The Syndicate

By Epi's logic, I could quote a post from sig and he could defend himself by saying "I didn't say that!" simply because he disagrees with my interpretation of the content.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

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.

I'm not expecting you to have mind-reading powers, only to not make uninformed and inaccurate assumptions about my actions. nutella's initial two posts were scummy. That's more than not seeing anything, so yeah, that is all I have to disagree with you on the subject. sig only played it off as a rhetorical tool when I called him out on it, as the initial post of the "us" thing was dead set on accusing me of scum-slipping. He only backed out because he realized how horribly supported the accusation was. If sig flips scum I will look at everyone that voted for him and see whose votes are the laziest. You don't need to say "aside from me" since I'm one of the few people that hasn't gone after you for defending sig so rigorously.

linki@Epi - Just because I didn't use an example of what you said to your liking doesn't mean I misquoted you. Why play dumb?

sig wrote:I am
In regards to Epi's initial post not only was I not scum I was the only player who was correct and voted for the remaining scum.
Know I'll admit I can come across as scummy when I'm not but with zebras comment on scumtells. As scum I don't usually make these tells only as a civ do I do this. THis usually only happens within the first few phases when someone finds a reason to start a bandwagon and multiply people jump on it. Usually the people who push my wagon and start them are scum, such as Bull's. Quite possibly zebra as well, but I'm unsure on that.

So when you're town, you're scummy, and when you're scum, you're townie. Got it.

Can we lynch this already?

Unless you're referring to everything after the ";" Epi, which is my own words, and I did not imply that they were you'res unless you mistook it for a ":".

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: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.

That's not what I said.

Yeah, it is actually.

Epignosis wrote: I don't know how what to do with sig. He does things that make absolutely no sense (at ENDGAME, no less), and when you call him on it, he turns out civilian. I don't know how much he is aware of that, but in The Syndicate Mafia, that's what happened. I even had him in BTSC, teasing and taunting him that I knew he was bad- everything, and I mean everything, pointed to it.

Then he was good.

Listen, he wasn't even doing a good job in BTSC convincing me he wasn't bad. He just kept digging himself into a hole.

So I don't know sig well enough to lynch him. Not Day 2.

As for the wagon, the only vote there that makes sense to me is Bullzeye's, who did the dirty work.

sig.

My bad on the format fuckup.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

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.

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.

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.[/quote]
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.

linki@Epi Don't worry about it, you've addressed everything I need to know for now.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

WHAT is what I said?

Please, for the love of God, all of you, stop STARTING YOUR SENTENCES WITH PRONOUNS. BEGIN WITH AN ANTECEDENT, and THEN YOU ARE FREE TO USE A PRONOUN.

Watch:

"She's hot."

"Who?"

"Kathy Bates."

A lot of time (and awkward stares) could have been spared if you had started out with "Kathy Bates is hot."

1. Nobody cares.
2. I'm impressed that your (get it?) criticizing people's grammar so soon after such a disaster.
3. "Kathy Bates is hot" has much less personality than the lengthier example you provided right before it, so this post has actually had the opposite effect on me than the one you intended, so I will now consciously be using pronouns to start my sentences more often.

It's interesting that you were willing to deny that the mysterious "that" is what you said, despite claiming now that you didn't know what "that" is even referring to. Your digging you're own grave here lol. Your scum and you're alignment is not looking too good based on you're posts.

I had a typo. That's not a grammatical error.

And I care, because I don't fucking know what you're talking about. Please clarify.

Hosting now.

1. I think you missed the point. Did you read the last two sentences of my post?
2. I don't see why you would be willing to deny something before understanding it. If you didn't know what I was talking about in the first place, why not ask what I am implying initially, instead of immediately claiming I was wrong? To clarify, I was implying that your post before seemed inconsistent in your reasoning for not voting for sig, and the inconsistency came across as deceitful.
3. Yay

HamburgerBoy wrote:

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.

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. 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.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

WHAT is what I said?

