The Syndicate

LoRab wrote:Great game. Quin, you were a great BTSC partner.

MM, sorry we didn't believe the results of that check. The other piece was that we couldn't figure out why you would have survived a lynch, since that role had no secrets--and since Trice's role didn't include a lynch survival, we assumed that it was you that survived (which turned out to be correct, but it didn't dawn on us--or at least me, that it could have been because of another role).

I knew I was taking a risk in checking 3J--alas. We also had fun with outing ourselves (within the rules). Didn't dawn on us that we'd lose a day.

But, hey--all risks are just that.

Fun game. Well deserved win.

Wait! So my only suspect was the person I was trying to establish BTSC with?

sig wrote:sloonie! Are you the serial killer?

No.

Epignosis wrote:WIIACIISSRVGAOZJOSERLMGRRUKSHOH

Fake.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The trend continues with LoRab: limited opportunities to play the game are spent in self-defense.

Though I've become mostly uninvolved in this game, my confidence about this LoRab case is pretty strong. But I have read nothing since my last.

Sloonei wrote:I accidentally committed myself to 3 mafia games all at once. Sorry for being disappeared.

I'm also going to be out of the house for most of the day tomorrow and will be nowhere near the internet when the deadline comes. The other two games I'm involved in are smaller and shorter than this one, so I shouldn't be distracted for too long. But in the meantime I won't be able to do my usual thing here, I apologize.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Golden wrote:SIG
SLOONEI
TIMMER
TRICE
Good
God
Good
Good

You confront me, my child?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Golden wrote:SLOONEI
Bad

I'd respond to this, but I'm silenced.

I accidentally committed myself to 3 mafia games all at once. Sorry for being disappeared.

A Person wrote:hello mafia players!

Hello. Do you have any thoughts on anything that is happening in this game right now?

Correction:

Notice too the first segment of the above post, where she questions INH from a post he had made.

She is questioning Wilgy, not INH. I'm getting my lynch victims from this game mixed up.

So that we have a reference from Mad Max, I've pulled out a couple LoRab posts from that game that I think highlight the differences between here and there. Before I get into this, I want to reiterate that Mad Max and GY!BE have two totally different setups, so it's not unreasonable to think that Townie LoRab would behave differently in both games. That being said, her behavior is worth looking into, and I'm doing this just so others can judge it in their own light.

LoRab posts in Mad Max: Post 1, Post 2

Snippet from Post 1:

Spoiler: show

She doesn't give much in the way of strong reads, but she does at least make direct and specific references to events in the thread and offers comments on them, even if they amount to nothing more than Neutral reads in her book. That is good, substantive posting which I appreciated. Same thing in Post 2:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Glad Epi is dead. I was gut feeling him as bad and this makes my life easier.

Someone tl;dr me for day/night 1.
So, a civ is very likely dead and you are glad about it? Hrm.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:You didn't explicitly accuse him, true. But you implied suspicion. And to say, yeah--i didn't really suspect him, and he was just frustrating, quite honestly, doesn't make you look all that good.
So you believe they spent Night 1 accusing Epignosis and then killed him? What's the objective?
Shits and giggles? So that we'll all wonder why Epi? WIFOM? Quite honestly, I brought it up as a question to see what their current thoughts were and how they had changed with Epi's death. INH's response seemed defensive, when I hadn't raised suspicion. And to say that Epi was just frustrating in life and in death didn't ring true.

Sloonei wrote:
LoRab wrote:Curious to see what Zebra and INH have to say now that Epi was killed by mafia. And highly unlikely, in a speed game, that mafia would kill one of their own night 1. So....wanting responses there.
I am still curious what you have to say about all of the proceedings from Day 1. What's your take on things? You asked a few questions during the latter half of the day, but never gave any indication as to where you were leaning, then missed the vote. What were your thoughts as Day 1 was unfolding?
I still read the Rico/Mac thing as neutral on both sides. I neither suspect nor think eithe civ as a result. I did think Scotty was civ, but wasn't around to post about it. Quite honestly, I'm not sure where I would have voted. My brain was also in a fog at the time, so I need to reread day 1 in order to have more thoughts on it.

