GY!BE Mafia [E.N.D.]

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Marmot, I'm still not clear on one detail from Day 1.

My first ping of the day.

Timmer hadn't posted for about 24 hours

Boomslang asks timmer a question.

Timmer posts a mere 10 minutes later.

Unvote whoever I voted (on my phone, can't remember)

Vote Boomslang for now.

What led to your initially voting Boomslang instead of timmer in this moment?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Busier than I expected, my ISO analyses and further posts will have to wait for now.

Hopefully I don't get killed/silenced/insanified.

Furthermore, I'm not one to tell other players what to do with their role powers, but if a town-aligned role is the silencer or the insanifier, and that's you, I'd hesitate greatly before utilizing your power again tonight. Those powers have an overall negative utility when they are town roles.

what the hell is this post

What is your concern with that post?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

[birdwithteeth11]

Three players were on the wagons for each of the players lynched thus far. These same three players have the highest post counts: MovingPictures, Golden, and JaggedJimmyJay.

Discuss.

Well, the first and third I've read as civ so far. The second I do not have a read on yet.

At the same time, I would also think if any of these 3 were bad, they would avoid latching onto the first 2 civ lynch wagons.

And I don't feel that great about you, so I'm considering the source as well.

I'll think about it.

[birdwithteeth11]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

You're absolutely right! I would do that.

But that's the thing, I can and will do almost anything in a mafia game, and additionally will admit to the possibility of doing anything. Sooo, I don't see how this helps your argument.



Anyway, I've changed my mind on Boomslang for now. A vote forcer is a possibility, but that wouldn't impact my read on Boomslang.

I don't disagree with your notion here. But do you see how your vote for timmer makes you look scummy?

What would you say your read is on Boomslang now?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Some beefs with LoRab:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

She retroactively stated her disagreement with the INH wagon after his lynch was finalized. This on its own power isn't much of an issue, but the highlighted portion becomes more meaningful in the next quote I'll pull:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Because I didn't think he seemed bad and I nothing that was said about him made me think he was bad. I don't remember the particular points, but as I read through them, they didn't convince me that he was bad. I also read them with the eye of thinking that he was a player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched (see last game), so that probably colored my reading). But, basically, I didn't think he seemed bad, so I wouldn't have voted for him. What am I missing in your question?

The core message of both posts is that she didn't like the INH lynch. However, in the first post wasn't inclined to voice suspicion of any of the people who contributed to that lynch despite calling him an "easy false case". She builds on that in the second post by calling him a "player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched". This language carries an implied accusation -- that she felt in the moment reading the INH cases that there was a chance someone was manipulating things against him. That would be cause for suspicion, but she declined to voice it before. In this post, she does voice it but without stating names. It allows this post to paint the entire INH wagon negatively without committing to a complete read.

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

Spoiler: show

So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

My empire of dirt

You could have it all

Wow. You, uh, make it sound so compelling.

But, still...I don't really have any suspects. I don't really want to point out who I think is civ. I still need to read back on who was suspecting INH to see who in that pool seems suspish.

But that dirt....tell me more.

It was clear Golden's ability to communicate was limited, so I don't like the sarcasm here. You, uh, make it sound so compelling. As if he had any good way of being more thorough. This post also represents the first follow-up on the suspicion she only sort of voiced about the INH wagon, but still without getting somewhere. We'll see if it progressed.

Spoiler: show

How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

I've already talked about this. It just doesn't look to me like a civilian responding to an unexplained vote, even when there may be legitimate suspicion that the vote was forced. It was immediate apathetic acceptance.

Spoiler: show

Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

LoRab's take on A Person's gripe about the most active players isn't my favorite thing. She called it maybe the "least civilian friendly thinking I've read in mafia" which would seem to be an accusation (confirmed further by the final sentence of the post), but her expansion on why she doesn't like it seems to go nowhere.

Either you're a civilian doing a silly thing or you're a mafia doing a silly thing.

She eventually placed her vote for A Person, meaning this ended up being her chief concern of Day 2.

From this point, her focus has been more about self-defense and answering prompts. I haven't seen follow-up on the INH wagon suspicions.

[birdwithteeth11]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

Not necessarily. A lot of forced votes require the person being forced to not divulge in any way that their vote is forced. I once saw someone slip up on that and they were modkilled, so it's a pretty serious thing in terms of the mafia culture I'm used to.

That being said, I am still reserving my final judgement on Boomslang until I see what his response is.

