Watchmen [ENDGAME]

#1151

RIP LC. Great game you pulled here.

And welcome back Scotty. Assuming Manhattan knew what he was doing.

#1152

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:At the very least, I liked image-posting G-Man better.

Dear Cookie, Elohcin, espers, LoRab, MetalMarsh89, and MovingPictures07...

Spoiler: show

PS: RIPIYWG Long Con. I felt very good about you.

#1153

#1154

So are you admitting to being evil then, GMan?

#1155

LoRab wrote:So are you admitting to being evil then, GMan?

Nope. I'm saying I will be voting for one of you six today, so you all better start telling my why I shouldn't vote for you. Worst plea loses.

I must say, LoRab, you got off to a very poor start.

#1156

G-Man wrote:
LoRab wrote:So are you admitting to being evil then, GMan?
Nope. I'm saying I will be voting for one of you six today, so you all better start telling my me why I shouldn't vote for you. Worst plea loses.

I must say, LoRab, you got off to a very poor start.

#1157

So I got this confusing info PM. I know I cannot say what it said but I worked damn hard to get the info by doing a stupid maze and I didn't even understand the info.

#1158

G-Man wrote:
LoRab wrote:So are you admitting to being evil then, GMan?
Nope. I'm saying I will be voting for one of you six today, so you all better start telling my why I shouldn't vote for you. Worst plea loses.

I must say, LoRab, you got off to a very poor start.

You should not vote for me because I am not bad. But I will take time over the next day to defend the posts against me. But, really, I'll sum up in advance: I look for little details. It's what I do. I notice patterns and when something breaks a pattern it sticks out. That's that happened with the LD stuff. I was then challenged and answered. And, frankly, the answers didn't convince me. Day 2, there were only 4 choices and none of them were good choices, so to fault me for voting one of them seems disingenuous in general when there are several who did not vote. To blame me for voting for one of them on weak suspicion seems to be digging for reasons to suspect me. This is not to you in particular, just in general.

I'm civ. I don't know how to convince anyone of that, but it's true. Will do my best to try.

#1159

Thanks Mr. Manhattan sir! I hope to not fail you in my return from hibernation!

Hey all! Thought I was done for, so I've been only scanning the thread the past few days. I will indeed do some catchup for tomorrow and get the ball rolling on some general things I've been thinking, but first of all, elephant in the room-

Comedian, you're a numskull for wasting your power on Night 1.

#1160

Where I left off, but with a few more days of info..
Some thoughts before I go too in depth over the next day:

-Elo is reading slightly civ for me right now. Whereas Day 1 was full of shenanigans and Jesus toast all around, I'm not convinced right now that she would have had a hand in Sloonei's death.
-I think several people have been on to something with the LoRab reads. I'll be looking thoroughly into her tomorrow. But she has had her blinders on GMan for a full 3 cycles and I don't particularly find GMan threatening at the moment.
-Cookie is another one that strikes me as particularly blendy and most likely bad.
-MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.
-LC The NK of LC is interesting because he was HARDLY the most civ-sounding person here. Makes me wonder what strategy mafia are playing with at this juncture.

LC's last reads for reference:

Long Con wrote:LoRab
Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
MovingPictures07
espers
Russtifinko
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
juliets
Ricochet
G-Man
Metalmarsh89
Long Con

Note that Bass and LoRab are not exclusively mafia-reads for LC, but for others as well, so I don't see the likelihood of a frame job. Something to think about. Going to look an see if I (we) can't find clues into what would inspire a dead LC..

#1161

LoRab wrote:Golden's use of the "I'm a very important civ" defense may have earned him my vote. Because, in my experience, civs don't usually use that defense.

Food for thought:

LoRab wrote:You should not vote for me because I am not bad.

...

I'm civ. I don't know how to convince anyone of that, but it's true. Will do my best to try.

LoRab wrote: I may seem suspicious to some but I am not bad. I am not Indy. I am not neutral. I'm civ this game.

LoRab wrote:I'm not asking for your trust. I appreciate the suspicion. But I'm not bad.

LoRab wrote:And, since Sllnei isn't/wasn't my teammate, no, it wasn't unfortunate for me. I'm glad we lynched a baddie. I'm a civie--I'm still not sure about you.

LoRab wrote:But, eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am all civ all the time this time around. If I'm not too tired later I'll twirl for you.

Keep in mind all of those are in different posts, most pulled out of larger posts.
I do get what you are saying, LoRab, and perhaps this isn't a fair post. Golden phrased his defense as "one of the most important roles we have". That's a pretty hefty statement that you did not technically make. But in your defenses over the past few days, all those little "I'm a civ" moments just stick out to me just as bad based on the overarching slightly hypocritical reasoning of your vote for Golden.

#1162

Elohcin wrote:So I got this confusing info PM. I know I cannot say what it said but I worked damn hard to get the info by doing a stupid maze and I didn't even understand the info.

I have no idea what this means, nor what to do with this.
Anyone else get something? What maze?

#1163

Scotty wrote:Where I left off, but with a few more days of info..
Some thoughts before I go too in depth over the next day:

-Elo is reading slightly civ for me right now. Whereas Day 1 was full of shenanigans and Jesus toast all around, I'm not convinced right now that she would have had a hand in Sloonei's death.
-I think several people have been on to something with the LoRab reads. I'll be looking thoroughly into her tomorrow. But she has had her blinders on GMan for a full 3 cycles and I don't particularly find GMan threatening at the moment.
-Cookie is another one that strikes me as particularly blendy and most likely bad.
-MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.
-LC The NK of LC is interesting because he was HARDLY the most civ-sounding person here. Makes me wonder what strategy mafia are playing with at this juncture.

LC's last reads for reference:
Long Con wrote:LoRab
Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
MovingPictures07
espers
Russtifinko
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
juliets
Ricochet
G-Man
Metalmarsh89
Long Con
Note that Bass and LoRab are not exclusively mafia-reads for LC, but for others as well, so I don't see the likelihood of a frame job. Something to think about. Going to look an see if I (we) can't find clues into what would inspire a dead LC..

I think the evidence is right here. Third night in a row someone's killed off the top civ read in a rainbow list. Could be we're looking at baddie(s) who hate rainbow lists, or someone just thinks it's hilarious and is trolling us.

#1164

Going to work now. However, I definitely will be active today. Some players I'm considering (in no particular order):

espers, Cookie, LoRab G-Man, MP <---Some of these are VERY mild suspicions,I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Players I probably would not vote toy (barring drastic changes):

Elo, MM, Bass

#1165

Russtifinko wrote:
Scotty wrote:Where I left off, but with a few more days of info..
Some thoughts before I go too in depth over the next day:

-Elo is reading slightly civ for me right now. Whereas Day 1 was full of shenanigans and Jesus toast all around, I'm not convinced right now that she would have had a hand in Sloonei's death.
-I think several people have been on to something with the LoRab reads. I'll be looking thoroughly into her tomorrow. But she has had her blinders on GMan for a full 3 cycles and I don't particularly find GMan threatening at the moment.
-Cookie is another one that strikes me as particularly blendy and most likely bad.
-MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.
-LC The NK of LC is interesting because he was HARDLY the most civ-sounding person here. Makes me wonder what strategy mafia are playing with at this juncture.

LC's last reads for reference:
Long Con wrote:LoRab
Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
MovingPictures07
espers
Russtifinko
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
juliets
Ricochet
G-Man
Metalmarsh89
Long Con
Note that Bass and LoRab are not exclusively mafia-reads for LC, but for others as well, so I don't see the likelihood of a frame job. Something to think about. Going to look an see if I (we) can't find clues into what would inspire a dead LC..
I think the evidence is right here. Third night in a row someone's killed off the top civ read in a rainbow list. Could be we're looking at baddie(s) who hate rainbow lists, or someone just thinks it's hilarious and is trolling us.

But this is LC's own rainbow list. He put himself as top civ.

I get what you mean, though. And it reminds me of Guess Who. The mafia's MO there was killing off Night phase talkative players, with Llama (civ) painted as WIFOM target because of all the NK'd players suspecting him. This would translate here in supatowners and top civ rainbow reads being killed, with rainbow list makers being painted as WIFOM target for it - I suppose this means MP, mostly, aside from LC's rainbow list here.

Off the top of my head, I wouldn't be surprised if Eloh would copy this technique from how her baddie husband did it back in Guess Who. But I'm sure others can be just devious.

You say you don't see her as suspicious, Russ, why?

It's afternoon here and doin' some catch-up. Story of my week so far.

#1166

TinyBubbles is replacing Bass_the _Clever.

#1167

RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I read through Lorab and saw what G-man said that started that whole debate. When I read G-Man's response I immediately thought indy but in no way did I think baddie. The other thing I noted is unless I have not read the roles correctly the Nite Owl II could only detect once and the Night Owl I can only detect once. That just doesn't seem like enough of a threat for someone to be addressing the LD by putting a checkable statement out there this early. On her comment on the Golden comment, I am more surprised that Golden said he was an important civ in the the thread. I do somewhat see her reasoning why that might have made Golden bad - otherwise why would he risk making himself a target. Unlike Lorab though i cannot say that most of the time I hear people say this they are baddies. People say all kinds of things when they are desperate. I feel like I must mention though that in games I've played with her Lorab marches to her own drummer and like she says concentrates on detail. I have to decide if disagreeing with Lorab equates with suspecting her of being bad. Please tell me if you think I missed anything that would affect my vote about Lorab.

I have a very long doctors appointment today and so will not be back on until later today. I will continue reading when I get back because as I understand it we have a vote tonight. I feel like I've got Day 1 type reactions to people (not feeling sure, tentative) but give me time to get my legs under me.

#1168

Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts

#1169

TinyBubbles wrote:Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts

Hi TinyBubbles. I look forward to your thoughts and things.

#1170

Scotty wrote: -MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.

Oh, hi Scotty. Nice to see you again.

#1171

Vote Analysis on

I decided she is another player I barely have an opinion on and I'd like to.

DAY 1

LoRab wrote:I'm of 2 minds with the GMan stuff.

On the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

That being said, the way he phrased it doesn't sound like a way a civie would describe themselves, even with phrasing it differently. What he posted earlier sounds like something that is a baddie trying to describe themselves with a true statement on a technicality (like, if they don't have a power that can be used to harm a civie, they technically aren't a threat). And his explanation doesn't ring so true to me.

