The Syndicate

End of the line. Must sleep = must vote. Self-prez. I'm sorry if INH won't even stay as a relevant wagon (though, technically, LoRab also said she won't return or change), but I have no choice.

See ya or sayonara, if it'll end in tears. It'd be ironic for town to mislynch me when for once Mafia isn't removing me, but oh well.

sprityo - joke/banter/FoS posts/votes, even(?) on Scotty (Glor vote), JJJ (roleplay). Says he'd rather have JJJ switch the Neil off, but doesn't actually say if he finds him suspicious for it or not (the way LoRab, for instance, mentioned a preconceived vibe). Iceskating too much already with his joke re: Wilgy / Mac team-up. Comment on Elohcin's Scotty vote also posted, but then going nowhere. Pokes Epig for his switch, but then simply (admitting himself) goes into pure hypotheticals about what makes it fishy. Lukewarm temporary stance on INH (via Sloonei's case).

Messy.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Rico, you have 3 votes it seems, so I presume I'll see more on those as I continue catching up here.

Whom would you most like to lynch if you had to save yourself? Regardless of saving yourself, whom would you most like to lynch today and why?

If I'd have to save myself, I would vote for the player in the counter-wagon. (Although that won't help me one bit at the moment.)

I dunno in regard to your second question, both because I'm outta here in 20 minutes, so I'll probably self-prez, and because I looked at some players without finding many spots.

Finished LoRab, don't see much here atm. Why you suss her, Doc?

Her Day 1 seems stuck in limbo a bit, but the fact that she goes for pings instead of forming strong(er) reads is within her character. That being said, the one ping mentioned (on JJJ roleplaying) sounds a bit of an easy pick (as in being principled that "baddies could hide behind roleplaying"; yet baddies hiding, masking their play is somehow the entire premise of this game, no? at times, some baddies could well hide under the most orderly, contributive activity ever), but she didn't ultimately pedal on it or anything. Her D2 focus on INH is the kind of grip on something she didn't like and did not improve upon rebuttals that I'd also expect from her. The only worrying aspect is that I don't recall her argumenting if INH fits the profile of a baddie who would both prod and dispose during the Night of the same target. I'm not sure if this is a relevant angle for her (she only argued that it's unlikely Epig's death was sacrificial from within the mafia, which is kinda null observation), compared to going by pings, but it'd be notable to know if it would make sense at all for her.

Ok, so feeling groggy unfocused after the long day I had. I'll take a look for the next hour or so (though I expect heavy content on players like INH or LoRab), but then it's bed time. Give me Day 3 to live, brothers and sisters, and I'll make up for it. Now's not the time to witness me. Valhalla can wait.

Happy birthday, LoRab. G-Man just posted a poll thread, with the D1 results.

Yo

I'll be around for the next couple of hours, but no more than that. Have to wake up at 6:30 tomorrow to go teach to a 2nd grade brat who won't even be in the mood for me to teach him. Oh life.

Can we do something about me not getting mislynched? Don't come in later and kill me in my sleep, please, leave that duty to Mac, he enjoys doing it more. Zebra and Mac sank their teeth in this good boi m.a.a.d. town material, I'm less sure why DrWilgy followed suit. His stuff is mostly gut this, gut that. He also seems to have adopted the Golden Philosophy in saying he's glad Epig is off his worry list by getting killed, which is kinda g.r.o.s.s.

Glorfindel - has taken my side on the valiant noble quest to take down MacMad, but let's review his actual reasons:

-- "happy to throw a vote Mac's way - for the Shu tribe!" >>> jokey / basically his own brand of policy, revenge lynch
-- lynching him would mathematically fall into a 21% chance of success >>> I'd say this POV is as irksome as anyone, in any game, bringing up stats to describe any kind of impulse to hunt or not for baddies D1
-- had nothing concrete on others >> surely it was too early, though, to leave it at that and voting Mac for meta wasn't exactly "concrete" either
-- finds the odds increased by reading some good, but not Mac; invokes once more the "fool me once" perspective >>> rather faulty for 1) not specifying which players he found good (see below) and 2) deflecting a bit Jay's original question, whether he finds Mac suspicious at all or not
-- comes back with an answer on which players he reads good (Jay and myself) >>> uhm ok

Well I'm not the one to talk about latching on to a Mac vote for Day 1, heh, but his reasons are not quite as principled as I regard my own to have been. He insisted on the idea only when inquired (JJJ), but the whole "bitten once, never game" argumentation is not serious in any way. I'd give a minus for the stats POV and never return to a search for "something concrete" to suspect other players for - although this could well be related to how much time he had to be around. His townleans are a bit, ech, easy, handy: me being the player he voted alongside and Jay being the player he had to conversate with and answer questions to.

