[ENDGAME] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia

#1901

yay congrats everyone! sorry to see you go sig u played great, Lol @ your last post. sloonei good detective work there i knew i was right to trust your opinion. havent read everything since vote ended yet but very curious by the exchange between golden and long con. im not on anyone's team so def not baddie with long con, im open to the idea he is bad.

and thanks y'all for giving me at least one more day above ground;)
im using a digital keyboard right now which is extremely tedious, so ill end this here!

#1902

My vote charts are inside the spoiler tag. They're pretty large pictures and I know some of you are following on phones.

Spoiler: show

My gut reaction is 'holy fricky frack you guys!' Maybe times have changed or maybe it's because you guy got on Sig's trail but to I am shocked to see virtually nothing being said about two players missing all three votes and another three players missing two out of the three. Are any of these players seeking replacement from the host? If not, what gives? It's this kind of garbage that helps baddies win the game. This same sort of thing drove me bananas in Biblical. If these folks are not in the process of being replaced, we need to put some serious pressure on them in the coming days. I'm not saying you should abandon the unofficial plan to lynch me next, but there have to be consequences for this slothful behavior. I get the P-score system but it obviously isn't enough of a deterrent yet to shake some play out of people.

My gut tells me that at least one out of Cobalt, Long Con, and Golden the Coward

is a baddie. My Day 1 and Day 3 charts are useless for understanding the true timing of the votes for LC and Cobalt but something doesn't smell right there. Golden's feud with LC is tiresome and I can actually see LC's side of the argument, which makes me wonder if he's right about Golden. I'm also curious for more substance from MetalMarsh because this:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Unvote

Vote Turnip Head

I'd forgotten that Golden survived a nightkill, and I think that makes him look a little better.

I'm switching to Turnip Head in the hopes that he will speak.

...is shaky reasoning. Sure, Golden survived a nightkill but he didn't survive the nightkill. Do we know if the teams are killing on alternating nights? That's how I'm used to a 2-baddie-team game functioning. If we know which team killed Night 2, then we know Golden is most likely not on that team. Killing one of your own happens often enough with 1-baddie-team games but it is much more rare in 2-baddie-team games because it's too risky unless you've got a teammate obviously busted and going down the next day. Even then it doesn't make much sense because the rest of the team can ride out and hide amidst an easy lynch.

Regarding Sig's lynch- unless Epi was a baddie and replaced one of his teammates, we have 6 baddies left. Given the size of the Sig Train, I wouldn't be surprised to see 4 baddies in that mix. Baddie psychology usually doesn't recommend all members of a team voting together but the Sig Train seemed solid and had serious enough momentum for anyone not voting or changing their vote to Sig to look perhaps slightly odd. It's possible all 3 of Team Wildhorn are on that Train but I find it unlikely. You have to account for the possibility that there's a baddie on either team that one of the low-participating slackers. I'd say it's probably a 2-2 spread between the baddie teams on Sig, with two of Sig's teammates showing up in the last 5 votes for him. By then, it would have seemed inevitable and his teammates would rather blend in than risk scrutiny over an oddly-placed late vote. I suspect that one of the 6 baddies missed the vote. The other baddie vote is hard to place and probably depends on who out of the Cobalt-Golden-LC trio is a baddie and which baddie team they are a part of.

I'm also curious about why SVS self-voted the day she was lynched and also why Bass self-voted and if there was any fallout from that. Odd votes are odd.

It's a little early to look for patterns but here are some:

PLAYERS WITH THREE IDENTICAL VOTES:
1) Devin & Dream (three straight no votes)
2) Gumshoe & Hedgeowl (LC - no vote - no vote)
3) MP07/Epi 2.0 & Golden (SVS - Black Rock - Sig)
4) BR & Splints (No vote- Bass - Sig)
5) Nutella & Scotty (Cobalt - Cobalt - Sig)

PLAYERS WITH TWO IDENTICAL VOTES:
1) Bass & Neverwhere (No vote - Cobalt - X)
2) Bullzeye, Devin & DREAM (No vote - X - No vote)
3) Devin, DREAM, Gumshoe & Hedgeowl (X - No vote - No vote)
4) DFaraday, Long Con & Sig (SVS - Cobalt - X)
5) DFaraday, Neverwhere, & Timmer (X - Cobalt - Tiny Bubbles)
6) Golden & Sloonei (X - Black Rock - Sig)
7) Gumshoe, Hedgeowl & TurnipHead (Long Con - X - No vote)
8) MetalMarsh & Tiny Bubbles (X - Long Con - Sig)
9) Niju, Nutella, & Scotty (X - Cobalt - Sig)
10) Nutella, Scotty & Timmer (Cobalt - Cobalt - X)
11) Nutella, Scotty, Sloonei & Tiny Bubbles (Cobalt - X - Sig)

#1903

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind.