[birdwithteeth11]

I think A Person has a greater-than-average chance of being an insanifier role given his obvious disdain for people posting at a high rate. I'll give him some credit for brazenly voicing his disdain, but I'll also state that I agree with an inference made by LoRab: that if there are two insanifying roles, they're likely to be split somehow among the alignments. That is an issue for A Person, and so is a tiny contributory clip in a fast-paced and challenging game thread environment.

That a high poster wasn't killed means very little to me in regard to A Person because I wouldn't expect him to have the loudest voice of influence in a baddie BTSC anyway. To borrow Golden's language for a different purpose: I don't think he's a slam dunk scum, but I'm not giving him any credit for that. The best I can say is that he was willing to gripe openly about the high posters and didn't appear to care.

I agree with this. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an insanifer role, but I feel like we need more than him just griping about high posters to be able to tell if he is a good vs. bad/neutral insanifer.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I think A Person has a greater-than-average chance of being an insanifier role given his obvious disdain for people posting at a high rate. I'll give him some credit for brazenly voicing his disdain, but I'll also state that I agree with an inference made by LoRab: that if there are two insanifying roles, they're likely to be split somehow among the alignments. That is an issue for A Person, and so is a tiny contributory clip in a fast-paced and challenging game thread environment.

That a high poster wasn't killed means very little to me in regard to A Person because I wouldn't expect him to have the loudest voice of influence in a baddie BTSC anyway. To borrow Golden's language for a different purpose: I don't think he's a slam dunk scum, but I'm not giving him any credit for that. The best I can say is that he was willing to gripe openly about the high posters and didn't appear to care.

I agree with this. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an insanifer role, but I feel like we need more than him just griping about high posters to be able to tell if he is a good vs. bad/neutral insanifer.

We need more from him in general. With only four posts there's no better alternative to a judgment call.

[birdwithteeth11]

RIP Wilgy, and what a crazy Day 2.

I am more inclined to agree with Epignosis on the matter of Boomslang. I think there's a logical problem with his timmer vote that he should talk about, but there's the rub. When I look at the Boomslang controversy, my judgment veers toward that matter of logic -- is it truly damning for a player to make a logical misstep, and which alignment is more proned to making those? I don't know that there's a reliable correlation between being bad and being illogical. If anything there may be a negative correlation.

Boomslang, at your earliest convenience please discuss your current reads on timmer and MM, and describe where your head was at when you made your last post on Day 2.

Honestly, my vote was a logical misstep. "Where my head was at" was a place of sheer panic/preoccupation; I'd just come off a five-hour internship block, was about to head on an hour drive to an hour-plus-long job interview (that I'd just landed the day before and stayed up late preparing for), and at the time was changing into a suit. I didn't have the time or mental capacity to think clearly about my post or vote. I voted timmer out of some fuzzy train of thought relating him, MM, and me and wanting to see what happened after that vote. I seriously doubted that timmer would actually get lynched in the phase. You can believe me or not for this explanation; unlike Hillary Clinton, I can post time-stamped emails if you want them.

That being said, I think we can still gain some info from the debacle. MM immediately abandoning his timmer vote to vote me looks bad. If he truly believed in the timmer case, why would he abandon it instead of trying to recruit more people to the vote? Timmer seemed suitably confused/angry about a vote that was, as I've said, mostly illogical; he then tried to rationalize the vote after the emotional energy subsided. That reads very authentic to me. So I'll stop beating that horse for now.

For the first part, okay, a lot of that is completely understandable. In a vacuum, your timmer vote made no sense. But I do remember you supporting him earlier on, so I can buy this for now.

I do agree that we can gain some info from your vote decision too. I think it makes MM look scummier given he jumped his vote again right after your timmer vote.

MM, remind me again of your reasoning for moving this vote off timmer.

[Marmot]

Marmot, I'm still not clear on one detail from Day 1.

My first ping of the day.

Timmer hadn't posted for about 24 hours

Boomslang asks timmer a question.

Timmer posts a mere 10 minutes later.

Unvote whoever I voted (on my phone, can't remember)

Vote Boomslang for now.

What led to your initially voting Boomslang instead of timmer in this moment?

I don't remember. I know I was phone-posting, so I may have had not have been focused entirely on the game.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't remember. I know I was phone-posting, so I may have had not have been focused entirely on the game.

