The Syndicate

bcornett24 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Voting bcornett to hopefully maybe save myself? Any helpful friends out there?

Will your lynch by as useless as my own?

Well... it will be useful in that my game that's about to go into signups will get the attention it needs to be ready on time. But it's not going to help the Civvies win, unless some detectively types can comb through my voters (and possibly those who specifically avoided voting for me) to find the baddies there. Really, I think you're more likely to find baddies among those that were more sure that I am Civ. The baddies are the only ones who know for a fact that it's true.

Voting bcornett to hopefully maybe save myself? Any helpful friends out there?

Hey, I'm still catching up from the five or six pages that happened while I was at work, but I couldn't help but notice that there's a sudden influx of votes on me. Please reconsider, I'm not a baddie this time.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

Howe wll do you know LC? I realise that you did not play real time with him in Bullets over Broadway. Have you at all? LC's ability to demonstrate real investment in a completely fake case would not surprise me in the slightest, that's pretty normal LC.

Oh yes. I'm a complete sociopath. Better run run run run run run run away.

Sorsha wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

This just seems really idealistic but not very realistic. I think you’d just have easily lynched a civ with that tactic. Its easy to say that bwt didn’t look suspicious after we know he was town but his behavior during the last lynch (flip flopping between sig and bea and then back again). I’m wondering why you wouldn’t have found him suspicious for following your lead on bea. I know you said you didn't think he was suspicious because he found his own reason but, if you hadn't of posted your case on bea I doubt he'd have looked at her.

I disagree with the last part of your post. A reread of BWT's posts shows that he a) answered Llama's question by saying that bea's response to my case was appropriate, and b) had his own, completely unrelated, reason to vote for bea. BWT did not follow my lead in any way. I remember this very well, because I combed his posts looking to find him following my lead, and came up with absolutely nothing.

motel room wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Choutas wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

Ugh. It makes me want to lynch him, but not because I particularly believe he was handed a Mafia card at the start. It's ugly, and ugly is such a smelly word.

I just want to quote this so Long Con doesnt get to drop a vote on someone he's not sold as being scum later on by sewing the seeds for it now. Which is how this feels.

Thanks for keeping an eye on me, but my vote is more likely to go to someone I think is Mafia.

Ugh, I just realized that my big post last night got messed up, and there were two or three other responses to people that I had put together, but didn't make the final post. Sigh.

I'm used to an unchangeable vote mentality for the most part. I'll put a vote on Macdougal for the reasons I gave earlier.

MacDougall wrote:You guys are coming across like scum players preparing for a town flip and planning your next townie lynch candidate.

Which guys? Everyone who is suspicious of you?

sig wrote:My top suspect at this point is Long Con, his attack on bea seemed really well real, but even then he kept his options opened enough to switch off that wagon and vote for someone else, me. His defense for why he targeted bea seems like a prepared remark in case he had to switch and vote for someone else.

What I don't understand are these posts.

This was why he voted for me, notice the end of his post were he mentions bea this again seems fake.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.

My real vote today will go to sig. Despite the reasonable explanation he had for my original suspicion of him (that he was crafting his posts too much, in a baddie way), I've found a few of his reactions suspicious. His reaction that I was "distancing" from him when I forgot he was the third player involved in an earlier discussion was bizarre, as was his assertion that I (and others) are "desperate to try and get him lynched".

sig, saying we're desperate to try and get you lynched strikes me in two ways, neither of them making me feel comfortable about you. On one hand, it's overdefensive and paranoid, and on the other, it's a way to buffalo us out of voting for you... because who wants to looks "desperate" to lynch someone on Day 1?

It's not much, but it's the behaviour I found most suspicious today, and it's time for me to lock in a vote.

Sorry for using you, bea!

Okay here is his reasoning for lynching me early that phase this is the defense I used and here he says my explanation was good.

Long Con wrote:

sig wrote:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

sig wrote:

Matt F wrote:
Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?

Also It could read is very weak, but it isn't very weak it just seems kinda weak. Writing is very weak is more confrontation in my opinion as well as implying it was meant to be weak. While seems kinda weak is just that is seems weak but it might not be.

This is quibbling over something very small, why if I'm civ would I right it the first way instead of the second way?

This might be small, but I've seen people get lynched for wordplay on Day 1 enough in the past.

