The Syndicate

So I kinda suck atm. Could've sworn the lynch poll ended tonight, I convinced myself it did anyway. Would probably have jumped on the Llama bandwagon tbf, I was feeling lazy. Going to get back into the game though and this time I mean it, it's not like I have anything else at all going on in my life any more.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Hey Bullz, you gave someone (can't remember who) a lot of shit for harping on your non participation as soon as you were finally able to participate, and then you gave us a huge chunk of content in response to that, and then you went right back to not participating. How should we feel about that?

This is not how things happened. I remained active for a while and then recently I've disappeared again. I'm not going to tell anyone why. Personal shit I had to deal with, and if that explanation isn't good enough I don't care. I'm still around, I just don't think I have much to add. Considering I've been wrong about practically everything so far, I don't think people are missing out on much. Am I the only quiet player?

Are you usually watching the thread and responding to questions addressed to you so quickly?

No, not usually. Never deliberately.

Also tbf I rarely have much to say during nights and we've just had a 48 hour long one...

Turnip Head wrote:Hey Bullz, you gave someone (can't remember who) a lot of shit for harping on your non participation as soon as you were finally able to participate, and then you gave us a huge chunk of content in response to that, and then you went right back to not participating. How should we feel about that?

This is not how things happened. I remained active for a while and then recently I've disappeared again. I'm not going to tell anyone why. Personal shit I had to deal with, and if that explanation isn't good enough I don't care. I'm still around, I just don't think I have much to add. Considering I've been wrong about practically everything so far, I don't think people are missing out on much. Am I the only quiet player?

Turnip Head wrote:omelette au rip Rico. I don't think Ahriman is a civvie with the way he has played his role.

But he literally is. He's a civ recruiter. Clearly one who makes questionable decisions but I can't imagine him somehow being bad.

Roxy wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Ok so I'm confused.

We are having two night 9's and everyone should send in two actions?

Or it's really just an extended night 9?

I was thinking it was the second one but roxy seems to think its the first?

Voted 2

I do not think it is the first
I think we are in a second night in a row.

It's night 9-2 according to the thread title, rather than night 10, so day 10 hasn't been skipped but nor has night been extended so much as restarted. I don't see why the distinction is such a big deal.

I'm also going to vote BWT, to nobody's surprise. Having thought a bit about it I think the strangest thing is his vote for Synonym to save himself, and then later coming back to claim he was totally going to switch his vote to himself. I don't believe him, but I'm not sure what exactly he was trying to pull with that move. I think we're onto something with him anyway, so that's where my vote is going to go.

Wow. That all looks like it was fun to put together.

Scotty wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Whoa boy. I think I have something on Bugbzargy, but it would be a bit inopportune this phase, considering he has an advantageous day for himself due to position 1.

What say you? Shall we discuss it anyway?

Go for it. We can discuss away and lynch him tomorrow. Now that you've put it out there you kinda have to or he might kill you tonight just to be safe.

Bullzeye wrote:I'm really unsure of who to vote for today. Never got round to doing those reads I wanted to do but I have a bit of time now I suppose. I'm not sure if I think Synonym is bad - leaning towards no. I also think that the case on BWT is decent but it hinges around him being a baddie we can't lynch today anyway, so I'd rather try it tomorrow when he's actually vulnerable. Other than that... Not got much to say!

Bullzeye wrote:On reflection I am going to *vote for BWT today*. If he is Ubz and the lynch fails, at least we'll have more evidence on the case against him. Plus I'd rather see that than lynch someone who is probably still neutral.

What a rollercoaster!

Is it really such a stretch? I didn't want to vote Synonym because I didn't think he was bad (and I wasn't wrong) and I was too tired to go back through to find another suspect so I went with BWT. He was also the only other person at the time likely to be lynched.

On reflection I am going to *vote for BWT today*. If he is Ubz and the lynch fails, at least we'll have more evidence on the case against him. Plus I'd rather see that than lynch someone who is probably still neutral.

I'm really unsure of who to vote for today. Never got round to doing those reads I wanted to do but I have a bit of time now I suppose. I'm not sure if I think Synonym is bad - leaning towards no. I also think that the case on BWT is decent but it hinges around him being a baddie we can't lynch today anyway, so I'd rather try it tomorrow when he's actually vulnerable. Other than that... Not got much to say!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:We can't lynch him today. Well, I did give some "planet-aligning-like" multi-role scenario in which we might have a chance, but it's not muh to hope for. Doesn't mean we couldn't target him (remember the 'outing' angle?). Doesn't mean we can't talk about who he might be (wink wink nudge nudge).

Precisely.

So let's lynch Azura?

Great idea. Do you have any leads on who Azura is?

Negative. It sounds like you don't either?

Correct. But there were a few people I remember thinking could be team Azura members based on finding them suspicious but not being able to connect them to Bubbles.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:We can't lynch him today. Well, I did give some "planet-aligning-like" multi-role scenario in which we might have a chance, but it's not muh to hope for. Doesn't mean we couldn't target him (remember the 'outing' angle?). Doesn't mean we can't talk about who he might be (wink wink nudge nudge).

Precisely.

So let's lynch Azura?

Great idea. Do you have any leads on who Azura is?

Ricochet wrote:

Synonym wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Well I missed the lunch yesterday because of the thread lock but I was planning on voting synonym. I might still today but I'm hoping to be able to do some re-reads on a few players before I make up my mind.

Nice of you to join us again after almost a 4 day absence. Any reason why you would liek to join the syn bandwgon? You wrre "plamnning" on voting Syn even though as far as I recall you've never mentioned him in any of your discussions? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also feel free to vote him if you feel that way. Votes are changeable - much to aapje s chagrin.




Sidenote: did Syn say why he voted for BWT?

I haven't posted it publicly but I'm happy to explain it. As far as I could tell BWT was extreme busy writing their dissertation (I know how stressful that can be) but still found time to post all the way up until the day they submitted (I was still rushing around between supervisors and the printers when mine was due). Then suddenly they all but disappear from the thread when they should have arguably more time and energy to contribute.

