The Syndicate

Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?

Bullzeye wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.
A role that "seems" to be another role when lynched. Like say you're a baddie with seemer power and we lynch you, you appear as the bestest but most believable civ when your role is revealed and we all cry a lot thinking we killed someone good.

Oh okay. Roles like that are taboo where I come from; I'm definitely not accustomed to them.

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.
I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?
He said he thinks it shows the mindset of a recruiter who has control over recruiting (ie someone who is certain they can make sure they won't be on a team with epi), while simultaneously saying the original statement is wrong because recruiters don't have control over recruiting (ie I can't be certain I won't be on a team with epi).

Okay. This might provide an opportunity for you to make a judgment call: I asserted he was interpreting a perceived logical discrepancy as a negative indicator for you. You seem to perceive a logical discrepancy in his treatment of you just the same -- is it a negative indicator?

I switched my vote to BWT. I think he's better competition for the DF lynch that I don't like much.

Golden wrote:@dom - I'm listening. I haven't really noticed scotty this game.

reywaS, do you find Golden's content and methods in this game so far to be indicative of a recruiter role outside the perceived discrepancy you've been focusing on recently? Consider all elements of Golden so far, including his involvement with other players, post count, his own meta as you perceive it, and anything else of relevance.

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.
Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?

reywaS wrote:I think he's full of shit. Civvie minded people don't usually become that full of shit. And now he's turning this into a giant No U. He's even using the same argument for me being bad that I'm using against him. How much more full of shit can someone possibly get?

Would you agree that civvie-minded people sometimes commit "no u"? Moreover, I think his point against you was understandable. I already stated my understanding of your point against him. Should I lynch you both?

Or should I take a step back and consider the full implications of each nuanced component of this scenario?

Meh @ no lynch

I'll be away for most of this real-time day.

Apparently I'm hanging out in London today. I'll answer questions and say other things tonight.

Epignosis gets killed early too often. Be brave and face the man for once eh (whoever)?

I've just had an absolutely miserable evening, and my ability to put any focus on a mafia game is decimated. I'll request replacement if I've not recovered by tomorrow. Sorry everyone.

Nevermind replacement. I'll soldier on after work.

Alright I'm finally back for real. I'm just gonna ctrl+F my name first and be a narcissist. Then I'll catch up on the rest of thangs.

LoRab wrote:Which, earlier statement about Judge having nefarious purposes (I like the word nefarious these days), makes this post ping my suspiciometer.

It was made at 6:06. Just 20 minutes after day was ended prematurely. Trying to sound innocent and remove oneself from the idea by encouraging people to vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.
Also, who is the "us" of whom you are speaking?

Are you asserting I might have been the one to force the day's end? I'm honestly not sure, this post confuses me. If so, I would ask you why you think I put a concerted effort into moving the votes off of DFaraday and onto either BWT or Bass at the end of the day -- well after its early end.

"Us" referred to the people who had already placed votes including myself. Securing a lynch is paramount to learning something from late-day proceeding, so I called for everyone else (civilian, baddie, and neutral alike) to aid me in the process of murdering somebody.

MovingPictures07 wrote:JaggedJimmyJay, how do you feel about Russ now?

In fact, would you be able to provide a Rainbow List? Maybe we can swap rainbows even.

My immediate perception of Russ is still positive. The only slightly off-putting thing about him is that his post count has remained low despite each of them being pretty thick with content (shades of Alpha and coolkid from the champs tournament), but that's not a significant enough observation to worry me much.

I don't know if a rainbow list makes much sense in this unique setup, at least this early in it. The presence of so much neutrality makes me think any rainbow would be 90% gray. If you're inclined to produce one then I'm game though.

LoRab wrote:But the timing of JJJ's post pings me.

Is this a reference to the same post?

LoRab wrote:You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.

So you're inclined to believe that the person who ended the day early was not aligned with Team Good Guys, or still among the neutral pile?

I think you could select a large number of posts from about the same area of the thread and find a "could have been..." description for them that suits your theory in a similar fashion. You're already reaching quite a bit -- not only to peg this role on me, but beyond that to assert it'd even warrant a vote if you were right.

