Phenon Mafia: ENDGAME - Snuffed

[Sloonei]

Oooo. Jack simultaneously jumping on Sloonei for the change in heart while not realizing that Quin has already brought up the same. Not a good look for the pair of them.

Would you say it almost looks coordinated?

Lol, you have the most leading questions sometimes. It reads so shady and I love it. What do YOU think?
And what do YOU think about Golden.

I think it looks like it has the potential to be coordinated, yeah. Baddie Quin and Baddie Jackofhearts might be feeling some heat after the way that lynch went down, and I cast a surprising last-minute vote to lynch a bad guy who I'd called a town read all day. It's easy to spin shade on me.

I still have vague creeping feelings that Golden is bad, but lack a substantial case due to the face that I have been playing rapid fire catch-up on this thread since I got here.

[Quin]

Something I wouldn't bring up in normal circumstances (but I think that this is a special case given how chaotic the thread was at EoD), but I saw Soneji viewing for thread at EoD and never posted.

linki: Your posts gave the impression that you'd have landed on a Dyslexicon or Scotty vote.

The more I talked to you and INH about the Dyslexicon case, the less I liked it. I think you should be able to trace this if you go back and read my posts. But I was also very frantic at the end of the day. Like I said a couple of times, yesterday was a regular Day 2 for everybody else, but for me it was a very rushed and hectic Day 1. I was still formulating my initial reads while everyone else was pushing their established suspects. When it appeared that Scotty was not going to have enough support to be lynched, I decided I preferred to take the mamot out than Dyslexicon.

I am intrigued that your first move out of the gate today has been to rail against a guy who just cast a crucial vote to lynch a scum player. Seems a bit counter-intuitive. Can we talk about how you pushed the case that was directly opposed to the lynching of said scum player all day?

There were multiple parts of my (and INH's) case against Dyslexicon. You explicitly said you liked and found my accusation re: her gambit compelling. The only thing you disagreed with was where I found her changing reads on 3J suspicious. Not liking how you condensed it into one entity to disagree with it.

Saying you cast a 'crucial' vote means nothing to me, because I question your motives.

I should have viewed the entirety of the case against a player as multiple things? What? I can agree and disagree with parts of a case, but in the end I can only choose one side on the case as a whole. In the heat of the moment, I decided I did not like it.

You seem to be an expert on my posts from last night. How would you describe my state of mind at the time?

Three major points, and your reactions to them:

- Dizzy did not follow up on her gambit the way a civ should: 'I like this post, I find it compelling'.
- Dizzy has inconsistent reads on 3J: 'I don't see the evidence'.
- Neutral player observation: 'It has some merit'

That's a net positive.

[Quin]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

[Sloonei]

Something I wouldn't bring up in normal circumstances (but I think that this is a special case given how chaotic the thread was at EoD), but I saw Soneji viewing for thread at EoD and never posted.

linki: Your posts gave the impression that you'd have landed on a Dyslexicon or Scotty vote.

The more I talked to you and INH about the Dyslexicon case, the less I liked it. I think you should be able to trace this if you go back and read my posts. But I was also very frantic at the end of the day. Like I said a couple of times, yesterday was a regular Day 2 for everybody else, but for me it was a very rushed and hectic Day 1. I was still formulating my initial reads while everyone else was pushing their established suspects. When it appeared that Scotty was not going to have enough support to be lynched, I decided I preferred to take the mamot out than Dyslexicon.

I am intrigued that your first move out of the gate today has been to rail against a guy who just cast a crucial vote to lynch a scum player. Seems a bit counter-intuitive. Can we talk about how you pushed the case that was directly opposed to the lynching of said scum player all day?

There were multiple parts of my (and INH's) case against Dyslexicon. You explicitly said you liked and found my accusation re: her gambit compelling. The only thing you disagreed with was where I found her changing reads on 3J suspicious. Not liking how you condensed it into one entity to disagree with it.

Saying you cast a 'crucial' vote means nothing to me, because I question your motives.

I should have viewed the entirety of the case against a player as multiple things? What? I can agree and disagree with parts of a case, but in the end I can only choose one side on the case as a whole. In the heat of the moment, I decided I did not like it.