You were focused enough to make that specific observation about the timing of timmer's post relative to Boomslang's question. You can't recall anything about why your brain spat out a Boomslang vote after making that observation?

[birdwithteeth11]

Fine.

The only player on the roster I think would fail to send a kill is A Person, and I'm not even sure he would. I think it's more likely something else happened.

I agree. There's not enough low posters in this game to make me entertain the possibility of the mafia failing to send their kill in.

[Marmot]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

You're absolutely right! I would do that.

But that's the thing, I can and will do almost anything in a mafia game, and additionally will admit to the possibility of doing anything. Sooo, I don't see how this helps your argument.



Anyway, I've changed my mind on Boomslang for now. A vote forcer is a possibility, but that wouldn't impact my read on Boomslang.

I don't disagree with your notion here. But do you see how your vote for timmer makes you look scummy?

What would you say your read is on Boomslang now?

No I don't. And I didn't change my vote with scuminess in mind, I changed it because I liked Golden's logic.

[Marmot]

I don't remember. I know I was phone-posting, so I may have had not have been focused entirely on the game.

You were focused enough to make that specific observation about the timing of timmer's post relative to Boomslang's question. You can't recall anything about why your brain spat out a Boomslang vote after making that observation?

Not really no.

Aside from at that moment thinking they were both mafia, and voting for one of them.

[Marmot]

Fine.

The only player on the roster I think would fail to send a kill is A Person, and I'm not even sure he would. I think it's more likely something else happened.

I agree. There's not enough low posters in this game to make me entertain the possibility of the mafia failing to send their kill in.

And there are roleblockers (albeit one of them is dead).

There's too much all-around activity this game for me to think that a missed kill happened last night.

[birdwithteeth11]

I probably would have been on the Wilgy train, but I am also compelled by what I've seen said about Boomslang. I do not get his thought process RE: timmer, and I've still seen nothing from timmer that merits serious suspicion.

Yeah, I really want to hear more from Boomslang. Because I'm starting to wonder if we didn't see a Boom save with this lynch. Plus I would like to give him a chance to respond to what has actually happened.

RIP Wilgy.

I'd like to hear more about this, BWT.

I entertained that thought because I thought Boom was bad at the time. But he has since come back and offered up a much more reasonable explanation as to what happened with his Day 2 vote. So I no longer believe this was a possible outcome from the previous lynch.

[Epignosis]

Rockets Fall on Rocket Falls Once in the game, can drop a rocket that will block all actions throughout that phase.

Two Bits Says That Happened

[birdwithteeth11]

Reading BWT, I found some weirdness.

MM posts this at 12:12 my time:

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

just under 2 hours later, MM reiterates the thought with an added comment at the bottom:

Spoiler: show

I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Then BWT gets into the thread and, from what I can tell, catches up from where he left off, as he's commenting on events in chronological order. He then gets to where Boomslang voted for me. He ALSO cuts and pastes the same groups of posts that JJJ had posted, just like MM, and agrees with MM in voting for Boomslang:

(This is at 2:53 my time)

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

But then... here is our WTF moment. One lone minute later, at 2:54 he then links to MM's own cut and paste of the same quotes, and questions him on it...

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

Ummmm...why?

So BWT comes in, catches up, finds Boomslang scummy enough to vote for him. but then one minute later calls MM out for doing the same thing??? This makes no sense.

I gave justification and a reason as to why I voted for Boomslang (he had done nothing but suggest he thought you were good, and then turns around and votes for you). MM just moved his vote to Boomslang (and off of you subsequently) with no justification why and in a very out-of-the-blue way.

I'm still convinced MM was trying to discredit with his vote.

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

Good. Because you probably are. :P

Idk. You posted a list awhile back. Is that list still relatively intact in terms of how you'd rank people or not? And would you add/move anyone else not mentioned before around?

[birdwithteeth11]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

[Marmot]

Rockets Fall on Rocket Falls Once in the game, can drop a rocket that will block all actions throughout that phase.

Two Bits Says That Happened

I don't see any cursed players yet, so this is very plausible.

[Marmot]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

Why'd you follow my vote then?

[LoRab]

I'll respond in greater length to JJJ later, but one quick point before I need to run. Yes, my strategy as a civ is different this game than it was in Mad Max--in that game, we were playing with a mafia team and no other baddies. In this game, there is a serial killer and an unknown player. So, the strategy is entirely different in terms of not helping baddies. In that game, the baddies knew that anyone not on their team was civ. That's not the case here. There's a difference in how I play in different set ups, that difference in particular.