Bold assertion:

MP is an unlikely recruiter because his behavior on Day 1 was spotlight-oriented. MP is an unlikely recruitee because people were and still are quick to suspect him for so many bad reasons. I don't think many recruiters would want to take that on.

LoRab wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.
So you're inclined to believe that the person who ended the day early was not aligned with Team Good Guys, or still among the neutral pile?

I think you could select a large number of posts from about the same area of the thread and find a "could have been..." description for them that suits your theory in a similar fashion. You're already reaching quite a bit -- not only to peg this role on me, but beyond that to assert it'd even warrant a vote if you were right.
I noticed something and brought it up, partly to see your reaction, partly because I thought it worthy of bringing up. Yours was the only vote within a time frame close to the vote end time that talked about people being sure to vote. It stood out to me. I pointed it out. It's what I do.

I do not the the person who ended day early is civ aligned, for sure. I think they may have been bad alligned--but they may be neutral. But their action does not feel neutral. So I feel it is worth discussing.

And I don't think I said I was going to vote for you, just that I suspected you and had/have an eye on you. Your reaction to that seems a bit over the top, tbh, and didn't make me feel better. But still just keeping an for the time being.

Sure. I encourage you to bring things up and discuss them whether I'm involved or not. It's my job to ask you questions about your own thought process to give me a little assurance that you're not being manipulative -- or worse yet capitalizing on my slow Day 2.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what else one can do with an accusation other than answer to it and attempt to express why it isn't suitable. If you remain suspicious then oh well that's Mafia.

unfurl wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
unfurl wrote: BWT, got a lot votes, maybe is worth lo look at him or his voters, some manipulation may be going on in that situation something I may look into later on
I agree re-reading the BWT voters might be a traditional way to spot some potential bandwagoning, but what manipulation do you plan to unearth, considering the Day officially ended before BWT received 7 out of his 8 total votes?

Mearly that Im curious as to he received 8 votes (looking at the image poll) from Devin-Lorab-TurnipHead-jaggedjimmy -DrWiggly-Golden-Typh-Tranq
More toward the end of the lynch poll
And even if the day ended early, and we have no clue to bwt alliance, I think is intersting to see if people still feel the same about him or if something changed?

I voted for BWT for two primary reasons:

1.) I thought he'd make a better lynch than DFaraday, who was leading the tally.

2.) He had the highest quantity of posts that pinged me in some way.

#2 can be tempered some by the fact that BWT simply has a decent number of posts and thus more opportunities to be perceived as suspicious. This also seems to be happening to MP and Golden as far as I can tell. Right now I find BWT a little less suspicious than I did on Day 1. I admire his tenacity; he's been a consistent and important presence since surviving the lynch -- and not to such a degree that there should be concern of overcompensation.

LoRab wrote:Pretty sure it was before day 2, and certainly before you said anything in the thread about your day, that I brought it up. And if I reamin suspish, then so be it. Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide.

I don't think I find you terribly suspicious. You've espoused your perspective believably enough that I'm not inclined to "no u" about it. You saw something in my posts that bore specific contextual meaning to you, and you pursued that avenue in the thread -- and answered correctly by my measure when I prodded you to expand.

Bubbles would seem to be a strange choice for silencing; she is rarely the most talkative sort. I'm arriving late to this conversation -- what's the beef with Bubbles exactly?

Bullzeye wrote:I guess what my last post is saying is that if Bubbles is definitely 100% not silenced I'm probably also voting for her because the TH votes are crazy lazy.

Do you associate lazy votes with anti-town more than town?

What's up with timmer's self vote?

I am more suspicious of the MP voters than I am of the average random participant. This post by Scotty troubles me:

Scotty wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I have been quite clear in the fact that I vacationing at the beach until tiesday being relentless pestered by small children and trying to keep up on my phone. I'm sorry that I have been able to weigh in on every topic of discussion, but at least I am not missing votes. I am basing my votes on pings as I see them until I get back. If that makes me a liability, then don't recruit me to your team.
You're right. I'm sorry as well. I understand why you think I've overreacted because I have. I really don't want to get lynched on D2 over baseless reasons this game. Surely you can relate to being an easy lynch.