You seem to be an expert on my posts from last night. How would you describe my state of mind at the time?

Three major points, and your reactions to them:

- Dizzy did not follow up on her gambit the way a civ should: 'I like this post, I find it compelling'.
- Dizzy has inconsistent reads on 3J: 'I don't see the evidence'.
- Neutral player observation: 'It has some merit'

That's a net positive.

That's not how mafia works and you didn't answer my question.

[Quin]

Something I wouldn't bring up in normal circumstances (but I think that this is a special case given how chaotic the thread was at EoD), but I saw Soneji viewing for thread at EoD and never posted.

linki: Your posts gave the impression that you'd have landed on a Dyslexicon or Scotty vote.

The more I talked to you and INH about the Dyslexicon case, the less I liked it. I think you should be able to trace this if you go back and read my posts. But I was also very frantic at the end of the day. Like I said a couple of times, yesterday was a regular Day 2 for everybody else, but for me it was a very rushed and hectic Day 1. I was still formulating my initial reads while everyone else was pushing their established suspects. When it appeared that Scotty was not going to have enough support to be lynched, I decided I preferred to take the mamot out than Dyslexicon.

I am intrigued that your first move out of the gate today has been to rail against a guy who just cast a crucial vote to lynch a scum player. Seems a bit counter-intuitive. Can we talk about how you pushed the case that was directly opposed to the lynching of said scum player all day?

There were multiple parts of my (and INH's) case against Dyslexicon. You explicitly said you liked and found my accusation re: her gambit compelling. The only thing you disagreed with was where I found her changing reads on 3J suspicious. Not liking how you condensed it into one entity to disagree with it.

Saying you cast a 'crucial' vote means nothing to me, because I question your motives.

I should have viewed the entirety of the case against a player as multiple things? What? I can agree and disagree with parts of a case, but in the end I can only choose one side on the case as a whole. In the heat of the moment, I decided I did not like it.

You seem to be an expert on my posts from last night. How would you describe my state of mind at the time?

Three major points, and your reactions to them:

- Dizzy did not follow up on her gambit the way a civ should: 'I like this post, I find it compelling'.
- Dizzy has inconsistent reads on 3J: 'I don't see the evidence'.
- Neutral player observation: 'It has some merit'

That's a net positive.

That's not how mafia works and you didn't answer my question.

You don't keep things up your sleeves, Sloonei. If you don't say you are opposed to the case against Dyslexicon, you aren't opposed to the case against Dyslexicon.

[nutella]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

I think it's excusable given the situation. He needed to choose or nobody would be lynched. As long as he was starting to agree with some Marmot suspicion, that's enough for him to decide that lynching Marmot would be better than not lynching anyone (or than lynching dizzy if he changed his mind on that case as well).

[Sloonei]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

Why is that inexcusable? What part of me is not allowed to change its mind? You just said that I was "boggled". I've described myself as scatterbrained. I had spent the entire day digging around in the thread and playing catch-up. I am not a lightning-speed processor. None of my reads were all that confident because I had just begun to formulate them a few hours earlier and I was committed to nothing. I find it bizarre that you wish to forbid me from lynching certain players. Your argument right now is that I should have voted for who you wanted me to vote for.

[Sloonei]

Something I wouldn't bring up in normal circumstances (but I think that this is a special case given how chaotic the thread was at EoD), but I saw Soneji viewing for thread at EoD and never posted.

linki: Your posts gave the impression that you'd have landed on a Dyslexicon or Scotty vote.

The more I talked to you and INH about the Dyslexicon case, the less I liked it. I think you should be able to trace this if you go back and read my posts. But I was also very frantic at the end of the day. Like I said a couple of times, yesterday was a regular Day 2 for everybody else, but for me it was a very rushed and hectic Day 1. I was still formulating my initial reads while everyone else was pushing their established suspects. When it appeared that Scotty was not going to have enough support to be lynched, I decided I preferred to take the mamot out than Dyslexicon.

I am intrigued that your first move out of the gate today has been to rail against a guy who just cast a crucial vote to lynch a scum player. Seems a bit counter-intuitive. Can we talk about how you pushed the case that was directly opposed to the lynching of said scum player all day?