[birdwithteeth11]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

You're absolutely right! I would do that.

But that's the thing, I can and will do almost anything in a mafia game, and additionally will admit to the possibility of doing anything. Sooo, I don't see how this helps your argument.



Anyway, I've changed my mind on Boomslang for now. A vote forcer is a possibility, but that wouldn't impact my read on Boomslang.

I don't disagree with your notion here. But do you see how your vote for timmer makes you look scummy?

What would you say your read is on Boomslang now?

No I don't. And I didn't change my vote with scuminess in mind, I changed it because I liked Golden's logic.

I was reading timmer as civ because of the content of his posts up to that point and I agreed with his logic. So I guess we have to agree to disagree on our logical paths.

So Golden's logic was the reason you switched your vote.

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

My Sweetest Friend

Was it this post that was why? Or did I miss it?

[birdwithteeth11]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

Why'd you follow my vote then?

I didn't. I voted for Boomslang before you I thought.

Regardless, I stated my reason multiple times now why I voted for Boomslang. And why I had an issue with the way you voted for him. I'm starting to feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

[Marmot]

You have me confused BWT.

On Day 1, I voted Boomslang, then switched to timmer.

On Day 2, I voted timmer, then switched to Boomslang.



On Day 1, I voted Boomslang for the timing thing I pointed out between him and timmer, and Golden pointed out it makes more sense to vote for timmer (so I did).

On Day 2, I voted timmer, but Boomslang placed a vote for timmer that didn't make a lot of sense, so I switched my vote to him.



Which of these vote switches are you asking about?

Linki: Nope, you voted after myself and trice.

[Marmot]

Oops, it was Dom and Jay, not Golden who convinced me.

[Sloonei]

Moving my vote back to LoRab, for real this time, because I share all the beefs Jay outlined here. I like all of these points and want LoRab to respond to the post in full, but the point I am getting most hung up on is the difference between GY!BE LoRab and Mad Max LoRab:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

That has been my thought exactly in my back-and-forths with LoRab in this game, but I have been hesitant to lean definitively one way or the other because this game is different from Mad Max. In that game, all townies could win regardless of whether or not they lived to the end we had little to no role secrets. Players could be as free and open as they wanted to be. That is not the case here.
Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

[Marmot]

what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I was moved by epi's effort at PoE. If he is putting in that effort, the least I can do is work with it to find a consensus target. The fact Wilgy crystallised as that target, from my perspective, was probably mostly based in your quotes (which actually read like a compelling case to me).

Someone else asked why you, MP and I have ended up in the same place twice. I think part of it is a drive for a semblance of consensus as we have developed our play styles to think that way. I am rarely happy to end with my vote somewhere meaningless even if that person is my biggest suspect (the only exception I can think of is where I actively disagree with all of the viable options and don't have a preference of one over another).

That was me.

I put it up for discussion, because the three of you have agreed a lot, disagree little, and we have two dead civilians to show for it.

How do you feel about Jay and MP?

[birdwithteeth11]

You have me confused BWT.

On Day 1, I voted Boomslang, then switched to timmer.

On Day 2, I voted timmer, then switched to Boomslang.



On Day 1, I voted Boomslang for the timing thing I pointed out between him and timmer, and Golden pointed out it makes more sense to vote for timmer (so I did).

On Day 2, I voted timmer, but Boomslang placed a vote for timmer that didn't make a lot of sense, so I switched my vote to him.



Which of these vote switches are you asking about?

Linki: Nope, you voted after myself and trice.

The bolded one. I mean, I agree that his vote didn't make a lot of sense, which is why I voted for Boomslang at the time. I don't remember you stating specifically at the time why you were voting for Boomslang though.

Okay then I was confused about the timeline of events then. But I still thought your lack of explanation was odd. If I did miss it during Day 2, then feel free to point it out.

Linki: To be honest, Lorab is someone I need to go back and re-read. Am not reading her at all currently.

I may use today to read up on people I don't feel strongly about either way yet. Because I feel like I need new perspective right now.

[birdwithteeth11]

Oops, it was Dom and Jay, not Golden who convinced me.

Okay, so there was in fact a timing thing that perked your ears up at timmer.

I guess I didn't see that and was just going by his content. But then again, I'm more of a content guy than a timing guy.

Do you still feel the same way about timmer or not?