#1904

Announcement:

There is now a Gender designation that shows under your avatar.

You can go to User Control Panel --- Profile --- then scroll down to Gender at the bottom and select either Male or Female.

#1905

MovingPictures07 wrote:Announcement:

There is now a Gender designation that shows under your avatar.

You can go to User Control Panel --- Profile --- then scroll down to Gender at the bottom and select either Male or Female.

I am now tempted to list myself as female just to confuse people.

#1906

G-Man wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Announcement:

There is now a Gender designation that shows under your avatar.

You can go to User Control Panel --- Profile --- then scroll down to Gender at the bottom and select either Male or Female.
I am now tempted to list myself as female just to confuse people.

Too bad your avatar gives it away. :P

#1907

Does mine?

#1908

Epignosis wrote:Does mine?

No comment.

#1909

Long Con wrote:Wow, Golden. We can't keep doing this. You're focusing on things that aren't relevant, and I can't make you stop. I asked about your last-minute vote for S~V~S, explicitly saying I don't find it suspicious, and you go back and dredge it up like it's a case against you, and proceed to punch holes in it.

You are the one who accused me of no u because 'you suspected me first', but that suspicion of me first is now irrelevant? And you say you can't make me stop? You know what might make me stop? If you actually self-evaluated. You don't seem able to see how inconsistent you are being.

The problem here is - you can't decide what you think is relevant or not. You have thrown so many different allegations at me as to why I'm bad, but if I defend them I'm pulling up irrelevancies and , and shift the goalposts for why you say I'm bad. So... what am I supposed to do?

I can't believe you keep saying this over and over...

Long Con wrote:"If I was trying to be subtle and imply it, why put your name in the team at all?" Already said why - to plant the seed and get someone else to run with it, so the frame-up doesn't get traced back to you after I get lynched.

When you also keep saying you don't believe I did it on purpose.

You say I'm bad, but you admit that 'it was probably clearer in your mind than in the thread' and say things like 'I'm calling you a liar, but I don't think you did it intentionally'...

If I didn't do it intentionally, if it probably seemed clear in my head, how the heck was it that I was also 'trying to be subtle and imply it'.. . you want to have it both ways and you have made it literally impossible to defend to.

#1910

Let's look through sig's posts for clues!

Spoiler: show

casual Day 0 interaction with MovingPictures, comments on the "truce" thing saying it would benefit scum more than town. This post from MP is one that I find a little interesting:

Spoiler: show

I could see this being an arranged effort by two scums to fabricate a bit of distance between them early in the game. One could say that sig would be more likely to ask these sorts of questions in private BTSC chat with his partners, but this post seems like it was made by sig to get himself involved in some discussion. MP's response seems weirdly out of character and I don't quite understand why he would have felt the need to question sig here. Unfortunately we can't actually question him about this anymore, but

Spoiler: show

Big lit of reads. This could be helpful. I'll ignore what he had to say about dead players.
"null read on Gumshoe", seems totally unsure what to say here, which gives the vibe that Gumshoe is possibly partnered with sig, or that sig was just trying to comment on things but wasn't sure what to say about one particular case that existed in the thread at that time.

Sloonei has some fluff and should have lied about being a noob.

Opportunistically hops on some early Gamerguy suspicion. This does not have the appearance of bussing, but with two scum teams it does nothing to exonerate gamer/g-man.

