The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:juliets
Where were you during your AMA session on your sudden Dom vote? I asked you something. Now another unexplained vote.
What did you ask me? I missed it.

Here.

juliets wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:juliets
Yes. You are my hero.
Why did you vote for me Turnip Head?

It does look really suspicious when you suddenly come in here like that. You mentioned that Floyd was a better suspect following Tranq's argument, why not push a Floyd vote earlier when it could have made a difference?

Turnip Head wrote:juliets

Where were you during your AMA session on your sudden Dom vote? I asked you something. Now another unexplained vote.

Mac, what would you think about a Floyd lynch?

Golden wrote:Well, HB, if you think I'm setting up for nutella to flip bad because I'm her teammate, why don't you vote nutella to see if you are right?

@HB - how many votes does Mac have? How many people with their votes committed are actually coming back to the thread in the last hour? It's not like RYM around here, the last hour is not going to see everyone recast their votes. This lynch will be sig or nutella, I guarantee it.

Tying the lynch up would make things fair and at least ease my conscience. I'm still considering it.

And yeah, I'm realizing you're right. When I was pushing Mac over sig and nutella I think nutella still only had a vote or two, several hours ago, but a lot of people have already mentioned casting their votes for the day. Last-minute poll flips are usually a fetish of mine, so I'll have to get used to being louder around that apparent t-minus 6 sweet spot if I want to influence things here.

Golden wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:When I say "Eh" game, I don't mean off-game or anything. I mean lacking a specific kind of conviction. The bcornett point is interesting actually; sticking with one mild candidate would be much more in line with what I'm seeing here.
You think that post lacks conviction about civ? Or just nutella? That is a different thing...

Because I am feeling confident, consistent and insistent about sig. And nutella is the only other genuine option on the table right now.

Lacking conviction about nutella being scum. You frame it as "Well, it's the best we've got".

Why isn't Mac a genuine option?

Golden wrote:And also, HB... if you feel it's a catch 22 because you'd sooner lynch a civilian than have me after you tomorrow...

If someone says they will be after me, and I'm a civilian, I shrug and say 'bring it on'. I'll still vote for who I think is bad, and I won't care how it looks.

Sure, and I'm not one to easily get pressured either. I enjoy the fight, but it still smells of an easy set-up (before the lynch is even called) should your biggest scumspect flip scum. Many people going after nutella don't even seem to be acknowledging your specific case, but it makes it look like you were the one that drove the whole thing to begin with. I like how still no one has suspected you for jumping off the tally at 4-4-4 in favor for BUG, when a lot of this case against her seems to involve BUG and some potentially-meaningless tie to begin with. People are dedicated to a sig or a nutella lynch and that's just how it's going to be.

Golden wrote:As a townie, I always try to be exactly honest about how confident I am. There is a reason I'm fighting for sig to stay and nutella to go... it's because I'm confident. I'm not sure how this does not remind you of, say, my insistence about sanmateo and aether in 87? I was very measured and careful about my suspicion, but also consistent and correct. What part of my baddie game analogue is this? In my baddie game (the only one I had on RYM)... I tried to get brian lynched over and over for days, same with seaside. I don't think this is an honest analysis of what you remember from RYM at all. If I had any 'eh' game, it was 88 where I was civ.

But you weren't confident just a little while ago. You don't remind me anything of yourself going after sanmateo, where I was all "Well I think it's just his meta" and you impress us all with your "Don't care, he looks like scum to me" and knock down mafia a peg on day 1. Does this look confident?

Golden wrote:Civvie sig's defenses rarely make 'sense', as such, he ties himself into knots. I don't think, however, that as a baddie he would come out and say that the baddies are 'currently' doing x, it doesn't make sense to me as being a scumslip. Plus, the bandwagon has been too easy.

Who else do you suspect? What do you think of the points that have been made on nutella? Are there other people I should be looking at? I don't really have a good idea of who people should vote for, but I think I've had a decent idea of who we shouldn't vote for. I'm not putting my vote anywhere in the dom/svs/epi triangle.