I'll move my vote.
Make sure you bold it!

linki- that goes for you too MM!

I think MP's frustrations are genuine, but I think they are coming different angles. Angry Birds shouldn't be an excuse here, and I actually don't see the passive-aggressiveness he's expressing via Rico and llama, but hey man, everybody's got something going on. It's just whooshing right over my head. Last time I saw MP this wound up was in Watchmen, and that was when he was taking a bit of heat before the vote. This, however, doesn't seem like heat for a vote, but for a myriad of personal semantic and personal reasons. He was frustrated civ in that game, but I don't know if I read that here.

Y'all ever tried crack cocaine? I was hanging out on the street yesterday with a buddy who had recently been dumped and this homeless man started talking with us about the miracles of crack. He invited us to his lair between buildings to try some, and my buddy felt like he had nothing better to do. So he joined in while I went to the pharmacy to get some mango spears. The line there had only 2 people but took like 10 minutes- no kidding!! - and by the time I got back, my buddy had already left with a girl he had met at the bodega nearby, homeless man was nowhere to be seen. This morning he texted and said he had a crazy night, and it was the best decision of his life. Those mango spears were in so very ripe and in season and I DEVOURED them as well . All in all, a good night had by all!

Don't be afraid to try something new, MP. You do you. I know you are stressed out, and I get that feel. But you may want to check that at the door, since, to me anyway, it doesn't do your civ cred- in this game at least- any favors.

That first true paragraph is all over the place. Scotty reads MP's frustration as genuine (first highlight), but not as civilian genuine -- I view this distinction dubiously. That isn't because I don't think there can be a distinction, there can. It's because I don't follow the logic Scotty has laid out to arrive at that conclusion. He drew the comparison to frustration exhibited by MP in Watchmen (I did not follow this game closely), referencing the reasons MP was taking heat rather than MP's actual behavior. This means Scotty's interest lies in the accusations being leveled upon MP and not in MP's responses to them -- that's the wrong place to focus.

G-Man wrote:I won't be back before the poll closes, so here goes:

VOTES TURNIP HEAD

He's on my list of players who I don't have a read on and lynching him could be a test of whether or not to ignore future messages from the Speaker of Serenity.

This is a valid example of someone flicking the booger of responsibility onto the Speaker of Serenity. G-Man, the TH vote is yours -- either own it or drop it. Moreover, this logic disregards the very real possibility that the Speaker is merely hunching on Turnip and doesn't actually know anything. If the call for his lynch turns out ill-advised, that would say nothing about the Speaker other than "he/she called for the lynch of the wrong person".

Unless you think that player might have privileged information and is allowed by the hosts to exploit it in such an obvious manner as this. I don't think that.

Bass, every single one of your posts in this game so far has been about either MP or yourself.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bass, every single one of your posts in this game so far has been about either MP or yourself.
Yes and no . I had a crazy theory at the start of the game and now I have been defending myself since i have been back. I have been asking golden questions to try to feel him out.

How does he feel? Asking for a friend.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:shady.

Please select 3-5 players you haven't talked about yet and tell me how you feel about them -- either briefly or not.

Scotty wrote:Ok i'

VOTE SCOTTY for now until I see a more satisfactory response to my accusation than this ominously incomplete post.

A few points for DrWilgy to address:

DrWilgy wrote:*The lights in the room cut off, and a spotlight turns on revealing a rather handsome man clad in a tuxedo and a matching mask. With one hand he gracefully moves his hand to his mask, the other he runs through his hair. He removes the mask to reveal himself as the good DrWilgy, and he points a finger to the sky* Everyone! The doctor has returned! MM and Unfurl, let's do this together now!