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:DrWilgy, do you have any other gut and/or vibe-based reads you would like to share?
The only other player that I have thought about is Sprityo, whom I gut read as bad.

I like your analysis of Rico. I'd like an answer from Rico as to why he thought to interject here. Not sure if this has been explained yet or not, but I'm not willing to go back and check.

Zebra, how would you respond to me voting Rico right now?

Sloonei, mind telling me the exchange that interested you most?
Elohcin's response to Neil Hartley early in the game is something I've been getting hung up on. Something about it strikes me as a feigned effort to appear confused for the sake of casting speculation. I am wary of people who latch onto roleplay as a basis for suspicion early on. LoRab did the same thing, if I remember correctly. I suppose those are the two that I'm thinking about most at the moment, but it's been a slow start for me and I'm still not out of the preliminary reads stage of the process.
Role playing in games always pings me. I wasn't latching onto it, merely mentioning it as a ping. I realize that it doesn't ping everyone, but it does me and always has. It's an easy thing to hide behind. We all read into posts differently and find different things suspicious. That's something that sets off my suspiciometer. Not sure how that makes me suspicious, but I'm not going to change my game because things I do make people suspect me. If that were my nature, I'd play entirely differently, lol (but it wouldn't be me and it wouldn't be fun). Would you rather I not mention things that I notice in the thread? And, for the record, I'm not suspecting JJJ at the moment, as his posts have demonstrated him to be more than a facade.

Again, while she does not manufacture any strong reads early in the game (these posts are from Days 1 & 2 of Mad Max, I believe), she is forthcoming and honest with her thoughts. She lets us know where her head is at and what she's working on. Notice too the first segment of the above post, where she questions INH from a post he had made. I've not seen any direct questioning like that out of LoRab in this game.

Now compare that forthcomingness to her responses to similar questions in this game:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:
Sloonei wrote:If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.
No, it was clear. But it was after you had poked me for a while, and I lost motivation. And, please, show me where I said I was uninformed about the game? I said at one point I skipped 5 pages, but that didn't have to do with that post. So, please, where did I say I was uninformed (other than those pages, which were not directly attached to the lynch or my post lynch post)?

I have been offering thoughts as the game has gone on. If those thoughts aren't good enough for you, that's not my problem. I'm not going to change the way I play to please you. No, I don't have a lot of suspicions--I'm not going to make them up for the sake of stating suspicions. That's not how I roll.

I don't post things for the purpose of people being able to read me. If they can read me, that's fine. If they can't, then they can't. My primary purpose is figuring out the game. Not getting killed is also a goal, but honestly, it's not generally my primary focus. My primary focus is getting baddies figured out and getting them killed, and in order to do so, figuring out some of the game mechanics in order to figure out how to best make the game work.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).
It's all good. I mean, when someone is being suspected, someone saying their thoughts is appreciated. And I don't fault people for saying I'm awesome. I mean civ. Saying I'm civ.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.
That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?
Fair enough. I can see where you got that--but it's not like he said that when he took a step back he thought I was suspicious--just that he would vote for me. But, yeah--an answer would be nice.

Thoughts, anyone?

Moving my vote back to LoRab, for real this time, because I share all the beefs Jay outlined here. I like all of these points and want LoRab to respond to the post in full, but the point I am getting most hung up on is the difference between GY!BE LoRab and Mad Max LoRab:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spoiler: show
LoRab wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.
In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.
You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.
Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

That has been my thought exactly in my back-and-forths with LoRab in this game, but I have been hesitant to lean definitively one way or the other because this game is different from Mad Max. In that game, all townies could win regardless of whether or not they lived to the end we had little to no role secrets. Players could be as free and open as they wanted to be. That is not the case here.
Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?
What convinced you to drop it?
Partially that I think Boomslang is civ.

And partially because I thought things happened differently than they did. I think I got the wrong idea because I was phone-posting.

What did you think happen?
Who are you gonna look at now?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

What convinced you to drop it?

Voting birdwithteeth because timmer makes an excellent point.

Literally just going down the list and prodding people.

Dom wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?
birdwithteeth
metalmarsh
nju

"and why?"