Same as it ever was.

I agree, in that Mafia have more need to "craft" their posts than Civvies. Sig's accidental reveal that he was going back over his post before posting it to make sure it's just right is a little suspicious to me.

I always read through my posts as I'm sure you've seen my spelling and grammar skills aren't always the best when typing, especially when I type quickly. It seems as if your trying to find more reasons to find me suspicious, I've played as mafia before and while I'm not great I wouldn't have done something quite so stupid.

This is also all in regards to my wording of Seems/Kinda/Very which I've already said was a mistake on my part. This seems to me to be a desperate attempt to get me lynched.

That's an extreme thing to say. Personally, I'm neither trying to get you lynched, nor am I desperate to do so.

Your explanation as to why you would be going back over your posts makes a lot of sense to me. I have indeed noticed that your spelling and grammar skills are not the best, and I wish to correct errors every single time, but I have learned over time that it's just not worth it. Except it's "you're". Sorry!

Then we have this.

Long Con wrote:Sorry to see you go, BWT. Now Rico will just run away with the contest.

Matt F wrote:Straw - To me, it sounded off. "Kinda" and "very" don't go together IMO, in fact, I've never heard anyone utter "I had a kinda very good day" or "My meal was kinda very good", so I questioned him on it. It wasn't a strong ping, but it was there.

But sig explained that. He had originally done "I had a very good day" but edited it after first typing it because he liked "I had a kinda good day" better. Only he mistakenly left it as "I had a kinda very good day". I don't really see any more reasonable and understandable explanation than that one, and I believe it is true.

That said, you getting a ping from him typing "kinda very" makes me wonder. Is it a phony ping? Maybe you could explain how this mistake made you suspicious that sig was a member of the baddie team, because I'm having a disconnect about it.

So Long Con did you change your mind and think I'm a civilian why are you know defending me when you sighted this as one (even if it was a minor reason) for your vote yesterday?

This is making me more suspicious of you then when you were trying to get me lynched. It seems like a quick turn around

You can wave it off as "flip-flopping" as much as you like. I didn't think your "kinda very" was cause for suspicion. I did think the other things I noted about your posts were suspicious.

Like I said before, I'm not desperate to get you lynched. When I questioned Matt F about going after you for "kinda very", it wasn't about defending you, it was about verifying that his ping was genuine and not manufactured from something as flimsy as the missed word-deletion in your sentence.

Just because I find you suspicious, it doesn't mean that I'm going to attack from every angle and tunnel you with sketchy stuff.

Choutas wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

Ugh. It makes me want to lynch him, but not because I particularly believe he was handed a Mafia card at the start. It's ugly, and ugly is such a smelly word.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

1. This is the problem. I believe it wasn't that hard for you to find relevant posts by bea, because I suspect you really did see those posts on first review and perceive a reason to bring them up -- either as a genuine expression of suspicion (now doubtful given your current stance), or as a means of unjustly smearing a Day 1 target. If I follow your posts during the incident in question and try to formulate a perspective of your mindset, I find it much easier to believe that you truly did invest yourself in an anti-bea agenda for whatever reason and expanded on your misgivings when so prompted than you made it up as a gambit to expose bandwagoners.

If you find it easy to believe, then good. It was supposed to be believable. I wasn't planning on "expanding on my misgivings" so much, but I got questioned hard (by you if I recall correctly), so I shrugged and gave it the ol' college try, bringing up bea's posts and going through them one by one to find scraps that would support my "case". You both led my posts in that direction, and then followed them now. My posts weren't made in isolation; they were prompted by you yourself. Don't ask for something and then bring it up a day later that I provided what you asked for as suspicious.

2. Do you have any other thoughts at all about the people who interacted with you relative to your stated suspicion of bea? That is: anyone who expressed faith in bea, doubt in your case, or suspicion of you for your case?

I'd like to know bea's alignment before jumping to any conclusions about those people. Any pings or nods in that direction would be tenuous at best for now.

3. It appears a convenient explanation because you were drawing heat from multiple players specifically for your treamtent of bea. To suggest that the very conduct that was getting you in trouble was actually some manner of test is inherently convenient. That doesn't imply that you must be lying, but I think it's fair to think you might have been lying given the context I'm pointing to now.