I quite liked his early contributions to the thread but to go from interesting posts while under the pump to nothing when you're not stressing is troubling.

I don't recall BWT having dissertation issues, are you sure it's the right player you spotted?

Dissertations are my thing, yo. I think this is the first time I've been confused for BWT though, usually it's Boom for some reason.

I'm not sure I fully understand the Syn votes. Just because someone has a bad attitude toward the game doesn't mean they're baddies. I have a few thoughts for a vote knocking about and a few people I still want to read through. I should be around for most of today, probably just looking for jobs online anyway, so I should get through a few things today.

Ricochet wrote:Whoa boy. I think I have something on Bugbzargy, but it would be a bit inopportune this phase, considering he has an advantageous day for himself due to position 1.

What say you? Shall we discuss it anyway?

Go for it. We can discuss away and lynch him tomorrow. Now that you've put it out there you kinda have to or he might kill you tonight just to be safe.

Wow, sorry Wilgy. I was pretty certain he was bad. The way it went down makes me wonder if Ubzerbaijan knew Wilgy was a civ recruit. Speaking of civs, I hope Caelia is smarter than me because I kinda felt like I was seeing characteristics of a civ-SVS.

Spacedaisy wrote:I should clarify, the thread was locked so I COULDN'T vote... *grumblegrumble*

Happened to me last time we were in the thread lock position. I had a nice post typed up as well.

DharmaHelper wrote:
MAYBE you're on point. Maybe not.

Anybody else think maybe DH is cursed? Maybe he isn't though. Someone would've had to have got their PM in quick from the look of things.

Ricochet wrote: I'm not sure how to interpret Ubzigot's lockdown precisely. The initial deadline was at 8am (sorry, I'll just use my time zone, it's too early to make conversions) for me, so the maximum window of opportunity for lockdown was starting 2am, right? BR requested the Day shortening at 2:09, BWT made it 7 vs 6 at 2:10 and LC locked it at 2:20. That could both mean Ubzy locked it after 2am (maximum window) or as soon as everyone was fine with the Day shortening (reduced window). If such things, plus the last valid votes, would have happened later into the Day, I would have gotten the impression that Ubzala is not ok with the current wagons (ie one of his mates is tangled in it) and is rather bidding his time. But everything fits with his window of opportunity opening regardless, so who knows.

I would imagine that Ubzigzagoon decided to lock the thread both when the maximum window of opportunity opened AND when it was clear Wilgy had a lead in votes.

Ricochet wrote:BWT being on Ubzoid team and breaking the tie together with Ubzeeth locking things would be a really "nincompoop-ish" move for him. Like handing a "Hello, I'm bad" business card to everyone. Maybe he's on the other team and got clipped, but it could also be made to look real bad for him. Worth mulling over. I'd have to check the consistency of BWT's posts, too, although my feel during the last few days was that he's not giving us a lot (or doesn't have time to). Plus, he's one of the remaining few from D1 who could be either Uzbekistan or Jilted Lover (BWT, Canuck, Rico-but-I'm-not-it , Russ/Syn, Tranq).

The amount of time between the vote and the lock is the only reason it could look suspicious IMO. What do you mean about "the remaining few from D1..."?

Ricochet wrote:Again, the timing of the EoD events isn't ideal for a verdict that Ubzech waited long for something in the Wilg vs Syn dynamic to change, but there's still a chance him locking after BWT broke the tie could be telling, hence this looking like Synonym would be under his wing. Plus, I still suspect and could vote Syn again.

This is an interesting angle. I had been looking at it from the approach of "Ubzagubza wanted Wilgy in particular to be dead", but it's entirely possible that Ubzwubzy might have also wanted to protect someone - or look like he was protecting someone.

Ricochet wrote:P.S.: Wilgy had a lot of tracks and an alignment check, so maybe we should try to read back into his posts.

I'll have a go. Last time I reread him I'd already condemned him in my mind, so going back over with a entirely new perspective might be useful.

Synonym wrote:Being perfectly honest, I have been trying to appear scummy. I am unaligned and wished to keep it that way. Yesterday's vote was the first chance I've had this game to really get a feel for the baddies by making myself the bait. As very few of you have had any experience playing with me in the past I wanted to see the justifications that would be made to lynch me.

I remain unimpressed.

I am curious though at how quickly Scotty turned the lynch results around on me today. "That last minute vote shift looks bad for Synonym" implying that mafia were forced to save a member from lynch.

I've been wallflowering about as hard as humanly possible so it's supremely unlikely that mafia would risk exposing an active player (DH I think cast the tie-breaker?) to save me.

You do realise saying "AHA! You thought I was bad because I wanted you to think that, it was all part of my cunning plan to bait the actual baddies" isn't much of a defense at all, especially when you don't point out the baddies you've allegedly baited? Nor is the implication that you've been deliberately wallflowering. If that were the case you'd be able to answer my previous question about what you think of anyone not named SVS. Especially now she's dead. It'll be interesting to see where you go from here.

Synonym wrote:So, by all means lynch me today. As I said, I'm unaligned so my death will not hurt the civilian quota, however it won't diminish the mafia's either. I can also say that if I were to be recruited by mafia I'd expose myself to the thread and anyone I learned about. As you will be able to read in my bio for Roxy's upcoming game, I abhor being mafia.

You'd intentionally ruin the game for a lot of people out of spite for not being on the team you wanted?

Well that didn't take long. I see the post Russti was replying to, the thing in the big post of mine that he replied to was the very last thing, so perhaps he just didn't think it necessary to trim the rest of the quote out? As for Synonym, I'd be curious what he thinks of players not named SVS since she's the only person he's really commented on.

S~V~S wrote: Russ made 9 posts, most of them multiquote impressive looking affairs that did not really say much of anything, something I tend to associate with baddies. Like he was just making posts in order to make posts. Since he quoted an entire long ass post of Bullz just to say, "Thanks, I agree", I checked Bullz posts for a reply to him and did not find one. @Bullz, tell me, what was your opinion of Russti, and have you formed an opinion of Synonym? If you don't have one in either case, I can't blame you, I did not either until now. But someone who used one of my posts as a starting point for a pretty pointless post always gets noticed by me; I was curious if it was the same for you.