Boomslang wrote:DrWilgy, I see you creeping this thread. Care to explain your switch vote to MP? Because that's really, really sketchy, especially as you've been less than forthcoming with your llama vote analysis (other than to say you "got what you wanted" out of it). Right now, you strike me as very opportunistic.
Opportunistic, yes, very much so. Does this bother you? In regards to creeping, I was merely staying upto pace. I can't be falling too far behind. My vote switch to MP is simple, I wanted to pressure them. I do have an inclination to think that they are scum based upon the voting pattern I saw being formed. Until something else stands out to me, my vote will remain there.

The Llama vote and analysis are two different things, I wanted to see what would happen if a vote was placed on Llama. That's all.

Here's my analysis and thoughts so far, don't expect chronological order, I simply picked through things I found interesting:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:MP, I believe Rico has a correct tally somewhere, but I was not keeping track of votes that were not stated in the thread. Then again, neither would the hosts...

Not sure how much we can gleam from D1's no result at all then.
This is another reason why I can confidently place my vote on MP. While this post may not contain much, suggesting that something has no informative value is wrong. All things are rational and have a reason for happening. Even suggesting that information is useless, can translate to "This evidence is irrelevant" which is always super scummy.

The llama vote that preceded your MP vote remains unexplained unless I missed it. Why did you place that vote?

Regarding your explanation for voting MP: citing an intent to increase pressure on him strikes me as a rather fruitless endeavor. MP was already under a solid amount of pressure (as he so often seems to be around here) and he was spewing a great deal of content in the face of that pressure. What more did you need from him to substantiate your read? The post you referenced to expand on your suspicion does not do your vote much justice either -- it's a very minor post within the fuller context of MP's post history and frankly very easy to criticize.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Nutella said she voted me to "prod" well since I have been back she hasn't said anything about what I have said and has left her vote on me llooks fishy to me.

MM votes seems like something normal spamer MM would do so I am feeling ok about.

Timmer self vote looks like someone saying I havent been keeping up and am scared to make a mistake voting for someone else.

JJJ asked for a replacement but decided to stay, I wonder if it was because he was recruited?

Its hard to say who I think is bad and who I think is civ becuase its so early in this game and so many people are still neutral.

More. I'm going to pick names this time. Please share your thoughts on:

reywaS
Scotty
S~V~S
aapje

Bullzeye wrote:JJJ - what do you think of Bass' initial answers? Two NO U's and an easy target? The MM one I get if nobody else has a problem with but I still do.

He chose easy comments to make about a pretty easy set of players. The comments about timmer and MM might as well not exist. The comment about nutella is self-conscious as has been most of his post history. The comment about me is, to be fair, something I expected someone to say.

The most striking thing perhaps is that he bothered to answered my plea for reads at all when he seemingly had little to say.

reywaS wrote:
reywaS wrote:Also, Golden, you getting so upset that someone might think you are not being honest in a game of mafia doesn't look good for you.
EBWOP

What would you say if I told you that in a very recent game I played with Golden, he was equally insistent on his claimed honesty being respected on the purest moral basis that honesty is virtuous -- and he was a townie?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Now JJJ and Bullz can you give options on all those names too.

Only fair.

reywaS - His current crusade against Golden seems ill-advised to me and potentially manipulative if he continues to press it in the face of every rebuttal.

Scotty - His content is not very much like what I saw in Broadway and I've already referenced one post which pinged me a lot.

S~V~S - Her conduct re: Golden is more believable, she is handling the rapid-fire discussion with a candor and emotional conveyance that reads genuine to me for the moment.

aapje - Analytic player who might be a risk -- his contributions to this point would be very effective as smoke and mirrors. Minor suspicion though.

Bullzeye wrote:He had to answer you - if he'd ignored it he'd have looked even worse. He just feels so blendy and shady to me right now, like he's drawn himself some attention he wished he didn't have and now he's trying to hide from it. I don't know if I'm explaining how I feel very well - I've been awake for 18 hours after 3 hours of sleep. His answer to you just really caught my eye in a huge way.

I understand your perspective and in many ways share it. I think we need to ask ourselves these questions to sort out the matter of Bass on Day 2:

1.) If Bass's response wasn't satisfactory, then what would a satisfactory response have looked like?

.....a.) Is the response you're imagining a reasonable expectation for a player with so few posts?