I have never been afraid to draw heat. Most games, I'm more than happy to draw just the right amount of heat in order to stay alive on those cold, murderous nights.

In fact, I'm going to revisit the entire scenario and illustrate what my doubts are:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

This is a specific accusation of bea which can be supported, whether it's correct or not, with content in her post history. This was the first expressed suspicion of bea to my knowledge by anyone in the thread. Given your current explanation, I am forced to observe this post through two lenses and decide which one is more believable:

1. Long Con was not suspicious of bea at all, and placed this post here with supportable assertions against her and a vote as a tactic to expose anyone who might follow his lead.

2. Long Con was genuinely suspicious of bea and stated his genuine misgivings.

3. Long Con was not suspicious of bea, but claimed to be with supportable assertions because he stood to gain from the appearance of his mafia hunting and the resulting pressure on bea.

You've taken away #2. We cannot work on that assumption anymore. When I compare #1 with #3 while looking at the post you made, #3 speaks to me more. I don't see a test. I see a real move against bea. I think the hangup here is that your initial points against bea were valid (not necessarily indicative of her alignment, but valid). I have my doubts that you brought attention to real, verifiable content in bea's posts which can validly be called suspicious independent of meta without wholly intending the resulting pressure to land on bea herself.

I am not suspicious of bea. That doesn't mean she's not a baddie. I don't think that her actions on Day 1 constitute enough evidence to conclusively say she's bad, like I did. But she might be! Maybe it will turn out that my "case" was exactly right and now we have a scum tell for bea that we can carry through the ages. I didn't make any attempts to prevent some pressure landing on bea, and I wouldn't try to prevent it in hindsight. From my perspective, that's a good side effect. You of all people should be able to appreciate some added pressure on a player.

MacDougall wrote:Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

1. Best place to hide is in plain sight. The ones who are most aware of this role are the role and their teammates.

2. Your "solution" to this role is to pile lots of votes on one person so this role cannot alter a lynch. To me, this is exactly what this role wants, in order to hide out. The last thing this role wants is to be the triple-vote that changes the fate of a lynch - at least, not until much later in the game. I would love to see a lynch where the second-most vote-getter gets lynched unexpectedly, because that would reveal (Nothing But) Flowers and we would have a short list of people it could be.

So you're one of the more suspicious people on my radar right now.

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for BWT to save himself. But I do doubt that he'd be so blatant if he was that scum role now that I think about it.

Ok... so why did you write these two sentences at all?

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

I guess you were right, we should have lynched someone who was not one of the top vote-getters. Should have gone for a lurker instead. Kind of makes me itch, though - maybe you knew you'd be right.

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

As for the "2 out of 7 BWT voters are bad" idea... it's arbitrary and unhelpful. Maybe none of them are bad, and the people trying to push this idea as if it's a real, supported theory are hoping to milk it for 1 to 7 Civvie lynches. Maybe 4 out of the 7 are bad, and the baddie team decided to save one of their own who was getting up there in votes.

A more reasonable theory is that (Nothing But) Flowers is an RYM person who wanted to hide their vote in the biggest bandwagon. That, at least, makes some sense. Talking about that makes me think of someone (McDougal? motel room?) who brought up that role. When I read that post, it felt suspicious to me, like the reason for bringing it up was because they were that role, or at least a teammate. I want to go back and read it again.

Linki: RIP you guys.

Russtifinko wrote:I wasn't convinced by JJJ's single read on Long Con. The Llama Gambit (saying you're suspicious of someone you're not to see who bandwagons it) is a fairly common Syndicate ploy. But this analysis by Matt F might have some merit. The posts you're highlighting show Sorsha acting how I'd imagine myself acting if I were on a baddie team with LC. Sorsha, you say you and LC have been playing together for years, but what made it obvious to you that LC's suspicion of bea was a ploy if you think she's the last person he'd use to pull a ploy?
LC, what are your thoughts on Sorsha at the moment?

Nothing too pingy at the moment. Sorsha's not always the easiest to read, but I haven't found her particularly suspicious yet.

Yeah, that makes sense, thanks MR F!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

Sorry to see you go, BWT. Now Rico will just run away with the contest.