@Sorsha - there are not specific players in there that I'm suspicious of, as such, but it wouldn't surprise me if the existing votes include one or two mafia. I think Bullzeye was sincere in making his case.

You're not insistent, you did mention a couple very minor things early in the game so I can call you consistent, but insistent no.

When I say "Eh" game, I don't mean off-game or anything. I mean lacking a specific kind of conviction. The bcornett point is interesting actually; sticking with one mild candidate would be much more in line with what I'm seeing here.

Golden wrote:Lol. Fair enough. I didn't remember that. Being stuck between two people you really think are civ is rough.

This I think reflects worse on you. If I said I would stick to my guns and still vote nutella, and she flips scum, you are the one that comes out way ahead, having the earliest case against her for the self-admitted mildest of pings. Especially since you openly admit to not touching the Dom/SVS/Epi trifecta, which still has an inherent link to the nutella case due to SVS' involvement, ergo you're narrowing things in your favor. If I switch to get sig lynched, no matter how he flips you can still say that I buckled on my vow; with two scum factions plus recruiting third-parties, a sig scumflip doesn't preclude me from a nutella partnership. Saying "If nutella was lynched today and came back bad, I'd be after you tomorrow" is a direct threat to try and make me go vote sig, as to not confirm a nutella flip. I don't know if it exactly fits the definition of a catch-22, but it's close to it. I'm also noting that your general tone in the game so far reminds me of your one scum game on RYM; in your town games you are always confident in your lynches. Your scum game, you were kind of like "Eh..." right up to the end.

Golden wrote:Thats what it looks like to me. Defensive but keeping the option open to vote that way? The post where you suggested you'd vote her ahead of sig, while being her number one supporter. It reads all wrong to me.

I was sig's #1 supporter yesterday, and caught flak for that. The bandwagon-happy folks this day aren't giving me a lot of leeway.

Golden wrote:No. I wish I did. It's entirely gut, no info on either him or nutella.

I do feel, though, like nutella is racking up the connections while literally no-one but me is coming to sig's defence. I think thats what it is mostly. It doesn't even feel like anyone is subtly leading the thread away from him. Sig had such an early and easy bandwagon, with no-one who wanted to stand up for him. It seemed very easy.

@HB - I'm not surprised you are having second thoughts. The whole thing sounded like a distance to begin with. If nutella was lynched today and came back bad, I'd be after you tomorrow.

A distance from what? You're saying I was deliberating distancing from nutella since the start?

Golden wrote:HBoy - your defence of nutella sounds sincere. But it looks like it is either sig or nutella. Will you put your money where your mouth is and show you prefer a nutella lynch to a sig one?

@Sig - you better be as worth my effort to save as I think you are.

To be completely honest, I'm now having second thoughts. I hadn't given nutella's history much attention prior to the votes building on her, but I legitimately don't see a case against her. Your point about potential hypocrisy in latching onto the Bubbles case while not answering your own "Are you civ?" question is probably the closest to a tangible case, but even still it's so shady. If I was asked multiple questions, I could easily gloss over that part. Not to mention you could go WIFOM and ask whether a scum player would be more eager to answer it.

The way I see it, both the nutella and sig cases are fluff. However, nutella is at least answering the criticism against her more clearly. The defensive part of me wants to keep sig alive, but the pragmatic part is now asking "What's the use if people are just going to keep hounding him?" I think if nutella lasted another day, this stuff would die down. If sig lasts another day, it could just be another day (at some point in the future) of the same old crap. That's what happened on Talking Heads; almost lynched him day 1, things quieted down, then around day 9 or something people are suddenly like "Hey, let's hit the reset button and go sig all over again!"

a2thezebra wrote:You're reaching here for most of these assumptions. My nutella vote was mainly pressure-based, and since I thought her third post was genuine I took my vote off of her, and she hasn't pinged me since. True story. It doesn't matter that she doesn't mention BUG (why on earth would it?) because BUG, before nutella's third post, was my second most confident scum read of the lurkers. nutella responded well to my vote, whereas he made himself look much much worse when the attention was directed to him. She didn't cause me to vote for BUG directly, she did it by making me turn to the next best option, who turned out to be the best for that day. And you seem eager to accuse of not taking responsibility for sig flipping town when that is yet to even happen. If sig does end up flipping town I will take responsibility as the one who pushed for his lynch the most aggressively, and regardless of his flip I will say now and in the future that the lynch is justified. This goes back to what Epi said earlier about thinking sig was scum even in BTSC; if your meta is so scummy that people are afraid to lynch you just because the constant scumtells are consistent with your style of play, then there's no way to get you lynched if you are in fact scum, which sig is here.