There were multiple parts of my (and INH's) case against Dyslexicon. You explicitly said you liked and found my accusation re: her gambit compelling. The only thing you disagreed with was where I found her changing reads on 3J suspicious. Not liking how you condensed it into one entity to disagree with it.

Saying you cast a 'crucial' vote means nothing to me, because I question your motives.

I should have viewed the entirety of the case against a player as multiple things? What? I can agree and disagree with parts of a case, but in the end I can only choose one side on the case as a whole. In the heat of the moment, I decided I did not like it.

You seem to be an expert on my posts from last night. How would you describe my state of mind at the time?

Three major points, and your reactions to them:

- Dizzy did not follow up on her gambit the way a civ should: 'I like this post, I find it compelling'.
- Dizzy has inconsistent reads on 3J: 'I don't see the evidence'.
- Neutral player observation: 'It has some merit'

That's a net positive.

That's not how mafia works and you didn't answer my question.

You don't keep things up your sleeves, Sloonei. If you don't say you are opposed to the case against Dyslexicon, you aren't opposed to the case against Dyslexicon.

Did I ever say I was committed to the case against Dyslexicon?

[Quin]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

I think it's excusable given the situation. He needed to choose or nobody would be lynched. As long as he was starting to agree with some Marmot suspicion, that's enough for him to decide that lynching Marmot would be better than not lynching anyone (or than lynching dizzy if he changed his mind on that case as well).

I would not lynch a solid town read just so somebody was lynched, but that's just me.

[Sloonei]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

I think it's excusable given the situation. He needed to choose or nobody would be lynched. As long as he was starting to agree with some Marmot suspicion, that's enough for him to decide that lynching Marmot would be better than not lynching anyone (or than lynching dizzy if he changed his mind on that case as well).

I would not lynch a solid town read just so somebody was lynched, but that's just me.

Metalmarsh was no longer a solid town read when I voted for him. I think that should be obvious.

[Quin]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

Why is that inexcusable? What part of me is not allowed to change its mind? You just said that I was "boggled". I've described myself as scatterbrained. I had spent the entire day digging around in the thread and playing catch-up. I am not a lightning-speed processor. None of my reads were all that confident because I had just begun to formulate them a few hours earlier and I was committed to nothing. I find it bizarre that you wish to forbid me from lynching certain players. Your argument right now is that I should have voted for who you wanted me to vote for.

No it isn't. I've made my argument explicit.

[Dyslexicon]

I need to sleep.
This is interesting.

Good night.^^

[Sloonei]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

Why is that inexcusable? What part of me is not allowed to change its mind? You just said that I was "boggled". I've described myself as scatterbrained. I had spent the entire day digging around in the thread and playing catch-up. I am not a lightning-speed processor. None of my reads were all that confident because I had just begun to formulate them a few hours earlier and I was committed to nothing. I find it bizarre that you wish to forbid me from lynching certain players. Your argument right now is that I should have voted for who you wanted me to vote for.

No it isn't. I've made my argument explicit.

You have. And I've made my counterargument just as explicit. Having said all of what we've said, your case boils down to you making assumptions about who I should have been suspicious of, and who you wanted me to be suspicious of.

[Quin]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

I think it's excusable given the situation. He needed to choose or nobody would be lynched. As long as he was starting to agree with some Marmot suspicion, that's enough for him to decide that lynching Marmot would be better than not lynching anyone (or than lynching dizzy if he changed his mind on that case as well).

I would not lynch a solid town read just so somebody was lynched, but that's just me.

Metalmarsh was no longer a solid town read when I voted for him. I think that should be obvious.

Five minutes is not a long enough time frame to decide to lynch a solid town read. I'd expect you to return to it tomorrow specifically because of how chaotic EoD was. It reeks of a bus.

@Dizzy We've got a good combo here. I'll be confident Quin who sounds like an asshole, and you can dissolve the tension with gifs To that end, I apologise if you want to punch me in the face for how I've gone after you Sloonei. I'm me.

[Jackofhearts2005]

Oooo. Jack simultaneously jumping on Sloonei for the change in heart while not realizing that Quin has already brought up the same. Not a good look for the pair of them.

Would you say it almost looks coordinated?

Lol, you have the most leading questions sometimes. It reads so shady and I love it. What do YOU think?
And what do YOU think about Golden.