Matt F wrote:Straw - To me, it sounded off. "Kinda" and "very" don't go together IMO, in fact, I've never heard anyone utter "I had a kinda very good day" or "My meal was kinda very good", so I questioned him on it. It wasn't a strong ping, but it was there.

But sig explained that. He had originally done "I had a very good day" but edited it after first typing it because he liked "I had a kinda good day" better. Only he mistakenly left it as "I had a kinda very good day". I don't really see any more reasonable and understandable explanation than that one, and I believe it is true.

That said, you getting a ping from him typing "kinda very" makes me wonder. Is it a phony ping? Maybe you could explain how this mistake made you suspicious that sig was a member of the baddie team, because I'm having a disconnect about it.

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.

My real vote today will go to sig. Despite the reasonable explanation he had for my original suspicion of him (that he was crafting his posts too much, in a baddie way), I've found a few of his reactions suspicious. His reaction that I was "distancing" from him when I forgot he was the third player involved in an earlier discussion was bizarre, as was his assertion that I (and others) are "desperate to try and get him lynched".

sig, saying we're desperate to try and get you lynched strikes me in two ways, neither of them making me feel comfortable about you. On one hand, it's overdefensive and paranoid, and on the other, it's a way to buffalo us out of voting for you... because who wants to looks "desperate" to lynch someone on Day 1?

It's not much, but it's the behaviour I found most suspicious today, and it's time for me to lock in a vote.

Sorry for using you, bea!

Golden wrote:

Long Con wrote:JaggedJimmyJay, I think you forgot to bold your vote for me in the thread.

I think you will find that the rules do not require him to do so.

I wasn't saying that based on game rules, just commonly accepted Mafia game sensibilities and the request of at least one player so far to make votes clear in-thread in order to assist later lynch analyses.

Ricochet wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Roxy, I'm glad to see you took your vote off me, but you're not allowed to placehold.

Why not? You were my placeholder so far should I return my vote there?

When you allow changeable votes then expect people to vote in wonky ways until we get closer to lynch time.

Still reading and thinking.

Actually, I just mean voting for the non-player option, but this got stuck in my head, probably from Recruitement, as voting that as a placeholder.

MovingPictures07 wrote:6. No self-voting, even as a placeholder. This is considered an illegal move in this game as much as voting for the non-player option.

Good eye, Rico. Roxy must be punished!

Day 0 counts as much as we want it to count, as far as I know. If someone did something suspicious on Day 0, then it's valid to suspect them for it during the remainder of the game.

However, I find a preoccupation with Day 0 to be suspicious in and of itself, because there has been plenty of content during Day 1 to sift through. Focusing on Day 0 seems like an angle, a weak way to have conversation and seem to be involved.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con, could you please point to posts by bea that do not align with her claim that "her whole argument is she doesn't know yet who is or isn't civ"? You might not buy into her refutation of your accusation, but I need more than a blank dismissal.

...unless this was the way you indicated a vote. I thought you just coloured that to get my attention, but maybe it was intended also as a vote indicator. Too subtle.

It's actually colored and bolded. Zebra was correct earlier when he said I am using color in addition to bold to indicate votes. When I use the plain bold on this white text I seriously can't even tell it's bolded. It wasn't a terribly substantive vote by me for you though; I tend to use votes as a way of poking people hard and encouraging direct intercourse.*

You responded admirably to my request for specific cases of bea making civ-oriented defenses of people instead of neutral-oriented defense. I'm looking for somewhere else to put my vote now.

I get it now, I just didn't realize that you were going to do it blended into the context of your regular posting sentences.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:I'm sincerely sorry for offending you, my tendency to start drama unintentionally is another one of the reasons I've continued to avoid mafia and online communities in general, starting over with a new name after new name again and again.

You don't have to worry about drama with Long Con. If I say you offended me, it is merely in game-context, and it doesn't mean I'm really upset. I can get incredibly frustrated with a player in-game - Epignosis and Cobalt come to mind - but when I think about either of those dudes I just smile and shake my head and say "I love that guy!" There's times I would have strangled Epi, but I'm also honoured that he asked me to co-host his upcoming Arkham game. So don't stress about me, I still hope to have a long Mafia friendship with you and all the RYM folks.

