The Syndicate

*With all the "SVS says" going around in this thread, waits to be blamed for whatever happens*

So everyone else left gets a Gom Jabbar or nothing?

I wonder if the Gom Jabbar people are tested with the GJ, or give the test to others? Or if this is just a flavor check in poll.

No chances you will answer that for me is there, Epignosis?

LOL wrong thread, sorry ha ha ha. Two games at once after no Mafia for a few weeks, my brain melts

Excellent post, LC.

Hello New People

If you are totally new to Mafia, might as well get one of the most complex games right up front, then anything else will be easy.

Re poll, I like a bit of all of these except country (and I even like a little country, the old school Hand Williams Sr & Patsy Cline stuff my grandparents listened to) so not sure; too bad no Punk. Both Prog & Alternative popped to mind when I first read it, so it will be one of those two.

OK, gonna vote Prog. I like Alternative a lot, plus tons of "other", but my favorite album & song are Pink Floyd.

TheFloyd73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:OK, gonna vote Prog. I like Alternative a lot, plus tons of "other", but my favorite album & song are Pink Floyd.

I now have a friend

Best concept album ever, plus almost every song stands on it's own.

MacDougall wrote:I hope everyone is keen to vote MattF along with me. Floyd? Can you get your mates to help me railroad Matt on day 1?

Matt F wrote:Friends of Floyd - Please do not lynch me

So is this a joke carried from the other game, or are you two teammates, or what?

Matt F wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I hope everyone is keen to vote MattF along with me. Floyd? Can you get your mates to help me railroad Matt on day 1?

Matt F wrote:Friends of Floyd - Please do not lynch me

So is this a joke carried from the other game, or are you two teammates, or what?

He keeps saying he's going to vote for me in this game and in Dune. Here is one of his posts in Dune:

MacDougall wrote:

sig wrote:As tricky as your question I would say.

Hang on MattF is playing.

Placeholder vote for MattF.

I think he's joking, so I'm having fun back with him. However, it's entirely possible he will tunnel me in both games until (as he states) one of us is dead. You'll have to ask him.

I WAS kinda asking both of you, so I did ask him~


And yeah, I was going back and forth a lot yesterday, I guess I must have thought all of those posts were in this thread, and I was like, "All right already, we get it, you don't trust each other, enough with the overkill", then it was a "hmm" thing. So fair enough.

Just an FYI, for the duration of the World Series, I will be scarce during game times. As a lifelong Mets fan, this is a squeeeee moment for me.

Hopefully it is not rained out tonight

Are you threatening me for asking a question?

I am not sure I would define that as sarcasm, but OK.

Do you plan on making sarcastic responses to serious questions for the remainder of the game?

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am not sure I would define that as sarcasm, but OK.

Do you plan on making sarcastic responses to serious questions for the remainder of the game?

Do you plan on feigning sincerity and building cases on joke posts made on day 0 for the remainder of the game? Rather opportunistic in my opinion.

And no I do not. Only until MattF gets lynched.

Was it a joke post? You seem to be saying something different in later posts.

I am much friendlier & softer when I "feign sincerity" and I would hardly call one post asking if the back and forth between the two of you wan sincere or not a "case"

Golden wrote:I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

i am a bit confused with this. Are you saying that becasue his answers in the Dune thread were to your liking, that you think he's good in THIS thread?

But you're voting for Sorsha for posting the same thing in both threads, although Mac did the identical thing?

After my early faux pas of misposting, I planned on putting time and space between the two threads so an not to conflate them. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

As for me, having read both threads I feel somewhat differently about Mac here. He started out saying his "I'm voting for Matt day one every game" thing was a joke, then he backtracked that. I am unlikely to vote for him or Matt without more substance (although i am not thrilled with Matts self vote) but I hope we can base our opinions on THIS thread.

@zebra~ one should post Sheep at every applicable opportunity

a2thezebra wrote:

Yay

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Can we just play this game independent of every other game going on right now?

This ^^

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:i am a bit confused with this. Are you saying that becasue his answers in the Dune thread were to your liking, that you think he's good in THIS thread?

But you're voting for Sorsha for posting the same thing in both threads, although Mac did the identical thing?

No, to both.