There are also roles with secrets, and we don't know how those statements might have an impact on an LD role. He could have been waiting for clarification on how a statement of "I am a civie" would show up. on G Man. Leaning towards a vote in that direction.

She begins the G-Man suspicion here. She has a very good point, imo. Myself, I had my fair share of watching people try to manipulate lie detectors. That said, there is only a one-shot LD in the game, which makes it pretty minor factor, so I'm not sure if this is big enough to warrant a vote. G-Man has had bigger baddie signs, as well as bigger town signs, in this game.

There are multiple other posts about G-Man which I won't bother to quote.

LoRab wrote:Until I just read MP's list, I kind of forgot LC was playing. So I checked the who's posted thingie, and he only has 1 post (only other person with 1 post, btw, is K-nuk, who isn't playing). And here's his 1 post:

Spoiler: show
Long Con wrote:
G-Man wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?
You mean the player whose posts can be read with the deepest voice or the player who writes the low-down meanest posts?

I believe the word you are looking for is fewest.
G-Man is now on my list of people that I will not vote for on Day 1.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Scotty wrote:
linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?
Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.
If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.
Hey- Golden had a LOT of help behind the scenes. Never forget that. He was right and I was wrong about the final baddie but my lists helped serve up at least two baddies- one of which I handed to Golden on a silver platter from beyond the grave. I'd like to think that he would have had a much harder time winning that game without my help.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I will not stand for a closed-minded town on Day 1.
Then take a seat.
For the record... I was taking it all in stride. As in, I thought that everyone was pretty much joking, but I saw the potential for any of them to make it real just for fun as well. Although Metalmarsh and Golden are survival buddies right now, so I doubt either of them are inclined to lynch unless they're pretty convinced.

Anywho, I'll vote for Rorschach's Journal, because Rorschach is my favourite part of a story made of awesome parts. This quote I quoted is where I have read up to at this point, be back later.
Ironic that his first comment is on a comment (an awesome comment, btw) about fewest posts. Which manages to comment on the matter without commenting on the matter.

As importantly, he manages to say he will not vote for G-Man without having to defend him. Given the fact that I suspect G-Man, this strikes me as suspicious.

And the bulk of his post is about another game--nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but he barely makes comment on this game. Which isn't really like him.

I am still suspicious of G Man. But LC has just moved up on my suspiciometer (I guess I have 2 suspects now, lol). And I hope he posts more. I may throw him a vote just to get him to post more.

Later in the phase, she starts suspecting LC, for a statement about not voting G-Man which she perceived as fishy. For me, LC's statement was obviously a jokey one, considering he was just quoting a post where G-Man fixes someone's grammar. So that would point LoRab as either doing some unnecessary tunneling, or a baddie trying hard to justify a suspicion.

LoRab wrote:I'm around...voting either GMan or possibly LC

LoRab wrote:Voted G-man. Because I find him suspicious.

She mantains her position and votes G-Man, keeping LC as a close second. Consistent, but completely oblivious to what is going in the phase, since nobody else had voted G-Man.

NIGHT 1 / DAY 2

She spents Night 1 defending herself against DH's suspicions, which I'm not gonna bother quoting. There is also this interaction:

LoRab wrote:
Long Con wrote: Looks like you didn't throw me that vote. That's ok, it wouldn't have affected my posting volume at all, so that plan was doomed from inception.
Ah, but posting about you has gotten you to post. So yay!

She doesn't exactly says whether she still suspects LC or not, so I dunno what to think of this.

LoRab wrote:Golden's use of the "I'm a very important civ" defense may have earned him my vote. Because, in my experience, civs don't usually use that defense.

Spoiler: show
G-Man wrote:Hey hey, back from the campground. Still catching up but I'm on Page 12, where the vote deadline looms eminent. Very interesting to read through. Here are some thoughts and observations:

DharmaHelper wrote:In my re-reading, I am also pinged by the big deal being made out of G-Man's lie detector statements. Especially considering he said "I am not a mafia" which is an equally lie detectable statement as "I am a civvie".

Of the people making a fuss about it LoRab strikes me as most suspect, I may put my vote there.
I too am curious about why my statements became such a big deal. LoRab had to reach back a long time in history to pull out the LD point from back in my early LP days. I mean way back. Same goes for MP (i think) for going way way back to the stone age of STV too. I choose my words carefully every time. Curious how they chose to think back past an awful lot of my playing history to find a possible reason that they could use to implicate me as a baddie.

Eye me all you want. But I haven't played a game with an LD (that I remember at least) since back in that time. I wasn't thinking about your playing history in general, but how I have noticed people respond to LD's in games. Those games just happen to be old ones. I notice patterns in posting and patterns of behavior. It's how I always play and always have played. If that makes me suspicious, so be it. I'm just trying to find the bad guys and point out behavior and posting that I happen to find suspicious. I'm not trying to implicate you. I suspect you. There is a difference.

This post features her first suspicion on Golden, for a sort of weird reason, though one I could agree with. It also shows more of bickering with G-Man, showing she still suspects him.

LoRab wrote:
Golden wrote:I mean that as a legitimate question to - like, is it colouring your vision.
It's a fair question and a good one (and I took it that way). And not really. I don't mind suspicion--I actually kind of like being suspected. Especially as a civ. Keeps the game more interesting and sometimes keeps me alive a little bit longer. I also expect it. For this vote, it's more that I have to vote one of you and I don't really highly suspect any of you right now and then you posted that.

I also meant to say earlier that there hasn't been a lot of discussion about LC's point earlier about it being somewhat strange that Night Owl chose this power to use so early, before knowing any information. With bringing up ideas like that he's either working for the town or he's the biggest of the bads--I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now.

This post shows some self-defense arguments, and finally something about her giving LC the benefit of doubt. Seems kind of random to me imo.

LoRab wrote:I actually think of Golden as being more careful a player as a civ than as a baddie--I love having civie golden on my side. I'm not sure I'm seeing that.

MM went along with sloonei, so that doesn't look great. Russtifinko I have no idea. LC I already said before I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment because he's asking good questions and bringing things up others aren't--but I have an eye on him.

I could vote MM to create a tie, just for fun. Maybe I'll see where the vote is when we get close.

I don't like this whole choice of 4 thing. Especially not this early. Meh.

She changes her mind here, calling Golden a more likely civ, calling MM suspicious, Russ neutral, and keeping her stance of giving LC a pass. At this point I'd bet she'd vote MM.

LoRab wrote:MP--want to decide how to play this out?

Obviously Golden votes MM. One of us then can vote MM, and it's back to a tie. Which leaves the other of us to decide where the vote goes. Or we both vote for one person. Or you just descide to screw it and not vote. What's your thinking on this, mr sock?

Very fishy dialogue with MP, sho is obviously silenced. She seems highly aware of how the vote count may end.

LoRab wrote:Oh, wait, except he's sileneced and has no vote. (realized that as you were typing it. yay linkitis!)

Golden, I'm voting for you. I expect you to vote for MM. We'll let the powers that be decide what happens next. Seems like the fairest thing to do. Although scariest.

And then this. After all the suspicions about the 4 players, she ties the poll on purpose (well technically she gave Golden the chance to tie the poll, but Golden's vote was a given). She seems to think that's the most "fair" way to end the lynch. Imo, that's an epic cop-out. A good civ player should decide who she thinks is the best target for a lynch, not leave it to the RNG gods.

NIGHT 2 / DAY 3

She is not really active on D3, though I remember seeing her lurking the thread pretty much all the time.

Some more bickering with LC, where she keeps the position of giving him a pass. And a few posts defending herself. Actually, she barely does much in the phase other than defending herself. And then this:

LoRab wrote:On quickly and skimmed up. I do care who is lynched. I'm posting based on my suspicions. Day 2 I didn't really like any of the choices at that moment. I may seem suspicious to some but I am not bad. I am not Indy. I am not neutral. I'm civ this game. I'm voting gman because I still suspect him. And for those saying I was bringing up his old games that is not true. Read my posts. It's how people post with an ld in game in general. Although I still don't see how gman' statement of thinking that saying he was civie would be role outing still doesn't make sense to me and his explanations for it don't ring true. If that makes me seem suspish, so be it. I find him suspicious. That hasn't changed. Voting him. I hope to live to actually defend myself from specific posts.

More self defense, and finally votes G-Man, based on the d1 reasoning. Again, it's not necessarily a bad reason, but G-Man did more things in the game and I'd at least like her to have an opinion on them. At this point, the d1 thing seems forced.

I have a pretty strong baddie read on LoRab now, though I'm not sure if it's my biggest one. She seems overly focused on G-Man without actually doing much work on it, and her flip-flopping on day 2, as well as her intentional tie is fishy as fuck.

#1172

So let's lynch LoRab today.

#1173

Metalmarsh89 wrote:So let's lynch LoRab today.

Care to make a case on why I shouldn't vote for you today?

#1174

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Scotty wrote: -MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.
Oh, hi Scotty. Nice to see you again.

Hello again, my friend.

Seriously though, I still don't have my mind made up on you. Unfortunately I don't know if I will until I see your alignment. I may have to do some research on previous games to see how you function/play because on the surface you're quite mysterious. Chalking it up to my inexperience with you. Russ trusts you, LC trusted you (and if Russ is right, you better watch out! You were high up in his rainbow list). So I want to figure out what I'm missing so I can possibly get out of this tunnel.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:So let's lynch LoRab today.

Is that how you're voting today? You said yesterday that she should be lynched today, so why not just put your vote in?

#1175

Welcome, TinyBubbles. And welcome back, Scotty, I don't think I've said it yet.

I want to study and jog during the next two-three hours, so posting a first half of updated reads, resuming afterwards.

Bass - Bye Bass. His form was clearly dipping to absenteeism since D1 and LC's death has him in sight for suspicion (or meant to paint him as such), but I think I'll wrap up his game read with more pluses than minuses, so slight civ read. Looking forward to see how TinyBubbles evolves

-----

Cookie has had a very bad D3 endgame, so it's only natural to suspect her after that chain of events: she said she's working on the suspects list, she nominated DDL (based on something from his arguing with Golden on D2 and about his stance on late votes, but Cookie's suspicion on it reads to me a bit like waffle, frankly) and espers (for his D1 vote, not his posts) and exonerated Eloh; she asks why DDL reads DH as bad, but then, roughly 10 minutes later, decides to vote DH because of DDL - quite the adjustment for a player constantly having a hard time grasping everything that's happening; she doesn't undertand what was bad about her vote and her "hunches" (whatever that means); she evades a bit the question of why didn't she post her thoughts before voting, before saying she's bad at hunting and more used to vote without accompanying information or reasoning.