My wording was overly harsh to drive the point in but I did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong with your style, or anything about you for that matter. My reference to you not reading was referring to your comment to JJJ wondering why he colored his vote for you rather than bolding it, when he explained that earlier. Noticeably missing a single post is a far cry from an "overt failure to read everything", so I take that back, even without the context that it offended you, so again, I apologize.

I see what you mean, I thought you said that because I voted for bea without giving a bunch of opinions on what others had been saying first. I did read JJJ's post about colouring his votes. What I did not understand was that he also intended for colour-bold to entirely indicate that a vote was being cast. It looks identical to what some other people are doing as a name-reference thing - kneel4justice colours every single name in the posts he makes, but he's not voting for each one.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm going to try to use colors when I bold my votes because I absolutely cannot see the plain white bold.

I totally get this, because the bold on this site leaves much to be desired, but:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Vote for Diiny. This man knows how to kick Day 1 into a frenzy and he's not doing it. 'Splain!

This is what I was expecting a vote to look like, but instead his vote just looked like a coloured name to get attention from the named, like k4j.

The only thing I take issue with in your response is the assumption that I have no responsibilities; you could not possibly even imagine how incorrect you are with that statement, but it's a reasonable assumption considering everything else, so no hard feelings.

That's fair, it was an assumption based on this:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote: Thank you though, in the past I have been unable to dedicate myself to supertowning but considering I am currently jobless, school-free, and fixing to move across the U.S. to find myself...

Your description of your current situation sounded very responsibility-free. I guess it could have sounded slightly more responsibility-free if you had said you were going backpacking for six months in Australia, but you can see why I would assume such a thing. Of course, no offense at all was intended. And the revelation that you are The Phuncky Feel One from Piano is awesome - good to see you again!

Rbzmncaeaei, I take offense that you accuse me of not reading everything. I read everything, and bea is the one who raised my eyebrow. Unlike you, I have a job, and I have kids, and I have responsibilities, so I don't always have time to write hour-long posts that broadcast every thought I have about every post in the game. I read, I analyze, and I consider who I think is bad. I don't feel the need to respond to every conversation that has gone on in the game.

Suspect my suspicion all you want, but don't accuse me of not reading every post, because that is not true.

sig wrote: Also if a point seems misguided (which in my opinion it isn't) why go after me and not the one who originally said it? I agreed with Epi I didn't piggyback off of him, using the term piggybacking is a way to make it seem like I'm scum for agreeing with him, even if he isn't scum, this seems like a very scummy thing for you to do. I'm a weaker player and easier to get lynched, multiply people have voiced suspicions against me, and making it seem that I've been budding up to a stronger player and "piggybacking" off them will justify a Day 1 lynch against me.
find it interesting that out of everything this is what you zero in on especially since I'm not the first to say this about the RVS.

Like a 'blood in the water' kind of thing?

DrWilgy wrote:Before any quotes, I'd like to point out an initial suspicion. It never sits right with me when someone claims that they will be changing and/or playing with a different style after role cards have already been distributed. This applies to Rico, and BWT. I'm not going to go back and try to quote the comment because I'm pretty sure it was Day 0. Rico stated that he'd be more zany and BWT followed suit, almost immediately after Rico. I do not recall BWT's reasoning for claiming a more zany (zanier? zaniest? are those actual words? they don't sit right with me.) and would like to hear about this. Also, someone correct me if my memory of Day 0 events are failing me.

I believe a factor of the "zaniness" is the ongoing contest with the prize going to the person who uses the most Talking Heads in their posts. Zanier and zaniest sit fine with me, as the comparative and superlative forms of 'zany'.

Epignosis wrote:"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."

*raises hand*

You make a good point. I wanna know exactly what "quiet Epi is never a good thing" really means to FZ. I want to know why she said it exactly, a ideally with some reference points where he was a quiet baddie and it was not a good thing... or something. You know.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con, could you please point to posts by bea that do not align with her claim that "her whole argument is she doesn't know yet who is or isn't civ"? You might not buy into her refutation of your accusation, but I need more than a blank dismissal.

...unless this was the way you indicated a vote. I thought you just coloured that to get my attention, but maybe it was intended also as a vote indicator. Too subtle.

JaggedJimmyJay, I think you forgot to bold your vote for me in the thread.