I am saying that I am comfortable that I don't find the Mac stuff suspicious in itself.
And that I find Sorsha suspicious, but not because she posted the same thing in both threads.

That is not at all how I read it. But OK.

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

You think it was him and not Mac that caused the arguments?

Epignosis wrote:Pro-Tip:

S~V~S is always bad in Black Con games.

In the first recruitment game on TP, I was the civvie recruiter. I was a civ in the LOST Map game on RM as well.

Get it straight Epi.

Unless there is a clear reason for a zero vote, I always make deliberate votes especially in a game where I know the hosts are intense. This poll seemed rather simplistic for these hosts and I was somewhat leery of that, tbh.

I would think that if someone knew they were going to benefit, they would deliberate less. And with the exception of Bullz, I think all the Prog voters are known to like Prog. I had no info.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:I think I get where you are coming from. So thank you for clarifying. Makes more sense. I'm still having trouble with Mac.

Can you please do me a kindness?

I would like for you to try and put into a conversation starter your ping on me so we can hash this out.

I would also like you to do a quick scan of SVS and a brief summary of your feelings there.

That would be lovely.

This is interesting. Not becaue I think it says anything about YOU, but what is says about US.

I thought about this post while I took my shower & walked my dog this AM. I don't think Lorab has EVER voted for me in the 6 years we have been playing together, unless I was an outed baddie, and even then, I don't think she has voted for me. In StLGirls Computer Lab game on The Piano, I WAS an outed baddie, my avatar was a cackling demon, my sig said something like "I'm going to kill you all" and she still wanted to think I was on her side. And tbh, maybe I was, becasue i don't recall that I have voted for her in a very long time, if at all. Or NKing her voluntarily, like if my teammates wanted to do it, but i did not and they won type of thing. I can't remember the last time we were bad together, it may have been on LP.

We tend to be in agreement about most things, and I think there is some mutual respect going on there since we play vastly different games, yet still manage to see eye to eye. And that is likely what you are seeing here. I don't even think about it anymore.

I think that anyone else who has played with us over the years would agree with me here.

No he is totally someone I would expect to vote prog. So are Epi & BWT. Lots of the people at TS came from a site called Progressive Archives. I was surprised MORE people did not vote Prog, tbh. If one stood out to me it was Bullz, but even if he had info, which he denies, not just baddies had info, so

I would be curious about what the other consequences of the poll might be/have been, all the voters for one option being off the poll is very plain vanilla for LC/BR. I wonder if the people who voted for other options might have gotten less public results?

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Why do you think Canuck is a better bet? Do you think her no-showiness (until just now, lol) is more suspicious than Timmers no-showiness (until just now too)?

And although I generally don't love voting for nubs on Day One, not a fan of Nanananas vote. It seems pretty opportunistic to me.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Why do you think Canuck is a better bet? Do you think her no-showiness (until just now, lol) is more suspicious than Timmers no-showiness (until just now too)?

And although I generally don't love voting for nubs on Day One, not a fan of Nanananas vote. It seems pretty opportunistic to me.

In reading my ISOs, Canuck's little pedantic pink extract felt like someone who had paid more attention to the game than many of the other absentees.

With all the other things going on in the thread, a bit of pedantic pink led you to vote for her? Can you explain just what?

MacDougall wrote:I will put some good time into this a bit later. I have things to do in the real world. I am going to defer to Epi and vote Dom.

Oh my.

I can't read Dom for crap, I have a blind spot the size of the Matterhorn where he is concerned. I wish Epi would explain more what he means here.

BUGLABUSH wrote:Stop talking Mr Zebra no one likes you

Wow.

@Mac, becasue i know Dom is a valuable player if Epi is wrong. And I have seen him be wrong often enough. I want to hear more from Dom before voting him for someone elses tell.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

BUGLABUSH wrote:Stop talking Mr Zebra no one likes you

Wow.

@Mac, becasue i know Dom is a valuable player if Epi is wrong. And I have seen him be wrong often enough. I want to hear more from Dom before voting him for someone elses tell.

That implies there are players who aren't valuable if I am wrong about them.

Who are those players and why are they not valuable?

I was not making a sweeping statement about every player, just about Dom. I am not willing to lynch him over a tell you won't discuss. TBH, you are right though, in your semantic jab at my crappy wording. I don't know that I would be willing to vote for anyone based on your reasoning without further explanation. I asked for that, did I miss where you posted it?