Now, as for Mac's meta theory, about Glorfindel being conditioned to struggle if an agent of corruption: for one, I'm the kind of person to believe that anyone can build up a persona of deception or try to put on a good show if rolling mafia and that that wouldn't Glorfindel, despite his "wouldn't hurt a fly" / "why can't we be friends" traits. Would I put him on the radar right now, for the relative thinness in his stances and reads? Sure. Is it telling that he is not yet exhibiting "force of nature" like hunt mode? I'd call it premature. Would I say I find him angsty or such in what he provided or providing more? No, some of his other posts, while of the fluff kind, strike as normal, amiable.

Bye now. Try not to make 10 pages of Rico this Rico that by the time I reappear.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.

What isn't, as far as you're concerned.

"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.

As far as I'm concerned what isn't a damning post are the types of posts I'm generally seeing from all of my town reads and most of my neutral reads.

There's a slight disconnect between those types of posts and yours, and it's neither stylistic nor personal.

Yep it's called bias.

I'm not bad, so Jay had nothing to worry about rightfully defending me. Of course, he'd know I'm not, in that case...

I find it ironic to be blamed for toDay's fuckery when I said I'll move on and then about seven more pages of two hounders throwing poo and drumming on the subject were written.

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.

What isn't, as far as you're concerned.

"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.

You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.

If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.

>actually get to work
>not enough, needs more cowbell

Oh how surprising, coming from the hounders who must desperately want to see me gone.

Mad Mac.

MacMad.

Tru. I did some and will try some more later this evening. If nothing notable related to the victims, I'll focus on the other wagon or on requests, such as LoRab.

DrWilgy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:*wake up*
*read the last three pages*

Rico discuss with me how Lorab is totally not on your team, and discuss with me how Lorab is bad.

Later. What are her bad tells, for you?

Elsewhere, zebra is putting so much prosecuting work into my case, it's hard to believe she'd be that overt in trying to dig me up. Labeling is ok for now

Issuing a slight baddie, for realsies, on Mac. I've not remembered a single non-Rico read from him so far toDay, except if in conjunction with how people react to my situation.

Jay was entirely reasonable in what he pointed out. I expressed intent to move on, even if maintaining a bitter tone. You then came in only fixating on the latter to make me look like I'm drumming and planning nothing else. Now you keep at it with endless paragraphs. Ech.

Your vote is meant to look principled (Imma vote uu if u keep this up) and angery, but it doesn't hold up in context.

MacDougall wrote:Both Zebra and Motel Room have summed up my thoughts fairly well. Motel Room has drawn the same conclusions of Ricochet's play that has led to me reading the way I have, which is why I voted for Ricochet and Zebra explained exactly why I posted my first day 2 post when I dead, because I had stopped reading Rico's shit. Ricochet continuing to be antagonistic towards me on day 2 after dropping the policy lynch doesn't make me feel good as Mafia. Ricochet as well as the majority of the thread continuing discourse the involves me is annoying as fuck and my opening day 2 post reflects that, which Zebra adequately pointed out. Dom pointing out that the Ricochet/Mac stuff being unnoteworthy is also how I feel. It is annoying the fuck out of me that it continues.

Ricochet annoyed me for trying to policy lynch me day 1. I ain't about that life. That it started to bleed into day 2 started to . My first post reflected that. Zebra read well that I had stopped really reading his shit. Ricochet was not bad for it, but it definitely emotionally affected me. There is no way to say that bad rico wouldn't do it, or good rico is more likely because rico declared that he would do it before the game even started. He was all in on doing so before he drew a rolecard. So his day 1 policy lynch stuff is an absolute null.