To be completely honest, I hadn't even realised that this had happened! I will go look at Russti/Synonym now.

Probably voting Wilgy today unless anyone can give me a good argument for how he's not actually an Uzi recruit. In fact, that's where I'll stick my vote for now. Can always change it if necessary but I don't think I will at this point.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I never accused him of using a brilliant strategy .

I think this is the core of the discussion. If you and I both agree that your proposed strategy for DrWilgy's actions was a poor strategy, then you're asserting that he made a significant mistake.

I have my doubts that he makes that mistake. I've never played with him before, but he strikes me as a capable player with a strong understanding of the game of Mafia. If he is newer than I might think having never played with him, I'd invite anyone else to pipe in and say so. How long has he been playing Mafia?

Some ideas are inherently bad. Sometimes you have such an idea, but you run with it anyway. Sometimes that even pays off. I'm sure we've all been in situations where we've done something as a baddie we thought for sure would get us killed but never came back to bite us at all.

I am not criticising Wilgy's capability at playing or ability to understand the game, I'd be the last person to ever do such a thing. I think he took a massive risk hoping for a big payoff and it didn't work out.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I have seen baddies blatantly defend teammates before. They're usually hoping that someone will make the same argument you're making and enough people will buy it.

Do I think it's possible that what you're saying is what really happened? Sure. Possible.

Do I think that's the most logical explanation? No. I've definitely seen baddies defend the crap out of their team mates, but that tends to happen when there's still an opportunity for the impending lynch of that team mate to be moved onto someone else. In this case, Bubbles was ahead in the vote by a total landslide and there was essentially no hope of that changing. So if DrWilgy's desire was merely to play WIFOM and hard-defend her anyway just in case someone like JJJ might make this argument in his favor, then that was clearly a terrible strategy (I assert that it's obvious it would have been a terrible strategy). By defending Bubbles he made himself a massive target for the following lynch, and my perspective was proven to be a small minority. DrWilgy was nearly a landslide lynch himself.

I never accused him of using a brilliant strategy . I stand by my belief for now: I think he defended Bubbles in hope of convincing enough people that she was probably being set up, with the expectation that he'd be able to coast by on WIFOM if he failed. It's not like he was the only person defending Bubbles' honour on day 5.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:For me, this single sentence is a better argument against DrWilgy than the entire notion of his defense of TinyBubbles:

The game roster at large tried to lynch him and did not succeed.

It's supporting evidence for the argument, yes. But you don't suspect him, do you? The last thing I remember you saying on the topic is that you still didn't think he was bad.

Ricochet wrote: How are gossip roles supposed to act, in your view? I've never seen gossip roles message an actual full case, but I've seen them claim we should look into certain players. Plus, we're talking about the civ leader, not just any gossiper (such as the Speaker of Serenity, for instance). Read back to my D6 catch-up post, if you will, when I addressed Caelia's message and reactions to it. I still don't get this utter discredit tone towards a civ leader.

I will read your post - thank you for asking me actually because there was something else in there that I'd wanted to respond to but forgot who had said it.

I wasn't expecting Caelia to post four solid cases. I would've had no issue if she'd said "I think we should look at blah blah blah" or said "X is bad because Y". But that post was phrased as if it was actual info, IMO, and I know for a fact some of it wasn't and don't believe the rest of it was either. The phrasing made it easy for someone who wanted to be blendy to simply throw out a vote for one of the four names she mentioned and then when that person doesn't flip bad, their voters can blame Caelia instead of themselves. I guess what I'm saying is, civ leader or no, I don't like the tone of posts like that and don't think they contribute much of value. The phrasing I used was a little bitchy, I know.

Ricochet wrote:I doubt it was anything but a switch. What chances are there for it to have been a vote manipulation? Didn't Wilgy have a healthy lead? Furthermore, how can DH have gotten lynched through vote manipulation, since he had no votes?

I meant could any powers that were in effect last night have influenced the lynch. I think switch is the most likely explanation but I was just trying to see if there was anything else.

Ricochet wrote: 3) Bullzeye's pause about Uzbo not switching the lynch to Sorsha (second wagon) instead of unfurl of all people (no wagon at all) and his idea that Sorsha might be also bad is valid, but he forgets that Ubza is a vicious chaos-maker. Why get rid of second wagons instead of creating an unexpected death? What's the point of questioning his actions, apart from the Sorsha link? Is there a slight chance? Sure, if Ubzargan had to derail a lynch in which his teammates were first and second wagon, his team was in pretty dire shit that day. Otherwise, I'm not sure I fully understand this line of questioning.

My point was, since Sorsha also had a high amount of votes, switching the lynch to her would've left room to argue that it may not have been a switch at all - perhaps Sorsha started the day with more votes or something. Switching it to someone like Unfurl, while it did cause some confusion, it still ended with Bubbles dead. You may note that I no longer consider this the case as per my reread of Sorsha last night.

reywaS wrote:Ok, I feel like I've caught up enough.

I voted DrWilgy because I don't like the votes on S~V~S and llama. They both feel civ to me, and in fact I agree with S~V~S post on Bullzeye talking about how he's been around plenty but didn't have any solid opinions on anyone. Then bullz got kind of defensive and then maybe went a little overboard trying to make up for his previous lack of opinion. Bullz definitely came off as baddie to me in that exchange.

Okay so:

I'd not been around much since day 3. Look at my posts and see how many refer to me being completely out of the loop. I still hold that if I hadn't been at least trying to keep myself afloat, I'd be getting called out for being a low poster. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I got 'defensive' because as soon as I'm finally able to actually get myself back into the game I have SVS trying to make me the next big thing in easy bandwagons.

I wasn't trying to make up for anything and I wasn't doing those reads really for anyone but myself. I needed to do it to get myself get back into the game. I dunno if I've mentioned it like 50,000 times yet but I got very disengaged over time because of a casual spot of writing I had to do for no particular reason.