OK, don't expect me to have mind-reading powers when you claim other players made you vote a certain way. I still think it's weird to make that a bad thing, since it assumes she had the intention of making you feel good about her so that you'd switch for your second best candidate. Is that all you have to disagree with me on when I say I don't see anything scummy in nutella's post history?

a2thezebra wrote:sig tried to use his case against Bullz as a valid defense for his own behavior, clearly trying to redirect the attention. And I'm not saying the most obvious example of his redirections can be analyzed, but he has had interactions with enough players for there to be a lot of meat to dig into. Mac is Mac. I do agree that Epi's nutella suspicion is unjustified.

Are you referring to the "us" thing here? Because I view that as more of a rhetorical tool, a "if you can do why can't I?" kind of thing. If sig flips scum, who will you look at most? Let's say aside from me since Bullz already suspects me for my defense of sig, and since I'll be an obvious first candidate.

S~V~S wrote:Um @ Hammy, I made a stand. My point re Nutella was that she did not. She took the least resistance route when she had actually said she suspected one of the tied parties.

Not at ALL the same thing. Quite opposite things, actually.

Now really, bye lol.

nutella's only comment about BUG, prior to casting her vote for Sorsha, was "I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there." It's something, I guess, but hardly the kind of read I'd expect her to commit to. The difference between your case and her's is that yours was a bit more visible, but both could easily be interpreted as easy saves. Or, they could be interpreted as coincidences and suspicion of protection where neither player has had alignment revealed yet, which is a bad thing to bank on.

Aside from golden himself, has anyone brought up that golden jumped off the 4-4-4 to vote for TinyBubbles? And along those lines, that I reformed the 4-4-4 tie (with the intent of making it 5-4-4 though)? Aside from the specific interaction aspect between nutella and others, I don't see why avoiding the tie itself means that much. It also seems very hypocritical for S~V~S to use nutella's investment in the tie as grounds for supporting her lynch when she placed the vote that ultimately led to BANANA's lynch. The tie is completely meaningless if it turns out the other two lynch candidates are also town or third-party.

a2thezebra wrote:Elaborate? Well initially I found nutella's history to be the most suspicious out of the lurkers, but she made a post that damaged my suspicions enough to put my vote on BUGLA and it stayed there for the rest of the day. I am of course voting for sig over her for reasons I have made perfectly clear, and being someone who doesn't trust any other lynch at this time, I would be more inclined to say that anyone not willing to vote for sig at this point is forcing themselves to do so.

What, this post? Her third post in the entire game, explaining she was busy, where she doesn't even mention BUG and you don't even mention that she caused you to vote BUG? Your ultra-confidence on sig looks more like doubling-down, which is kinda weird in that it shouldn't even be necessary at this point of the game; if you're right and he's scum, we already know you're right. If you're wrong and he's town, so were several other bandwagoners that you could deflect onto.

a2thezebra wrote:I don't think nutella's interactions so far have much to dig into, as opposed to sig who has more than once tried to redirect the attention of the case against him onto other players, which would provide great analysis upon his death. I am not interested in a Mac lynch at all and I find it baffling that people are using his activity as a reason to be suspicious of him when he has made clear multiple times that his activity is not going to be consistent given his current circumstances. I find it especially baffling that you are using "at the very least he isn't a clear town read" to justify a potential lynching of him, when the same accusation (minus the "he" pronoun) could be applied to literally every other player. THAT is forced.

She's made comments on many players by now, in terms of suspicions, lynch preferences, etc. Which players are you referring to sig redirecting stuff onto? If sig is scum, do you think a scum player just throwing "no u" to ever player accusing him can be meaningfully analyzed, if that's what you think sig's history shows?