Please, for the love of God, all of you, stop STARTING YOUR SENTENCES WITH PRONOUNS. BEGIN WITH AN ANTECEDENT, and THEN YOU ARE FREE TO USE A PRONOUN.

Watch:

"She's hot."

"Who?"

"Kathy Bates."

A lot of time (and awkward stares) could have been spared if you had started out with "Kathy Bates is hot."

1. Nobody cares.
2. I'm impressed that your (get it?) criticizing people's grammar so soon after such a disaster.
3. "Kathy Bates is hot" has much less personality than the lengthier example you provided right before it, so this post has actually had the opposite effect on me than the one you intended, so I will now consciously be using pronouns to start my sentences more often.

It's interesting that you were willing to deny that the mysterious "that" is what you said, despite claiming now that you didn't know what "that" is even referring to. Your digging you're own grave here lol. Your scum and you're alignment is not looking too good based on you're posts.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

*yawn* Okay I can now safely call this a ping then, thank you.

Do what you gotta do with your ping, your welcome.

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.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

*yawn* Okay I can now safely call this a ping then, thank you.

Sorsha wrote:Zebras assurance makes me want to vote for sig, but lukes vote for sig makes me want to vote for Luke.

Lukes vote for sig, even if it is suspicious which I don't think it really is, doesn't make sig any less scummier, it just leads to different interpretations of what the vote meant. Vote sig.

juliets wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: on juliets. That last post did not seem genuine.

really? Can you elaborate at all?

Not really. Pure vibes. I'm not going to pursue it, it just means I'm going to watch your posts a bit more closely.

linki - Damn it Sorsha

S~V~S wrote:You have seen me use it as a civ, too.

Now what did I refuse to address?

He already said what you refused to address and here you act as if he didn't.

on juliets. That last post did not seem genuine.

Typhoony wrote:Asking this again:
Zebra, did you make your voting analysis on the basis that someone was likely saved D1? Or did you just want a point to start to look at some people?

The latter. I don't think anyone was saved Day 1 and I try to avoid basing analyses off of speculations. I would not consider it "speculation" that Banana's mislynch was, in general, scummy as shit. So I wanted to distinguish those who voted for him to get a better idea of who the likely culprits are.

Luke's sig vote is low-hanging fruit. I voted for the most popular current lynch before catching up many times as a newbie. It might be telling but it's too early to consider it a ping now. I'm especially weary of those who are bothered by Luke's vote today yet made no comment on BUGLA's clearly scum-motivated OMGUS the day before.

linki - No, I have not. Your question was sandwiched between a lot of other things I had to address from Mac and others so I kind of said fuck it and ignored the lot of it because I was tired. I will go back and address these when I can.

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

sig wrote:Know I like the case against nutella enough to place my vote there, but I will hold my vote I would prefer not to waste a day phase with an attempt to lynch me.

linki: Zebra I already explained why I used that as an example it wasn't meant to try and derail or distract it wasn't an attempt to get you lynched. That wasn't even my main defense it was a point the first couple posts I made my defense many off the people voting me ignored it. My defense is based around the fact your all lynhcing me since I said probably. And this was a scum slip. I made several defenses I pointed out things about Bull's post that hints to him being scum and you've ignored it.

You act as if I've missed or overlooked some of your actions. That is not the case, I just find the way you have chosen to defend yourself to be appallingly telling of your alignment. Even here as one of the examples of your "several defenses" (like having many defenses is a good thing when none of the defenses themselves are good) you use a previous attempt to redirect the attention to someone else as if it were a valid defense for your own actions. As I said before, this kind of thinking makes no sense from a civvie perspective. My vote stays.

Perhaps she intended to bus him initially, but backed out later when the lynch looked less likely.

sig wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?

Could you explain how my defense makes no sense? How should I have as a civ defended myself.