I think it looks like it has the potential to be coordinated, yeah. Baddie Quin and Baddie Jackofhearts might be feeling some heat after the way that lynch went down, and I cast a surprising last-minute vote to lynch a bad guy who I'd called a town read all day. It's easy to spin shade on me.

I still have vague creeping feelings that Golden is bad, but lack a substantial case due to the face that I have been playing rapid fire catch-up on this thread since I got here.

Okay, great.

Let's pretend for a sec that I'm town trying to decide if you're scum or not so you have to actually answer questions posed to you instead of just saying "Well yeah, I did a suspicious thing but Jack is trying to frame me."

That doesn't do anything to convince me you're town because I know I'm not trying to frame you.

Whatever. I'll read it myself. Gonna look worse if you never changed your mind and then give me grief about it.

[Sloonei]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

I think it's excusable given the situation. He needed to choose or nobody would be lynched. As long as he was starting to agree with some Marmot suspicion, that's enough for him to decide that lynching Marmot would be better than not lynching anyone (or than lynching dizzy if he changed his mind on that case as well).

I would not lynch a solid town read just so somebody was lynched, but that's just me.

Metalmarsh was no longer a solid town read when I voted for him. I think that should be obvious.

Five minutes is not a long enough time frame to decide to lynch a solid town read. I'd expect you to return to it tomorrow specifically because of how chaotic EoD was. It reeks of a bus.

@Dizzy We've got a good combo here. I'll be confident Quin who sounds like an asshole, and you can dissolve the tension with gifs To that end, I apologise if you want to punch me in the face for how I've gone after you Sloonei. I'm me.

It's plenty of time when everything is as sped up as they were yesterday. Once again I will remind you (and wait for you to acknowledge) that I had not even been in this game for 48 hours yet, and had had to read over 1000 posts while also maintaining my relatively high level of activity in the thread. That was a hyper-sped-up Day 1 for me. Why am I not allowed an abrupt change of mind at a crucial moment?

And please explain my mafia motivation to behave the way I did all day yesterday.

[Sloonei]

Oooo. Jack simultaneously jumping on Sloonei for the change in heart while not realizing that Quin has already brought up the same. Not a good look for the pair of them.

Would you say it almost looks coordinated?

Lol, you have the most leading questions sometimes. It reads so shady and I love it. What do YOU think?
And what do YOU think about Golden.

I think it looks like it has the potential to be coordinated, yeah. Baddie Quin and Baddie Jackofhearts might be feeling some heat after the way that lynch went down, and I cast a surprising last-minute vote to lynch a bad guy who I'd called a town read all day. It's easy to spin shade on me.

I still have vague creeping feelings that Golden is bad, but lack a substantial case due to the face that I have been playing rapid fire catch-up on this thread since I got here.

Okay, great.

Let's pretend for a sec that I'm town trying to decide if you're scum or not so you have to actually answer questions posed to you instead of just saying "Well yeah, I did a suspicious thing but Jack is trying to frame me."

That doesn't do anything to convince me you're town because I know I'm not trying to frame you.

Whatever. I'll read it myself. Gonna look worse if you never changed your mind and then give me grief about it.

I have been answering the questions. Read this entire conversation I am having with Quin.

Now see it from my perspective. I am a townie who just cast a vote to get a bad guy lynched, and two players who looked very suspicious due to their positions in the poll yesterday come out and immediately start spinning the same case against me. Should I not perk up at that?

[Sloonei]

Also Quin, I'd still like you to explain to me why "not being opposed" to the Dyslexicon case means I have to vote for him at crunch time. I was never opposed or committed to it. That was why I spent so much time engaging you and INH about the case. I think this should be very transparent and very obvious. That you are acting like I should have voted for Dizzy because I was curious about the case is a bit short-sighted. If I had any strong belief in the case, I would not have spent so much time probing it.

[Quin]

Your state of mind was boggled. Like the rest of us. That doesn't excuse you from lynching a 'solid town read' who you only began to see the other side of the coin on 5 minutes prior.

I think it's excusable given the situation. He needed to choose or nobody would be lynched. As long as he was starting to agree with some Marmot suspicion, that's enough for him to decide that lynching Marmot would be better than not lynching anyone (or than lynching dizzy if he changed his mind on that case as well).