Mac wasn't being cooperative even when he was posting, so I don't feel particularly bad there. I used that because some when pressed, a lot of people seem to not have to much to really say against nutella. Matt made the most thorough case and it rings genuine and in line with how he cased players in Talking Heads. Others, like Epi, aren't giving too much and I'd like to hear what would make nutella look scummier than Mac.

Fair enough, Mac mentioned it a while back in a deep quote pyramid with Dom but not on his last post of yesterday.

a2thezebra wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:I should add that I don't see anything wrong in nutella's history either. If absolutely forced I would vote for her over sig, only because I think the case against sig is so forced, and since nutella's interactions potentially have more to dig into (vs sig who has been on the defense), but I'd really prefer to see a Mac lynch. Especially since he has dropped off in the second half of this day, and since others have acknowledged that at the very least he isn't a clear town read.
There is not even a phrase in this post that I agree with.

Cool, elaborate please. You've already said that you're neutral on nutella, so I'm curious what you do see wrong in her history then.

I should add that I don't see anything wrong in nutella's history either. If absolutely forced I would vote for her over sig, only because I think the case against sig is so forced, and since nutella's interactions potentially have more to dig into (vs sig who has been on the defense), but I'd really prefer to see a Mac lynch. Especially since he has dropped off in the second half of this day, and since others have acknowledged that at the very least he isn't a clear town read.

juliets wrote:I think my baddie vibes come from Matt's case on her (baddie vibes imo usually come from something even if its small). She answered fairly well but it's still lingering with me. It's not a meta thing because i haven't played that much with nutella or enough to have a meta. I am probably not going to vote for her because I just don't have enough.

Matt's case seems largely dependent on the assumption that Sorsha is also scum, and that nutella's vote was not genuine but a way of avoiding the 4-4-4 (or at least that's how I'm reading it; correct if wrong Matt). I note that you haven't addressed the Sorsha side of things at all so far this game, except to ask for specifics on nutella's claim of inconsistencies in Sorsha's posts (which I believe nutella had already addressed; she was focused on Sorsha fairly early due to the day 1 "lynch Matt F" thing). So, what do you think of Sorsha then?

juliets wrote:Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

I'd like to ask the same about your bad vibes. Is it a meta thing, and if so could you say what to expect from a town nutella vs this bad-vibing nutella?

He said 10PM EST today, which should be in 5 hours 20 minutes I believe.

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Dom, AMA

Why? Your post history has the following as explanations:

Turnip Head wrote:I don't see Epi suspecting you because he disagrees with you. I don't see Epi suspecting SVS because he disagrees with her. I also don't think he's only suspecting you because he needs someone to latch onto - his case might not be the most solid one I've seen, but it feels genuine to me, and he's discussed players other than you.

I think you're trying to create a false narrative here.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm not convinced he's bad yet. I just thought his questions weren't as pointed compared to what I'm used to from him. Minor ping.

You admit that it "might not be the most solid", so does genuine Epi = right Epi? In all games I've played here I've seen people comment on Epi tunneling. His first two real posts in the case go from "Yeah you are [bad]. Voting Dom." to comments that he isn't taking a stand/too easy-going on various things on day 1. My issue with that would be firstly that not all players take hard stances and love long arguments; I do, Epi clearly does, many others do, but some players simply don't. Does this violate Dom's established meta? Secondly, if it's scummy when Dom doesn't give a counter-reply to every reply towards his questions, how about from other players? For example, if

Dom wrote:Can you explain how nutella is lurking?

is scummy, how can you get away with

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

Without pushing Dom further, especially since you are now pursuing his lynch? That all neglects that Dom's initial question about nutella lurking was misrepresented by Epi, and Epi never cared to actually respond to his counter-reply.

Oops, selective vision. I didn't see that he explicitly asked why you voted for Dom, since your answer would also address his general skepticism of Epi's post.

No wait, I think I just quoted the wrong post or merged the two in my mind or something, this is the question I meant:

sig wrote:I don't trust Epi enough to follow him on the Dom lynch. Could others who have played with Dom tell me if he is playing scummy right know?