S~V~S wrote:I thought all the anti-Wilgy came up after he spent days defending Bubbles. Wow.

It did. My suspicion of him came up before I'd even got up to his posts and saw other people's interactions with his defense of Bubbles. Saying it's because of movement against you is just blatantly inaccurate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Immediate thought about the attempted lynch of DrWilgy:

It stunk. I hated the lynch all day phase long and wished I could do something about it. Numerous people seemed to reduce the case for DrWilgy merely to WIFOM: "would a baddie defend his team mate so hard???"

I think this is inadequate because it doesn't respect what I perceive to be the most important variable: the likelihood that DrWilgy's defenses of TinyBubbles were going to motivate a lynch of someone else instead of TinyBubbles -- likelihood that I'd call infinitesimal. He didn't merely defend her hard, he did so when it was pointless. Is that how baddies behave? Maybe in some universes, but not terribly many of them in my experience. His hard-headed defense of Bubbles when she was already the clear lynch suggests to me that he really did believe in his defense of her and was stubbornly pressing it into the thread -- indicative of someone not on her team.

I could be wrong about that. I don't know. The fact that the lynch didn't actually take place is also a relevant factor that I will mull over that moving forward. For now though my stance remains that DrWilgy is not on team Ubzuccini.

I have seen baddies blatantly defend teammates before. They're usually hoping that someone will make the same argument you're making and enough people will buy it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I had my vote on Bullzeye for a short time too. It was mostly because this:

Bullzeye wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

struck me as perhaps the least genuine post of Day 6. Pure gut. I did appreciate his efforts later though in providing reads on numerous players. He's one I need to reassess in full context.

Nah that's genuine. It irritates me when gossip roles just act like their word is law and make posts like that with nothing to back it up. Gives people weak excuses to make throwaway votes and contributes nothing to the game. I made similar comments when one of those posts said to lynch TH.

S~V~S wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:JJJ awakens, one cheek pressed against the carpet, a pool of drool seeping into the fabric. He struggles to sit up and attempts to survey his surroundings. Everything is still blurry, and he has a pounding headache. He notes a small shard of glass nearby and another next to it -- he follows the trail to a broken bottle with what must be his own blood encrusted on the jagged edge.

WTF?

S~V~S wrote:I am SO expecting shenanigans after the drama/nobility of that last Wilgy post. And i swear on a stack of esoteric texts that I bring no shenanigans myself

What about DrWilgy's post made you suspect shenanigans would be afoot?

As I was reading it, I could hear someone whistling the Lassie theme music or perhaps a faint string quartet and distant thunder. This was the swan song of a Wilgy who did not actually expect to be dead IMO. I am shocked beyond shit though that whoever switched it switched it to DH.

I would NOT expect that of Wilgy. I was like 99.9% sure that if Wilgy brought the shenanigans, he would have brought them to me. So the fact that it was DH leads me to think while Wilgy may have had manipulations, I doubt he switched the lynch.

Does it have to have been a switch? Could there have been manipulation of the votes somehow instead? My view of Wilgy hasn't changed.

Mafia is hard. Compiling those three big posts took me nearly 7 hours all told. Granted there were breaks and I've been posting to the thread while typing up the last one. It's nearly 2am now!

Linki DH - Fair enough! That makes more sense.

So part 3 of my big read, and we hit the top three living posters. Gonna kick things off with a look at the low poster of the group.


Contributions were pretty good early on. Big proponent of Golden's lynch. Seemed like he was after Scotty for a while then that sort of just dropped away. Now he has a bee in his bonnet over SVS. I noticed that before his big case reveal he refers to having an eye on "someone in the background", which seems an unusual descriptor for SVS, currently the 5th highest poster in the game. That whole post just feels funny to me, call it a vibe. His case is fair enough, but it did come up during day 5 - I don't think it's likely to have been intended as a Bubbles distraction though as he's still very much into it today. A few minor pings but otherwise no major opinion either way - 3/10.


MM was super involved in the beginning of the game. I quite like the way he put together his vote decision on day 1. He has become more quiet recently, the first four of his seven pages of posts take us as far as night 2. I can relate though. I don't think he's a likely choice for a recruit unless he was someone's first pick. Other than a few very minor things I've not had any pings from him - 2/10


Good Lorb, how can one person have so many posts? Like a tenth of this thread is JJJ and he hasn't even posted all day today. I said a while back he'd probably be the best pick for a recruit and I stand by that. I'd be amazed if someone hasn't at least tried to recruit him by now. Civ or bad, I haven't decided but I'm not out of day zero yet in his posts! I felt he was genuine in his questioning of Bass, and felt he had raised a good argument in that particular instance. Clearly he hadn't, but we were both wrong and I won't fault him for that. His points on Boom were decent at the time but my agreement with them has fallen away over the ages. I don't currently see anything to make me think he's bad - 2/10.

Well this last part feels like it was a bit of a waste of time :P Regardless I hope that satisfies SVS' desire to see me have some opinions. Will probably get to everyone else tomorrow, I feel good about where my vote is.

DrWilgy wrote:It goes back to my recruitment theory, I still believe TinyBubbles was recruited after Unfurl's death, be it accident or not. It was an easy way to keep the lynch on TinyBubbles while she wasn't on the team of Ubzolygon.

That'd be one hell of a coincidence. Stranger things have probably happened but that'd be right up there.

DrWilgy wrote:Yes, because I was tired of framing. I also expressed this earlier. I looked at the play, and I saw a pattern. With what we had, TinyBubbles seemed like an easy set up for a frame.

Sorry but this just doesn't ring true with me.

DrWilgy wrote: Explanations of me being busy wasn't in green...

Then it must have been in a colour I'm apparently completely blind to because I've even just gone back through your posts and other than committing crimes against humanity on your own family members (and then tutoring them) I genuinely haven't seen anything. Sorry

DrWilgy wrote:I was drunk for half of that... I did want to pressure Sorsha though, I felt inclined to after her post on framing. My fear for Unfurl being bad was triggered by something she had said, not her vote.