From what I've written before, that exchange with Sloonei is still the only thing making me question whether she would be on the mafia team and get open assistance/vouching in the thread, in such a style. It smells disaster, the way Sloonei vouched for her shy gaming style. So, to be honest, I'm still pondering if she made one hell of a blunder or she's playing her confused card to full effect, but I am certainly not glad how her vote contributed to the whole endgame blow up.

-----

Also natural is that DDL doesn't look as hot to me after D3's vote - although, at a lynch tally of bloody two votes, it's hard to call culprits and Cookie's vote still looks far worse. He's 0-2 in hunting, complete with full reasoning and heavy debates with the hunted ones, which he acknowledges. Might also have a bad N4 ahead of him, if Rorschach is still alive by then and decided to track him ([jokey] funny thing, Rorschach also respected Nite Owl II, so he might really not be pleased [/jokey]). From his debate with DH and MP, it is a bit intriguing the ISO angle he took at one point, but moreover because it polarized quite a bit of the endgame discussion; I'm not entirely sure if he forced it (the way MP suggested) or intentionally fed it to the thread, but it's a peculiar angle nonetheless; on the other hand, his posts didn't look too bad to me once I got his main point that he suspected DH for other things, that he disliked some of DH's points on him and that DH making ISOs wasn't the charge, it was just something that didn't change his [DDL's] mindset a whole lot.

However, I have one theory in mind and it has to do with DH's ISO on him. Now, since DH flipped Nite Owl, I've stated in the thread and still am keeping in mind that DH could have used up one or two abilities - protections notwithstanding - depending whether he created the D2 poll or not: so that's a lie detection and/or an alignment check. Remember DH's verdict on DDL? "My money has DDL as Moloch." This is really sticking out to me, now that I've gone back to read. As an ISO conclusion, it feels a bit detached or jumping a few steps, compared to the rest he wrote/commented on DDL. One good reason why that would be? He tried to plant the info. It's the only pin DH made on anyone. I've asked him why does he think DDL looks Moloch to him, exactly because it didn't seem to result from his read. DH never answered. I don't remember DDL disputing this statement either, despite, at the same time, disliking heavily and openly the things DH said about him. Maybe an attempt to sweep this under the rug? IDK, but it's on my mind.

---

Once again, you all will have to tell me why I should trust Eloh in this game, because I don't. Her D3 endgame was, alongside Cookie's, all over the place, for reasons of tiredness, lack of focus, giddiness etc. Yet she still played a part in the hustle and bustle. Yes, her D1-2 votes don't look as bad as others, although they're still debatable if backed up by good reasoning or timing. I just can't call her trustworthy during such times, when I'm trying to keep my head in the game. Even strictly factual, much of her D3 endgame makes little sense:

-- fears G-Man and LC might be Mafia (G-Man count: 1)
-- doesn't see case on Cookie
-- agrees with DDL that DH isn't genuine
-- suddenly agrees with case on Cookie as well
-- What does this post mean?
-- feels DH made good rebuttals
-- would vote espers from MP's lists, without feeling strongly about her
-- would vote G-Man or any quiet players (G-Man count: 2)
-- her last-second, "water gun" voting choice would be G-Man (G-Man count: 3)
-- votes MP

wat
My attempted version from all this would be that, considering how the voting went along, she could have done the following:

-- vote espers ("would vote espers from MP's lists") to tie at least or save DH ("feels DH made good rebuttals")
-- vote G-Man to tie him with DH and espers, at least, if she really feels that strongly about him - she said she'd vote him three times
-- vote Cookie once Cookie made her blunder vote and MP sanctioned her - although I'm not sure if there was still time, it was really on the last minute stretch - she agreed with the case on Cookie, didn't she?
-- vote a quiet player, since she stressed any of them makes her feel uneasy and her idea of mafia is that it's a quiet one

yet she did none of this. She voted the player she agreed with, the most active player in the thread and spread a vote absolutely nowhere.

Night 3 she think LoRab could be bad, Cookie could be bad, G-Man could still be bad. Interesting wording, too, either of them for her could be "the last two baddies". If Eloh's civ, doesn't she consider Moloch also a baddie? Could it be a slip, if she is Moloch?
I'm also wondering if she's not doing some distancing from LoRab. She could have easily voted G-Man together with her and push him into the tie or further, yet she didn't. She said nothing about her all game long until now.

---

Not much new on espers. He wondered why G-Man voted to try to save DH and I don't understand what's odd about it for him. His ISO attempts have been the least involved so far, he stopped after the first three players and has yet to pick it up.

---

I still don't have a strong read on G-Man, but it's fairly neutral and far from the same suspicions I have on others. Also, I'm thinking again of DH possibly using his lie detector whilst alive. He specifically didn't see the fuss about the whole LD debate, so it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that he might have checked precisely what the fuss was about G-Man's statements and they might have come clean. He gave G-Man the most neutral-slightly positive review, without making a great effort to explain why that is.

#1176

I'm on my phone and it's not letting me submit votes properly.

#1177

But rest assured, when I get home, LoRab will probably have my vote.

#1178

TinyBubbles wrote:Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts

Hey Tiny! Nice to see you again~~ Looking forward to hearing from you

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I'm going to do a little check through Cookie's posts. I'm not going to baby her, because I think she is capable and responsible for her posts thus far. (I'm sorry if some of these points have been brought up recently and I have missed them)

Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Cookie wrote:What? I decided to change my vote to follow someone else because what they said made sense to me? Once I read the links MP posted, I remembered what DDL had said about DH earlier. How does that make me suspicious? I voted on a hunch. I did not think that my suspicions against DDL or Espers were strong enough to vote for them, especially when I was uncertain of my vote against Golden (and look where that got us - life without Golden). When I reread what DDL posted, I had remembered their conversation. It was quite an easy change of heart.
So you went from having two suspects, not strong, then to reading a series of posts and suddenly having a suspect that eclipsed your thoughts of the other two, with enough confidence to vote?

My problem with it is that you never explained your thought process.
Was I supposed to just not vote if I wasn't confident on anyone?

You don't really seem interested in baddie hunting.

Is that true?
I have zero confidence in my abilities to baddie hunt, therefore, I am following others in their suspicions, mostly. I have played this game before, however, never really had to scumhunt. I've always gone by hunches and power roles and unfortunately, this isn't working out that well for me in this game.

Someone who is "following others in their suspicions" seems pretty blendy to me. Piggybacking, if you will. Yes, she seems lost as well, but that could be a strategy.

Cookie wrote:
Sloonei wrote:With regards to Cookie, since I'm the only person here who's got any familiarity with her as a player, I feel like I should offer what insight I can.

She comes from a fairly young mafia community and the games there are still a little um primitive, if that's not a mean thing to say, and, like she said, people tend to rely heavily on power roles and night actions and crazy bandwagon hunches and stuff. I've never played any games there, but I'm the one who introduced mafia on the site and have modded/spectated a bunch of games, and in my opinion Cookie is one of the the strongest players in the community (and one of the only ones who I felt comfortable enough with to invite here). I'm hella excited to see how she handles the more intense gameplay here and have full confidence in her abilities, but in fairness to her and everyone else it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a "noob".

Hello Cookie, welcome. Give me a full list of reads on every player by noon tomorrow.
Sloon.. I'm scared.. Hold me.

Thanks for your kind words! I'm still getting used to the idea of scumhunting. I feel like a huge noob compared to MP and others. I'm looking forward to learning how to challenge people more in their posts.

There is a lot of new language and "reads" is new to me as well.

I have to go to work so I will post more later. Bye!!

Sloonei preemptively defending her is a red flag. He even said "in fairness...it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a 'newb'". So Sloonei seems to butter her up but push her out of the nest at the same time. I take that as harmless but possibly a brief defense. Justification planted by Sloonei, so that no matter what, we're looking at her as the baby of the group that can make mistakes and fly under the radar.

I do think she is honest about her misgivings and mistakes generally, and so her "reads" (which are new to her) are going to be raw, right?

Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held), and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.
I noticed that as well and was curious why the sudden change in suspicion against Sloonei. And then voted for Sloonei without an explanation (that I saw). Could this be a scummy tactic for ensuring people think that he/she is civ? In Elo's defense, if he/she is a baddie, he/she would not have voted Sloonei at the time that he/she did. Many people were on the fence about him and the votes were tied between Sloonei and Niju. If Elo was bad, he/she'd have vted Niju. I don't know what to make of this.

This is very much fence sitting. I want to find a post where she makes her own reads and worthwhile opinions on people because at this point I know she is capable of it. Looking more in to her history so let's see..

Cookie wrote:Ok, I have not been very active in this game at all and I am truly very sorry for that, guys. Like, I've been reading the thread and somewhat keeping up with it (I usually have 4 or 5 pages to catch up on). As I go to respond to someone's posts with theories or questions, someone else has already addressed the same thing. Should I post it anyway? I usually have things typed up and ready to post, and I continue reading and someone has posted the same thing. Yesterday I posted I was catching up but I didn't even post anything because all had been addressed by the time I had finished reading.

I originally did not find Golden to be suspicious and I still do not find him the most suspicious out of all players (not listed in the poll), however, his vote to tie the vote for Sloonei and (I don't remember who... Niju?) makes me think that his attempt was to prevent Sloonei from getting voted out. It's very weak, I know. Someone later said that Golden is a more experienced player and would not do something so inept. So I just don't know who else to vote as there is not enough information against anyone else, in my opinion.

She seems genuinely out of her league here. I'm imagining her as the little mousey girl at a birthday party trying to get things in between conversations, but just can't seem to do it. I get that feeling sometimes when this thread is moving. But even inexperience isn't a reasoning for not posting thoughts. Plus, she hasn't had any reservations echoing what other people thought before this, so...

Her read on Golden is once again, contradictory and fence-sitting. Then she votes for Golden.

Cookie wrote:G-Man,
I really appreciate you doing that analysis. It puts everything into such clear perspective. I've never played in a game where people look so closely at votes.

Woof. How does that work?

Cookie wrote:I am working on my list of suspect's right now! I've only just discovered that I can view peoples' vote history by clicking "In Topic" and that let's me review things in isolation instead of reading up on the past 5 pages.