Ricochet continuing to be hostile to me after that makes me think he is bad. I don't see any reason why he would feel the need to be antagonistic towards me, or make the post like "continue to kill whoever you want" if he is to be reverting to having a null read of me, which he should be. Motel Room did a good job pointing this out.

I think JJJ is trying to dig his scum teammate out of the shit tbh. It's easy to say "oh wifom as if he'd do that as bad" just as it's easy to say that he wouldn't have killed Epignosis, I love how he immediately ruled out the potential of he and a myriad of other players being responsible for the death of Epi because of interacting with him on the night immediately preceding Epi's death. I think JJJ is bad and is playing a very straight bat and leaning on wifom to throw us off. It's exactly how Wilgy and me play scum and tbh the fact that he referred to us as exponents of it makes me think he is extremely conscious that he is employing Maclike scum tactics in this game.

So far if I was to bucket people I would say I am reading Motel Room, Zebra, Dom and INH as civ because I can understand just about everything from them, there is no spin and it's easy to follow, and I am reading JJJ and Rico as bad because I can't rationalise some of their stuff. Everyone else is fairly neutral with the exception of Sloonei who I am gut reading bad but haven't got much in thread evidence to lean on. I think Dom is probably good.

MacDougall wrote:Both Zebra and Motel Room have summed up my thoughts fairly well. Motel Room has drawn the same conclusions of Ricochet's play that has led to me reading the way I have, which is why I voted for Ricochet and Zebra explained exactly why I posted my first day 2 post when I dead, because I had stopped reading Rico's shit. Ricochet continuing to be antagonistic towards me on day 2 after dropping the policy lynch doesn't make me feel good as Mafia. Ricochet as well as the majority of the thread continuing discourse the involves me is annoying as fuck and my opening day 2 post reflects that, which Zebra adequately pointed out. Dom pointing out that the Ricochet/Mac stuff being unnoteworthy is also how I feel. It is annoying the fuck out of me that it continues.

MacDougall wrote: Ricochet continuing to be antagonistic towards me on day 2 after dropping the policy lynch doesn't make me feel good as Mafia.

MacDougall wrote:as Mafia

I bet.

*wake up*
*read the last three pages*

Mkay, time is proving sadly very limited, since I have classes in the morning, and tomorrow's schedule will be even harder, so let me see what I can dig up for the next hour or so.

Scotty - the voters

a2thezebra - threw an early vote on Scotty for his pingy comment on Glorfindel; refuses the elaborate to Sloonei, calls the vote obvious; reiterates Scotty as "lesser extent" bad read (compared to me); final vote on Scotty (switched from me) including in the reasoning not just the Glorvote, but the "shenanigans with Epignosis"; chooses Scotty over me due to scaling the suspicion "very confident Scotty is bad"; post-lynch apologetics, although still criticizing how Scotty handled the defending process.
==============
Pingvote for Glorfindel remarks sounds like something zebra would do, even the refusal to elaborate doesn't surprise me, however far less to be content about the interaction with Epignosis simply popping up in her final vote reasoning. If Zebra would have been as pinged by Scotty-Epig "shenanigans" as others, I'd have expected to see at least a few lines of inquiry/pressuring/suss'ing.

As for Epig connection, she read him civ at the end of D1, but then things got sour (arguably the more Epig deflected rebuting) during the Night convo, with him becoming a suspect for his vote switch. Her argumentation around why would baddie Epig even bother to move his vote, knowing others would jump on him for it, seems to resemble the routine "you'd do this to smokescreen / mislead town" interpretation that my behaviour also received. But I'm reading all this null or at least with slight incredulity in light of Epig's death i.e. not picking any signs why zebra would have felt the need to both engage Epignosis and need him killed right away.

So her final Scotty vote is a bit FoS-worthy, the rest... not so much.

==============

Elohcin - 1 x "I can see where scotty can be bad", upon switching from BWT to him. Kewl.