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.

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Dom, are you bad?

nope.
are you?

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

why does bullz have a more than 1/3 chance of being bad?
this reads as rather hyperbolic to me

While rereading Dom, I did find this which i find notable becasue I pretty much agree with him here. In general, he does not seem any vaguer than usual. He tends to be a bit more effusive when bad, and no one could call this: "..." effusive. I could see someone who is not used to him coming to this conclusion, but i am not seeing anything different.

But I rezzed him when he was the Serial Killer. Twice, I think, so my opinion is fairly pointless. I don't think I will vote for him though.

Matt if you had not already tossed your vote, who would you vote for now.

Linki @TH~ What is different to you about Doms posts, though? I am missing it.

Matt F wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Matt if you had not already tossed your vote, who would you vote for now.

I think the vote is changeable so I can still change it before deadline if I want.

If you mean between the leading candidates, the two noobs or Dom, I'd say Banana.

In general, not sure yet.

Also, SVS, I think you may have missed my post...

Matt F wrote:

S~V~S wrote:No he is totally someone I would expect to vote prog. So are Epi & BWT. Lots of the people at TS came from a site called Progressive Archives. I was surprised MORE people did not vote Prog, tbh. If one stood out to me it was Bullz, but even if he had info, which he denies, not just baddies had info, so

That's interesting. Any players in specific? Players who you believe are into Prog more then any of the rest, but voted elsewhere?

I did, actually. I just went and looked at the poll, i was surprised at how few regulars there are playing this game. So overall, I think all of the proggers voted Prog. So not sure what if anything that means. I would like to know what, if anything, the other options brought, since that seems rather random for a night poll, especially an LC/BR night poll. Perhaps subsequent night polls will give us more direction.

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

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not suspicious of anyone with votes, but Buglabush seems not interested at all in playing the game, even less than people who haven't posted at all.
*votes*

Dom wasn't interested either until he got votes on him. If buglabush was scum I would imagine his team would be screaming at him to contribute, probably even post coaching.

Bug looks like an island to me.

I also want to respond to this.

Explain my disinterest. How was I disinterested?

Low post content comparatively.

Have you played with Dom?

Epignosis wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:That's an odd thing to say.

Why would you trust me enough Day 1 to follow me on a lynch? That implies that there are people you do trust right now.

Epignosis wrote:That implies there are players who aren't valuable if I am wrong about them.

Who are those players and why are they not valuable?

Epignosis wrote: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.

Hello.

Do you speak English.

I do.

All righty then.

Time for bed

Linki, who so protective of bug?

MacDougall wrote:What a travesty.

No, it was kind of a Policy Lynch, wasn't it? Lynching a civview who WAS participating, now THAT would have been a travesty, Mr. Hyperbole Words.

He made two posts, one of them an incredibly opportunistic vote.

And feel free to not validate me~ I am self validating

If the hosts don't post it, I have it.

I thought you liked policy lynches?

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I thought you liked policy lynches?

You are scum.

Um, no.

And I don't recall you saying why. Is it becasue Epi thought I was always bad in LC/BR games and you value his (incorrect) opinion so highly? Which reminds me, I was also a civ in Sandman at RM. And I started out as a vanilla civ in RM3.

Or is it becasue Lorab & I don't think each other is bad? Why exactly did you think that only one of us might be bad? How does that work?

Or is it becasue I voted for Prog in 2 posts instead of one like everyone else?

a2thezebra wrote:That moment when the accused makes a better case for themselves to be voted for than the person who accused them.

Linki, Bye Banana

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I thought you liked policy lynches?

You are scum.

Um, no.

And I don't recall you saying why. Is it becasue Epi thought I was always bad in LC/BR games and you value his (incorrect) opinion so highly?

I didn't think you were always bad in LC/BR games.

Epignosis wrote:Pro-Tip:

S~V~S is always bad in Black Con games.

I speak English. How else would you interpret this?

Also going with Rock. I used to collect rocks when I was a kid.

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

Also, Epi, people change their attitudes. While I do not want to lynch nubs, if people are not even trying, meh. If they try, I want to give them a chance. You know my feelings regarding participation; perhaps Llama is right and players need to step up and police the thread more.