Complete waffling read on Long Con. "Not sure" "Not seeing damning evidence" "not clean either" asks a lot of questions about posts people have made about LC.

and last but not least, hedgeowl is "interesting". This looks more like sig trying to subtly turn some suspicion against hedge. Long Con looks the worst of all the people mentioned in this post, imo. The way sig seems so unsure of what to say about him suggests he has reason to be hung up on that particular case. LC was obviously a big target early, and sig probably would have felt uncomfortable coming out in strong defense of him (if they are teammates), but he would also have been hesitant to put any more pressure on him. The way sig acts about Long Con in this post (and others, from what I remember) does not make LC look good. He had some posts of a similar tone about Cobalt, but sig seemed more willing to actually get Cobalt lynched at the end of Day 1 (see this post for example)

Spoiler: show

Others might read this post differently than I am (and I'd love to hear from you if that's the case), but I think this post makes TinyBubbles look very good (or at least not on sig's mafia team). This does not look like sig was trying to bus a teammate in TinyBubbles here. Rather, it looks exactly like what I was wary of yesterday when I cautioned that Bubbles would be the easiest player for scum to pile votes and suspicion onto. This post has every appearance of that.

AND my computer messed up and I lost a huge chunk of this post. What you see above is only the first half of a mega post I was about to make, but then I backspaced and my browser took me back three pages and I lost everything. I'd saved this much, thankfully.

The gist of the rest of my post was that sig's interactions with/about Long Con make LC look very scummy, BR and TinyBubbles are probably not on sig's team, and I have absolutely no idea what to make of his interactions with nijuhufd.
I'll try to do an abridged version, but now I just want to post this because I'm frustrated with the internet.

#1911

Long Con wrote:Though I was frustrated, I kept my shit together, and said "Why?" No response, so I asked again, "Why, because you think he's my teammate?" and you still don't tell me why, you just give a post about what information you think you'd get. So I ask a third time, "You didn't answer me yet as to why you are connecting us at all?" And you still won't answer the question! And I still keep it cool, even though by this time my frustration level is rising higher.

You don't have to stop suspecting me, but I want you to acknowledge that I was feeling frustrated, because it's the truth and it's bugging me to have you shrug it off as fake. Can you do that for me, old friend?

I don't understand how you could possibly be frustrated in that time frame, but hey, we all get frustrated over things at times that we might not usually, and I do get you'd been taking a lot of heat this game. If it is that important to you for me to understand and acknowledge it's real, then yes, you are telling the truth about that. I can't see any reason you'd ask that of me and lie.

Now - you have to understand where golden is coming from.

You blew up in my face, dude. The second answer was the truth as well - I had already said I thought sig AND G-man were your teammates, so by reading the question 'why, because you think he is my teammate', the truthful answer was not 'yes' - because I thought sig was too. The truthful answer was because I felt stronger about TGG/G-Man being your teammate than about sig being, ergo 'because I think it's more likely to tell me your alignment'. But here is the thing - if you were reading the thread, why shouldn't I be able to assume that you already knew that I thought both of them were your teammates?

I'm in end of financial year here. I have a hell of a lot to do. I worked an 11 hour day yesterday. 19 minutes is not always enough for me to make meaningful answers, and honestly you were about the third person to ask me to repeat stuff I'd already said. People use me in this way - they ask me to do things again because they know I will. And I'm kind of a little sick of it. I shouldn't have to give the same answers over and over.

I didn't see your first question, and I answered the next two with honest answers, and you come in and call me a liar? C'mon, can't you see how bad that looks? Especially when you follow it up with, well, what you've followed it up with. You came at me out of nowhere, with something which looks like a crock.

So, can I see that your frustration is real? Sure. Does that mean I have to believe you meant every word of your case against me? No... because I still think you keep changing what your case actually is, and have been very inconsistent about it.

#1912

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Does mine?
No comment.

I can't believe I agreed to be a replacement after you kept trying to convince me to join, only to see you be replaced

So now it's Golden against LC? Is it for the same reasons Epi 1 and Cobalt had, or do you have different reasons? Sorry, your back and forth with him is just too long from me to keep up. Is it too much to ask that you sum it up?
LC, out of the three, who seems the most nefarious to you?

#1913

@FZ - My reason is definitely different from the others. I think TGG quit the game, and G-Man subbed in, because he was upset that epi was allowed to sub back in to the game. There is evidence for this. When I went back, it seemed pretty clear that TGG only asked to be subbed out after epi had said 'i know who killed me' and 'my suspicions haven't changed'. I figured that meant they killed epi because he had a correct suspicion. It wasn't SVS, and epi's other major suspicion on day one was LC, hence LC!

#1914

I will say this to everyone not named LC as well.