I would not lynch a solid town read just so somebody was lynched, but that's just me.

Metalmarsh was no longer a solid town read when I voted for him. I think that should be obvious.

Five minutes is not a long enough time frame to decide to lynch a solid town read. I'd expect you to return to it tomorrow specifically because of how chaotic EoD was. It reeks of a bus.

@Dizzy We've got a good combo here. I'll be confident Quin who sounds like an asshole, and you can dissolve the tension with gifs To that end, I apologise if you want to punch me in the face for how I've gone after you Sloonei. I'm me.

It's plenty of time when everything is as sped up as they were yesterday. Once again I will remind you (and wait for you to acknowledge) that I had not even been in this game for 48 hours yet, and had had to read over 1000 posts while also maintaining my relatively high level of activity in the thread. That was a hyper-sped-up Day 1 for me. Why am I not allowed an abrupt change of mind at a crucial moment?

And please explain my mafia motivation to behave the way I did all day yesterday.

Just because you weren't caught up and weren't confident in your reads doesn't lead me to think you'd approach EoD as you did. Would you really fall into line like that, just because you weren't sure? Why would you lynch somebody who five minutes beforehand you were solidly reading as town? I strongly believe that's not a decision you would have made as a civilian.

[Jackofhearts2005]

Oooo. Jack simultaneously jumping on Sloonei for the change in heart while not realizing that Quin has already brought up the same. Not a good look for the pair of them.

Would you say it almost looks coordinated?

Lol, you have the most leading questions sometimes. It reads so shady and I love it. What do YOU think?
And what do YOU think about Golden.

I think it looks like it has the potential to be coordinated, yeah. Baddie Quin and Baddie Jackofhearts might be feeling some heat after the way that lynch went down, and I cast a surprising last-minute vote to lynch a bad guy who I'd called a town read all day. It's easy to spin shade on me.

I still have vague creeping feelings that Golden is bad, but lack a substantial case due to the face that I have been playing rapid fire catch-up on this thread since I got here.

Okay, great.

Let's pretend for a sec that I'm town trying to decide if you're scum or not so you have to actually answer questions posed to you instead of just saying "Well yeah, I did a suspicious thing but Jack is trying to frame me."

That doesn't do anything to convince me you're town because I know I'm not trying to frame you.

Whatever. I'll read it myself. Gonna look worse if you never changed your mind and then give me grief about it.

I have been answering the questions. Read this entire conversation I am having with Quin.

Now see it from my perspective. I am a townie who just cast a vote to get a bad guy lynched, and two players who looked very suspicious due to their positions in the poll yesterday come out and immediately start spinning the same case against me. Should I not perk up at that?

Spinning a case? I asked you a question. Even said "maybe this has been covered" and "maybe this was a joke post" and asked if you had changed your mind later.

I'm not gonna speak for Quin cause he's got so many linkis, I haven't read them yet but I haven't spun squat against you.

Back in a few pages.

[speedchuck]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

[Sloonei]

So I did a little bit of research over the night. I am somewhat less inclined to immediately go after INH; I am thinking it's more likely he's actually civ who truly thought Marmot was good. I'm not opposed to going after him, but I think there are other players whose ISOs I've looked at who are more likely to be Marmot's teammates. These are, roughly in order: Quin, LC, Jack, Soneji.

I think I am inclined to agree RE: INH, but I don't want to let him escape any pressure today. His case felt earnest to me, and his buddying with the marmot would have been a very bold move for two scum partners to pull off in the thread. But one of the two of them is the Syndicate's resident King of WIFOM, so who knows?

[Quin]

Also Quin, I'd still like you to explain to me why "not being opposed" to the Dyslexicon case means I have to vote for him at crunch time. I was never opposed or committed to it. That was why I spent so much time engaging you and INH about the case. I think this should be very transparent and very obvious. That you are acting like I should have voted for Dizzy because I was curious about the case is a bit short-sighted. If I had any strong belief in the case, I would not have spent so much time probing it.

I'm not saying that you had to vote Dyslexicon. What I'm saying is that you were leaning towards a Dyslexicon vote much harder than you were a vote for marmot. Your choice is concerning.