I have had three cans of Scrumpy (because I'm classy) in the course of my read-throughs this evening. I'm not begging anyone to vote you The Sorsha/Unfurl thing is kinda minimal regardless.

DrWilgy wrote:Read my responses to Scotty.

In regards to me voting SVS, there's smores than that. I've repeated myself too many times to care and or go through it anymore. Nothing SVS has said has convinced me that she isn't bad like I first thought, so I see no need to change my thoughts here. Do look over what I've had to say though.

I miss JJJ, and his wonderful ISO's.

I have read your responses to Scotty. They didn't convince me.

These bits in particular were very unconvincing:

Because lynching someone I believe to be neutral or civ is wrong. If I see and believe that we are about to kill a neutral or civ, I will defend them. Similarly, so everyone knows i'm not talking out of my ass, I stated that I would use my vote to save Golden (which ended up failing). The difference between day 4 and day 5? Unfurl's death. I explained it many times, but I still think, Unfurl's death was meant to frame Bubbles. It didn't sit right with me, it also didn't sit right with me how no one would defend Bubbles, so I thought there had to be something wrong.

I also said I'd have tried to save Golden. We're not alone in that. Not a unique train of thought by any means. You posted this night 5, so Bubbles was already dead. How can you say you still think Unfurl's death was a frame? Also you weren't alone defending Bubbles, you were just one of the least subtle.

I don't think I can express the fact that I thought she was neutral any harder. Why would I allow a neutral die, over someone I thought to be a baddie?

There's thinking one case is not as good as another and then there's going to great effort to defend another player. One looks more suspicious than the other, especially when it turns out you've defended a baddie.

Continuing my analysis of all the people I couldn't think of a decent reason not to suspect, we kick off with *Drumroll*


Seems quite interested in baddie hunting, which is always nice. Called Bubbles a prime candidate for recruitment on day three, because of her blendy niceness. Seems like he'd been after her for a while, so I'm temporarily ruling him out of being an Uzberry. He had the same intentions as me on the day they locked the thread - vote Boom to save Golden, though I now think that was lose-lose. I don't think I've played with Scotty before but I like his overall style here, and he had some fairly decent ideas about where to look in light of Golden's lynch without losing focus on his other suspicion. Solid case against Bubbles followed by some good logic/over-enthusiasm regarding her defenders, namely Wilgy. His views on Llama will be something I think of when I get to that particular creature's posts. Can't possibly connect him to Uzerbaijan, and see nothing to make me think he'd be pro-Azura either, so I'm giving Scotty 1/10 suspicion points. As a reminder, 0 suspicion points is perfection (which could mean civ or unrecruited) while 10 is ultimate evil.


Gonna just cut to the chase here, Wilgy is #1 contender for my vote today. In the interest of fairness, I'll look at his posts by themselves and evaluate him, but I think through reading other people's posts already I know what I think of him. Fairly zany of a player, it's definitely fun to read back over him. He was pretty quiet up until day 3 - literally the first of his four pages of post span day 0-3. Does anyone who knows Wilgy's style think that might mean something? Sorry if I missed a legit explanation like him having been busy, I skimmed most of the green after a while tbh.

Started day 4 by saying he'd be voting Sorsha and here's where things get interesting. He never really seemed to make a case on Sorsha, or at least I don't see one anywhere around the time of his vote but he does ask MM & Unfurl to "help" him by voting for her. Then seemingly changes his mind and flips to Boom, calling him a comfortable placeholder. Says he was surprised where the Sorshawagon came from and acts surprised at Unfurl's vote for her despite the fact he himself had asked her to vote Sorsha.

On day 5 one of his first comments is to call the idea of a Bubbles lynch "dumb". Then he goes on the defensive for her, and says he chose to defend her because he didn't believe anyone else would (I would argue TH did too). Why so invested? If you're neutral it literally doesn't matter and it's not like Bubbles was an innocent who people jumped on for no reason. If you're not neutral and she's not on your team then again... why? Furthermore, if this is an accurate portrayal of his case on SVS then it's the biggest chunk of bullsuit we've seen all game. Do bulls have a relative that's impressively larger? Because that's what this is the suit of:

DrWilgy wrote:

timmer wrote:So Doc, talk to me about your vote on SVS. What's your reasoning? I caught DH's thoughts, but I don't recall yours.

I'm not going to type out everything again, here's the short and simple version.
1. Past history shows SVS has a thing for being a baddie
2. SVS was one of the leaders in lynching Golden
3. SVS was one of the players who survived day 1, meaning they had immunity (Ububuzagoon)

FWIW I think we're seeing Good-SVS here and won't be NO Uing her any time soon. But that's not the current topic. Regardless only one of these points is relevant. #1 means nothing and #3 could at best be described as clutching at straws. As I understood it the lynch was just completely stopped, and it didn't matter who had how many votes. I could be wrong, that is a thing that happens from time to time. Anyway, I don't think it's unfair to call Wilgy Bubbles' biggest defender. He gets 8/10 suspicion points (while nobody is getting 0, nobody is gonna get 10 either) and *My Vote is also going to Dr Wilgy*, at least for now.

Oh good, now I come to some of the highest posters in the game, and they've all made a lot of posts as well!
Oh god he has 5 pages of posts. From now on I'm going to just skim the first three days, I don't think much interesting happened until day three. Apparently Llama's activity doesn't kick off til day four anyway. He called out Bubbles practically from the starting pistol, but I'm 99% sure the whole exchange was a joke. Maintained his suspicion of Bubbles - I don't know if I'd see Llama engaging in such hardcore distancing. Maybe. It's not like he's responsible for her lynch, so he could've started off distancing and then realised he had to keep it up when she drew heat. Worth noting he didn't vote her when she died? Though he's had some suspicion on DH for a while too. I don't know what to think here tbh, I'll put 5/10 suspicion points on him.


Going to post this now because it decides my vote and I don't think I'll see anything from the other three on my list that changes my mind. Still intend to try to read them but they're the three top posters so I might be at it all week.

So I've just spend like 20 minutes trying to get back on here... Is anyone else having connection issues or is it just me? Regardless it seems fine now.

