresentation of his case to me.Black Rock wrote: So am I on LC's team or Sig's? Sorry I had no suspicion on Sig until he was outed by himself. I don't think I defended LC ALL game. I did say I didn't think he killed Epig and I was right. Who are you trying to lead the lynch away from today Timmer?
I meant the Sig lynch, not LC. To me it looked like hiding in a safe landslide, but the fact that she also voted for G-Man and Bass on the occasions when LC was up for lynching makes me think she's more likely to be Mafia 2.DFaraday wrote: I think I'm leaning slightly bad on FS. She pretty much bandwagoned late on the LC lynch, which makes me wonder if it was just a blending tactic.
I'll get to my thoughts on Hedge and Ninja later.I think I'm leaning slightly bad on FS. She pretty much bandwagoned late on the LC lynch, which makes me wonder if it was just a blending tactic. Other than that, I haven't noticed her posts standing out very much, so I'm a bit worried if she's trying to fly under the radar.Sloonei wrote: Question for DFaraday: I’ve seen you mention fingersplints in a couple of posts. What is your read on her? Could you elaborate? Also any other reads you have at this time would be helpful.