[Quin]

There's one argument I've yet to see Sloonei make which would be fine with me, but he hasn't made it.

[Sloonei]

[quote="Quin"Just because you weren't caught up and weren't confident in your reads doesn't lead me to think you'd approach EoD as you did. Would you really fall into line like that, just because you weren't sure? Why would you lynch somebody who five minutes beforehand you were solidly reading as town? I strongly believe that's not a decision you would have made as a civilian.[/quote]
Why not?

I'd also still like you to explain my behavior from the perspective that I am scum. So far you've pointed out that it's questionable. Okay. Now answer the questions. Why does baddie Sloonei act the way he does all day?

[Sloonei]

EBWOP

Just because you weren't caught up and weren't confident in your reads doesn't lead me to think you'd approach EoD as you did. Would you really fall into line like that, just because you weren't sure? Why would you lynch somebody who five minutes beforehand you were solidly reading as town? I strongly believe that's not a decision you would have made as a civilian.

Why not?

I'd also still like you to explain my behavior from the perspective that I am scum. So far you've pointed out that it's questionable. Okay. Now answer the questions. Why does baddie Sloonei act the way he does all day?

[Quin]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

[Sloonei]

Also Quin, I'd still like you to explain to me why "not being opposed" to the Dyslexicon case means I have to vote for him at crunch time. I was never opposed or committed to it. That was why I spent so much time engaging you and INH about the case. I think this should be very transparent and very obvious. That you are acting like I should have voted for Dizzy because I was curious about the case is a bit short-sighted. If I had any strong belief in the case, I would not have spent so much time probing it.

I'm not saying that you had to vote Dyslexicon. What I'm saying is that you were leaning towards a Dyslexicon vote much harder than you were a vote for marmot. Your choice is concerning.

I was giving the case more attention because I was on the fence about it. In the end I decided I did not want to vote for him.

[Sloonei]

There's one argument I've yet to see Sloonei make which would be fine with me, but he hasn't made it.

Which would that be? I've responded to everything you've said as honestly as I am able to.

[Sloonei]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

Pretend I'm civ for a moment then.

[Quin]

EBWOP

Just because you weren't caught up and weren't confident in your reads doesn't lead me to think you'd approach EoD as you did. Would you really fall into line like that, just because you weren't sure? Why would you lynch somebody who five minutes beforehand you were solidly reading as town? I strongly believe that's not a decision you would have made as a civilian.

Why not?

A personality read?


I'd also still like you to explain my behavior from the perspective that I am scum. So far you've pointed out that it's questionable. Okay. Now answer the questions. Why does baddie Sloonei act the way he does all day?

I don't have an answer to that. I don't think that anybody who is bad plays a game with a constant baddie scheme in mind. To an extent baddies just play fallaciously and take advantage of things when the circumstances present themselves.

[Golden]

Good work getting the marmot guys! Back in range but won't have time to properly catch up until tomorrow.

[Quin]

There's one argument I've yet to see Sloonei make which would be fine with me, but he hasn't made it.

Which would that be? I've responded to everything you've said as honestly as I am able to.

I'll answer this after I've ruled it out.

[speedchuck]

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

Just wording. Sounds like you're discouraging scum lynches. Sounds bad. I know it's not what you mean. Meh.

TBH, Quin, I can't follow your argument because I don't have a meta. You seem like you know what Sloonei would do better than he would, what he should have done under the circumstances, who he should have voted for, what was in his head...
I have none of that. I saw a gradual slip, and then Sloonei going with the MOMENTUM of his own read (which was dropping) and hitting rock bottom while hoping to get town info out of it.

And BTW for whoever asked the thread, I would lynch someone I considered town for info (given the option of lynch them or no lynch) unless I was 100% certain that I was right about them. Especially this early in the game, or when I've just subbed in. That's just me though.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

My face when people still try to lynch Dizzy, who I think would not be near the conversation minus SlipGate:

My face when Sloonei doesn't give a shit about his prior stances and places a vote:

My face when Sloonei's vote helps kill a bad guy: /// ///

My face when Quin goes straight to Tinfoil Town to the point of self-parody:

My face when Sloonei had the necessary content in his post history to justify a Dizzy vote but instead voted for a confirmed baddie and people act like that's scummy:

My face when Sloonei is a town read:

My face when Jack for some reason cares about which scum teammate nutella assigns to him:

My face when posts like this are in my ISO:

[Quin]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

Pretend I'm civ for a moment then.

