First of all Golden, I am in agreement with basically all of your "Against" and "Neutral" points about Roxy.
Golden wrote:In favour
She did seem reasonably consistent in her suspicion of BR, but didn't vote that way.
After my read back, the one thing that I think is very much in roxy's favour is that I did not notice anything which was inconsistent. In fact she has been very consistent, even to the extent of several pings where she has mentioned the same people several times. My impression of Roxy is that if she had a rainbow list it would barely have shifted over the course of the game. I'd be most interested to know if her view on TH has changed today.
You have these in your "In favour" portion of analyzing Roxy, but I have them in my "Against" pile. Roxy
did comment on how BR was acting suspiciously unlike herself, but what she didn't do is pursue it with any of the sort of aggression that you saw her have when making other points (which, as I'm about to demonstrate below, is mostly defending players she thinks are civs and accusing their accusers).
As for the second point quoted here, it's again another thing I think is suspicious of Roxy. She is very consistent, too consistent. She's saying all the right things, but sometimes at the wrong times. It's why I think she's holding a few more cards than the rest of us. It's something I did myself when I was bad in the Champs game.
Let me take you back to Day 1, Golden 2.0, because this all was actually something I tried to discuss with you back then that I think you had missed.
(First quote is from Day 1, it's in spoiler tags because of length but I needed to quote the whole thing for context)
Roxy wrote:Golden wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden wrote:My thoughts so far - a few newbies (DDL, JJJ, sanmateo, sloonei) are running straight into a drive by lynch of one of them. Not that I support that, I just feel like it's what you risk by generating so much discussion here on day one.
if our conduct to this point has been
that unusual by Syndicate standards, i would urge caution in those who'd perceive it negatively by default. "generating so much discussion on Day 1" is honestly exactly how i'd describe the most productive town approach (indeed, i truly struggle to imagine it being perceived as inherently suspicious). if it's abnormal here, very well. i look forward to seeing the reception we get from the other regulars.
I agree that discussion is the most productive approach. But I didn't mean people would find it inherently suspicious, and don't want to discourage it from occurring. Rather, just that drive by votes can happen here (especially on day one), and visible people are easier targets to manufacture a case on. Right now, I think you guys are already in a place where it would be very easy for others to come in and make the day one conversation only about the four of you, and guarantee by doing that that one of you would be lynched.
I just wanted to get in and discourage that from occurring before it did. If others come in and begin to form opinions about the four of you, perhaps it will begin to help us all form opinions about a wider range of people.
I agree and I will not vote for a new player on Day 1.
I do not see the harm in discussing them though obv.
Epignosis wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i am finding myself liking DDL's defenses, particularly the most recent. he is earnestly trying to describe a Day 1 strategy that is inherently a bit volatile but potentially highly productive for a townie. i am particularly familiar with what he is describing because i employ a similar approach myself. i like that he is willing to play a little dangerously, because dangerous play generates controversy and thus meaningful and readable content from others. it isn't terribly townie behavior, in my opinion, to play tentatively merely for the sake of alleviating suspicion upon oneself. welcoming a little suspicion with the promise to create a bonafide Mafia game right away in Day 1 is good play.
good strategy doesn't imply innocence of course. but i like that he is open about his methods, and his descriptions do seem to reflect both his posts so far and the way others have perceived him.
Do you want to know what I look for?
Sockit2me - I agree with everything you said about playing on other sites and it refeshing your spirit for you home site. It is true. New people/New styles really energize my mafia play.
Black Rock wrote:How is Gman cursed already?
Idk if it is what is happening here but I play on a lot of different sites and Day 1 curses (in fact all game curses) do exist. Maybe Russ has picked up some new stuff for his game. I played a game where the player could only say 'I am Groot' for the entire game - it was insanity - no smileys or images were allowed.
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Metalmarsh, why do you think I'm your main scum candidate? I see you quoting a lot of people and making quick agreements/disagreements on them, but I'dlike to see what YOU think. In your opinion, what makes you think me as a mafia?
i'm saying this because I'm seeing a slowly bandwagon forming on me, and if that's true, I might as well try to spot the mafiosos who are likely being part of it. Now, some players, like sanmateo and Epi, have attacked me directly. But other, like you, Sloonei, cross and Elohcin, seem to be content in just agreeing with them and slowly join the bandwagon without elaborating much. That is, in my opinion, a prime scum behavior.
Metalmarsh89 wrote:It's true. Unfortunately, at the Syndicate, you cannot win a game as a civilian unless you survive to the end of the game, or you have some other secret win condition that is fulfilled. Thus, survival is important to civilians, as well as finding mafia.
Wait, what? This is terrible lol. This completely goes against the spirit of the game, imo. Which is that townies should work together to find scum and prioritize the team's victory over their own survival. If this is true, then I suppose it probably encourages the people on this site to be the game badly.
I mean, if all my effort to catch scum will be rendered moot since I might get day 1 lynched for putting myself in the spotlight, then I might as well shut up and try not to be too productive instead, if only to maximise my chances of survival. Seriously, this is beyond terrible.