Most people on the Dom bandwagon just deferred to Epi's judgment, without offering independent reasoning for why Dom was scum (until Mac tried forcing the thing between Dom and SVS and so on). So yes, you were forthright with your reason (you were following Epi).

But BANANA also only had two posts over day 1, a weak bandwagon against Matt F and "Oh come on get a sense of humour!". Dom had said a fair bit more, so I don't see any inconsistencies. She doesn't like lynching new players, but in this particular case she opted to. Clearly it was a change from previous games based on the reactions you guys had, and her posts explaining herself, but in the context of just this game I don't see any problems.

That she acknowledged a change in style/strategy (especially here) is the thing that perked my ears the most so far, but in asking me you've made me realize that she hasn't said much this day so far. I can see her defense of him and change in tune (against lynching new players) from a town POV, both in that your read on Dom didn't sell me, and in that she might want to keep certain experienced players from a day 1 lynch just because it's player X. I haven't seen Dom before this game; is it the case that he doesn't play as often here anymore? Most of the things involving her seem to concern you and Dom.

Or, to give a gth read, I'd say town.

And "it" being information from players whose reads he does trust.

Sorry, that was kind of a mess looking back. :P

"sig said it because sig was asking for it. sig wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read Dom."

Sorry, that should be a he for Bullzeye, not a she.

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting sig because bull and zebra have made some good points on him and he keeps putting the blame on other people, which looks suspicious.

Who is he putting the blame on?

He said it because he was asking for it. He wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read him. Metalmarsh gave sig the wrong answer by saying he trusts you (Kind of.), and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since she was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

You're basically asking a question he can't answer; if someone simply asks anyone broadly for an alternative opinion, they can't go and name select players they want to hear from.

Sig not trusting you to follow Dom on the lynch does not imply there are others he would trust at the moment. He's just saying that he would rather look elsewhere for a vote, rather than jump on the bandwagon like Mac did (note: I'm not sure if Mac had actually jumped on the wagon by that point, just an example).

When I saw SVS's concession it immediately raised my eyebrows and put me in, "No, don't let that stand!" mode. Even if the wording was crappy, you frame it in the worst way, and ultimately "semantic jab" is just another way of saying word-twisting. When I read her post, I read it to mean "Dom is a good player, and I don't want to gamble because I don't trust Epi's scumdar". No statement on other players.

juliets wrote:Oh now I understand. I think you're just seeing a difference between mine and Lorab's style.

This is unrelated but related to sig: did someone (maybe you) allude to the fact that english is not sig's first language? I thought that was implied some where but I can't find it.

I made a joke about him bungling the English language or similar, since this is at least the second case he's caught flak for wording issues, but I don't know if it's actually his second language. I think he just tends to say awkward things on occasion.

juliets wrote:@Hamburger Boy - I disappeared because it was Halloween and I went to hand out candy. I am considering all sides of all the cases out there. I don't know what you mean about "left to watch things". I'm of course considering everything everyone is posting.

Fair enough. When I say "left to watch things" I meant more relative to LoRab, who also took interest but got pretty involved in the argument with sig.

Epignosis wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:Hey Epi, do you have anything to say to my accusation here? I know you acknowledged it, but you didn't really disagree with me or accuse me of misrepresenting you or anything like I was expecting you to.
I don't understand what you're saying in that post.

I'm saying you twisted three posts using almost the exact same language in one day, which pinged me. Then I gave the nutella thing as an example, which I'll rephrase:

Nutella said she was curious about the "Epi/Dom thing".
You asked if that made you the second biggest suspect, second to Bullz who she already said was #1.
She implied it didn't, that it was based on a reaction to your style, and that she couldn't glean alignment-related info from it.
You then did the thing I took issue with, "If I don't do something that clues you in on my alignment, that implies I could do something that would clue you in on my alignment."

My issue is that all she said was that she can't read your alignment based on meta. That was a simple statement and capable of standing on its own merits. That you could do something later as a clue is irrelevant to her (lack of) read then.