Could you explain how it does? And there are an infinite amount of ways you could have gone about defending yourself, genuine and otherwise that would look better for your alignment. I've already addressed why your defense is unacceptable here:

a2thezebra wrote:Also, I am 100% positive sig never would have pointed out the "us" thing to try and make me look bad if Bullz hadn't already done so as a maybe-but-not-really-joke. It's debatable as to whether or not civvies say "us", it's not debatable that civvies never resort to opportunistic derails of other players based on nothing whatsoever, to distract from their own poor defenses of the case against themselves.

Here it is. You even used the word "distant", but using it again when voting for nutella wouldn't look too good would it?

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:In that order?

Dom
S~V~S
...
nutella

nutella is a distant tertiary suspect.

I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I have a neutral read on nutella right now. Gun to my head, civvie or baddie, I would go with baddie. But I don't trust that lynch.

Is that because you don't trust me?

No, I think your vote is well-reasoned enough, as well as Matt F. But as I said before, I don't trust any lynch at this point that isn't a sig lynch.

linki - Road trip bruh

I'm not attempting to justify anyone else's BUGLA vote on Day 1, but I believe mine is perfectly justified.

a2thezebra wrote:This:

Golden wrote:

BUGLABUSH wrote:Wanna be friends guys

I'll be your friend if you give opinions on other people in the thread and explain whether you think they are good or bad and why

Was followed by this:

BUGLABUSH wrote:Alright then, nice

Which was followed by anything BUT giving opinions on other people in the thread and explaining whether he thinks they are good or bad and why. If I'm given a reason to think that anyone else is a more valuable lynch than someone who is practically taking enjoyment out of refusing to contribute, (which I believe would not be the case if that BUGLABUSH is town, so this is in no way a policy lynch), then I will change my vote. Give me that reason, please.

I have a neutral read on nutella right now. Gun to my head, civvie or baddie, I would go with baddie. But I don't trust that lynch.

sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?

I think the Bubbles ping is reaching at best.

Also, I am 100% positive sig never would have pointed out the "us" thing to try and make me look bad if Bullz hadn't already done so as a maybe-but-not-really-joke. It's debatable as to whether or not civvies say "us", it's not debatable that civvies never resort to opportunistic derails of other players based on nothing whatsoever, to distract from their own poor defenses of the case against themselves.

sig wrote:This isn't my thoughts but is basically the same as Bulls argument on me I just substituted the situation.

The more you say sig, the more I like my vote where it is.

sig wrote:Zebra usage of the word Us means obviously she is on the mafia team.
No civ would use such wording instead they would say townie or the civs.

Zebra on the other hand using the wording of our team obviously means she is mafia and made a word slip

OUR team? If I slipped, you just revealed yourself as my teammate lmao.

Bullzeye wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

"Us"?





I'm just kidding :P

for now

Yeah. Us. The civilians. The implication of my post is that baddies will take advantage of us, the civvies, getting caught up with exact word definitions while they sit back and puff Cali shit. Are you saying you're not one of us, Bullzeye?

I'm not kidding.

I am sure you are lovely too, Mac.

Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

Welcome to my world, sig. Except oh wait...your post right here demonstrates that he actually did not put words in your mouth. Just because he didn't quote you word-for-word doesn't mean that he misrepresented what you said, and I think what you said is a scumslip and your most recent post is a desperate attempt to make it look otherwise, which re-affirms that suspicion.

sig

I'll be back later with some more recent examples of this problem. For now let me just state the obvious: Baddies love it.

I guess my accusations of people not reading my posts aren't being acknowledged because there's a crucial distinction between reading and understanding that I as the accuser have failed to make. You can easily "read" a post but miss the entire point if you're being guided more by your own biases than by the will to remain objective, and perhaps that is what I should be accusing people of rather not reading my posts altogether. It's easy to skim through something and say that you've read it while at the same time misinterpreting everything that was said. Here's an example:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

Dom your defense overall isn't that bad in my opinion, but for this segment that I have singled out I would like for you to take a closer look at Mac's post that you clearly went to a lot of effort to respond to. Say has anyone here seen Cool Hand Luke?

nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

By the way, hi Elohcin.