Working through my list of people to read. Started from the lowest posters simply because there was less to read - so if anyone wants to point out that this list is in reverse order of post count, it's simply because I'm procrastinating. To clarify; these are all the people I couldn't automatically think of a reason to believe were civ/unrecruited.



JJJ made some pretty decent points on him early on in the game which I agreed with. Since then I've had a couple of pings from him, such as this comment:

Boomslang wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

Which just screams baddie to me. It's not something I'd expect a civ to come out with. But it's just one comment tbf. On the other hand I found his day 4 comments about Tranq fairly interesting - I'll come back to that when I cover Tranq momentarily. Boom also avoided the Bubblewagon on both of the days it ran through town, and while I get his day 4 vote, I'm not sure I follow why he voted for LoRab on day 5. It seems a bit throwaway but maybe I'm missing something so I'll give him the opportunity to clarify it.

I feel like every sentence I type about Boom contradicts the opinion of the previous sentence. Maybe I shouldn't open cans of cider before I start posting about people. I'd give him a solid 5/10 suspicion points (where 0/10 refers to the patron saint of hugs and puppies while 10 is oh my god, Frieza and Joffrey somehow had a kid who plays mafia). A clarification of what he meant with his LoRab points might reduce that score.



As Boom pointed out, he backpedals a bit early on. Suggests having the Brutal Executioner (try to) kill JJJ to see if he was the Supreme Judge despite then claiming to have no strong feelings either way regarding Triple J. My feeling is the Judge is a role baddies don't want around unless it's by their side, whereas civs and neutrals probably wouldn't care either way. He voted Bubbles when she got lynched and has been fairly dedicated to investigating her team. I couldn't see him being part of Uz-let's-pretend-this-is-a-comical-misspelling-of-bargan but maybe he's WIFOMing. Can't rule him out of team Azura and nor do I want to at this point. 3/10 points to Tranq. (Note from a few minutes in the future: I gave Tranq 4 points at first, but then gave Timmer the same score and decided I find Tranq less suspicious than him, so wanted to reflect that).



So I have a crazy theory that Team Uzi didn't switch Bubbles' lynch to her because she's also on that oft-misnamed team. It's not really based on anything solid yet (other than the impeccable logic of someone who admittedly hasn't paid enough attention since night three) because I'm typing this bit before I read her posts, but let's see if her content can give me anything more to go on, bearing in mind I'm literally always wrong when I think Sorsha is bad.

So she's a vocal opponent of Bubbles from early on, and to be honest reading back over her posts I don't see why she was almost bandwagoned on day four. I'm going to take off my wacky conspiracy theory hat and give Sorsha 2/10 points.



Early on his single-minded pursuit of DP and seeming unwillingness to consider anything else had my eye. DP is dead now. With Aapje's wish granted, let's see how his posts measure up since my last recollection. On day 2 he went from saying TH doesn't seem very civ minded and he could see why people suspected him to voting DP over the course of two posts and claimed he never planned on voting TH anyway. This confuses me a bit but he does explain as time goes on. Supports his DP obsession by saying he hates the way he plays - I mean fair enough I don't always like some people's tactics but I don't go around voting them every day for it. Mostly I just mutter insults under my breath and move on. This is a different sort of game though so it's understandable but I don't think we should be settling for anything less than a baddie lynch from here on.

Aap himself pointed out over a week ago that there were at least seven baddies kicking around, it will be more than that by now and we have some potential leads to work on. Anyone from night four onward who'd advocate lynching someone regardless of whether they're neutral is suspicious IMO. He's also quick to call out Bubbles on her fake confusion after the lynch switch - but again votes DP instead. I was going to give him a low score until I noticed that. On a day when we had a very good chance of finally getting a baddie, why throw away a vote on someone who almost definitely didn't get recruited? No offence to DP but I doubt anyone chose to recruit him, and he wasn't around enough that I'd believe he was putting in for contests. That throwaway vote puts him way up to 6/10 points.



I remember feeling pretty decent about Timmer last time I looked over him - but this was like Day 2. Almost nothing from his early posts changes that view, but as we get later into the game I get a few uneasy feelings about him. He switched his Day 5 vote from Bubbles to DP because he didn't want to support apathy and reiterates that he's "playing as a neutral". Every now and then he does like to remind us of that fact. His first reaction to Caelia's opinions was to dress them up as info but then went back on that. I don't know how I feel about Timmer any more but I don't feel great - 4/10 points.



Again, this is someone I felt pretty good about a while back. Her early game seemed very positive and engaged. I don't have an awful lot to say here, not a lot is catching my eye. She seemed to interpret Bubbles' confusion about the lynch switch as genuine, which I don't buy. Bubbles has played more than one game, as has been established. She's probably seen or heard of the concept of a switch before and is well aware of the manipulations knocking about - I mean I'm saying this in hindsight but still... She did vote Bubbles in the end but that one ping earns her 3/10 points.



His description of the recruiters as "all equally naughty" is something I have issues with but it was on like day 1 or day 0 so meh... not really that relevant now. Showed a little half-hearted support for Bubbles on day 2 after she drew some heat for an unexplained vote, and said Bass felt genuine but then voted for him. Says it was because he already had the majority, which doesn't feel genuine to me. He and LoRab clashed on day 3, and he comes off looking better out of that interaction IMO. On Day Five he's really keen to push the view that the lynch switch was going to happen regardless and definitely wasn't a Bubbles save. I mean it's a fair argument but this is the second (and more significant) time I feel like he's got Bubbles' back. Giving TH 5/10 points.



I picked BWT for this list because I can't remember thinking about him all game. Reading his early stuff I get the same impression I got from LA - engaged, reasonable, nothing jumps off the page screaming recruit of either sort. Exchanged a few votes with Unfurl but that obviously didn't go very far. Seems a bit busy more recently. Jumped onto Bubbles after her confusion over the switch, and seemed genuine in putting forth his arguments against her defenders. I'm not feeling bad about him, 1/10 points because nobody is going to get 0.