As for Epig interactions: post-D1-lynch, half-banter-ish comment on her having become a suspect simply for Epig having called her out; questions his vote switch; elaborates her feel that Epig's poke at her was easy to be followed by others and that he should have had more on her than mere fluff comments

Going deeper: her BWT 'self-preservation" vote was attributed to thinking Day would end after 24h. Mkay, but one thing I noticed is that she acknowledged that she could have voted either BWT or Mac... so why was her choice BWT - Incidentally, I'm not sure I have to a perfect spreadsheet of the vote evolution, but from what I have, Mac had two votes, she had two votes and she bumped BWT to having two votes as well (oh wait, she claimed later that BWT had already two votes, which I'm missing from my sheet tbh, whose vote was the second one?); so if this is correct, how is tying yourself with two others self-preservation effecient?

Her input on JJJ's roleplay thingy comes off indeed a bit wordy and thought rummaging, but I'm not sure it's an element that could dissociate very well between tryhard inputmaker baddie Elohcin and topic-grasping regular Elohcin.

FoS for sheer bandwagoning on Scotty. It's only deserving for such a move to receive ping marks.

==============

JaggedJimmyJay - first mention of Scotty is him straight up two spots away from bottom rainbow; ok. how so?

The rest was pretty much picking up Epig's issues and elaborating to the pointof bringing up meta and possible dungooferry from baddie Scotty all over again. I got no vibe from this atm, argumentation seems as elaborate as one would expect from the Jay. Meta charges would be a tad dubious, as they would be an easy tool to dig the victim further and make the case seem more consistent, but in this case the pattern really seemed to strike resemblance, it seems.

As for Epig interacti- oh look at that it's 1am, I'm not going through 83 Jay posts. Tomorro, if necessary.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm just going to say this: Ricochet might be my top town read. I don't understand the suspicion of him at all. It's a square circle.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Did I say I am?

You've got nothing to fret about anymore, you can kill whomever you like now, nobody gives a damn.

What a hollow finger-waggy statement to make, right after the very post in which I clearly stated I would focus on proper leads.

So you DO think he's bad? Since you think he's killing people.

Epi was an odd choice for an NK with the end of the lynch going down as it did. Time to reread him.

No. Should I have inserted a "in case you are bad" in there? Guess I should have.

S~V~S wrote:P.s. Rico~ I think ANY baddie team EXCEPT one that included you or Mac would have killed you for the lulz as well as the chance to frame Mac. To me the NK of someone other than you implies a team with either you or Mac on it.

It doesn't imply, it could imply. I'm not bad, so you can consider Mac, if that's your angle.

Or you can consider the mafia not touching this to plant this exact impression you've written above.

Or you can consider the mafia now considers me (maybe Mac as well) an apple unhealthy enough not to let dangle in front of town. Wouldn't surprise me. Yes, framing kill on either of us could create context, but a free mislynch/town washing their hands with town opportunity would be just as convenient.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

My name is Ricochet and I approve this joke and reference. Well done.

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Did I say I am?

You've got nothing to fret about anymore, you can kill whomever you like now, nobody gives a damn.

What a hollow finger-waggy statement to make, right after the very post in which I clearly stated I would focus on proper leads.

You are being so antagonistic I find it hard to believe it isn't an act. I can't believe a genuine you would be so hostile.

Oh, that's it? Took you one pokey post to switch from "If you are planning on pushing my policy lynch again I am going to vote for you". Noice.

Did I say I am?

You've got nothing to fret about anymore, you can kill whomever you like now, nobody gives a damn.

What a hollow finger-waggy statement to make, right after the very post in which I clearly stated I would focus on proper leads.

Good morning. What we're up to, wanting to lynch another townie, I see?

DrWilgy wrote:I don't think Rico is the type to lose sight of what would gain him advantage in the game for a policy lynch.

What would gain me advantage in the game? Making omelettes?