[timmer]

I just reread LoRab while on break... she's a solid player and could easily be bad in this game, but I'm not seeing enough in her posts to vote her way at this time. Maybe it's because I'm frequently one of the "sorry, I'm really busy, trying to catch up" type players, but I read LoRab's explanations for skimming a few pages and having feelings about certain players but not taking the time to fully post about them as genuine. And really, is there any difference between the players who vocally said they thought POE was dumb, and LoRab who has just more quietly chosen to not say who she thinks is civ?

[timmer]

@BWT, thanks for explaining your posts from yesterday, I guess I can see how that makes sense. It's possible to simultaneously agree with a case, and suspect someone for being on the very same case, it just tends to look weird, especially when the two posts were one minute apart!

[birdwithteeth11]

@BWT, thanks for explaining your posts from yesterday, I guess I can see how that makes sense. It's possible to simultaneously agree with a case, and suspect someone for being on the very same case, it just tends to look weird, especially when the two posts were one minute apart!

Well, as I've said before (and you pointed out in one of your posts), I tend to catch up by just commenting chronologically on stuff as I go along. I refer to it as "stream-of-consciousness posting" for that reason. Hence why I can sometimes have posts that are back-to-back like that that don't make a whole lot of sense without more context being provided. So hopefully that cleared my feelings up for you!

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright. I have errands to run and stuff to do. I will be back late afternoon/early evening to do a re-read of Lorab.

[Golden]

LoRab's reply to my cursing was meant in fun. I don't see anything suspicious about that.

In fact, Jay, I don't think your case on LoRab has much substance that I can agree with. Most of it just feels like standard LoRab to me.

The one point that does interest me, though, was her view on giving civilian reads. This also made me think 'standard LoRab', because it was pretty much the norm on STV and RM where we grew up. But if you legitimately have a recent counter-case, that would be interesting.

[Golden]

Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

OK, this is very interesting, and I want to see LoRab's response to it.

[Dom]

Reading BWT, I found some weirdness.

MM posts this at 12:12 my time:

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

just under 2 hours later, MM reiterates the thought with an added comment at the bottom:

Spoiler: show

I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Then BWT gets into the thread and, from what I can tell, catches up from where he left off, as he's commenting on events in chronological order. He then gets to where Boomslang voted for me. He ALSO cuts and pastes the same groups of posts that JJJ had posted, just like MM, and agrees with MM in voting for Boomslang:

(This is at 2:53 my time)

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

But then... here is our WTF moment. One lone minute later, at 2:54 he then links to MM's own cut and paste of the same quotes, and questions him on it...

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

Ummmm...why?

So BWT comes in, catches up, finds Boomslang scummy enough to vote for him. but then one minute later calls MM out for doing the same thing??? This makes no sense.

I think BWT explained himself somewhat adequately, but I want to know who he would advocate a lynch of besides himself

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

Why are you invoking WIFOM?

[Golden]

what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I was moved by epi's effort at PoE. If he is putting in that effort, the least I can do is work with it to find a consensus target. The fact Wilgy crystallised as that target, from my perspective, was probably mostly based in your quotes (which actually read like a compelling case to me).

Someone else asked why you, MP and I have ended up in the same place twice. I think part of it is a drive for a semblance of consensus as we have developed our play styles to think that way. I am rarely happy to end with my vote somewhere meaningless even if that person is my biggest suspect (the only exception I can think of is where I actively disagree with all of the viable options and don't have a preference of one over another).

That was me.

I put it up for discussion, because the three of you have agreed a lot, disagree little, and we have two dead civilians to show for it.

How do you feel about Jay and MP?

They are both town reads, but not my strongest town reads. MP is a stronger read than Jay.

Yesterday, from AP to Epi to boomslang to Wilgy, it did feel a little like my vote was being followed around. It made me tinfoil and I didn't overly like it. But, having said that... me, MP and Jay agree a lot and disagree little most of the time, and that's because we see the world through very similar eyes.

[Golden]

I'll respond in greater length to JJJ later, but one quick point before I need to run. Yes, my strategy as a civ is different this game than it was in Mad Max--in that game, we were playing with a mafia team and no other baddies. In this game, there is a serial killer and an unknown player. So, the strategy is entirely different in terms of not helping baddies. In that game, the baddies knew that anyone not on their team was civ. That's not the case here. There's a difference in how I play in different set ups, that difference in particular.

Somehow I missed this. I still want to see the 'greater length' answer.