Do you disagree with my interpretation of that discussion?

MacDougall wrote:Being not certain isn't the same as not thinking that it was the case. I already had scum reads on both of them before that happened so if I am right then yes it did happen

Still fail to see how this is a scum tell. What do I have to gain from anything I have done as a bad?

The general thing to gain would be mudflinging and confusion, and death of someone not aligned to you. With all the third-party roles there's no requirement that you are on a scum team, but I know a quiet, under-the-radar Mac would never fly with your presence on this board already, so it's not like you have a choice. Go all-in and Mac Attack without hesitation.

Hey Epi, do you have anything to say to my accusation here? I know you acknowledged it, but you didn't really disagree with me or accuse me of misrepresenting you or anything like I was expecting you to.

Me: You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom?
You: It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

Also, DFaraday seems like the low-hanging fruit choice of the sig wagon. He was quick to vote and vamoose, but he was also less active day 1 as well. Seeing Floyd flip on Talking Heads means I have to be careful about trusting lurkers, but it looked really casual/lazy to me rather than an obvious scumtell. I think Juliets is the one I suspect most right now, asking just a bit about my case in defense of sig and then disappearing again, more like she was testing the waters and then left to watch things.

No, it's that when I openly mocked the idea of a scummate defending their ally so blatantly during a day 1 lynch, you tried to act like you weren't saying that. Then elsewhere you keep repeating that the two are scum partners together. So you could say I do find the linking to not be likely to find scum, but that I also don't think you really believe your case and are just throwing stuff out there.

But still sure enough to call the votes on BANANA an "obvious counterwagon" and all of that.

I'll rephrase it simply: why would you say you are unsure about SVS' motives in voting to save Dom, and then in the same post say that the two are obviously scumbuddies?

This part:

HamburgerBoy wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
MacDougall wrote:How the fuck after this is Banana the lynch leader. Holy shit that is such an obvious counterwagon. Town plz.
A counterwagon of what? You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom? Sounds like town still did well then.
What a strange strange post. How would I make the conclusion that a guy I thought was a good shot at being scum getting spared and a civ lynched in his place is good for the town? I don't give a flying fuck about breadcrumbs. The guy was there to be lynched and through reasons unbeknownst to me a guy who barely had a case made against him got lynched in his place. It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.
Bolded is the only part relevant to the point I was trying to make. What do you mean when you say "obvious counterwagon"? What is the motive you see behind said counterwagon? What would make it an obvious counterwagon when one building on BUGLA would seem to be just as obvious (if not more so, considering the antipathy shown by you and others)?
I'm going to bed now so I'll just make my point now. In this reply to me you seem to misinterpret me heavily; I wasn't saying that you made the conclusion the lynch was good for town. I did; if you were right that it was such an obvious counterwagon, it means we got two scum for the price of a day 1 newbie mislynch. Of course, I don't think you're right that scum would stick their necks out like that, would be really silly and something they'd have to fight for the rest of the game. The worst part of this reply is in bold. You are literally saying that you are not certain she formed a counterwagon, even though that is the bulk of your suspicion on her, and say it plain as day in the same post:

MacDougall wrote:Re: para four. Not defensive, just annoyed that such an obvious mislynch was being put together to protect Dom.

MacDougall wrote:I am changing my vote to HamburgerBoy because he hates me.

I luv u bb

Your attempt to connect SVS and Dom looks dishonest though. At least try to respond to my questions to you earlier.

And no, I'm more divested in seeing Mac lynched. I gave my case on him, others have tried arguing with him, and now he's straight-up being uncooperative. I don't see him as town and now see about 5 other people jumping on sig due to your case, and don't want to see a decent lynch fall to a lazy one.

Oh, and this day 2 I mean, you know what I meant.

Bullzeye wrote:Linki HB - Meta is only worth so much in cases based on something that was potentially an unintended slip. The whole point of the suspicion begins with the idea Sig said something he wasn't supposed to say, without thinking of the consequences. You can't really use intentional past actions to dispute that IMO.