There are about six more people on the list I put together last night, but I'm going to post this for now because I've been working at it for about 2 hours and one of my friends wants to go for a walk. I also would like to do that. I'll be at least an hour, when I get back I'll catch up as necessary and then get back onto it. If anyone is interested the last six on my list are: JJJ, MM, DH, Llama, Wilgy & Scotty. If anyone wants to hear from me about someone from the half of the living players I haven't listed, feel free to ask me why I didn't include them and I will explain. If I can't remember why I didn't include them I will re-read them.

Linki reveals I've been working on this since about 6:30pm GMT. Wow, time flies.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:SVS decides I'm bad for having been unable to properly involve myself.

You're kind of spinning her words here to make yourself a victim. I doubt SVS thinks you're bad because you've been busy, as you've stated here, even if that's what it boils down to in your mind.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you had said "I'm still neutral, so I have no reason to properly involve myself while I have RL priorities", that would be an adequate enough defense for me. But that's not where you went with it. You're attacking her position and twisting her meaning. Makes me think you're on a team. I'm just not sure which one.

That is literally what it boils down to. There's no way around it, no other explanation. She is saying I'm bad because I haven't contributed while completely and deliberately ignoring the very obvious reason why I haven't been able to properly contribute because it doesn't fit her narrative. I have a high(ish) post count because I've tried to stay involved, with varying degrees of success as time got on. Next time I'm too busy perhaps I just won't bother and then people can criticise me for not posting at all instead.

I couldn't think of how to say "Since I'm neutral I didn't care too much" without feeling like I was being disrespectful to the hosts so I've sort of danced around it but it is what it is. As far as defensiveness goes, this is a game I really did and still really do want to play but as I've said the second I become able to I'm set upon by SVS who is determined to see me as bad. I don't particularly want to be taken out straight away so of course I'm going to try to defend myself. Why shouldn't I?

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:But you haven't been too busy to participate. You have lots of posts. That was my point. You post alot, you are participating.

And I'd be okay with this in theory, because it could indicate that Bullzeye is simply an unmotivated neutral. But he seems to be resisting the point you're making and getting defensive over it.

She's not indicating that I'm neutral though. I'm 'resisting' because the one day I can finally get into the game, SVS decides I'm bad for having been unable to properly involve myself. Have you met me? I always get defensive.

There are about 14 people I want to look at. That's not to say I'll suspect all of them or even have anything to say about some of them, but there are a handful of people I either think are civ or think have probably not been recruited yet and the rest are question marks. It's 1am though so I don't know how much reading I'll do tonight. Or does that also make me bad anyway?

And being too busy to participate makes me more likely to be bad than, say, anyone possibly connected to Bubbles?

As for feeling persecuted: I don't. I just think it's ridiculous that you're hounding me over absolutely nothing.

S~V~S wrote:It is Day Six, you don't have one opinion other than that I am picking on you. With like 10x the posts of DP. I seem to recall DP having an opinion.

Sorry if you feel persecuted, but not ONE opinion?

I have opinions. They're based on where I was when I was last actually able to participate - which is days ago. Looking at the player lists I'm aware some have been replaced but don't even know who or when. You are seriously overestimating how involved I am in this game.

S~V~S wrote:Well, I see how I can see that, so I am OK with it

Dropping this now. You clearly have no interest in anything other than an echo chamber, and would rather lynch an unrecruited player for lack of participation on day six than actually find baddies. I'm just going to carry on trying to get back into the game.

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Who do you suspect? Why? Anyone?

*channels JJJ*

Give me an hour or so (assuming I don't just fall asleep while typing, which is a great danger even right now but I'm sure my considerate neighbours will wake me up with their very appropriate and polite 1,2,3 & 4am yelling and laughing. I am currently running through the people I'm sure I don't suspect, basically making a rainbow list in my head. If I can't think of a reason not to suspect someone they're going on my list of people to look at, which I will begin tomorrow. I shall post this when it is ready.

You don't suspect anyone? Not even one person?

I am going to vote you for now. That could change. But being unable to come up with one name on Day 6, while you have been participating, stretched credulity for me.

*Votes Bullzeye

I wouldn't say I'd really been participating since Day 3 tbh. I really don't get how you can't see that. I'm not going to make things up or force myself to work faster just to satisfy your urge to hound me.

S~V~S wrote:Who do you suspect? Why? Anyone?

*channels JJJ*

Give me an hour or so (assuming I don't just fall asleep while typing, which is a great danger even right now but I'm sure my considerate neighbours will wake me up with their very appropriate and polite 1,2,3 & 4am yelling and laughing. I am currently running through the people I'm sure I don't suspect, basically making a rainbow list in my head. If I can't think of a reason not to suspect someone they're going on my list of people to look at, which I will begin tomorrow. I shall post this when it is ready.

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:
Good point, Guess you didn't get the chance to kill me last night.

What surprises me is that the Exec did not try to kill ME last night. I was kind of hoping he would since it was his Warrior night and it would have proved a point when the kill failed, or at least made a point in my favor since I think nothing can be proven completely this game.

And hopefully you will be protected tomorrow night, so the team trying to frame me will not be able to kill you

Linki, I don't think it was a load of bullshit

I feel like you made a huge deal over what was barely even a thought. You even made a dig at me more recently for the fact that I at one point thought about suspecting her.

I did not make a "huge deal" over it, at the time I made two posts, and a vote. Since then, watching you, you have posted quite a bit, but said quite a little.

You are not the most aggressive player, but you have good insights and observations. I am not seeing that here at all. Quite the opposite,

Again, perhaps your lack of seeing things from me could be to do with what I've been up to lately. I hate to keep bringing it up but it is literally the explanation. I haven't been invested in this game and I haven't had any reason to become invested as of yet, which has made it easier for me to put it on the back burner. Is it so outrageous to suggest someone completing the biggest and most important piece of work in their entire life so far might possibly neglect other things while doing so?

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:
Good point, Guess you didn't get the chance to kill me last night.

What surprises me is that the Exec did not try to kill ME last night. I was kind of hoping he would since it was his Warrior night and it would have proved a point when the kill failed, or at least made a point in my favor since I think nothing can be proven completely this game.