[Sloonei]

So that we have a reference from Mad Max, I've pulled out a couple LoRab posts from that game that I think highlight the differences between here and there. Before I get into this, I want to reiterate that Mad Max and GY!BE have two totally different setups, so it's not unreasonable to think that Townie LoRab would behave differently in both games. That being said, her behavior is worth looking into, and I'm doing this just so others can judge it in their own light.

LoRab posts in Mad Max: Post 1, Post 2

Snippet from Post 1:

Spoiler: show

Do you have a take on the whole Rico/Mac affair?

Pissing contest.

Do you read them as town/town?

I don't have a read on either, and this hasn't given me a read on either. They are both neutral at this point.
...

I am pinged by LoRab's decision not to offer a read on anything.

I don't have any strong opinions. I think the pissing contest has drawn a neutral read. I think JJJ is vaguely pingy. I don't have other thoughts. And, seriously, I have just gotten through one of the most challenging weeks of my life. There are maybe 2 other times in my life that I've been as emotionally exhausted as I am right now. I don't particularly want to go into more detail, but I will if I need to. Those that are friends with me on fb can attest to the fact that I'm having a really, really crappy week. And those that have been playing with me for nearly a decade know that I don't play the emotion card except when I'm really in a bad place.

Processing mafia reads is using a really minimal level of brain wavelength because that's all I have to give right now. If that makes me suspicious, so be it.

She doesn't give much in the way of strong reads, but she does at least make direct and specific references to events in the thread and offers comments on them, even if they amount to nothing more than Neutral reads in her book. That is good, substantive posting which I appreciated. Same thing in Post 2:

Spoiler: show

Glad Epi is dead. I was gut feeling him as bad and this makes my life easier.

Someone tl;dr me for day/night 1.

So, a civ is very likely dead and you are glad about it? Hrm.

You didn't explicitly accuse him, true. But you implied suspicion. And to say, yeah--i didn't really suspect him, and he was just frustrating, quite honestly, doesn't make you look all that good.

So you believe they spent Night 1 accusing Epignosis and then killed him? What's the objective?

Shits and giggles? So that we'll all wonder why Epi? WIFOM? Quite honestly, I brought it up as a question to see what their current thoughts were and how they had changed with Epi's death. INH's response seemed defensive, when I hadn't raised suspicion. And to say that Epi was just frustrating in life and in death didn't ring true.

Curious to see what Zebra and INH have to say now that Epi was killed by mafia. And highly unlikely, in a speed game, that mafia would kill one of their own night 1. So....wanting responses there.

I am still curious what you have to say about all of the proceedings from Day 1. What's your take on things? You asked a few questions during the latter half of the day, but never gave any indication as to where you were leaning, then missed the vote. What were your thoughts as Day 1 was unfolding?

I still read the Rico/Mac thing as neutral on both sides. I neither suspect nor think eithe civ as a result. I did think Scotty was civ, but wasn't around to post about it. Quite honestly, I'm not sure where I would have voted. My brain was also in a fog at the time, so I need to reread day 1 in order to have more thoughts on it.

DrWilgy, do you have any other gut and/or vibe-based reads you would like to share?

The only other player that I have thought about is Sprityo, whom I gut read as bad.

I like your analysis of Rico. I'd like an answer from Rico as to why he thought to interject here. Not sure if this has been explained yet or not, but I'm not willing to go back and check.

Zebra, how would you respond to me voting Rico right now?

Sloonei, mind telling me the exchange that interested you most?

Elohcin's response to Neil Hartley early in the game is something I've been getting hung up on. Something about it strikes me as a feigned effort to appear confused for the sake of casting speculation. I am wary of people who latch onto roleplay as a basis for suspicion early on. LoRab did the same thing, if I remember correctly. I suppose those are the two that I'm thinking about most at the moment, but it's been a slow start for me and I'm still not out of the preliminary reads stage of the process.

Role playing in games always pings me. I wasn't latching onto it, merely mentioning it as a ping. I realize that it doesn't ping everyone, but it does me and always has. It's an easy thing to hide behind. We all read into posts differently and find different things suspicious. That's something that sets off my suspiciometer. Not sure how that makes me suspicious, but I'm not going to change my game because things I do make people suspect me. If that were my nature, I'd play entirely differently, lol (but it wouldn't be me and it wouldn't be fun). Would you rather I not mention things that I notice in the thread? And, for the record, I'm not suspecting JJJ at the moment, as his posts have demonstrated him to be more than a facade.