Oh, you must mean that thingy with lists and lots of words and sometimes use of skittles, right? Well, perhaps I've started to feel that's futile, given how quickly and often I've found myself at the bottom of the lake for it (psst, the "perhaps" is just for talk, I have sure stats on that). Including recent confirmation that some baddie players would do that for who I am. Not how I played, or how much I was on to them. Who I am.

a2thezebra wrote:Notice how the quotebox begins with Mac and MP agreeing that Rico is just generating content, with the implication being that they perceive him as a wild card town. That isn't good enough for Rico, so he challenges MP. You can see here that he is in fact not focused on generating content at all but rather generating distractions from genuine scum-hunting efforts, and hogging all the attention by making the thread about his personal beef with Mac that he talks as if it were shared universally by everyone else.

Must have missed the implication. The fact that Mac at one point comment "oh Rico, he so whacky on D1; moving on" does not necessarily imply that he read me town. For all we know, he might have easily deflect my whole barking at him with that one simple line.

Back to that multi-quote with MP, I'd argue that challenging MP there was, ironically, an attempt of generating content, because I felt him jumping easily on Mac's premise that I read Mac well, therefore should resort to doing that. I focused on believing MP to agree with that part, not the generating content part.

Sloonei wrote:I want to get behind the idea of Rico as a baddie, but I just fail to see the baddie motivation behind his Day 1 play. Why did scum Rico do all that stuff?

See, this fella gets it. Must have asked this same question about a dozen times already.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't remember ever seeing a baddie Ricochet in his own skin. Something tells me that WIFOM salad wouldn't be his most likely approach to tricking a roster full of high effort players (in his first baddie game in a long while as far as I know), most of whom are likely town. He'd be more likely to wear his Long Winded Analyst hat and try to appear as one of the team.

If this is what a bad Rico looks like, that's pretty lame. I actually think he looks rather similar to Red vs. Blue, when he basically did whatever the hell he wanted as a townie and didn't give a damn what anyone else said about it.

I think it's harder to explain his behavior from a scum perspective than from a town perspective. For the moment I favor Occam's Razor.

See, this fella gets it.

I don't have other "online activities" anymore, so I may well work on picking up some leads. Assuming two out of every three new posts of mine won't need to be further defending, for an opportunity that was entirely wasted on D1, supported by nobody except one other person, "distracting" nobody except two voters from pursuing and locking on their own leads for that Day. Much manipulation. Clever baddie, I must be.

insertnamehere wrote:Yes, I would.

k

insertnamehere wrote:Mac has done absolutely nothing to form any impression one way or the other in my mind. To me, a Mac vote would be as productive as a BWT vote. Just throwing a dart and hoping it lands. Seeing as you started your case against Mac before you could even possibly get an actual legitimate read on him...

Again, we're talking a policy lynch. Not forming impressions, not making a case. I feel we're talking different languages here, just like my conversations with a few others also went, back on D1.

insertnamehere wrote: ...I took that to mean that you wanted to lynch Mac just on the 4/19 chance that he's a baddie which automatically means that he'll NK you, because you know Mac well enough to predict his exact baddie game in every single instance. Apparently.

Not so much prediction, as the motto "Imma kill everyone I hate playing/facing against" sounding like something the player in question could operate under again. Preventing this doesn't mean certainty that he would do it; it would create certainty of there being 0% chance of him doing it.

insertnamehere wrote:b) ...I meant starting a lynch train/wagon/party/turducken against a person you know is a civilian, but doing so in a way where it won't backfire against you once his alignment is revealed.

I don't see this as a valid perspective, because mafia-me doing this, with full knowledge, to civ-Mac would set me up for any sort of backfiring, if it'd work out. I could not reasonably expect this gambit to go smoothly for mafia-me, ergo I wouldn't do it at all.

insertnamehere wrote:c) By backfire, I mean that in the scenario in which Rico = Bad, and Mac = Civ, after Rico lynches Mac, Rico can point to his personal motive for targeting him and shift the blame on other more ostensibly opportunistic parties. Making completely "personal" game moves is a good smokescreen and a nice way to avoid culpability.

This, on the other hand, is a theory/profiling that has some logic to it, so good job finding a possible angle.

insertnamehere wrote:Does the fact that you weren't instantly nightkilled make you slightly less gung-ho about getting Mac out?

IIRC, you were the only who labeled me as "sure kill N1" for what I've done, so you tell me. I'm not sure how to interpret the nightkill, because I don't view things as black and white as "mafia should normally do something about the Mac-Rico relation to seed thoughts into town's head afterwards".