Epi, It happened becasue of how I feel about the P scores, and has been evolving for some time. I would think you know this, you were the one who pointed out the game where I killed only low posters. Also playing with aapje in Recruitment, and being more realistic, I think, made me think more about low posters. You can try to twist an evolving mindset into something it isn't if you like, but my change of heart is a real one. I have seen you poke fingers at people for ludicrous reasons, and need more than what you said to lynch someone. Having reread him at your behest, I saw typical Dom. I did not paticularly think you were right about Dom. I did not want to see him lynched, so I voted to save him. I am sorry Nananana was a civ, but he was not posting, he made what I felt was a very opportunistic vote in one of his two posts. Plus Mac trying to manhandle the thread into the direction he wanted it to go, as I said, freaked me a bit.

I don;t think I will ever lynch someone just because they are a low poster, but I am done coddling them.

I made a decision and I stick by it, and am not particularly concerned with your opinion of it.

Thats the point, I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs.

But I have decided i would prefer to return to how we used to do it. It worked well, and the thread policed itself.

So death to lurkers, and people who make 2 posts~ one that says "I vote for X who already has 2 votes just becasue" and the other that says "Get a sense of humor".

Linki, I thought your case on Dom was bullshit. To not lynch him I had to cote for one of two low posters, both of whom happened to also be nubs. I am not going to save a non posting nub to save someone that Mac is screaming in the corner must die for no freaking reason whatsoever.

Dom>low posters when i am not sure he is bad. YOU > low posters when I am not sure you are bad. I did not think Nanana was going to start contributing at a higher level. I am sure he is a nice guy, but I don;t think he was committed to the game.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Thats the point, I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs.

But I have decided i would prefer to return to how we used to do it. It worked well, and the thread policed itself.

So death to lurkers, and people who make 2 posts~ one that says "I vote for X who already has 2 votes just becasue" and the other that says "Get a sense of humor".

Linki, I thought your case on Dom was bullshit. To not lynch him I had to cote for one of two low posters, both of whom happened to also be nubs. I am not going to save a non posting nub to save someone that Mac is screaming in the corner must die for no freaking reason whatsoever.

Why was my case on Dom bullshit? Was it more substantial than your case on bananas?

S~V~S wrote:Dom>low posters when i am not sure he is bad. YOU > low posters when I am not sure you are bad. I did not think Nanana was going to start contributing at a higher level. I am sure he is a nice guy, but I don;t think he was committed to the game.

Civilian > Committed to the game

I got the win condition to lynch Mafia, not lynch people who I don't think are committed to the game. What you just said in this post is that you are not trying to lynch Mafia. You are down for lynching non-contributors.

I hope your role slips on a banana peel. Poetic justice.

OK, now this is a lot of word twisting.

I was not trying to lynch Dom, becasue I did not think he is bad based on your weak argument. So if I have someone I do not think is bad (Dom) and someone I do think may be bad (Nanana), I will vote for the one I do have a ping on, especially if he is not really even playing.

This was Nananas vote post for Matt:

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

This is the VERY NEXT POST in the thread:

S~V~S wrote:

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

You think it was him and not Mac that caused the arguments?

I know I also mentioned his opportunistic vote later. So it is not like I decided out of the blue to vote for Nanana. The fact that there was more chatter about Bug at the time of the lynch, would have actually made him a vote more similar to what you are saying I was doing.

I said this on Thursday Night, 6:01 my time, some 5 hours before the poll ended:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Why do you think Canuck is a better bet? Do you think her no-showiness (until just now, lol) is more suspicious than Timmers no-showiness (until just now too)?

And although I generally don't love voting for nubs on Day One, not a fan of Nanananas vote. It seems pretty opportunistic to me.

I was not (and still am not) convinced that Dom is bad based on your argument. I had reason to think Nanana was. So I voted for him. Becasue I did not want to lynch Dom based on a weak argument (and Mac screamiong in the corner "EPI SCUMDAR FTW!!!" was not helping, since I don't trust his AT ALL). I had a choice; vote for someone I don't particularly think is bad based on an argument I find to be specious at best, or vote for someone I personally have a weak ping on.