Oh good! She's working on suspects- that's good, because so far they've been few and far between.

Cookie wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Golden

This isn't black and white. I may think you are my biggest suspect, and that you are the best one among the four I have to pick from, but I'd be foolish to be 100% sure if you are mafia. And if you're gonna accuse me, I have to defend myself. If I'm right and you're mafia, then no problem, I'm safe. But if I'm wrong, I'd better start defusing the bomb you're trying to plant on me.

And the reason I voted earlier is that I always do that. I hate voting late, because I know I'll look bad because of it regardless of whether I lynch civ or bad. I'd rather vote earlier and risk my neck, and show I put my vote where my mouth is.
This post struck me as odd, especially when he talks about voting late and how it makes people look suspicious. This is interesting because earlier somewhere in this thread, he talked about Espers looking bad because he voted near the end of day for Sloonei. I can't tell if it's a guilty conscience. Other than that and his entire argument with Golden just seemed forced, like he was looking for a reason to vote out Golden (I don't know if that was on purpose or not, would someone do that as a townie?). At this point, I would not vote for DDL but I regard Golden as a good player and if he found DDL suspicious, then I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote upon.

In the beginning of the game, I found Elo suspicious because of her voting to tie up the votes on Day 1, however, she has posted more and I no longer find her suspicious.

Honestly, I'm shocked that MP has not been killed in the NK yet. It seems suspicious because he seems to be a very good player which could possibly turn out to be a threat to the mafia if he started calling them out, unless the Inmates have not killed him because they are high up on his rainbow list?

Cookie does bring up a unique point and perspectie about DDL with reference to something DDL said earlier. I wish she had linked the post he said that in, since we do know she can do that. But it's a start, which is awesome! Cookie points for brownie! I mean..brownie points for Cookie!
So is DDL a suspect? Well..."if Golden finds him suspicious, that I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote on." Oooo, back on the fence, dependent on what Golden says. -10 points to Gryffindor
She says Elo was suspicious, now is in the clear.
Then says that MP is supa civ and should have been NK'd by now unless he's got bad info in his rainbow list. Interesting theory, actually.

But still no suspects.

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.

Aha! Here we are! A suspect in espers! Day 3! So Cookie's getting used to looking at someone via voting patterns, eh? Good for her

But it's not specifically what he said. So in essence, you don't like his Day 1 votes, and he isn't fishy while talking...

Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Yay, a wild Cookie appears! Welcome, Cookie!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say.
It wasn't as much as I was hoping. I really have no strong suspicions on anyone and I feel like I'm reaching for straws.

She could be honest here, but what a let-down.

Cookie wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Cookie - Why would you find me suspicious when I tied u the vote if it was in favor of the civs?
I only found you suspicious at the time because I thought you were trying to save a teammate. Like I said, I no longer find you suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.
Would you be willing and able to make a rainbow list of ONLY the players you are considering for a vote in this lynch?
Yup, DDL and Espers are the only two I suspect and they are not really that strong. However, I see that DDL feels strong about DH being suspect and I think I missed why. Can anyone link me?

Back to DDL now as a suspect, eh? She qualifies her suspicions as "not that strong", which checks out, but this is also a cop out. I find it hard to believe she hasn't found anyone with even a moderate scum vibe at this point. Even using a "gut-read" or "vibe-read" or whatever she used in her home forum.

MP later picks up on the sentiment that Cookie doesn't have a strong argument and how she votes for someone anyway. She questions why that makes her suspicious and not DDL.

Cookie wrote:I don't feel that my votes have any accompanying information, but does anyone's truly have good information against them? If they did, everyone would be convinced that 1 specific person is likely to be mafia more than everyone else, and we wouldn't have the problem of not knowing who to vote for. We would all vote for the same person, but alas, we cannot ensure everyone agrees that one person is more suspicious than another.

Why am I so suspicious and DDL is not for that vote against DH? Is it only that I changed to DH with only a few minutes left and he was already decided?

So this post shows a lot of problems in Cookie's mindset, I feel. Evidence comes in citable vote form, citable quote form, and gut-feeling responses. Everyone has evidence that can paint them as suspicious, and that's why there will be multiple people voting. The thing that makes landslides happen is a huge error of judgment on a player's part- a mistake- that is glaringly bad. People will use that as evidence to an extent. They might be wrong, but at least they [should] have definite reason to suspect that person.

Then to answer your next question- I would propose that voting late on a day has the propensity to require more scrutiny, because a) there is more power in your hands to decide close votes and b) you can place your vote harmlessly anywhere you want in the case of landslides and still appear civ.

All in all, Cookie, I feel bad if you are really having a hard time at this forum, where you're having to become accustomed to a more frivolous play than what you're used to. But you've been figuring out the forum. We're a week in to this game, and I'm hoping things are starting to make more sense.

One thing that makes sense to me right now is if you are a newb, then I'd be hard-pressed to say you are either playing an unconvincingly mafia game, or a clue-less civ game, and neither are particularly mouth-watering right now.

Also, please don't take this personal. I just have my blinders on right now. I'll take a step back, and if you ARE a clueless civ, I'm hoping you can start looking at people's votes AND how they back up those votes.

#1179

Thanks Ricochet and others!

Ricochet wrote: Also natural is that DDL doesn't look as hot to me after D3's vote - although, at a lynch tally of bloody two votes, it's hard to call culprits and Cookie's vote still looks far worse. He's 0-2 in hunting, complete with full reasoning and heavy debates with the hunted ones, which he acknowledges. Might also have a bad N4 ahead of him, if Rorschach is still alive by then and decided to track him ([jokey] funny thing, Rorschach also respected Nite Owl II, so he might really not be pleased [/jokey]). From his debate with DH and MP, it is a bit intriguing the ISO angle he took at one point, but moreover because it polarized quite a bit of the endgame discussion; I'm not entirely sure if he forced it (the way MP suggested) or intentionally fed it to the thread, but it's a peculiar angle nonetheless; on the other hand, his posts didn't look too bad to me once I got his main point that he suspected DH for other things, that he disliked some of DH's points on him and that DH making ISOs wasn't the charge, it was just something that didn't change his [DDL's] mindset a whole lot.

However, I have one theory in mind and it has to do with DH's ISO on him. Now, since DH flipped Nite Owl, I've stated in the thread and still am keeping in mind that DH could have used up one or two abilities - protections notwithstanding - depending whether he created the D2 poll or not: so that's a lie detection and/or an alignment check. Remember DH's verdict on DDL? "My money has DDL as Moloch." This is really sticking out to me, now that I've gone back to read. As an ISO conclusion, it feels a bit detached or jumping a few steps, compared to the rest he wrote/commented on DDL. One good reason why that would be? He tried to plant the info. It's the only pin DH made on anyone. I've asked him why does he think DDL looks Moloch to him, exactly because it didn't seem to result from his read. DH never answered. I don't remember DDL disputing this statement either, despite, at the same time, disliking heavily and openly the things DH said about him. Maybe an attempt to sweep this under the rug? IDK, but it's on my mind.

I totally missed this in my skim, and you are right that DH never really answered. One of his last posts before going down:

DharmaHelper wrote:DDL is either Moloch or a Watchman. Either way I would let him alone till endgame.

I think there is some validity in that. I haven't seen DDL as bad this whole game, and DH pushed for this theory for a while. I don't know what info he was coming from, nor if he used all of his powers before going down, but I would tend to agree with your analysis, Ricochet, as well as DH's reads.

Ricochet wrote:Once again, you all will have to tell me why I should trust Eloh in this game, because I don't. Her D3 endgame was, alongside Cookie's, all over the place, for reasons of tiredness, lack of focus, giddiness etc. Yet she still played a part in the hustle and bustle. Yes, her D1-2 votes don't look as bad as others, although they're still debatable if backed up by good reasoning or timing. I just can't call her trustworthy during such times, when I'm trying to keep my head in the game. Even strictly factual, much of her D3 endgame makes little sense:

-- fears G-Man and LC might be Mafia (G-Man count: 1)
-- doesn't see case on Cookie
-- agrees with DDL that DH isn't genuine
-- suddenly agrees with case on Cookie as well
-- What does this post mean?
-- feels DH made good rebuttals
-- would vote espers from MP's lists, without feeling strongly about her
-- would vote G-Man or any quiet players (G-Man count: 2)
-- her last-second, "water gun" voting choice would be G-Man (G-Man count: 3)
-- votes MP

wat
My attempted version from all this would be that, considering how the voting went along, she could have done the following:

-- vote espers ("would vote espers from MP's lists") to tie at least or save DH ("feels DH made good rebuttals")
-- vote G-Man to tie him with DH and espers, at least, if she really feels that strongly about him - she said she'd vote him three times
-- vote Cookie once Cookie made her blunder vote and MP sanctioned her - although I'm not sure if there was still time, it was really on the last minute stretch - she agreed with the case on Cookie, didn't she?
-- vote a quiet player, since she stressed any of them makes her feel uneasy and her idea of mafia is that it's a quiet one

yet she did none of this. She voted the player she agreed with, the most active player in the thread and spread a vote absolutely nowhere.

Night 3 she think LoRab could be bad, Cookie could be bad, G-Man could still be bad. Interesting wording, too, either of them for her could be "the last two baddies". If Eloh's civ, doesn't she consider Moloch also a baddie? Could it be a slip, if she is Moloch?
I'm also wondering if she's not doing some distancing from LoRab. She could have easily voted G-Man together with her and push him into the tie or further, yet she didn't. She said nothing about her all game long until now.

If G-Man were to flip bad, would you look at Elo as civ?

I know I have a civ read on GMan right now, and Elo's day 3 does look less than desirable. I'm moving her back to from slightly civ to slightly mafia. I need to look at her voting more closely before I completely agree with your iso. But it is a good iso.

#1180

Right now, I'm leaning toward voting Cookie today, but want to hear from her and whether or not she can come up with any bit of stronger suspects before I do vote.
LoRab is my 2nd pick, then possibly elo if I get more time to look into her.

#1181

Hey all! Sorry I haven't been around as much as I was hoping. I'll catch up here shortly.

#1182

I voted for the twirl.

#1183

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted for the twirl.

Do you feel like making a case to spare yourself from my vote yet?

#1184

Also, by my spreadsheet, neither Cookie nor espers have shown up yet Day 4. I feel like I checked the post links correctly but I'd like someone else to confirm my data if possible.