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I probably would have been on the Wilgy train, but I am also compelled by what I've seen said about Boomslang. I do not get his thought process RE: timmer, and I've still seen nothing from timmer that merits serious suspicion.
Yeah, I really want to hear more from Boomslang. Because I'm starting to wonder if we didn't see a Boom save with this lynch. Plus I would like to give him a chance to respond to what has actually happened.

RIP Wilgy.

I'd like to hear more about this, BWT.

I get the suspicion against Niju's votes. Both days she has cast total outlier votes off the main wagons. This is something I have seen townies do plenty of times when they don't feel comfortable contributing to any of the established wagons (not wanting to potentially eliminate a player on an uninfirmed vote is a legitimate concern), but it is also an easy way for a baddie to keep themself out of the direct line of fire by sticking their nose in the main business. So I'd like some deeper explanation to niju's strategy and some pre-EoD thoughts today.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

I do not see this as indicative of anything. By the looks of it, timmer is only able to play in short windows. That is fine. One of his windows happens to have coincided roughly with somebody prodding him. Nothing about that is alarming to me.

nijuu: her Day 2 vote. She voted Scotty because other people were talking about him, not because she read him as bad.
MP: He claimed that my accusation against timmer based on timing is historically inaccurate, but could not come up with an example (these two things don't go together)
sig: Similar to nijuu, his Day 2 vote.

I'll have to look at niju myself before I can comment. I agree with MP RE: your timmer suspicion. I don't know that I'd make the claim that it's "historically inaccurate" because I'm not prepared to substantiate such a claim, but, as I just said above, I've got no reason to buy into your reason for suspecting timmer.
I think sig looked like a player who was trying to place a meaningful vote at the end of Day 2. He was not in an ideal situation and I'd like to hear more complete thoughts out of him, but I don't think he looked terrible yesterday. I don't think he looked great either.

Epignosis: I feel good about him

Okay. Why?

A Person: I like Epignosis's logic, in that AP would prefer to off a talkative player. Also, if I recall correctly, despite AP not posting much in thread, he is a pretty consistent presence in chatzy.

What about the argument that there would be two other baddies making decisions behind the scenes? A Person does strike me as the easy lynch target in the thread, though, and I'm usually hesitant to make a big push against those types of players. That said, he needs to start saying more stuff soon.

Boomslang: I've changed my mind about him

Okay. Why?

Dom: I like his work this game. He's not limiting himself to one-word questions and answers, but engaging with people (myself included) at length.

I dig it, I haven't got any bad vibes from Dom yet (not that I've looked closely). Last game (Mad Max) he WAS doing that one-word question and answer thing, though, and he ended up being town. So I wouldn't make an alignment read based on whether or not that tendency is present.

If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Sloonei wrote:What's my townie status like right now? Do we all think I'm a Good Safe & Trusted Townie because I was silenced, or do we think I was pulling a gambit by faking my own silence?
I think it's unlikely you called for/accepted a silence from a baddie team mate on the first available day phase. I think you look the part in your hunting efforts and I liked how you emerged into Night 2 with Things To Say after the tape was pulled off of your mouth. It evidenced you didn't take a vacation and were paying some attention to the proceedings.

Some attention, but not enough. Not being able to get in people's faces, I kinda lost the momentum I had built up Day/Night 1 and I still haven't got it back. But I'm working on it now.

What event from Day 2 were you most frustrated about being able to comment on in the moment?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I feel differently about you now
Why?
Why indeed.
Who's your strongest scum read?
timmer

nijuu, MP, and sig fall in the slight scumread category.

Golden and Jay fall in the tinfoil/Ineedlesscurseythingstojudge category, along with you.

I won't be voting for Epignosis, A Person, Boomslang, or Dom.

I don't have an opinion on anyone else.

Linki: Never mind, moving Sloonei to the red zone.

Tell me more about any of these reads you just stated. Your "won't be voting for" list seems at odds with a lot of other things I've seen other people say in here. What's up with that?

What's my townie status like right now? Do we all think I'm a Good Safe & Trusted Townie because I was silenced, or do we think I was pulling a gambit by faking my own silence?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I feel differently about you now
Why?
Why indeed.