Based entirely on the voting of Banana and nothing else, here is an analysis of every final vote on Banana from the first to the last.

juliets

juliets wrote:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

Banana, I dont understand. What has he done exactly to cause an argument? What arguments are you talking about?

juliets wrote:

juliets wrote:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

Banana, I dont understand. What has he done exactly to cause an argument? What arguments are you talking about?

Banana you were just here but didnt answer my questions so here is a reminder in case you're still around. I persevere when people don't answer my questions so might as well do it now.

juliets wrote:Banana, speaking of asking questions you still have not answered my question from yesterday even though you were here to make fun of Mac's post and could have answered it then. Are you just going to ignore me and try to make the question about your vote go away? I think I'll throw a vote your way until you answer me and then I'll see if the answer explains things for me.

Alright, so the first vote that contributed to Banana's mislynch was actually just a pressure vote for the most part. My issue is, I don't think Banana's vote for Matt F was hard to understand, and I never did, which is why I didn't give it much attention at all until the enormous out-of-nowhere bandwagon appeared to mislynch him. I interpret it as Banana holding Matt F responsible for the nonsense back-and-forth between him and Mac, which he felt distracted from any legitimate scumhunting that would've been easier to focus on had it not been for Matt F. Part of this may have been because of Matt F's self-vote as well. I strongly disagree, but I don't think the reasoning is that difficult to understand. So the question I must answer with each of the Banana voters is: are they genuine with not understanding what Banana meant with his vote? In juliets' case, I think she was. I think she seemed dissatisfied with not getting an answer from Banana and not seeing any other pings, (she made it clear in one post that she did not share/understand the case against Dom) she left her vote on Banana who to be fair, didn't meet her conditions of changing her vote, which was simply to respond to her. Also, when Floyd considered a vote for Matt F, she didn't understand why with him either.

juliets wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:Ugh, I'm finding it hard choosing between Matt and Mac.

Why would you vote for Matt? Why would you vote for Mac?

Floyd's post that was quoted by juliets there also demonstrates to me why Banana's vote on Matt shouldn't be that hard to interpret. The conflict between Matt and Mac was preventing focus on progressing through the game, and if Matt hadn't removed his self-vote then I might actually have shared the suspicion that he was doing it to present town with WIFOM that would put a dent in the chances of a rational lynch. So again, I don't think Banana's vote for Matt is difficult to understand, but that being said, again, I don't think juliets was disingenous with her vote. Being the first vote it couldn't have been part of a bandwagon and being a pressure vote I doubt it was intended to start one with such magnitude. juliets looks good here.

sig

sig wrote:For the time I will be placing my vote on BANANA, He didn't answer the questions in regard to his vote and his second and only other post was nonsensical.

I also find the reasoning for his Matt vote to be strange so for know
NANANANANANA_BANANA

I'll be around for awhile longer, but will then be off until later tonight. However, unless Banana posts I'll most likely keep my vote on him.

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?

sig looks a lot worse here than juliets IMO. It would be fine if he echoed juliets' reasons for the vote provided he acknowledged that it was an echoing of juliets' reasons, but he seems to imply here that his reasons for voting Banana are original. He even references the questions that juliets proposed to Banana that Banana did not answer, but fails to mention juliets' name regardless. It seems too careful to me to leave her name out of this post when it is a carbon copy of her vote. The only redeeming quality of this post is that it also has the pressure vote acknowledgement that the vote could change if Banana responds. But that's it. sig looks bad here, but not irredeemably so.

Canucklehead

Canucklehead wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm looking through ISOs to try and find some pings to actually work off and I'm getting a really clear picture.... so many people are not giving much, it's no wonder there is little to go on.

So, I'm going to ask some specific people some specific questions, and I really want these people to answer these questions. It's time to start generating content.

Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?

Where are you guys? Are you civilian-aligned? Do you have any opinions on people you think are town? Do you have any opinions on who you think are bad?

I'm here on my couch with my dog, about to leave for curling in about 10 minutes. I support the civ cause. I do not. I do not.

I'm voting banana for having an obnoxious username.