#1185

G-Man wrote:Also, by my spreadsheet, neither Cookie nor espers have shown up yet Day 4. I feel like I checked the post links correctly but I'd like someone else to confirm my data if possible.

Nevermind. I just went back from the Night 3 post and saw neither of their avatars on Day 4 yet. It is confirmed.

#1186

Scotty wrote:If G-Man were to flip bad, would you look at Elo as civ?

I can't say my read of Elo hinges on her read (and subsequent flip) of G-Man. I'm not ready to make such an equation, until such events would unfold (something I'm currently not intent to pursue, however i.e. lynching G-Man). I simply pointed out that it was by far the biggest inconsistency between what she repeatedly said she'd vote and what she actually did. Why suss the man three times during an endgame and not find it at least comfortable to vote for him, at least for the sake of being (or appearing) consistent? Idk. As I've said, both Cookie and Eloh are either blundering heavily in this game or throwing shenanigans in our face.

#1187

G-Man wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted for the twirl.
Do you feel like making a case to spare yourself from my vote yet?

No. I don't think advocating my own innocence should have any impact on your vote.

Plus, I don't really care if you vote for me.

#1188

RIP LC and welcome back, Scotty!

Welcome, TinyBubbles! See you in another game, Bass.

Spoiler: show

Dragon D. Luffy, this is a valid question. Yes, I could have prevented a civilian lynch. I didn't know the tally at the time that I voted. After seeing G-Man's and others' votes in the updated tally, I vocalized my sentiment here. On reflection, I probably would have voted espers instead, but I had doubts about espers being mafia, and Cookie's D3 EoD behavior was incredibly suspicious. I also had no idea how many votes were coming in and who was going to vote where, much like EoD D1, and decided to vote where I felt most strongly, instead of voting in a manner which perhaps would have been more likely to receive votes. After witnessing this technique at RYM in recent games, I've decided to try to avoid casting my vote on 'low-hanging fruit' or the candidate with the highest propensity to be lynched, and then just waiting for the result. Instead, I've witnessed that much information can be gleamed from EoD, and I'm trying every single thing I can to avoid tunneling any player in this game.

Does that address your concerns?

Also, on another note, I noticed your ISO/thoughts on LoRab. You said she seems pretty baddie, but not your strongest read. Who is currently on your suspicion list?

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh, I can see why you seem intent on a LoRab vote. All three of her votes seemed to be cast with little concern to actually baddie hunt and question all players.

Spoiler: show

Dragon D. Luffy, so what you're implying here is similar to what I saw G-Man saying earlier. You don't think my reasons for suspecting Scotty were strong, so you suspect me for casting my vote in that direction. Are you certain you aren't finding my actions suspect merely because you disagree on my thoughts on Scotty?

Spoiler: show

G-Man, first I have to ask, why are you limiting your vote today to those players? Can you elaborate on why you find them more suspicious than those you have eliminated?

Second, in my defense, I've already been faced with accusations and heat from you, DDL, Scotty, and LC. I believe I've already explained my behavior, and offered responses to such concerns:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 20#p159120
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 46#p159346
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 68#p159368
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 85#p159485
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 58#p159858
etc.

If you still have questions for me, please let me know.

Spoiler: show

Elohcin, this is an interesting development. Has anyone received any similar "confusing info PM"?

Spoiler: show

Russtifinko, what motivation would a mafia team have in performing NKs in such a fashion?

Spoiler: show

Russtifinko, I want explanation as to why you are considering these players only for your vote.

Spoiler: show

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I read through Lorab and saw what G-man said that started that whole debate. When I read G-Man's response I immediately thought indy but in no way did I think baddie. The other thing I noted is unless I have not read the roles correctly the Nite Owl II could only detect once and the Night Owl I can only detect once. That just doesn't seem like enough of a threat for someone to be addressing the LD by putting a checkable statement out there this early. On her comment on the Golden comment, I am more surprised that Golden said he was an important civ in the the thread. I do somewhat see her reasoning why that might have made Golden bad - otherwise why would he risk making himself a target. Unlike Lorab though i cannot say that most of the time I hear people say this they are baddies. People say all kinds of things when they are desperate. I feel like I must mention though that in games I've played with her Lorab marches to her own drummer and like she says concentrates on detail. I have to decide if disagreeing with Lorab equates with suspecting her of being bad. Please tell me if you think I missed anything that would affect my vote about Lorab.

I have a very long doctors appointment today and so will not be back on until later today. I will continue reading when I get back because as I understand it we have a vote tonight. I feel like I've got Day 1 type reactions to people (not feeling sure, tentative) but give me time to get my legs under me.

juliets, it seems you pretty much have Cookie's behavior this game. If you had to make a read on her one way or the other, would you say she is more likely civilian or mafia?

I also think what you say about LoRab here is indicative of her playstyle in general, so I too, have been hesitant to condemn her as absolutely mafia. That said, her votes have far from convinced me she is coming from a civilian mindset.

I am incredibly intrigued to hear what else you're thinking.

Spoiler: show

Ricochet wrote:Welcome, TinyBubbles. And welcome back, Scotty, I don't think I've said it yet.

I want to study and jog during the next two-three hours, so posting a first half of updated reads, resuming afterwards.

Bass - Bye Bass. His form was clearly dipping to absenteeism since D1 and LC's death has him in sight for suspicion (or meant to paint him as such), but I think I'll wrap up his game read with more pluses than minuses, so slight civ read. Looking forward to see how TinyBubbles evolves

-----

Cookie has had a very bad D3 endgame, so it's only natural to suspect her after that chain of events: she said she's working on the suspects list, she nominated DDL (based on something from his arguing with Golden on D2 and about his stance on late votes, but Cookie's suspicion on it reads to me a bit like waffle, frankly) and espers (for his D1 vote, not his posts) and exonerated Eloh; she asks why DDL reads DH as bad, but then, roughly 10 minutes later, decides to vote DH because of DDL - quite the adjustment for a player constantly having a hard time grasping everything that's happening; she doesn't undertand what was bad about her vote and her "hunches" (whatever that means); she evades a bit the question of why didn't she post her thoughts before voting, before saying she's bad at hunting and more used to vote without accompanying information or reasoning.

From what I've written before, that exchange with Sloonei is still the only thing making me question whether she would be on the mafia team and get open assistance/vouching in the thread, in such a style. It smells disaster, the way Sloonei vouched for her shy gaming style. So, to be honest, I'm still pondering if she made one hell of a blunder or she's playing her confused card to full effect, but I am certainly not glad how her vote contributed to the whole endgame blow up.

-----

Also natural is that DDL doesn't look as hot to me after D3's vote - although, at a lynch tally of bloody two votes, it's hard to call culprits and Cookie's vote still looks far worse. He's 0-2 in hunting, complete with full reasoning and heavy debates with the hunted ones, which he acknowledges. Might also have a bad N4 ahead of him, if Rorschach is still alive by then and decided to track him ([jokey] funny thing, Rorschach also respected Nite Owl II, so he might really not be pleased [/jokey]). From his debate with DH and MP, it is a bit intriguing the ISO angle he took at one point, but moreover because it polarized quite a bit of the endgame discussion; I'm not entirely sure if he forced it (the way MP suggested) or intentionally fed it to the thread, but it's a peculiar angle nonetheless; on the other hand, his posts didn't look too bad to me once I got his main point that he suspected DH for other things, that he disliked some of DH's points on him and that DH making ISOs wasn't the charge, it was just something that didn't change his [DDL's] mindset a whole lot.

However, I have one theory in mind and it has to do with DH's ISO on him. Now, since DH flipped Nite Owl, I've stated in the thread and still am keeping in mind that DH could have used up one or two abilities - protections notwithstanding - depending whether he created the D2 poll or not: so that's a lie detection and/or an alignment check. Remember DH's verdict on DDL? "My money has DDL as Moloch." This is really sticking out to me, now that I've gone back to read. As an ISO conclusion, it feels a bit detached or jumping a few steps, compared to the rest he wrote/commented on DDL. One good reason why that would be? He tried to plant the info. It's the only pin DH made on anyone. I've asked him why does he think DDL looks Moloch to him, exactly because it didn't seem to result from his read. DH never answered. I don't remember DDL disputing this statement either, despite, at the same time, disliking heavily and openly the things DH said about him. Maybe an attempt to sweep this under the rug? IDK, but it's on my mind.

---

Once again, you all will have to tell me why I should trust Eloh in this game, because I don't. Her D3 endgame was, alongside Cookie's, all over the place, for reasons of tiredness, lack of focus, giddiness etc. Yet she still played a part in the hustle and bustle. Yes, her D1-2 votes don't look as bad as others, although they're still debatable if backed up by good reasoning or timing. I just can't call her trustworthy during such times, when I'm trying to keep my head in the game. Even strictly factual, much of her D3 endgame makes little sense:

-- fears G-Man and LC might be Mafia (G-Man count: 1)
-- doesn't see case on Cookie
-- agrees with DDL that DH isn't genuine
-- suddenly agrees with case on Cookie as well
-- What does this post mean?
-- feels DH made good rebuttals
-- would vote espers from MP's lists, without feeling strongly about her
-- would vote G-Man or any quiet players (G-Man count: 2)
-- her last-second, "water gun" voting choice would be G-Man (G-Man count: 3)
-- votes MP

wat
My attempted version from all this would be that, considering how the voting went along, she could have done the following:

-- vote espers ("would vote espers from MP's lists") to tie at least or save DH ("feels DH made good rebuttals")
-- vote G-Man to tie him with DH and espers, at least, if she really feels that strongly about him - she said she'd vote him three times
-- vote Cookie once Cookie made her blunder vote and MP sanctioned her - although I'm not sure if there was still time, it was really on the last minute stretch - she agreed with the case on Cookie, didn't she?
-- vote a quiet player, since she stressed any of them makes her feel uneasy and her idea of mafia is that it's a quiet one

yet she did none of this. She voted the player she agreed with, the most active player in the thread and spread a vote absolutely nowhere.

Night 3 she think LoRab could be bad, Cookie could be bad, G-Man could still be bad. Interesting wording, too, either of them for her could be "the last two baddies". If Eloh's civ, doesn't she consider Moloch also a baddie? Could it be a slip, if she is Moloch?
I'm also wondering if she's not doing some distancing from LoRab. She could have easily voted G-Man together with her and push him into the tie or further, yet she didn't. She said nothing about her all game long until now.