Of the 4-5 players that got this game rolling, I found your comments to be more fluffy than some others'. JJJ is on my radar too, but for different reasons. I don't know why he thinks that he should be suspected for the same reasons as you. You are twp different players playing two different games. I don't see a corollation in your games at all.
And I agree about the win conditions. I am not a fan, but I will say that not every host does it. There is a little discretion involved sometimes, but that is the usual practice. Some hosts, like MovingPictures07, will include secret win conditions in every players' role, so that they can still be met even if the player dies. It's not unlike your win condition in Monogatari Mafia, if I remember correctly.
In almost every game I host every townie wins if the town wins. splints can correct me if I am misremembering.
Sloonei wrote:It's not that high posters "have less to hide", it's that people should have less room to hide if they're being forced to talk and answer questions they don't want to answer.
I disagree in a nice way bc you are new.
High posters make it harder to find their true thoughts in walls-o-texts epsecially if they just pull quotes and slap a couple of sentences after each to make it seem like they are trying. Making a reread far less likely to happen by some players. Low posters have nothing to hide behind in their few posts and usually respond when directly questioned. So feel free to question any player and guage them on their responses and not the quanity of their posts. Quality > Quanity any day imo.
Turnip Head wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's pretty dangerous that people are taking the notion that one of the 5 players to kickstart the game MUST be scum as a foregone conclusion. That encourages a narrower focus of suspicion not only in Day 1, but in all ensuing days until the alleged scum is identified.
There's more to Mafia than mere probability.
I agree.
Consequentially, I'm voting for
Golden. I think he's bad news this game.
This vote vote twitched my nose badly - its still twitching :o
This is your second in game post and the first on topic post. You have given no. reason or clarity for your vote - classic drive by - why?
Note that she starts the post by agreeing with Golden - it was a small point, about not voting for new players on Day 1. Then ends the post talking about how I gave no reasoning for my vote for Golden.
This is the next post that both me and Roxy make on the topic of my Golden vote:
Roxy wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I guess the difference is I'm being obviously un-TH like and Golden feels like he's trying to hide it.
I can elaborate when I get home tonight but if you're interested in looking into it just read his filter.
I for one cannot wait for this elaboration.
I feel the opposite about Golden.
I thought this was a strongly worded reaction for how she felt about Golden given only a handful of posts had occurred up to this point in time. Now yes, as the Day wore on Golden looked more and more civvie, but this was early in the game, right after my early vote. At many points in this game, Roxy has felt like she's playing with TMI about players. Golden 1.0 was firmly a civ in her mind after only one or two posts.
Here's where I asked Golden 1.0 about Roxy's attitude towards him:
Turnip Head wrote:Golden wrote:Turnip Head wrote:Golden wrote:So, why does that make me bad enough to vote for?
Weird way to phrase the question but anyways...
It doesn't make you bad enough to vote for. It just makes you enough to vote for on Day 1 to get some reactions. I think we've gotten a few, haven't we?
If you had to vote right now for the person you most think is bad, who would you vote for?
Epignosis. He reminds me of Keeler Epi, and that's the only person I can fit plum into a previous experience of them being bad.
The thing is that Epi makes these same sorts of moves just as often when he's a civ. He'll dissect dinner excuses and root out the baddie lie, even if it isn't there.
I don't mind being on the hook. My vote was certainly bold.
What did you think of Roxy's strong defense of you? She said she was feeling just the opposite as I was, that this was regular Golden we're seeing... have you looked at her comment from her point of view re: your meta, just as you analyzed my POV re: your meta?
Roxy's vote for me:
Roxy wrote:I am torn betwixt TH and Metalspammer.
I have not previously spoken about the Spamming Newt so I will be laying a vote on TH. I did not like his vote or reasoning he later expressed.
I have zero time til. I am home
Interesting that she voted me over MetalMarsh because she "had not previously spoken" about him. Also interesting that MM died that very night, and so she never had to elaborate.
But what's also interesting to take away from this is that she voted for me because she disagreed with me.
This happened again here, shortly after Night 3 started (Roxy missed the BR lynch):
Roxy wrote:Sorry to have missed the vote I had work and family issues to resolve.
splints made her case from the begining - some said she had tunnel vision otherssaid she was not actively pursuing baddies now suddenly she is bussing someone????
Does anyone read my posts about her?? I am sooooo surprised at MP, he knows her as well as me and should know that this is her civ game. I am not liking what he is saying.
Splints has given us our first mafia in a lynch and you all think she is bad after gunning for BR since Day 1!
on anyone who srsly ursues her for lynch.
Roxy defends splintsy strongly against MP, with vague wording like "this is her civ game", and that others should know it. Roxy then heaps all of the credit for the BR lynch into splintsy's lap, and gives the eye to anyone who disagrees with her.
The whole suspecting people she disagrees with stands out to me, as I think it's an easy way to generate fake reads, especially in a game this talkative.
there was one day I thought TH might be a certain civvie role based on something I thought I read but I am not so sure about that now.
I never felt great about bwt, so I don't feel great about Golden 2.0