But what happens if it's a player that often has minor slip ups with the English language, and is routinely lynched for unintended slips? I'm saying that this day 1 is shaping up just like Talking Heads' day 1. It's absolutely relevant to consider meta here.

Bullzeye wrote:If he is a civ, it will be a shame for him to be lynched. However, I alone will not be responsible for such a thing. I've not even voted yet. I'm probably going to vote Sig when I do, yes, but unless everyone else's vote doesn't count mine alone won't kill him. Plenty of people are wrong in their suspicions every game. I think the case against Sig is strong, and if he flips civ it will still have been a strong case. A wrong case, yes, but not one that was inherently bad.

I don't think he is a civ though. I think he is bad for his reaction and for the fact that you are so adamantly defending him despite having no obvious reason to do so. I don't think his points have any validity to them. He acts as if I'm doing some terrible malicious thing by replacing a word with one of its synonyms and claims I'm a nitpicking baddie all because I'd made one post saying his choice of words looked strange.

Linki - I'm one of the civs. I was making a joke because "us" could refer to any of the factions at play here.

Yeah, I already said that the bandwagoners look just as bad. I don't think you can call it a strong case if it turns out invalid though. If this was RYM where infodumping was considered legit and you said you cop'd him, that would be strong even if it turned out you were a naive cop or etc. If this was later in the game and sig had a long history of voting to save mafia, it would be strong even if it turned out he was just very unlucky. With this case, it's very single-minded, drawing on just two closely related targets (a poor word use, and defense of said word use). Note that even though I don't have much experience with sig, I'm at least trying to bring up meta which I think should be done in a case like this, especially early game where there isn't as much info to build a rock-solid case. I've also noted that you and virtually everyone else (except Juliets and LoRab) has blown off my point there.

Bullzeye wrote:Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

My defense has nothing to do with his reaction, that's not an answer.

You are attacking him, just as I am attacking you now. That's how you build cases and lynches in the game.

The other points seem valid in this kind of an argument. You are taking a couple of words he used and trying to make them into grounds for suspicion. If he flips civvie, how do you think that will make your case look, if it is discovered he had no special insight?

LoRab wrote:I'd rather have folks other than you tell me that you've done that. Some players defend teammates, others do not. And, come to think of it, you don't even answer the question here--you just say how you defended sig (and other players). My question was about defending a baddie teammate.

And I've seen many, many games where baddies were found based on a slip. Or (especially as host) where baddies slip and weren't called out and slided for a long time. I don't use the term scum in mafia games, so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie, instead. Slips have been happening for as long as I've played mafia--and I can think of many, many, more examples of when they have, indeed, been slips than when they have not.

Fair enough, although you should realize that I probably don't have much of a reputation here. I didn't do much my Frisky Dingo game, got NK'd night 1 in Talking Heads (my alignment hasn't been revealed there yet), and here I am now. Mac is old school and I've barely played any games with him on RYM; zebra, maybe a few, although none where I was scum.

This was my first scum game ever. Strawhenge died too early to defend, Turnip I attempted to bus to save myself and ended up getting both of us lynched, and rdw I had plenty of arguments with. This was my second scum game ever, and while the set-up is a bit complicated to describe exactly how things went down (I had multiple alignments and the game spanned four or five different threads), I bussed rdw and led his lynch that game. My other scummates I couldn't interact with because they were in an alternative dimension. Obviously I don't expect those names to all mean very much to you, but if anyone wants to dispute those things, feel free.

For what it's worth I actually did scumslip in that latter game; I got away with it, but it can happen. My scumslip was something much worse than using a slightly-odd word, though (basically I leaked information that I didn't know town lacked).

So what is it about his reaction that particularly pinged you? He didn't even reply until three people suddenly bandwagoned your case within a single hour. Your response to his reply was literally "nice NO U there" when he actually asked specific questions pertaining to the case on him.

Bullzeye wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.
It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.
That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

That entire argument is based on his use of the word "currently". Do I have to be DictionaryBoy again? "Currently" does not inherently make a statement of what has happened previously. If you're going to make a semantic argument to lynch a player, make sure that you at least get it right.

LoRab wrote:Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

Search found 173 matches