---

Not much new on espers. He wondered why G-Man voted to try to save DH and I don't understand what's odd about it for him. His ISO attempts have been the least involved so far, he stopped after the first three players and has yet to pick it up.

---

I still don't have a strong read on G-Man, but it's fairly neutral and far from the same suspicions I have on others. Also, I'm thinking again of DH possibly using his lie detector whilst alive. He specifically didn't see the fuss about the whole LD debate, so it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that he might have checked precisely what the fuss was about G-Man's statements and they might have come clean. He gave G-Man the most neutral-slightly positive review, without making a great effort to explain why that is.

Ricochet, I find much of your analysis here logical. I'm intrigued to hear what you think of the remaining players. If you had to vote immediately, who would receive your vote?

Spoiler: show

Scotty wrote:
TinyBubbles wrote:Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts
Hey Tiny! Nice to see you again~~ Looking forward to hearing from you

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.
I'm going to do a little check through Cookie's posts. I'm not going to baby her, because I think she is capable and responsible for her posts thus far. (I'm sorry if some of these points have been brought up recently and I have missed them)
Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Cookie wrote:What? I decided to change my vote to follow someone else because what they said made sense to me? Once I read the links MP posted, I remembered what DDL had said about DH earlier. How does that make me suspicious? I voted on a hunch. I did not think that my suspicions against DDL or Espers were strong enough to vote for them, especially when I was uncertain of my vote against Golden (and look where that got us - life without Golden). When I reread what DDL posted, I had remembered their conversation. It was quite an easy change of heart.
So you went from having two suspects, not strong, then to reading a series of posts and suddenly having a suspect that eclipsed your thoughts of the other two, with enough confidence to vote?

My problem with it is that you never explained your thought process.
Was I supposed to just not vote if I wasn't confident on anyone?

You don't really seem interested in baddie hunting.

Is that true?
I have zero confidence in my abilities to baddie hunt, therefore, I am following others in their suspicions, mostly. I have played this game before, however, never really had to scumhunt. I've always gone by hunches and power roles and unfortunately, this isn't working out that well for me in this game.
Someone who is "following others in their suspicions" seems pretty blendy to me. Piggybacking, if you will. Yes, she seems lost as well, but that could be a strategy.

Cookie wrote:
Sloonei wrote:With regards to Cookie, since I'm the only person here who's got any familiarity with her as a player, I feel like I should offer what insight I can.

She comes from a fairly young mafia community and the games there are still a little um primitive, if that's not a mean thing to say, and, like she said, people tend to rely heavily on power roles and night actions and crazy bandwagon hunches and stuff. I've never played any games there, but I'm the one who introduced mafia on the site and have modded/spectated a bunch of games, and in my opinion Cookie is one of the the strongest players in the community (and one of the only ones who I felt comfortable enough with to invite here). I'm hella excited to see how she handles the more intense gameplay here and have full confidence in her abilities, but in fairness to her and everyone else it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a "noob".

Hello Cookie, welcome. Give me a full list of reads on every player by noon tomorrow.
Sloon.. I'm scared.. Hold me.

Thanks for your kind words! I'm still getting used to the idea of scumhunting. I feel like a huge noob compared to MP and others. I'm looking forward to learning how to challenge people more in their posts.

There is a lot of new language and "reads" is new to me as well.

I have to go to work so I will post more later. Bye!!
Sloonei preemptively defending her is a red flag. He even said "in fairness...it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a 'newb'". So Sloonei seems to butter her up but push her out of the nest at the same time. I take that as harmless but possibly a brief defense. Justification planted by Sloonei, so that no matter what, we're looking at her as the baby of the group that can make mistakes and fly under the radar.

I do think she is honest about her misgivings and mistakes generally, and so her "reads" (which are new to her) are going to be raw, right?
Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held), and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.
I noticed that as well and was curious why the sudden change in suspicion against Sloonei. And then voted for Sloonei without an explanation (that I saw). Could this be a scummy tactic for ensuring people think that he/she is civ? In Elo's defense, if he/she is a baddie, he/she would not have voted Sloonei at the time that he/she did. Many people were on the fence about him and the votes were tied between Sloonei and Niju. If Elo was bad, he/she'd have vted Niju. I don't know what to make of this.
This is very much fence sitting. I want to find a post where she makes her own reads and worthwhile opinions on people because at this point I know she is capable of it. Looking more in to her history so let's see..

Cookie wrote:Ok, I have not been very active in this game at all and I am truly very sorry for that, guys. Like, I've been reading the thread and somewhat keeping up with it (I usually have 4 or 5 pages to catch up on). As I go to respond to someone's posts with theories or questions, someone else has already addressed the same thing. Should I post it anyway? I usually have things typed up and ready to post, and I continue reading and someone has posted the same thing. Yesterday I posted I was catching up but I didn't even post anything because all had been addressed by the time I had finished reading.

I originally did not find Golden to be suspicious and I still do not find him the most suspicious out of all players (not listed in the poll), however, his vote to tie the vote for Sloonei and (I don't remember who... Niju?) makes me think that his attempt was to prevent Sloonei from getting voted out. It's very weak, I know. Someone later said that Golden is a more experienced player and would not do something so inept. So I just don't know who else to vote as there is not enough information against anyone else, in my opinion.
She seems genuinely out of her league here. I'm imagining her as the little mousey girl at a birthday party trying to get things in between conversations, but just can't seem to do it. I get that feeling sometimes when this thread is moving. But even inexperience isn't a reasoning for not posting thoughts. Plus, she hasn't had any reservations echoing what other people thought before this, so...

Her read on Golden is once again, contradictory and fence-sitting. Then she votes for Golden.

Cookie wrote:G-Man,
I really appreciate you doing that analysis. It puts everything into such clear perspective. I've never played in a game where people look so closely at votes.
Woof. How does that work?

Cookie wrote:I am working on my list of suspect's right now! I've only just discovered that I can view peoples' vote history by clicking "In Topic" and that let's me review things in isolation instead of reading up on the past 5 pages.
Oh good! She's working on suspects- that's good, because so far they've been few and far between.

Cookie wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Golden

This isn't black and white. I may think you are my biggest suspect, and that you are the best one among the four I have to pick from, but I'd be foolish to be 100% sure if you are mafia. And if you're gonna accuse me, I have to defend myself. If I'm right and you're mafia, then no problem, I'm safe. But if I'm wrong, I'd better start defusing the bomb you're trying to plant on me.

And the reason I voted earlier is that I always do that. I hate voting late, because I know I'll look bad because of it regardless of whether I lynch civ or bad. I'd rather vote earlier and risk my neck, and show I put my vote where my mouth is.
This post struck me as odd, especially when he talks about voting late and how it makes people look suspicious. This is interesting because earlier somewhere in this thread, he talked about Espers looking bad because he voted near the end of day for Sloonei. I can't tell if it's a guilty conscience. Other than that and his entire argument with Golden just seemed forced, like he was looking for a reason to vote out Golden (I don't know if that was on purpose or not, would someone do that as a townie?). At this point, I would not vote for DDL but I regard Golden as a good player and if he found DDL suspicious, then I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote upon.

In the beginning of the game, I found Elo suspicious because of her voting to tie up the votes on Day 1, however, she has posted more and I no longer find her suspicious.

Honestly, I'm shocked that MP has not been killed in the NK yet. It seems suspicious because he seems to be a very good player which could possibly turn out to be a threat to the mafia if he started calling them out, unless the Inmates have not killed him because they are high up on his rainbow list?
Cookie does bring up a unique point and perspectie about DDL with reference to something DDL said earlier. I wish she had linked the post he said that in, since we do know she can do that. But it's a start, which is awesome! Cookie points for brownie! I mean..brownie points for Cookie!
So is DDL a suspect? Well..."if Golden finds him suspicious, that I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote on." Oooo, back on the fence, dependent on what Golden says. -10 points to Gryffindor
She says Elo was suspicious, now is in the clear.
Then says that MP is supa civ and should have been NK'd by now unless he's got bad info in his rainbow list. Interesting theory, actually.

But still no suspects.

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.
Aha! Here we are! A suspect in espers! Day 3! So Cookie's getting used to looking at someone via voting patterns, eh? Good for her
But it's not specifically what he said. So in essence, you don't like his Day 1 votes, and he isn't fishy while talking...
Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Yay, a wild Cookie appears! Welcome, Cookie!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say.
It wasn't as much as I was hoping. I really have no strong suspicions on anyone and I feel like I'm reaching for straws.
She could be honest here, but what a let-down.
Cookie wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Cookie - Why would you find me suspicious when I tied u the vote if it was in favor of the civs?
I only found you suspicious at the time because I thought you were trying to save a teammate. Like I said, I no longer find you suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.
Would you be willing and able to make a rainbow list of ONLY the players you are considering for a vote in this lynch?
Yup, DDL and Espers are the only two I suspect and they are not really that strong. However, I see that DDL feels strong about DH being suspect and I think I missed why. Can anyone link me?
Back to DDL now as a suspect, eh? She qualifies her suspicions as "not that strong", which checks out, but this is also a cop out. I find it hard to believe she hasn't found anyone with even a moderate scum vibe at this point. Even using a "gut-read" or "vibe-read" or whatever she used in her home forum.

MP later picks up on the sentiment that Cookie doesn't have a strong argument and how she votes for someone anyway. She questions why that makes her suspicious and not DDL.
Cookie wrote:I don't feel that my votes have any accompanying information, but does anyone's truly have good information against them? If they did, everyone would be convinced that 1 specific person is likely to be mafia more than everyone else, and we wouldn't have the problem of not knowing who to vote for. We would all vote for the same person, but alas, we cannot ensure everyone agrees that one person is more suspicious than another.

Why am I so suspicious and DDL is not for that vote against DH? Is it only that I changed to DH with only a few minutes left and he was already decided?
So this post shows a lot of problems in Cookie's mindset, I feel. Evidence comes in citable vote form, citable quote form, and gut-feeling responses. Everyone has evidence that can paint them as suspicious, and that's why there will be multiple people voting. The thing that makes landslides happen is a huge error of judgment on a player's part- a mistake- that is glaringly bad. People will use that as evidence to an extent. They might be wrong, but at least they [should] have definite reason to suspect that person.