Again, while she does not manufacture any strong reads early in the game (these posts are from Days 1 & 2 of Mad Max, I believe), she is forthcoming and honest with her thoughts. She lets us know where her head is at and what she's working on. Notice too the first segment of the above post, where she questions INH from a post he had made. I've not seen any direct questioning like that out of LoRab in this game.

Now compare that forthcomingness to her responses to similar questions in this game:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Spoiler: show

If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

No, it was clear. But it was after you had poked me for a while, and I lost motivation. And, please, show me where I said I was uninformed about the game? I said at one point I skipped 5 pages, but that didn't have to do with that post. So, please, where did I say I was uninformed (other than those pages, which were not directly attached to the lynch or my post lynch post)?

I have been offering thoughts as the game has gone on. If those thoughts aren't good enough for you, that's not my problem. I'm not going to change the way I play to please you. No, I don't have a lot of suspicions--I'm not going to make them up for the sake of stating suspicions. That's not how I roll.

I don't post things for the purpose of people being able to read me. If they can read me, that's fine. If they can't, then they can't. My primary purpose is figuring out the game. Not getting killed is also a goal, but honestly, it's not generally my primary focus. My primary focus is getting baddies figured out and getting them killed, and in order to do so, figuring out some of the game mechanics in order to figure out how to best make the game work.

I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).

It's all good. I mean, when someone is being suspected, someone saying their thoughts is appreciated. And I don't fault people for saying I'm awesome. I mean civ. Saying I'm civ.

Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?

Fair enough. I can see where you got that--but it's not like he said that when he took a step back he thought I was suspicious--just that he would vote for me. But, yeah--an answer would be nice.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Sloonei]

Correction:

Notice too the first segment of the above post, where she questions INH from a post he had made.

She is questioning Wilgy, not INH. I'm getting my lynch victims from this game mixed up.

[A Person]

hello mafia players!

[Sloonei]

hello mafia players!

Hello. Do you have any thoughts on anything that is happening in this game right now?

[Marmot]

hello mafia players!

Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[LoRab]

Answers in some color or another.

Some beefs with LoRab:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

She retroactively stated her disagreement with the INH wagon after his lynch was finalized. This on its own power isn't much of an issue, but the highlighted portion becomes more meaningful in the next quote I'll pull:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Because I didn't think he seemed bad and I nothing that was said about him made me think he was bad. I don't remember the particular points, but as I read through them, they didn't convince me that he was bad. I also read them with the eye of thinking that he was a player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched (see last game), so that probably colored my reading). But, basically, I didn't think he seemed bad, so I wouldn't have voted for him. What am I missing in your question?

The core message of both posts is that she didn't like the INH lynch. However, in the first post wasn't inclined to voice suspicion of any of the people who contributed to that lynch despite calling him an "easy false case". She builds on that in the second post by calling him a "player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched". This language carries an implied accusation -- that she felt in the moment reading the INH cases that there was a chance someone was manipulating things against him. That would be cause for suspicion, but she declined to voice it before. In this post, she does voice it but without stating names. It allows this post to paint the entire INH wagon negatively without committing to a complete read.

First of all, I said I didn't necessarily judge those who voted for him, not that I didn't want to look at anyone who mentioned him. 2 diffrences there: 1 is the meaning of the word necessarily. The other is that bandwagons are often formed by baddies who do not vote for the victim of the bandwagon. So, while people that voted in one direction might not be getting my eye, those aren't necessarily the people that were doing the manipulating. Also, again, "necessarily." I haven't had time yet to read back on those posts, to see where I might find suspicion. So, yes, I don't have a complete read, but I'm leaving room for there to be more of a read in the future.

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

As I said before, Mad Max was a different set up. So, no, I didn't have a problem naming who I thought was civ in that game. In games where there are baddies outside of the mafia, I tend not to name who I think are civ unless I have reason to do so. And yes, my retort was sharp, but Sloonei's poking had been bothering me--it felt very passive aggressive and I don't respond well to that tactic in general. And to go from poking questions to dramatic In case I die I suspect LoRab suspicion I admit annoyed me. Especially remembering that it came from a player who also nearly got me lynched day 3 in Mad Max. So, yes, I was annoyed. I admit it. But that doesn't make me bad.

Spoiler: show

So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

My empire of dirt

You could have it all

Wow. You, uh, make it sound so compelling.