I don't believe you're the kind of person to hold back your concluding comments and opinions. If you're civ, this is an exceptional case to me.


linki: My face when 3J immediately discredits it as a tinfoil

[speedchuck]

I don't have an answer to that. I don't think that anybody who is bad plays a game with a constant baddie scheme in mind. To an extent baddies just play fallaciously and take advantage of things when the circumstances present themselves.

Whoa. You and I have very different ideas of how scum plays.

"This was not good play, and had a flaw, so it must be scum" is not how I (or anyone I've played with before) looks at the game. We generally look for motive and themes of alignment and genuine-ness vs fake-ness.

[Sloonei]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

Pretend I'm civ for a moment then.

I don't believe you're the kind of person to hold back your concluding comments and opinions. If you're civ, this is an exceptional case to me.


linki: My face when 3J immediately discredits it as a tinfoil

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

[Quin]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

Pretend I'm civ for a moment then.

I don't believe you're the kind of person to hold back your concluding comments and opinions. If you're civ, this is an exceptional case to me.


linki: My face when 3J immediately discredits it as a tinfoil

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

It's an interpretation of how I see you as a person. This 'personality read' has a lot to do with my beef against you right now.

[Quin]

I don't have an answer to that. I don't think that anybody who is bad plays a game with a constant baddie scheme in mind. To an extent baddies just play fallaciously and take advantage of things when the circumstances present themselves.

Whoa. You and I have very different ideas of how scum plays.

"This was not good play, and had a flaw, so it must be scum" is not how I (or anyone I've played with before) looks at the game. We generally look for motive and themes of alignment and genuine-ness vs fake-ness.

That wasn't what I meant, but I'm not sure how else to phrase what I'm trying to say

[Jackofhearts2005]

My face when people still try to lynch Dizzy, who I think would not be near the conversation minus SlipGate:

My face when Sloonei doesn't give a shit about his prior stances and places a vote:

My face when Sloonei's vote helps kill a bad guy: /// ///

My face when Quin goes straight to Tinfoil Town to the point of self-parody:

My face when Sloonei had the necessary content in his post history to justify a Dizzy vote but instead voted for a confirmed baddie and people act like that's scummy:

My face when Sloonei is a town read:

My face when Jack for some reason cares about which scum teammate nutella assigns to him:

My face when posts like this are in my ISO:

Do people around here stop caring about progression just because a mafia player got lynched? Is bussing a thing that never happens?

If I read Quin as town and Sloonei as null as of a few pages before the end of yesterday and then Sloonei does a thing that makes me suspect him.

I know I'm town. If you pair me with someone I think is town as w/w suspects, either I or said townie can convince you and I don't have to worry about getting mislynched.

If you pair me with someone I think may be scum as w/w suspects, every scummy thing and an eventual mafia flip from that other guy just increases my chance of getting mislynched.

[Sloonei]

Why is it weird? Some people don't vote for scum, because the train of thought leading them there never clicked. Sloonei's posts don't provide that train of thought, so for his vote to end up there doesn't sit well.

You can call him scummy for it. But to say that he shouldn't have voted for scum is weird.
Do we not want him to vote for scum?

Honestly, only reason I'm not calling him out right out the gate is that I can follow his logic. SOMETHING was not right about the lynches that were going on. Everyone could see it.
If he wanted a lynch to happen, Sloon had to switch to Dizzy or Marmot. He had posted twice issuing doubt on marmot before changing the vote.

I'm not pegging you as scum because I get your logic, but I think the odds are better that Sloonei gutread it.

I don't get this line of questioning. Your question only makes sense if you're reading him as civ. I'm not.

Pretend I'm civ for a moment then.

I don't believe you're the kind of person to hold back your concluding comments and opinions. If you're civ, this is an exceptional case to me.


linki: My face when 3J immediately discredits it as a tinfoil

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

It's an interpretation of how I see you as a person. This 'personality read' has a lot to do with my beef against you right now.