Known Participating player > non participating player in that tie situation. Had it not been tied, I was more likely to have voted for Mac, who I felt more strongly about than about nanana. Personally, I thought he was buddying up to you big time. I also thought his game play has diverged greatly from what I have seen of him in another thread.

But when push came to shove, I saved Dom since I think your argument is weak, and I though Nanana might have been bad.

Bottom line; hindsight is 20/20. I voted for the person I thought was more likely to be bad based on my own thoughts.

I don't think your Mom would let Epignosis lynch you.

Rude.

Epignosis wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote: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.

"I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

No, I really don't like to.

But if someone I don't think is bad based on the case being made against him, is tied with someone I do think could be bad, I will vote for the one I think is bad to save the one I think isn't, even if he is a nub. If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

I have explained this 88 times, Lol. And you are skipping the "I thought he was bad" part to focus on my wording. You're wrong here, but knock yourself out.

Well, I did, and I said so right after he made his vote post, Epi. Next post after he voted, i questioned it. It isn't like that vote came out of left field. Had I voted for BUG, that would have been different. But I voted for someone I had previously mentioned to save someone I thought was being mischaracterized. For the 89th time.

Of the two, I felt it more likely that Nanana was bad, so I put my money where my mouth was instead of pussing off and making a vote that would not matter.

And yeah, I think the case on Dom was bullshit.

Sorry so absent yesterday, I had family stuff, real estate stuff, Halloween stuff, drama stuff. Aside from D & D, I should be around most of today. I will get caught up to the thread this AM.

Matt F wrote:

S~V~S wrote:If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

Knowing that nutella made a tangent vote at a time when the leading candidates were at 4-4-4...what are your thoughts? (or have you already shared?)

No I did not weigh in on Nutella at all, I was pretty much afk most of the last day, I just got caught up this AM.

Actually, I don't think much of her vote in light of the fact hat she mentioned considering Buglabush for a vote more than once.

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

nutella wrote:

Epignosis wrote:"Pushing the Dom thing."

I have to pick someone to vote for. I have to have a reason for voting that person. I have to try to get that person lynched. Otherwise I'm just coming in and voting and not giving a toss.

nutella, what WOULD give you a clue as to my alignment? I'm curious.

I don't really have an answer to that. Different behaviors can make me suspect or trust players and it depends on the context of the game. I just usually don't have such reads/much material to base them on when it's still day 1.


Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

That second quote was her first mention of Sorsha, and her next post was her vote post.

nutella wrote:Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

But considering that she said she suspected Sorsha, in part, for voting Dom (who was one of the tied people) and that she had previously mentioned Buglabush as a possible place to put her vote (another person tied) does seem a bit off. Like the first Bug mention was just distancing since she voted for someone for their stance on Dom, but did not think enough of Dom HERSELF to counter Sorshas vote, or for Bug although she had brought him up already.

Elohcin wrote:There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?

I am OK with it, the host posts say when the cycles end

nutella wrote:SVS, I think I've explained why I decided not to vote for Bug. One or two people, I forget who, had concluded that he looked more like a loner civ than a baddie and I agreed. I realized that it was just another Day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who didn't actually look like a baddie for any particular reason, and besides, I found that I was more suspicious of Sorsha than anyone. Since I had no investment in the tie, I wanted to let it play out and see who *did* break it, and meanwhile preferred to vote for my own highest suspect at the time.

But you voted for Sorsha based on her vote for Dom. So it seems you DID have some investment in the tie.

Sorsha wrote:I wasn't particularly suspicious of Nutella for voting me yesterday, at the time the only thing that pinged me was it kind of being a throw away vote when there was a heated race going on.

SVS- how good of a judge do you think you are of Nutella based on past games?

Same question to Matt and golden.

Not the best, tbh. If you recall the Freemasons games cabin fevah put on at LP? I led a day one lynch on her, and she was Mother Theresa Based on tone, I can't read her at all. the thing that strikes me here is her mentioning Buglabush more than once, but when it came time to put her money where her mouth was, she made a tangent vote. I would have felt that was suspicious regardless of who did it.

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:

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

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.

There's traction there. No one wants to lynch S~V~S despite the fact that she refuses to answer anything about her strong stance on my Day 1 case. I'll take my third suspect if that's all I can get.

What didn't I answer?