For cross-reference:

Option 1: A player of your choice may ask the host whether a certain player is a certain role. That player will be told yes or no.
Option 2: All female players gain temporary BTSC for one cycle. Info-dumping and role outing is not permitted.
Option 3: Every player picks a city. Players will live in that city during the subsequent cycle.
Option 4: A player of your choice is consumed by insanity, the effects of which are unknown.
Option 5: Five players of your choice receive a rock. These rocks can be thrown at another player to block them.
Option 6: A player of your choice can use their night power twice during the subsequent Night.
Option 7: A player of your choice can track another player. During the subsequent Day, the player tracked may send a message to the tracker.
Option 8: A fake account can post and cast a vote the subsequent Day.

Day 0 Poll wrote:"Who Is It?"
2
Diiny (4), Rbzmncaeaei (42)
4%

"Girls Just Want to Be with the Girls"
5
TheFloyd73 (10), HamburgerBoy (23), espers (29), Golden (34), motel room (37)
11%

"Cities"
8
Strawhenge (5), espers (12), sanmateo (13), Metalmarsh89 (15), bcornett24 (20), seaside (30), Choutas (32), motel room (38)
17%

"The Overload"
9
Diiny (3), Metalmarsh89 (7), TheFloyd73 (8), sanmateo (14), seaside (18), HamburgerBoy (21), MacDougall (26), bcornett24 (27), JaggedJimmyJay (40)
19%

"Moon Rocks"
7
seaside (17), HamburgerBoy (22), Golden (36), motel room (39), Rbzmncaeaei (41), Choutas (44), JaggedJimmyJay (45)
15%

"Stay Up Late"
6
Diiny (2), Strawhenge (16), Metalmarsh89 (19), espers (28), Golden (35), Choutas (43)
13%

"Radio Head"
4
Strawhenge (6), TheFloyd73 (9), MacDougall (25), JaggedJimmyJay (46)
9%

"Mr. Jones"
3
MacDougall (24), bcornett24 (31), Rbzmncaeaei (47)

Ok, that's better. At first it was like an awesome punchline.

sig wrote:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

sig wrote:

Matt F wrote:

sig wrote:...I understand it is Day 1 and we have little to go on but this seems kinda very weak.

Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?

Also It could read is very weak, but it isn't very weak it just seems kinda weak. Writing is very weak is more confrontation in my opinion as well as implying it was meant to be weak. While seems kinda weak is just that is seems weak but it might not be.

This is quibbling over something very small, why if I'm civ would I right it the first way instead of the second way?

This might be small, but I've seen people get lynched for wordplay on Day 1 enough in the past.

Same as it ever was.

I agree, in that Mafia have more need to "craft" their posts than Civvies. Sig's accidental reveal that he was going back over his post before posting it to make sure it's just right is a little suspicious to me.

I always read through my posts as I'm sure you've seen my spelling and grammar skills aren't always the best when typing, especially when I type quickly. It seems as if your trying to find more reasons to find me suspicious, I've played as mafia before and while I'm not great I wouldn't have done something quite so stupid.

This is also all in regards to my wording of Seems/Kinda/Very which I've already said was a mistake on my part. This seems to me to be a desperate attempt to get me lynched.

That's an extreme thing to say. Personally, I'm neither trying to get you lynched, nor am I desperate to do so.

Your explanation as to why you would be going back over your posts makes a lot of sense to me. I have indeed noticed that your spelling and grammar skills are not the best, and I wish to correct errors every single time, but I have learned over time that it's just not worth it. Except it's "you're". Sorry!

MovingPictures07 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: All I did was go into offline mode and open up some pages from the previous day. I'm pretty sure anyone has the ability to do that.

Cheater!

I need to figure out a way to prevent this from working.

So I'm not really sure how to get around this, but I trust that everyone will not engage in this behavior, just as if I would hope that players do not break the "NO BTSC" rule.

The threads have been removed from viewing for a specific purpose, so please don't use backdoor ways to view them.

I appreciate that Metalmarsh89 was forthright about it and brought this to public attention, so despite engaging in it he will not be punished. However, going forward I would appreciate if both he and others did not do this.

Thanks!

What about taking screenshots of the polls and keeping them for reference, and saying in the thread, "As I recall, X had 4 votes and Y had 3" etc, effectively putting out the poll for public analysis?