Then to answer your next question- I would propose that voting late on a day has the propensity to require more scrutiny, because a) there is more power in your hands to decide close votes and b) you can place your vote harmlessly anywhere you want in the case of landslides and still appear civ.

All in all, Cookie, I feel bad if you are really having a hard time at this forum, where you're having to become accustomed to a more frivolous play than what you're used to. But you've been figuring out the forum. We're a week in to this game, and I'm hoping things are starting to make more sense.

One thing that makes sense to me right now is if you are a newb, then I'd be hard-pressed to say you are either playing an unconvincingly mafia game, or a clue-less civ game, and neither are particularly mouth-watering right now.

Also, please don't take this personal. I just have my blinders on right now. I'll take a step back, and if you ARE a clueless civ, I'm hoping you can start looking at people's votes AND how they back up those votes.

Scotty, your Cookie analysis here is very good. I'm glad to have you back in the game.

You express a high propensity to vote for Cookie, but where else are you looking?

#1189

I'm curious MM- why LoRab over Cookie? Is it just a case of LoRab smelling the worst?

linki: oh dear Lord

#1190

I haven't skipped LoRab, but first

MM - I'm not too happy with my previous read, mostly because it was done under stress and tiredness, after hours of re-reads and one hour-ish left of D3. I can't actually say I'm grasping his game, but I'm swimming through fluff and banter through much of it, trying to find consistent stuff. That's, of course, not unlike him, but my gut tells me to suspect him and lean either bad or a Watchman, the kind that can maybe afford being detached or waffling without too many repercussions - it's not unlikely, if you recall Death Note (linki: Him saying right now how he doesn't care about G-Man voting him sorta makes me believes in the latter angle even more). He only appears to have picked and construct a case today, against LoRab, so maybe there's more to observe to him.

Also, I'm inclined to think his claim that he got something out of the D0 poll is bull - which isn't a plus in my read of him either. I think it's clear that the D0 poll took shape of the order in which the Host constructs his Day/Night post. D1 was Veidt-themed. D2 was Rorschach-themed. Not sure about D3, since Silk/Manhattan/Comedian were tied at two votes each. Anyway, I think that's all we're getting from that D0 poll, really.

linki @ MP: Let me finish (hopefully somewhere in the next hour or so) and I'll make my way through deciding who to vote for, as well.

#1191

I'm hoping to perform some ISO's before EoD.

For now, I have to go, but I'll be back in not too long.

#1192

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
juliets wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think we should lynch LoRab tomorrow.
Metalmarsh, I read what Rico said about Lorab but I'd like to know what you've seen that makes you want to lynch her next. If you did an iso already on her just tell me.
I meant to say something yesterday, but was thwarted by unforeseen circumstances. Her votes are opportunistic.

Day 1, she voted G-Man even though she also found Long Con suspicious. That itself is not suspicious, but her case on G-man looks insincere. I think she is trying to paint him as a baddie for something that doesn't look bad. Her reason for voting G-man was that he said "his role is not harmful to civilians".

Day 2, she backed off LC for some reason. Then she said both myself and Golden look bad. In the end, she votes for Golden for saying "I am an important civ". Sound familar? Also, she played musical votes at the end of the day phase, directing and orchestrating the end of the day votes to create a situation where she could force a tie.

Day 3, she votes G-Man again, defaulting to her Day 1 suspicion. Again, I don't like the case, and there's the fact that she quickly backed off of the Long Con suspicion. Why the tunneling of G-Man?

G-Man, these are the points I made about LoRab. What are your thoughts, considering you were the one she's been voting for?

Linki: Hi Ricochet, I have good vibes about you this game.

#1193

Metalmarsh89 wrote:G-Man, these are the points I made about LoRab. What are your thoughts, considering you were the one she's been voting for?

I felt like I was on the same wavelength as LC and DH, so I wouldn't mind seeing LoRab dangling from the noose today. But that's really going to depend on how the six of you I listed respond to me.

Right now I am curious about the absence of Cookie and espers. If Cookie is one of the Inmates, this would be the perfect time to silence her. Lynching someone who is incapacitated in some way makes people squirmy and uncomfortable. It doesn't always work but baddies love to take advantage of the compassion of others.

#1194

MovingPictures07 wrote: G-Man, first I have to ask, why are you limiting your vote today to those players? Can you elaborate on why you find them more suspicious than those you have eliminated?

Second, in my defense, I've already been faced with accusations and heat from you, DDL, Scotty, and LC. I believe I've already explained my behavior, and offered responses to such concerns:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 20#p159120
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 46#p159346
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 68#p159368
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 85#p159485
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 58#p159858
etc.

If you still have questions for me, please let me know.

1-a) Because I choose to.
1-b) Yes, I can.
2) Thank you. I shall review those links.
3) None yet but I will let you know.

#1195

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP LC and welcome back, Scotty!

Scotty, your Cookie analysis here is very good. I'm glad to have you back in the game.

You express a high propensity to vote for Cookie, but where else are you looking?

Thanks, sock!

As I said, Cookie will probably get my vote today unless she can get switch from suspect "vibe"ration to suspect substantiation. (#DrSeuss)

LoRab seems bad as well, so she also could be a candidate.

Elo is lurking on my radar, and MM <3 of course.

Other than that, I don't have any strong mafia reads on anyone currently. Bass (now juliets) I had no problem with in Day 1 (even though he was all over my ass like baby powder), and I've since cooled off from out Night 1 debacle, and don't currently suspect you.

Do you still think I'm bad? Have you an updated rainbow list you might like to share with the class?

#1196

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I read through Lorab and saw what G-man said that started that whole debate. When I read G-Man's response I immediately thought indy but in no way did I think baddie. The other thing I noted is unless I have not read the roles correctly the Nite Owl II could only detect once and the Night Owl I can only detect once. That just doesn't seem like enough of a threat for someone to be addressing the LD by putting a checkable statement out there this early. On her comment on the Golden comment, I am more surprised that Golden said he was an important civ in the the thread. I do somewhat see her reasoning why that might have made Golden bad - otherwise why would he risk making himself a target. Unlike Lorab though i cannot say that most of the time I hear people say this they are baddies. People say all kinds of things when they are desperate. I feel like I must mention though that in games I've played with her Lorab marches to her own drummer and like she says concentrates on detail. I have to decide if disagreeing with Lorab equates with suspecting her of being bad. Please tell me if you think I missed anything that would affect my vote about Lorab.

I have a very long doctors appointment today and so will not be back on until later today. I will continue reading when I get back because as I understand it we have a vote tonight. I feel like I've got Day 1 type reactions to people (not feeling sure, tentative) but give me time to get my legs under me.

This may be contrary to what I appear to be, but I don't feel that clueless. I mean, I've played several games on another website where we relied on power roles, just did not engage in scumhunting before. That's really the only difference. I'm really impressed with the scumhunting abilities of whoever sus'd out Sloonei. Like, how did that even happen... The only other thing I am struggling with is remembering who said what. Many others in this game can refer back to how people played before, and they know peoples' personalities and what's out of place for that person. So how people are feeling about me and my behaviour and being unable to read me that well yet is exactly how I feel about every single other person in this game.

Anyway, to explain my vote for DH further, I didn't feel super confident about any of the people I suspected. When MP posted the snippets from DH's conversation, I remembered that that was DH and I have found that suspicious. I also did not intend for it to sound like I blamed DDL for DH being townie (as DDL seemed to think this?), but merely said that I was following someone who I thought seemed suspicious and who Golden thought was suspicious. It just seemed like a scummy move to myself (I found myself scummy?).

#1197

G-Man wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: G-Man, first I have to ask, why are you limiting your vote today to those players? Can you elaborate on why you find them more suspicious than those you have eliminated?

Second, in my defense, I've already been faced with accusations and heat from you, DDL, Scotty, and LC. I believe I've already explained my behavior, and offered responses to such concerns:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 20#p159120
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 46#p159346
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 68#p159368
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 85#p159485
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 58#p159858
etc.

If you still have questions for me, please let me know.
1-a) Because I choose to.
1-b) Yes, I can.
2) Thank you. I shall review those links.
3) None yet but I will let you know.

I look forward to your elaboration.

#1198

Regarding DDL's post here [hey, I just learned how to link stuff

]

Thanks for taking the time do do that whole analysis. I am keeping LoRab in mind for my vote tonight because of this post, however, Ricochet has really good points about Elo here. I don't have any reads on Ricochet at all but his/her post about Elo seems logical. Originally I found Elo suspicious on D1 but I didn't find her too suspicious as of lately. Seeing the sequence of events the way Ricochet put it makes her seem more suspicious.

Spoiler: show

Scotty wrote:
TinyBubbles wrote:Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts
Hey Tiny! Nice to see you again~~ Looking forward to hearing from you

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.
I'm going to do a little check through Cookie's posts. I'm not going to baby her, because I think she is capable and responsible for her posts thus far. (I'm sorry if some of these points have been brought up recently and I have missed them)
Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Cookie wrote:What? I decided to change my vote to follow someone else because what they said made sense to me? Once I read the links MP posted, I remembered what DDL had said about DH earlier. How does that make me suspicious? I voted on a hunch. I did not think that my suspicions against DDL or Espers were strong enough to vote for them, especially when I was uncertain of my vote against Golden (and look where that got us - life without Golden). When I reread what DDL posted, I had remembered their conversation. It was quite an easy change of heart.
So you went from having two suspects, not strong, then to reading a series of posts and suddenly having a suspect that eclipsed your thoughts of the other two, with enough confidence to vote?

My problem with it is that you never explained your thought process.
Was I supposed to just not vote if I wasn't confident on anyone?

You don't really seem interested in baddie hunting.

Is that true?
I have zero confidence in my abilities to baddie hunt, therefore, I am following others in their suspicions, mostly. I have played this game before, however, never really had to scumhunt. I've always gone by hunches and power roles and unfortunately, this isn't working out that well for me in this game.
Someone who is "following others in their suspicions" seems pretty blendy to me. Piggybacking, if you will. Yes, she seems lost as well, but that could be a strategy.

Cookie wrote:
Sloonei wrote:With regards to Cookie, since I'm the only person here who's got any familiarity with her as a player, I feel like I should offer what insight I can.