Who's your strongest scum read?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
timmer wrote:Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss
Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.
No, as far as I can tell boomslang has only ever said he thought timmer was good. Even in his own vote for timmer yesterday he didn't say he thought timmer was bad (or any reason deeper than "I think it would at least yield info on MM")

Sloonei wrote:Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?
I think I notice both dom and epignosis doing this thing where they will throw out a claim or accusation, then ignore any replies to it. Epi has done it to me at least twice. Dom might just be having trouble keeping track because most of his posts are full of quotes.

I liked this response to my general questioning from Trice last night. Not only did he give me two names, but he also offered substantial reasons to list those names.
If I really wanted to I would ask him to highlight a couple examples of Dom and Epi doing what he says they've been doing. If he wants to do that I'd be happy but I'm not gonna make anyone do my bidding.

LoRab wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.
In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.
You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

If did "just ask." I was trying to get to the bottom of what was my issue. And I have to try to see your posts through all possible lenses. That is how this game works, I think. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're town, but I saw an angle to prod at you from and I took it. I don't find this particular line of defense totally inspiring, unfortunately. Your motivation for sharing other opinions is the same as it always is. Again, I'm not definitively stating that you are bad, just bringing to light something that interested me on Night 1.
It looked to me like you could possibly be putting distance between yourself and INH for the sake of giving a safe reason without substantiating it. I also acknowledge that the thoughts you gave could be genuine ones.

This is not a strong enough point to justify a (final) vote on you, though, so I'd like to get more reads out of you. Your Day 2 participation centered primarily around discussing the possibility/likelihood that we have 1 town insanifier and 1 scum one, and some suspicion against A Person for disliking all the noise in this thread. I'd like to know who else you read as good or bad, please & thank you.

I'm voting for LoRab because I wanted to put pressure on her yesterday but couldn't. I'll go figure out why now.

Hey so what are we all doing today?
I still have only a patchy understanding of what happened on Day 2 but that doesn't prevent me from being able to ask my usual batch of questions.

stop posting you jerks, go get cursed again.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
timmer wrote:Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss
Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.
No, as far as I can tell boomslang has only ever said he thought timmer was good. Even in his own vote for timmer yesterday he didn't say he thought timmer was bad (or any reason deeper than "I think it would at least yield info on MM")

You're right about this. But I still hesitate to believe that it was a forced vote because he attempted to rationalize it. Usually when a player is forced to vote for someone they make it clear what is going on. That said, his justification makes little to no sense.

Sloonei wrote:Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?
I think I notice both dom and epignosis doing this thing where they will throw out a claim or accusation, then ignore any replies to it. Epi has done it to me at least twice. Dom might just be having trouble keeping track because most of his posts are full of quotes.

I like this response. I'll have a look at these two when I'm awake.

Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?

timmer wrote:Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Three players were on the wagons for each of the players lynched thus far. These same three players have the highest post counts: MovingPictures, Golden, and JaggedJimmyJay.

Discuss.

Those three players tend to have a similar approach to one another, so when they theorize about the game they come to similar conclusions and are likely to trust one another's judgment. As such, they might sometimes all vote similarly. However, they might also be wrong.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:*sexy wiggle*

am i supposed to bounce something off this?

One thing I remember being prodded about on Day 2 was my claim that Scotty was reminding me of his baddie performance in Rocky & Bullwinkle. In that game he was my first suspect and I remember him spending a good deal of energy OMGUSing me. I got similar vibes from posts like this one:

Spoiler: show

I would not call this a definitive read and I started to feel better about Scotty from the bits of Day 2 that I was following along with.

I still have a bit of catching up to do, but I am here currently if anyone wants to bounce things off of me or have things bounced off of them. Please.

Golden wrote:Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I have a hard time seeing Jay faking a curse/cursing himself under any circumstances.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey Sloonei McSloon, do you have a rainbow for me? I am suffering rainbow withdrawal.

I'll update mine but only after ISOs.

Not at the moment, but I'll keep you posted!

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Golden wrote:Sig looks scummy as all fuck therefore sig is good.