I do not know what to say to that, other than that Sloonei the person and Sloonei the mafia player aren't the same thing.

I could not have shared all of my thoughts at the deadline yesterday because of time. Typing posts and submitting them takes a lot of time, especially when everyone else is flooding the thread with linkitis. As you have noted, I had ~5 minutes to make a decision and a brain that was overloaded with information. I was processing, but I wasn't posting everything because that would be a) impossible and b) a waste of time. In the end I decided to go with the marmot for reasons that could not have been articulated in the thread by any means.

[Quin]

My face when people still try to lynch Dizzy, who I think would not be near the conversation minus SlipGate:

My face when Sloonei doesn't give a shit about his prior stances and places a vote:

My face when Sloonei's vote helps kill a bad guy: /// ///

My face when Quin goes straight to Tinfoil Town to the point of self-parody:

My face when Sloonei had the necessary content in his post history to justify a Dizzy vote but instead voted for a confirmed baddie and people act like that's scummy:

My face when Sloonei is a town read:

My face when Jack for some reason cares about which scum teammate nutella assigns to him:

My face when posts like this are in my ISO:

Do people around here stop caring about progression just because a mafia player got lynched? Is bussing a thing that never happens?

If I read Quin as town and Sloonei as null as of a few pages before the end of yesterday and then Sloonei does a thing that makes me suspect him.

I know I'm town. If you pair me with someone I think is town as w/w suspects, either I or said townie can convince you and I don't have to worry about getting mislynched.

If you pair me with someone I think may be scum as w/w suspects, every scummy thing and an eventual mafia flip from that other guy just increases my chance of getting mislynched.

Praise the lord, I thought I was going mad.

[Sloonei]

My face when people still try to lynch Dizzy, who I think would not be near the conversation minus SlipGate:

My face when Sloonei doesn't give a shit about his prior stances and places a vote:

My face when Sloonei's vote helps kill a bad guy: /// ///

My face when Quin goes straight to Tinfoil Town to the point of self-parody:

My face when Sloonei had the necessary content in his post history to justify a Dizzy vote but instead voted for a confirmed baddie and people act like that's scummy:

My face when Sloonei is a town read:

My face when Jack for some reason cares about which scum teammate nutella assigns to him:

My face when posts like this are in my ISO:

Do people around here stop caring about progression just because a mafia player got lynched? Is bussing a thing that never happens?

If I read Quin as town and Sloonei as null as of a few pages before the end of yesterday and then Sloonei does a thing that makes me suspect him.

I know I'm town. If you pair me with someone I think is town as w/w suspects, either I or said townie can convince you and I don't have to worry about getting mislynched.

If you pair me with someone I think may be scum as w/w suspects, every scummy thing and an eventual mafia flip from that other guy just increases my chance of getting mislynched.

Why was I suspicious prior to the marmot vote?

[Quin]

Sloonei, If we understand each other now, I'd rather break from this for a bit. We've taken three pages almost just between the two of us.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Do people around here stop caring about progression just because a mafia player got lynched? Is bussing a thing that never happens?

Of course I care about progression and of course bussing exists. I think the argument being promoted here is ass-backwards though. Sloonei is fielding suspicion because he didn't vote for the wagon more supported in his post history (between Dizzy and Marmot). Is it an effective or sensible time to bus when a different lynch is readily available which can be explained away by one's posts? The only way this makes sense to me is if Dizzy is on Marmot's team and Sloonei's decision didn't matter (and in this scenario suspecting Sloonei requires assembling a two-piece team dynamic right now).

This is another one of those situations where the accusers seem to ignore Occam's Razor entirely and jump straight to the evil mastermind attack. That's not a good look to me.

[Quin]

I don't know what Occam's Razor is.

[Quin]

I still haven't ruled out Dizzy as being bad, but at the same time I haven't looked into their interactions to see if a relationship exists there yet.

[Quin]

Dizzy and marmot, I mean.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't know what Occam's Razor is.

"I have an answer right in front of me which makes sense. I also have an answer in front of me which makes considerably less sense, but under certain conditions it sure would be brilliant."

Occam's Razor is the former (generally it's sensible to favor the simpler explanation). Tinfoil is the latter.