.....b.) Should we demand a player who has had limited time in the thread and faced a number of accusers have thoroughly developed reads on a lot of other players?

.....c.) Does his "no u" inclination indicate paranoia (a town tell) or deflection (a mafia tell)?

The factor which is most preventing me from giving Bass a break is that in both games I've played with him he's been mafia -- and he's behaved quite a lot like he has in this game so far.

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
reywaS wrote:
reywaS wrote:Also, Golden, you getting so upset that someone might think you are not being honest in a game of mafia doesn't look good for you.
EBWOP
What would you say if I told you that in a very recent game I played with Golden, he was equally insistent on his claimed honesty being respected on the purest moral basis that honesty is virtuous -- and he was a townie?
What would you say if i told you that in the perhaps 20 games i have played with Golden in about 5 years, he has consistently put the civ group above himself, even when a neutral or independant?

That would be a meaningful claim, but it's also one that I'd need to see evidence of. How many times have you played with a Golden who has [probably] started a game neutral or independent? Are they contextually similar enough to this to make the comparison valid?

reywaS wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
reywaS wrote:
reywaS wrote:Also, Golden, you getting so upset that someone might think you are not being honest in a game of mafia doesn't look good for you.
EBWOP
What would you say if I told you that in a very recent game I played with Golden, he was equally insistent on his claimed honesty being respected on the purest moral basis that honesty is virtuous -- and he was a townie?
I would take it with a modestly sized grain of salt.

What would be the source of your doubt in this example?

Could anyone provide me with feedback on this whole thing here?

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am more suspicious of the MP voters than I am of the average random participant. This post by Scotty troubles me:

Scotty wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I have been quite clear in the fact that I vacationing at the beach until tiesday being relentless pestered by small children and trying to keep up on my phone. I'm sorry that I have been able to weigh in on every topic of discussion, but at least I am not missing votes. I am basing my votes on pings as I see them until I get back. If that makes me a liability, then don't recruit me to your team.
You're right. I'm sorry as well. I understand why you think I've overreacted because I have. I really don't want to get lynched on D2 over baseless reasons this game. Surely you can relate to being an easy lynch.

I'll move my vote.
Make sure you bold it!

linki- that goes for you too MM!

I think MP's frustrations are genuine, but I think they are coming different angles. Angry Birds shouldn't be an excuse here, and I actually don't see the passive-aggressiveness he's expressing via Rico and llama, but hey man, everybody's got something going on. It's just whooshing right over my head. Last time I saw MP this wound up was in Watchmen, and that was when he was taking a bit of heat before the vote. This, however, doesn't seem like heat for a vote, but for a myriad of personal semantic and personal reasons. He was frustrated civ in that game, but I don't know if I read that here.

Y'all ever tried crack cocaine? I was hanging out on the street yesterday with a buddy who had recently been dumped and this homeless man started talking with us about the miracles of crack. He invited us to his lair between buildings to try some, and my buddy felt like he had nothing better to do. So he joined in while I went to the pharmacy to get some mango spears. The line there had only 2 people but took like 10 minutes- no kidding!! - and by the time I got back, my buddy had already left with a girl he had met at the bodega nearby, homeless man was nowhere to be seen. This morning he texted and said he had a crazy night, and it was the best decision of his life. Those mango spears were in so very ripe and in season and I DEVOURED them as well . All in all, a good night had by all!

Don't be afraid to try something new, MP. You do you. I know you are stressed out, and I get that feel. But you may want to check that at the door, since, to me anyway, it doesn't do your civ cred- in this game at least- any favors.
That first true paragraph is all over the place. Scotty reads MP's frustration as genuine (first highlight), but not as civilian genuine -- I view this distinction dubiously. That isn't because I don't think there can be a distinction, there can. It's because I don't follow the logic Scotty has laid out to arrive at that conclusion. He drew the comparison to frustration exhibited by MP in Watchmen (I did not follow this game closely), referencing the reasons MP was taking heat rather than MP's actual behavior. This means Scotty's interest lies in the accusations being leveled upon MP and not in MP's responses to them -- that's the wrong place to focus.