I've said it before but it really needs saying again. This is the most poorly-justified vote in the history of mafia. I can understand a throwaway vote from someone with no reads if that throwaway vote isn't on a bandwagon with already increasing momentum, but for someone who claims to "support the civ cause" not having any opinions on who is good and who is bad and then to throw a vote on someone with two votes already on them for a joke reason, I think I can safely say that this post alone makes Canucklehead a reasonable lynch candidate as soon as possible. And I know I'm only supposed to be basing these analyses off the context of the vote on Banana, but the fact that Canuck's next post features no mention of Banana and consists entirely of a vote for scissors which took her off today's poll and yeah, lynch Canuck lynch Canuck lynch Canuck. ASAP.

Elohcin

Elohcin wrote:I voted for Banana. His/her vote on Matt is simply false, weird, and suspicious.

I don't buy this. This goes back to the question I initially posed with juliets: Is the lack of understanding of Banana's vote on Matt genuine? In Eloh's case, I don't think it is. At all. "False, weird, and suspicious?" From a newbie no less, when there are other lurker newbie candidates (*cough* BUGLA *cough) whose behavior was/is far more damning of their alignment? It also doesn't help that this is the fourth vote for Banana following Canuck's. Elohcin looks bad here. Not as bad as Canuck, but a little bit worse than sig.

S~V~S

S~V~S wrote:Yeah, I don't think Dom would set me up like that if he were actually bad, so no way am I voting for him.

I would prefer not to vote for a nub on day one, but I don't want to lynch Dom and I think that Nanananas vote was bogus as well. So I am going to put my vote there.

And if you're the SK again Dom, seriously, never talking to you again.

linki linki linki STOP POSTING YOU GUYS

On the one hand I understand saving a person who you think is innocent by contributing to the lynch of someone who has pinged you, but on the other hand I'm not sure that I buy that SVS was actually pinged by Banana. She did mention earlier that she was pinged by him which helps, but in that same post she also expressed hesitation to vote for him:

S~V~S wrote:My bad then, Epi, I am sorry that I missed it.

That does make sense, i will read Doms posts, from what you say there will not be many.

I had not particularly intended to vote for Bugla or even Nananan, who struck me more with his early vote. I would rather give them a chance to settle in, this being their first game.

Overall, I think in SVS' case, this is up in the air. But, gun to my head, if she's good or bad based on her Banana vote and the context behind it, I would have to go with bad, even though I think she has defended herself against Epi pretty well.

Dom

Dom wrote:i'm throwing a vote on Banana bc i dont' want to die

I think this looks good for Dom, honestly. A baddie might have at least tried to make it look like their vote was for any other reason besides saving their own skin, and I also read Dom's reaction to Banana's flip as genuine. I think with this final vote there were a lot of opportunities for a baddie to give some BS reasoning but Dom doesn't. Even though it's the final vote on one of the most disagreeable bandwagons I've come across in a while, it doesn't ping me in the slightest. Based on this, I think Dom is a civvie with his priorities straight, that being survival of the fittest.



So to recap, here is a ranking of who I think looks most to least scummy of the final votes for Banana:

Canucklehead
Elohcin
sig

SVS


Dom

juliets

HamburgerBoy wrote:Looks like we were cut entirely from it.

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

Dom's not playing the other game that bea's playing, so this post couldn't have gone there.

That's why I'm intrigued.

Don't do drugs, kids.

Why is Canucklehead, who made the most poorly-justified vote in the history of Mafia yesterday, (the third one for Banana no less) not on the poll today?

When nutella responded well to pressure vote, I backed off my suspicion. Maybe I should revisit some of the lower posters.

linki@SVS - I am on the fence about this conflict between you and Epi, (at the moment it looks like civ vs. civ to me) but I feel that I should clarify that I also will never lynch someone just because they are a low poster, but that does not mean that lurkers should not be lynched. There is less to go on, sure, but the few content that can be analyzed can also provide a lot of accurate insight.

In that order?

What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

, , , ; : . .