That's not how you spell Ricochet.

insertnamehere wrote:Also, @ Rico showing up in the thread, after ignoring my criticism of his Mac-centered hurlyburly, to criticize me for not making sense.

Do the two topics need to be related? Is pointing out something in real time not admissable, unless I've covered everything in the past?

As for your reply pointed out, given its lateness in my time zone, I might have very well missed it indeed. Do you still want rebuttals on it?

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

What do you mean by forced? On Day 1? With no public coercer role?

sprityo, why you have a pizza on your head

I see that Mac is still alive...

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to say that voting for MacDougall for whatever he did in a completely different game is lousy.

Myes, if only the implication of his actions wouldn't extend beyond one game.

S~V~S wrote:
Generically. You answered and at length, but you really did not say anything. You feel better about one person who had a discussion than the other, but you are not saying you suspect her, either. You have the third most posts in the thread, but are claiming "too busy" and seem to have plenty of defense time.

If you did not have to vote to defend, who would you vote for?

You put the blame on me for not writing something substantial in a post that started with "dunno" to your earlier inquiry on whether I have leads.

The posting has all to do with having to expand on my policy. I posted exactly as many times as said work and other online activities have permitted.

I am not voting to defend, my vote was among the first in the phase. I am perfectly fine with my vote.

So the only person you suspect is Mac? And you have said you don't actually suspect him, iirc.

I am going to vote for you now; a friend is coming over to watch Westworld. I will pop back before deadline to see if there were any new developments.

Voting *RICO*

Did I say suspect? Was my vote based on suspicion?

Enjoy your evening.

Epignosis wrote:I just want to say that voting for MacDougall for whatever he did in a completely different game is lousy.

Myes, if only the implication of his actions wouldn't extend beyond one game.

S~V~S wrote:
Generically. You answered and at length, but you really did not say anything. You feel better about one person who had a discussion than the other, but you are not saying you suspect her, either. You have the third most posts in the thread, but are claiming "too busy" and seem to have plenty of defense time.

If you did not have to vote to defend, who would you vote for?

You put the blame on me for not writing something substantial in a post that started with "dunno" to your earlier inquiry on whether I have leads.

The posting has all to do with having to expand on my policy. I posted exactly as many times as said work and other online activities have permitted.

I am not voting to defend, my vote was among the first in the phase. I am perfectly fine with my vote.

Don't wash your hands with me, town, and don't let the mafia wash their hands via lynch instead of having to kill me. The crazy one is not always the bad one. I tried something and it burst in flames, I'll refocus tomorrow (and then probably face quick nightdeath for my "good behaviour and input", as always, and get on with it). If you don't have a clear profile on how I would possibly behave like this and also hope to gain anything as a baddie, you'll be merely willing to punch that free mislunch and clear the air a bit imo. That is all I can say anymore at 1:25am.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:sup

S~V~S wrote:Not even a ping?

Dunno. From my experience, mafia can punch a free lunch ticket on cray Rico; not all of them, but some could. Of my current voters, I feel better about the logic brought by INH in his questioning than with zebra's. Of the other players I'm tied (or nearly tied) with right now, not named MacDougall, I've been swamped with classes today and another online activity to follow up properly. BWT is having half a policy lynch of his own, right? Not going to flip a coin on what the inactive might prove, tbh. What's the summary on Elohcin and Scotty?

You know what? You sound just like bad me here. Identical. Had to look out the window to make sure I am not in Nauru.

How so and for what?

sup

S~V~S wrote:Not even a ping?

Dunno. From my experience, mafia can punch a free lunch ticket on cray Rico; not all of them, but some could. Of my current voters, I feel better about the logic brought by INH in his questioning than with zebra's. Of the other players I'm tied (or nearly tied) with right now, not named MacDougall, I've been swamped with classes today and another online activity to follow up properly. BWT is having half a policy lynch of his own, right? Not going to flip a coin on what the inactive might prove, tbh. What's the summary on Elohcin and Scotty?

insertnamehere wrote:
A baddie Rico going after Mac seems way more likely to me. Manufacturing outrage over a previous game, while starting a bus against a civ in a way that'd be hard to backfire. Purely emotional plays are hard for civilians to dispute, even when they lynch a civ.