She comes from a fairly young mafia community and the games there are still a little um primitive, if that's not a mean thing to say, and, like she said, people tend to rely heavily on power roles and night actions and crazy bandwagon hunches and stuff. I've never played any games there, but I'm the one who introduced mafia on the site and have modded/spectated a bunch of games, and in my opinion Cookie is one of the the strongest players in the community (and one of the only ones who I felt comfortable enough with to invite here). I'm hella excited to see how she handles the more intense gameplay here and have full confidence in her abilities, but in fairness to her and everyone else it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a "noob".

Hello Cookie, welcome. Give me a full list of reads on every player by noon tomorrow.
Sloon.. I'm scared.. Hold me.

Thanks for your kind words! I'm still getting used to the idea of scumhunting. I feel like a huge noob compared to MP and others. I'm looking forward to learning how to challenge people more in their posts.

There is a lot of new language and "reads" is new to me as well.

I have to go to work so I will post more later. Bye!!
Sloonei preemptively defending her is a red flag. He even said "in fairness...it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a 'newb'". So Sloonei seems to butter her up but push her out of the nest at the same time. I take that as harmless but possibly a brief defense. Justification planted by Sloonei, so that no matter what, we're looking at her as the baby of the group that can make mistakes and fly under the radar.

I do think she is honest about her misgivings and mistakes generally, and so her "reads" (which are new to her) are going to be raw, right?
Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held), and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.
I noticed that as well and was curious why the sudden change in suspicion against Sloonei. And then voted for Sloonei without an explanation (that I saw). Could this be a scummy tactic for ensuring people think that he/she is civ? In Elo's defense, if he/she is a baddie, he/she would not have voted Sloonei at the time that he/she did. Many people were on the fence about him and the votes were tied between Sloonei and Niju. If Elo was bad, he/she'd have vted Niju. I don't know what to make of this.
This is very much fence sitting. I want to find a post where she makes her own reads and worthwhile opinions on people because at this point I know she is capable of it. Looking more in to her history so let's see..

Cookie wrote:Ok, I have not been very active in this game at all and I am truly very sorry for that, guys. Like, I've been reading the thread and somewhat keeping up with it (I usually have 4 or 5 pages to catch up on). As I go to respond to someone's posts with theories or questions, someone else has already addressed the same thing. Should I post it anyway? I usually have things typed up and ready to post, and I continue reading and someone has posted the same thing. Yesterday I posted I was catching up but I didn't even post anything because all had been addressed by the time I had finished reading.

I originally did not find Golden to be suspicious and I still do not find him the most suspicious out of all players (not listed in the poll), however, his vote to tie the vote for Sloonei and (I don't remember who... Niju?) makes me think that his attempt was to prevent Sloonei from getting voted out. It's very weak, I know. Someone later said that Golden is a more experienced player and would not do something so inept. So I just don't know who else to vote as there is not enough information against anyone else, in my opinion.
She seems genuinely out of her league here. I'm imagining her as the little mousey girl at a birthday party trying to get things in between conversations, but just can't seem to do it. I get that feeling sometimes when this thread is moving. But even inexperience isn't a reasoning for not posting thoughts. Plus, she hasn't had any reservations echoing what other people thought before this, so...

Her read on Golden is once again, contradictory and fence-sitting. Then she votes for Golden.

Cookie wrote:G-Man,
I really appreciate you doing that analysis. It puts everything into such clear perspective. I've never played in a game where people look so closely at votes.
Woof. How does that work?

Cookie wrote:I am working on my list of suspect's right now! I've only just discovered that I can view peoples' vote history by clicking "In Topic" and that let's me review things in isolation instead of reading up on the past 5 pages.
Oh good! She's working on suspects- that's good, because so far they've been few and far between.

Cookie wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Golden

This isn't black and white. I may think you are my biggest suspect, and that you are the best one among the four I have to pick from, but I'd be foolish to be 100% sure if you are mafia. And if you're gonna accuse me, I have to defend myself. If I'm right and you're mafia, then no problem, I'm safe. But if I'm wrong, I'd better start defusing the bomb you're trying to plant on me.

And the reason I voted earlier is that I always do that. I hate voting late, because I know I'll look bad because of it regardless of whether I lynch civ or bad. I'd rather vote earlier and risk my neck, and show I put my vote where my mouth is.
This post struck me as odd, especially when he talks about voting late and how it makes people look suspicious. This is interesting because earlier somewhere in this thread, he talked about Espers looking bad because he voted near the end of day for Sloonei. I can't tell if it's a guilty conscience. Other than that and his entire argument with Golden just seemed forced, like he was looking for a reason to vote out Golden (I don't know if that was on purpose or not, would someone do that as a townie?). At this point, I would not vote for DDL but I regard Golden as a good player and if he found DDL suspicious, then I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote upon.

In the beginning of the game, I found Elo suspicious because of her voting to tie up the votes on Day 1, however, she has posted more and I no longer find her suspicious.

Honestly, I'm shocked that MP has not been killed in the NK yet. It seems suspicious because he seems to be a very good player which could possibly turn out to be a threat to the mafia if he started calling them out, unless the Inmates have not killed him because they are high up on his rainbow list?
Cookie does bring up a unique point and perspectie about DDL with reference to something DDL said earlier. I wish she had linked the post he said that in, since we do know she can do that. But it's a start, which is awesome! Cookie points for brownie! I mean..brownie points for Cookie!
So is DDL a suspect? Well..."if Golden finds him suspicious, that I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote on." Oooo, back on the fence, dependent on what Golden says. -10 points to Gryffindor
She says Elo was suspicious, now is in the clear.
Then says that MP is supa civ and should have been NK'd by now unless he's got bad info in his rainbow list. Interesting theory, actually.

But still no suspects.

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.
Aha! Here we are! A suspect in espers! Day 3! So Cookie's getting used to looking at someone via voting patterns, eh? Good for her
But it's not specifically what he said. So in essence, you don't like his Day 1 votes, and he isn't fishy while talking...
Cookie wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Yay, a wild Cookie appears! Welcome, Cookie!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say.
It wasn't as much as I was hoping. I really have no strong suspicions on anyone and I feel like I'm reaching for straws.
She could be honest here, but what a let-down.
Cookie wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Cookie - Why would you find me suspicious when I tied u the vote if it was in favor of the civs?
I only found you suspicious at the time because I thought you were trying to save a teammate. Like I said, I no longer find you suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.
Would you be willing and able to make a rainbow list of ONLY the players you are considering for a vote in this lynch?
Yup, DDL and Espers are the only two I suspect and they are not really that strong. However, I see that DDL feels strong about DH being suspect and I think I missed why. Can anyone link me?
Back to DDL now as a suspect, eh? She qualifies her suspicions as "not that strong", which checks out, but this is also a cop out. I find it hard to believe she hasn't found anyone with even a moderate scum vibe at this point. Even using a "gut-read" or "vibe-read" or whatever she used in her home forum.

MP later picks up on the sentiment that Cookie doesn't have a strong argument and how she votes for someone anyway. She questions why that makes her suspicious and not DDL.
Cookie wrote:I don't feel that my votes have any accompanying information, but does anyone's truly have good information against them? If they did, everyone would be convinced that 1 specific person is likely to be mafia more than everyone else, and we wouldn't have the problem of not knowing who to vote for. We would all vote for the same person, but alas, we cannot ensure everyone agrees that one person is more suspicious than another.

Why am I so suspicious and DDL is not for that vote against DH? Is it only that I changed to DH with only a few minutes left and he was already decided?
So this post shows a lot of problems in Cookie's mindset, I feel. Evidence comes in citable vote form, citable quote form, and gut-feeling responses. Everyone has evidence that can paint them as suspicious, and that's why there will be multiple people voting. The thing that makes landslides happen is a huge error of judgment on a player's part- a mistake- that is glaringly bad. People will use that as evidence to an extent. They might be wrong, but at least they [should] have definite reason to suspect that person.

Then to answer your next question- I would propose that voting late on a day has the propensity to require more scrutiny, because a) there is more power in your hands to decide close votes and b) you can place your vote harmlessly anywhere you want in the case of landslides and still appear civ.

All in all, Cookie, I feel bad if you are really having a hard time at this forum, where you're having to become accustomed to a more frivolous play than what you're used to. But you've been figuring out the forum. We're a week in to this game, and I'm hoping things are starting to make more sense.

One thing that makes sense to me right now is if you are a newb, then I'd be hard-pressed to say you are either playing an unconvincingly mafia game, or a clue-less civ game, and neither are particularly mouth-watering right now.

Also, please don't take this personal. I just have my blinders on right now. I'll take a step back, and if you ARE a clueless civ, I'm hoping you can start looking at people's votes AND how they back up those votes.

Thanks for doing that about me and I don't take anything personally at all (what would this game be like if we were all srs bsns). I actually appreciate that you've analyzed everything I've said because it puts myself into my perspective. Do you have any questions or want me to clarify anything?

I feel that I could vote for MP, as well. I find him the most outspoken and, like I said earlier, it's strange that he hasn't been NK'd yelled. If he is not an Inmate, I believe that whoever is on the middle of his rainbow list must be the remaining Inmates (or at least one or two). Those people are slowly making their way to the top because it seems that people already at the top of his list are being NK'd. It's quite smart because all of the civviest people are being killed, leaving the most suspicious. I just feel that if I were an Inmate, I would feel threatened by MP's interrogations. I haven't seen anything he's said particularly disconcerting.

My top four suspicious players are (in alphabetical order): DDL, espers, LoRab, MP

#1199

Cookie, you seem to say that when you were offered context on the suspicion/case on DH, it helped you unlock your own past thoughts about DH seeming suspicious to you. Problem is, there is no such mention about that prior to the D3 endgame. I think that's basically the problem with not backing up your reads or votes with any sort of thought process.

And yes, you did say that you're trusting DDL on his DH case, but should DH flip civ, it'll make your suspicion on DDL grow (back? more?).

#1200

Ricochet, the use of endgame to refer to the end of the day is weird. :P

Might I suggest we copy RYM's acronym EOD (end of day) instead?

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

Full Games	Civilian: Mafia: Independent:
Speed Games	Civilian: Fiddler on the Roof Mafia:
Heists	Civilian: MVP: RED vs BLUE
Burglaries	Independent: The Theme Is Literally a Burglary
Special Games	Civilian: Independent:

2014 Sockys
2015 Sockys
Miscellaneous

2014 Sockys
2015 Sockys
Miscellaneous

2014 Sockys
2015 Sockys
Miscellaneous

2014 Sockys
2015 Sockys
Miscellaneous

Who deserves justice?