Sadly, this is probably true. I cannot read this man.

What's your strongest read in the game right now? If it's Scotty, what's your second strongest?

sig wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
sig wrote:So quick thing before the phase ends, MP trying to turn it over to Scotty is odd, I don't know if this was an attempt at anything or not, but I disliked it.

linki: Ah okay so off the top of my head I suspect and plan to look into MM, Dom, and Scotty. I also kind off suspect you and Epi, but that is mainly tinfoiling I think.

I don't see the case on Boom, but I think the case on Boom is better then voting wilgy since Sloonie was silenced and since he voted for Epi?
You suspect Scotty, but also suspect MP for suspecting Scotty?
Yes I don't think they're on the same team, but I do suspect them both. So I'd be looking at two worlds in this scenario one where Scotty is bad the other would be MP.

I am interested in hearing more specific thoughts on them when you have the time.

Golden wrote:Thank goodness I can talk normally again.

1) Epi just played PoE very well. I don't know why people (eg Dom) would say he is showing its flaws. It also paints his comment about MP from day one in another light. He is giving legitimate reasons for people to be town, and they are legitimately good reasons, they aren't just crap, and epi was suspicious of MP saying he was playing a PoE strategy but not taking his 'reason why inh is town' on board. I voted for epi briefly because I didn't like what felt like a complete lack of effort to try to engage with me or understand me (that continued throughout). But, epi is now probably my strongest town read when all is said and done. He warded me off voting AP and boomslang because, he was right, they didn't belong in a "PoE" because there were legitimately good reasons why their behaviour didn't mesh with what is bad.

I admittedly did not keep up with everything on Day 2 (not being able to post caused my attention to slide around

), but this looks like an excellent couple of points, the highlighted portion in particular.

I'm going to Coney Island. Come at me, Sleep!

triceratopzeuhl wrote:RIP, looks like I've got some re-evaluating to do

welcome back sloonei, anything you really wanted to say during that day phase?

The pair of curses were alarming. That would imply there are three conversation-debilitating roles in the game, and all three were used against top posters from Day 1, with MP left as the lone Talky left to talk. I have a hard time believing all three scum roles can do that, and it doesn't seem like our indie has that ability either. I toyed with the idea that one of them was faking it, but I find it more likely that a townie has that ability and they either targeted Golden or Jay to slow the thread down, or it's a passive ability and they were targeted by Golden/Jay.

I'll rescind my previous stated reason for reading Epi as town since he's doing more to contribute now. This is not the same as saying I suspect him.

I probably would have been on the Wilgy train, but I am also compelled by what I've seen said about Boomslang. I do not get his thought process RE: timmer, and I've still seen nothing from timmer that merits serious suspicion.

sig wrote:So quick thing before the phase ends, MP trying to turn it over to Scotty is odd, I don't know if this was an attempt at anything or not, but I disliked it.

linki: Ah okay so off the top of my head I suspect and plan to look into MM, Dom, and Scotty. I also kind off suspect you and Epi, but that is mainly tinfoiling I think.

I don't see the case on Boom, but I think the case on Boom is better then voting wilgy since Sloonie was silenced and since he voted for Epi?

You suspect Scotty, but also suspect MP for suspecting Scotty?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:According to the poll thread: MP MM and Sloonei all changed votes 3 times, Wilgy twice, scotty golden and timmer once

I don't know what I think about that, but BWT was mentioning it was a potential thing to look at and I wanted to point out it was more than just metalmarsh doing that

fair deal. I come from a Mafia background where changing votes frequently is a common thing. I like to use my votes just to emphasize current suspicions and I never consider anything final until the deadline hits.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Sloonei wrote:That's twice people have agreed with me saying Metalmarsh is bad. I don't even think that. I don't not think it either. But I was just throwing a pair of names at A Person to give them something to work with.
Speaking of changing your vote often, how many times did you change your vote yesterday, 3?

Something like that, yeah. It's a thing I do often. Do you have a problem with any of my vote changes?

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

Dom wrote:I think one or two high posters in particular are responsibble tho

Which ones?

Search found 141 matches