I hate having my own little pet suspect while everyone else argues about other people.

Scotty wrote:Im pissed right now and am in no mind to do shit.

I'm sorry all. I've been really busy this past week and am beyond exhausted. I should have just asked for a replacement but I thought I'd just slog through it.

Riding on the subway with limited reception the paSt hour I had a giant post written out for reads, and in my attempt to copy everything on my phone, the Internet lagged out, I apparently deleted everything except for a fucking "ok i" and posted it. Please excuse my language but this is something I do on the long train rides sometimes and today I reached my breaking point.

I said I would be starting up soon to be back to form and it's looking good for me this week, but just thinking about all the reads I had going reminds me that I need a break for a second. Give me time, and I'll be back to my normal self. If not, kill me because I probably deserve it.

VOTING SCOTTY.

I like it. Not because of the appeal-to-emotion self-vote, but because I completely believe the explanation for "ok i". That post did not spring into existence as some sort of ploy. I won't vote for you today Scotty.

Give us those delicious reads as soon as you're up to it.

Thanks everyone for the kind words, btw.

I think people who vote BWT based in part on his Day 1 content including the "go civs" comment bear some obligation to comment on his Day 2 content. He has provided quite a bit of it and it needs to be acknowledged one way or another.

Roxy, would you agree that it's important for a player to have substantive supporting content in his/her post history which clearly explains why any eventual final vote has been placed?

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

Bubbles, what do you think about Bass, right now, before being presented with any case?

S~V~S wrote:And JJJ, ask Golden if my assessment is not correct, since you want proof of five years of accumulated experience (albeit that part of it involved hiatuses) of Goldens gameplay. I have NEVER seen civ Golden make a selfish move, and i am hard put to think of a time Indy Golden did so. I might admire this move in some players; but not in Golden. It feels false and it feels bad.

I don't mean to request proof of your entire history playing with Golden. I only hoped for a specific example you can recall in which a neutrally-aligned Golden with the potential to be recruited by either side was distinctly pro-civilian in his strategy.

TinyBubbles wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?
Bubbles, what do you think about Bass, right now, before being presented with any case?
neutral

Would you rather lynch Turnip Head than Golden or Bass?

I perceived the Day 1 duel between Epignosis and Golden to be neutral-neutral, which is an uninspired read because nearly every interaction on Day 1 was neutral-neutral. This game is unique though, and I think a perspective of neutral-neutral -- one that is distinctly espoused as a read -- is akin to reading an interaction as civilian-civilian in a more typical game. In this regard I understand S~V~S's perspective about Epi in the context of the Day 1 discussion.

I don't think this reflects poorly on Golden, but I understand why S~V~S is pursuing this angle.

TinyBubbles wrote:i'd rather vote for someone who's actually going to be lynched, right now turniphead doesn't look like much of a target. it would be a wasted vote to stay with him. what are most people's reason for voting bass? and why did you go with scotty? (on that note why did scotty vote himself?!)

I described my concern about Scotty here. He won't be my final vote though.

Bass is viewed as suspicious because many people feel he has been mal-intended in his aggression against MP and otherwise evasive in his recent content. You should review his posts and state your own perspective.

Would you be willing to rally a bandwagon against Turnip Head? Do you want that man dead? Do the hairs on your head stand on end each moment his heart is allowed another beat?

S~V~S wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.
I feel his behavior in this game is contrary to his non-baddie meta as I know it.

Do you better understand it put like that?
To be precise, i feel he is behaving contrary to the non-baddie standard he sets for HIMSELF. I did not set him this standard; he did, and he knows I am right is saying so.

Does a self-set standard become more reasonable by default merely for being self-set? Should Golden be held to that standard in every game on threat of brutal, cold-blooded murder simply because he demands a lot of himself in Mafia games past?

I like to ask rhetorical questions.

The reason I am unconvinced here is that I feel the accusations being stuck on Golden could easily be rearranged to include my own username instead -- for those paying close attention.

Turnip Head wrote:I suddenly feel like I should be paying more attention to Jay

I just want to be noticed.

Spoiler: show

Search found 458 matches