I didn't express any "outrage" at first. I expressed a policy lynch. Of course, I had to explain context, when inquired afterwards.
And how can this so-called "outrage" be manufactured, if it's certified to stem from a past game?

Further down your phrase:
a) how would this lynch be against a civ? Do you know Mac to be a civ? Do you think that, at any point, I said lynch Mac no matter what he is?
b) how can one "bus" a civilian?
c) how would this be "hard" to backfire? Isn't it already backfiring?

insertnamehere wrote: I guess it's easier for me to buy that Rico is cannily faking a purely emotional case against Mac as a smokescreen, than it is for me to buy that Rico is purposefully being petty and irrational.

I dunno. Maybe I'm overestimating him.

You are. I would not require any canny move to deal with my "emotions", if part of mafia.

insertnamehere wrote: This whole thing is one big cask of WIFOM. If Rico was mafia, which is a phrase that irritates me, I could definitely him you going after Mac in the thread as a smokescreen for any other actions. Yes, he could go tit-for-tat and NK Mac, but maybe his team doesn't want to necessarily follow his disdain-filled agenda.

But, your mileage may vary on how you interpret Rico's actions. But right now, he's the person whose giving me the scummiest signals, and where my vote's going today.

I would ask for you to clarify your first paragraph, because I fail to understand much of it. There even seem to be missing verbs or mixed up pronouns between Mac and myself, at least in my perception. And it makes me feel you did not address the "Rico must be bad for what he's doing now" scenario in any way.

Highlighted by your "Rico is most scummy, ergo lynch" finale. The so called "scummy" (behaviour/signal/what be it) is proven to not automatically equate mafia and out here there's a tendency to get trigger happy with this.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

Epignosis wrote:If MacDougall can't kill you, then he can't kill you. And if he can kill you, all he has to do is...refrain from doing so. If you were good, you've opened yourself up to being killed to set up MacDougall.

Not helpful.

This.

Rico has set up a very risky system here. He's intentionally put a massive target on his back. If neither Rico or Mac are bad, all the mafia has to do is kill Rico, and they get a free lynch of Mac. This same logic gives Mac a smokescreen to hide behind if he is, in fact, bad. In both scenarios, Rico = Dead N1.

It seems like such a categorically poor move for Rico that it essentially leaves me with two options. A. He has some sort of secret info or an ulterior motive for voting Mac Day 1. B. He knows for sure that the target on his back won't hurt him because he's scum.

Or C. He's acting irrationally as a civilian.

That happens more often than one would think.

Isn't it a mad world out there anyway?

a2thezebra wrote:Or more specifically, your willingness to acknowledge that that is indeed your fringe opinion and still act like it's in any way logical.

But it's how I feel. Paranoia isn't exactly a logical act.

@SVS: Can't say that I do atm. Who should I look into?

Where's the "contrarianism"?

a2thezebra wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So you are saying that he makes you so paranoid that you cannot deal with him being alive without factual knowledge that he is a civ?

I am.

This feels like forced bluntless mixed with unnecessary contrarianism. Knowing Ricochet that could be just for fun but I don't like it.

Contrarianism... in a post in which I agreed with someone...

Nicely spot.

MacDougall wrote:My job in that game as selected by dice roll was to kill people not in my faction and survive. Killing you was my right and duty.

In this game assuming you are a civ your job is to find bad guys and lynch them. Something you are utterly failing at right now both literally and figuratively.

My God, it's as if policy lynch is an alien concept to you.

there's no hunting in it

there's just the desire to remove the threat of you being bad again and activate your purging once more

@Neil

It must be just me, probably, but "I killed because of your potential" must rank among the least pleasing reasons to find oneself removed. If it's true, you and I and others wouldn't live two phases into any game, as town. You argue it's flattering, or honorable, but it's not. Not if there was no actual challenge, no actual threat. Just an expulsion based on "potential".