But, still...I don't really have any suspects. I don't really want to point out who I think is civ. I still need to read back on who was suspecting INH to see who in that pool seems suspish.

But that dirt....tell me more.

It was clear Golden's ability to communicate was limited, so I don't like the sarcasm here. You, uh, make it sound so compelling. As if he had any good way of being more thorough. This post also represents the first follow-up on the suspicion she only sort of voiced about the INH wagon, but still without getting somewhere. We'll see if it progressed.

I was in a goofy mood and was just having fun and being silly. Also, I was being somewhat oblivious and may not have fully realized he was insanified at the time (see later posts which verify this). Read: I was a little bit buzzed. Also, that isn't sarcasm--banter, yes--sarcasm, no.

Spoiler: show

How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

I've already talked about this. It just doesn't look to me like a civilian responding to an unexplained vote, even when there may be legitimate suspicion that the vote was forced. It was immediate apathetic acceptance.

I don't see it in any other way. He didn't even say he suspected me at all--then or any other time. And, it may not look like a civ responding to an unexplained vote to you, but it was exactly that. Sorry if my nonchalance bothers you.

Spoiler: show

Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

LoRab's take on A Person's gripe about the most active players isn't my favorite thing. She called it maybe the "least civilian friendly thinking I've read in mafia" which would seem to be an accusation (confirmed further by the final sentence of the post), but her expansion on why she doesn't like it seems to go nowhere.

Either you're a civilian doing a silly thing or you're a mafia doing a silly thing.

She eventually placed her vote for A Person, meaning this ended up being her chief concern of Day 2.

Sorry you don't like it. Yes, it was suspcicion. And no, it's not a silly thing, either way. Either it's a civ not acting in the interests of the town. Or it's mafia, posting about whom mafia should kill--when in fact they are killing the opposite. I don't see it coming from a civ-friendly perspective, thus I find it suspicious. That is my chief concern, as it is the most suspicious thing I have seen this game, in my personal opinion.

From this point, her focus has been more about self-defense and answering prompts. I haven't seen follow-up on the INH wagon suspicions.

Moving my vote back to LoRab, for real this time, because I share all the beefs Jay outlined here. I like all of these points and want LoRab to respond to the post in full, but the point I am getting most hung up on is the difference between GY!BE LoRab and Mad Max LoRab:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

That has been my thought exactly in my back-and-forths with LoRab in this game, but I have been hesitant to lean definitively one way or the other because this game is different from Mad Max. In that game, all townies could win regardless of whether or not they lived to the end we had little to no role secrets. Players could be as free and open as they wanted to be. That is not the case here.
Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

I don't have many baddie reads, so I'm not sharing them, it's true. I suspect A Person, that's my 1 real read. And, as I have said, I don't like to share civ reads when I don't have reason to, when there is more than 1 baddie faction out there. It's not how I play. When I have more suspects, I will share them. I often don't have many suspicions until later in games. That is well documented.

It has nothing to do with win conditions, by the way. Even in games where civs win if dead, I don't consider myself a winner if I'm dead. And I stopped counting wins a long time ago. It's about the game set up and not wanting to help baddies. I'm not saying "whatever," I just don't have any reads yet. And, indeed, I don't care how that makes me look in anyone's eyes. I get suspicions when I get them, not on a time clock--if I'm not finding someone suspicious, I can't force it to happen. I'm trying to catch bad guys--the way I do it might just be different from the way you do it.

LoRab's reply to my cursing was meant in fun. I don't see anything suspicious about that.

In fact, Jay, I don't think your case on LoRab has much substance that I can agree with. Most of it just feels like standard LoRab to me.

The one point that does interest me, though, was her view on giving civilian reads. This also made me think 'standard LoRab', because it was pretty much the norm on STV and RM where we grew up. But if you legitimately have a recent counter-case, that would be interesting.

Mad Max, but see above--there were no other baddies in that game, which wasn't the norm on RM, Piano, or LP.

Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

OK, this is very interesting, and I want to see LoRab's response to it.

See above. It's a different set up.

[timmer]

hello mafia players!

Hi! Can you provide a single insight into the game?

[Marmot]

List of players who haven't posted yet today.

• Boomslang
  MovingPictures07 and his eerily related last post.
  nijuukyugou
  sig

Unvote timmer

Vote MovingPictures07 for now. Something feels off.

[Golden]

MP does, in fairness, appear to be entirely absent from everywhere.