Ricochet wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Is banter early voting common habit on RYM? I'm oscillating between reading bcornett24's vote as such and wanting to hear more from him on why he desired to make such an early vote for no serious reasons.

this vote seems to be generating some content so it seems to have served its purpose

By some content do you mean how it made some of us wonder qu'est-ce que c'est with your vote and some of us even voting for you after your move? Is this the content you imply you intended to achieve?

This post made "qu'est-ce que c'est?" ring through my mind over and over, even as I read on. I would Like this post if we had that here.

rundontwalk wrote:In RYM I like to vote for a lot of different people but I don't know how to do that here. Can we change votes?

You sure can, in this poll at least. Just bold it in the thread as well.

rundontwalk wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Posting because the host tells me I will be a non-participant if I don't.

I will read up throughout today and try to say something intelligent.

Why are you going to put so much thought in what you post? Trying to hide something? Just post your gut reads whether they are intelligent or not.

I support his decision to read up before posting suspicions.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

sig wrote:

Matt F wrote:

sig wrote:...I understand it is Day 1 and we have little to go on but this seems kinda very weak.

Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?

Also It could read is very weak, but it isn't very weak it just seems kinda weak. Writing is very weak is more confrontation in my opinion as well as implying it was meant to be weak. While seems kinda weak is just that is seems weak but it might not be.

This is quibbling over something very small, why if I'm civ would I right it the first way instead of the second way?

This might be small, but I've seen people get lynched for wordplay on Day 1 enough in the past.

Same as it ever was.

I agree, in that Mafia have more need to "craft" their posts than Civvies. Sig's accidental reveal that he was going back over his post before posting it to make sure it's just right is a little suspicious to me.

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

sig wrote:First thing first what is an ISO post?

On Diiny he does seem to be being to aggressive, tone reading his posts I don't like them and would consider voting for him this phase. As well as the way he has targeted Roxy, out of the two I'm reading Diiny as scum more so then Roxy.

Jay's responses to Diiny was interesting it seems like he is trying to offer Diiny a way out of his behavior without directly doing so. This could just be because he thinks he is a strong civilian player and trying to help a fellow forum member, however if one were to flip mafia I would be inclined to think the other is as well.

I agree with Bea sentiment to not lynch Roxy based on random posting.
I dislike Long Con's lynch vote.

linki: To Long Con I'm just the "other guy" it seems. If I was the suspicious type I would say he used this wording on purpose hoping someone would pick up on it and see it as an attempt by Long Con to distance himself from me. Which would lead players to become suspicious and eventually lynch me. Good thing I'm not the suspicious type he probably just forgot my name.

Sorry, sig, I just really couldn't remember who the third player involved was. I think it's because your name is so short and lowercase, maybe. Let's not have distance. *offers hug*

I'll go back and let you know what I saw in bea's posts.

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

If you say so. My vote is staying where it is for now.

Diiny wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Hi,

what are your thoughts on the game so far outside of bea

Hmmm... well, there's been lots of activity since I went to bed last night. I just read through it all, what sticks out in my mind? The Roxy thing is funny to me (though I don't like her use of someone else's avatar because it confuses me). I feel a bit of a dissonance, Roxy is getting harassed for saying she was going to randomize, and at the same time people are saying that Random Voting on Day 1 is a sound strategy. So which is it? I'm not a big fan of random voting myself, I'd rather read through and see what my gut says on Day 1 than throw a dart. Which is why I have a vote on bea.

I don't think it's that likely that JJJ, Epig and the other person all voted as baddies together. Too risky. The votes for JJJ and Wilgy seemed pretty natural to me, as I recall.

More opinions about Day 1 so far will have to wait until I look back over things again. I read through it once, but it hasn't all sunk in yet - it's a little harder for me to get a handle on things with all the players that are new to me, the new people kind of blend together.

Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

These vibes are already pretty tight!

Congratulations, JJJ and Wilgy!

So many bands I never listened to. R.E.M., Guns N Roses, Metallica, Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Our Lady Peace, I Mother Earth, Beck, Weezer, Rancid, Green Day... that's where I'm coming from.

And to Roxy, it is lonely without BR here!

Sorsha wrote:Ooooh... Looks like it's time to play favorites!

I'm voting Long Con for Syndicate because I think he'll be a good leader and MetalMarsh for RYM because he's actually one of us.

Also thanks Sorsh!