I'm willing to do an experiment at any time, even in this game. PM me if you are not in the mood to "face me". I'm dead serious. It will remain confidential, my feelings will not get hurt in any way, I'll replace immediately, I won't lose anything and I'll go back to my busy RL. I'm tired of devoting serious time even for 48 hours, only to get removed for it and nothing else.

Or I'll play like chichkenshit, which frankly some of you have already seen me do. Facing me is suddenly not so much of a problem anymore, in that case.

And? How does that change anything? He's facing me right now, as well. We all face each other in a game, if we end up on different sides. That's about as general as it gets.

He was very specific that he massmurdered all the players he hated playing against. Not players that were beginning to sniff him up (which I wasn't). Players he doesn't want disturbing him, at any point.

Sloonei wrote: I do not see your policy lynch on Mac as being anything different from the "truly salty" reasons you allude to here. I do not see this as a self-preserving move. I see it more as a paranoid move. You fear that Macdougall might nightkill you. Any player might nightkill you, and Macdougall might nightkill any player. Your reasoning then is just a bizarre paranoia about a particular player, and this seems to stem from what happened in a previous game. Thus salt. You've provided the reasons why you feel this way but they do not justify the idea of a policy lynch, yet you seem to be acting like everyone should just let it slide or even join in with you. I'm not gonna do that.

I'm not trying to fend off nightkills. I'm trying to fend off being nightkilled on grounds of being hated as a player. Which so far only Mac has confessed to wanting to do. I'm confused how this isn't self-prez in your view.

Sloonei wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Yes, there's no high degree of helpfulness to this method. It's a declared policy lynch, which is never as substantiated as squuezing neurons to read into a player for mafia tells. And it's personal, which I also never denied.

Then why make this your opening play?

Cuz I wanted to start off with this?

Sloonei wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

One thing I can disagree with is that this crayons me bad in any way. If I were part of the mafia team, I'd have nothing to fear about getting killed... by the mafia. If I were mafia and lnew Mac is town, my retribution could easily take another form, without any mention in the thread obviously. As for the ideas of either framing or bussing Mac, they'd seem highly ineffectual as long-term plotting. And I'm a long-term kind of strategist.

So yeah, one could say this basically clears me as town. You're welcome, PoE makers.

"If I were mafia, I'd..." is WIFOM Central. I think there is plenty of reason to speculate about you at this point in the game, and I don't think denying it is doing you any favors.

[/quote]

I wasn't denying, I was arguing about plausability in regards to INH's two-point speculation about me being bad (and also SVS's buss theory). Everyonr's free to speculate, but baddie reading also needs to reach a conclusion that the suspect would pull those moves in a plausible way. Refute my points above one by one and tell me how I'd make sense as mafia.

There was also another paragraph, but I lost it in the phone quoting, blah.

So I can't have my policy lynch for once, got it. Glad it's been a non-issue in the past when players pull it for truly shallow/salty reasons, but when I do it out of principle and self-prez, stop the presses.

Damn if I play serious and, as far as recent stats have shown, get remove before seeing another daylight, damn if I don't.

I agree with Epig and INH thoughts that this matter is also Catch22ish, since it's something the mafia could weave, but hopefully the mafia will seek its own agenda after how D1 events shape up, in case Mac's not a part of it, or even if he is, they might choose not to follow his disdain-filled agenda. So projecting how the Mafia will behave is as loose as ever, at this point.

Yes, there's no high degree of helpfulness to this method. It's a declared policy lynch, which is never as substantiated as squuezing neurons to read into a player for mafia tells. And it's personal, which I also never denied.

One thing I can disagree with is that this crayons me bad in any way. If I were part of the mafia team, I'd have nothing to fear about getting killed... by the mafia. If I were mafia and lnew Mac is town, my retribution could easily take another form, without any mention in the thread obviously. As for the ideas of either framing or bussing Mac, they'd seem highly ineffectual as long-term plotting. And I'm a long-term kind of strategist.

So yeah, one could say this basically clears me as town. You're welcome, PoE makers.

Oh, and on MP, I have so far "hoping on lynches he doesn't even share the same views on" and "agreeing with my suss'd deflections without argumentation". Neither are ideal, clean moves, but they're also far from portraying MP alignment-wise.