And hopefully you will be protected tomorrow night, so the team trying to frame me will not be able to kill you

Linki, I don't think it was a load of bullshit

I feel like you made a huge deal over what was barely even a thought. You even made a dig at me more recently for the fact that I at one point thought about suspecting her.

S~V~S wrote: Because I can remember things that they have said. I can't remember much of anything you've said without reading, and I have been watching you, lol. You know you caught my eye day one, and I would have pursued it further sooner, but I got distracted by Golden via Epis death

I am not deliberately being blendy. You know full well that I've been busy, I've only said it like five times.

Can we address me catching your eye actually? Because that was a load of bullsuit. You came at me like I was trying to push after Unfurl when I'd actually barely mentioned her at all and when I did it wasn't like I was trying to smear her name. Your entire argument against me was based on almost nothing whatsoever.

Scotty wrote: I'm throwing up right now then off to work. Will be back to party later!

I hope this is slang for something and you're not actually violently ill!

Scotty wrote:Looking at llama's list on potential Uzsux candidates, Sorsha's there! How bout that.

Something that gave me pause about the Unfurl switch was why Uzb wouldn't just switch to Sorsha if he was trying to save Bubbles - that in my mind would've looked a lot less suspicious and could've possibly been used to try and put some kind of credit onto Bubbles. Sorsha also being from Uzbekistan would explain that.

Ballsed up the quote tags a bit there, but there is a response to Llama hiding inside the day 3/4 quote.

thellama73 wrote:Bullzeye:
Day 1: He says my supatown reasoning against TinyBubbles is weak. Obviously, he was 100% wrong. In your face, Bullz. Criticizes unfurl's attitude and lack of baddie hunting. Where's your baddie hunting, Bullz? Advocates lynching low posters for lack of better suspicions.

Re: Bubbles: She may not have been recruited by then. If at endgame it turns out she had been then I shall bow to your superior intellect.

Re: Unfurl: Again, that's not why I criticised her. I never said "Unfurl isn't looking for baddies and that's a bad thing". Unfurl said "I want to let other people find baddies for me" and I said "WTF?". Then made like three posts ever where I basically said it was the only thing about her that pinged me and other people said it was normal for her so I was willing to let it go after one last (fruitless) check to see if anything else about her caught my eye. Then SVS voted me for my relentless victimisation of her. I almost always advocate lynching low posters on day 1.

thellama73 wrote:Day 2: Defends TH from the disembodied voice demanding his lynch. TB also defended TH.

Is this all you think I did on day 2? I'd completely forgot that had even happened.

[quote="thellama73]Day 3: Doesn't say much except to defend Golden. Lots of defending, not much attacking.[/quote]

Was doing stuff most of the day, then the thread got locked when I finally had a few hours to myself. I stand by my so-called defense of Golden though. I didn't see the point in lynching him but didn't want to involve myself in all the kerfuffle surrounding him either.

thellama73 wrote:Day 4: Buys into the Boom case and votes there. Otherwise criticizes other people's suspicions as bad ones.

Interesting choice of wording. What I actually said was I didn't want to get behind either of the bandwagons.

thellama73 wrote:Day 5: "Wah, wah, I'm so busy. Dissertations are hard."

When people imply I'm using uni work as an excuse, it seriously offends me. Especially when they phrase it like this. When I voted on day 5 I was really tired after being in the library all day and had no interest in mafia but knew there was a lynch ongoing and I hate missing votes. So I made a lazy one. Worked out okay in the end.

thellama73 wrote:Overall, Bullz's game has been very defensive. A lot of disagreeing with other people's arguments, but no real arguments of his own. I would say that this indicates he's more interested in preventing good people from being lynched than in lynching bad people. To be fair, though, he has been legitimately busy, a condition I experienced myself earlier, so I get that.

I need to mull on this.

Mull away. I would like to ask this question: Has any of my play this game been drastically different from any other game, regardless of alignment? Am I ever a high posting, case spamming, super invested and non-defensive player in your opinion?

I would say that agreeing and disagreeing with people is essentially the way I get myself into the game. I find a starting point and work from it. I'm still trying to find that point in this game.

Canucklehead wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

You know what else is lame? Condescendingly bitching about how other people choose to play.

I don't think I'm being condescending. Bitchy maybe, but I'm always bitchy.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace all ye deadies. Bloody night.

Caelia's message could be one of those "Some of these are true and some are false" sorta deals.

It doesn't say she gets info. Its her opinion because I know that at least one name in there is not bad. At least we now know DH isn't Caelia since he would have only put my name in there

And Bullz, no not lots of strong opinions. But not even one?

In a game that coincides with the deadline of the biggest and most important piece of work I've ever done? My activity quickly slowed down because I was working hard. I do feel like I made a decent contribution to the Bass discussion, and if day three hadn't locked the thread while I was catching up I'd have been more involved then but since around that time I've had to focus on more important things. Busy = not enough time to read in much depth, especially with lynches ending at 4/5am so I sleep through hours of important discussion. As it happens, I've got today completely free and intend to do some reading here. But I'm still not seeing your point.

Also you mention my post count and positioning overall, but what's so special about it? Seven posts below TH's post count and 8 above both Bea and LA. Why are they not scrutinised in the same manner?

S~V~S wrote:Quick question; Bullz is the 12th highest living poster, with 108 posts. Can anyone remember, off the top of their heads, without reading back, a strong point he has made or position he has taken, right or wrong?

Just make your point, so I can point out how you know full well I'm not the type of player who comes out big with the strong accusations all that often.

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

Completed my dissertation today. Awaiting feedback from my supervisor so I'll probably not submit til Friday morning but my Masters is essentially finished now With that in mind, I'm gonna go catch up.

Don't wanna miss the vote but I've got no energy for mafia today and too tired to properly catch up from where I left off. Gonna vote Bubbles because it's very possible she was being saved yesterday and her lynch will help us to find out for sure.

I should hopefully be less busy within the next few days, depending on how quickly I get my work done.