I don't expect any of you to read the whole back and forth between LC and I. You can if you want. I know that by having such a feud, you lose any influence you might have even by succinctly explaining why you think the other is bad.

However, I'm really not a fan of 'it's probably civ on civ' comments because they usually are indicative of someone who really hasn't wanted to read any of the substance of the feud and so I don't think such posts are informed points of view.

#1915

Golden wrote:
Long Con wrote:Wow, Golden. We can't keep doing this. You're focusing on things that aren't relevant, and I can't make you stop. I asked about your last-minute vote for S~V~S, explicitly saying I don't find it suspicious, and you go back and dredge it up like it's a case against you, and proceed to punch holes in it.
You are the one who accused me of no u because 'you suspected me first', but that suspicion of me first is now irrelevant? And you say you can't make me stop? You know what might make me stop? If you actually self-evaluated. You don't seem able to see how inconsistent you are being.

That wasn't, and wasn't ever, a suspicion of you.

It wasn't when I said it, and it hasn't been at any point in this conversation. Asking about the poll was just that - asking about the poll. I knew I had voted at literally the last minute, and it surprised me to look back at the poll and see you voted after me.

I hope that we can consider this avenue of thought closed - it was never a suspicion or an accusation, case closed. Ok?

The problem here is - you can't decide what you think is relevant or not. You have thrown so many different allegations at me as to why I'm bad, but if I defend them I'm pulling up irrelevancies and , and shift the goalposts for why you say I'm bad. So... what am I supposed to do?

I can't believe you keep saying this over and over...

Long Con wrote:"If I was trying to be subtle and imply it, why put your name in the team at all?" Already said why - to plant the seed and get someone else to run with it, so the frame-up doesn't get traced back to you after I get lynched.
When you also keep saying you don't believe I did it on purpose.

You say I'm bad, but you admit that 'it was probably clearer in your mind than in the thread' and say things like 'I'm calling you a liar, but I don't think you did it intentionally'...

If I didn't do it intentionally, if it probably seemed clear in my head, how the heck was it that I was also 'trying to be subtle and imply it'.. . you want to have it both ways and you have made it literally impossible to defend to.

You want me not to tunnel you, to have an open mind, right? You accused me of tunnelling you, I assume that you consider that a negative and unproductive thing to do.

All you are describing in this post is me trying to work through everything you've done.

IF you are a Civ, then you simply didn't realize how completely unclear it was why you included me in your G-Man suspicion. You had nothing to do with Epig's death, and you were accusing me of it from an honest perspective. That's where "I don't think you did it intentionally" and "clearer in your mind than the thread" come from.

IF you are a baddie, then your absolute subtlety in adding my name and your following failures to answer my questions about it were because you didn't want to be associated too closely with the tracking of "who killed Epig?" - it's too obvious who set up the frame job if you do it and then start pointing fingers at who you are trying to frame.

This is the question about you at this point. Civ or baddie? Either you were doing it intentionally, or you really thought you had said more about the suspicion than you did. I have looked at things both ways because I don't know which is true. Do you want me to tunnel you, or to have an open mind?

#1916

Golden wrote:@FZ - My reason is definitely different from the others. I think TGG quit the game, and G-Man subbed in, because he was upset that epi was allowed to sub back in to the game. There is evidence for this. When I went back, it seemed pretty clear that TGG only asked to be subbed out after epi had said 'i know who killed me' and 'my suspicions haven't changed'. I figured that meant they killed epi because he had a correct suspicion. It wasn't SVS, and epi's other major suspicion on day one was LC, hence LC!

I know about your usupicion of TGG and I agree, but didn't know that's why you're also suspicious of LC. I get it, thanks. Has LC himself done anything else that looks suspicious in your eyes. If you're right about all of this, it kind of sucks that TGG ruined it for his team. I'd rather take G-man before though, because at least LC is really trying (though G-man has started the voting lists lately. not that I know what the heck to do with them).
The thing that bothers me about LC is that he basically went after each person that went after him, minus Epi maybe. First it was Cobalt, and then it was you. I'd like to see him point out some other suspicions. Did I miss any?

#1917

FZ. wrote:The thing that bothers me about LC is that he basically went after each person that went after him, minus Epi maybe. First it was Cobalt, and then it was you. I'd like to see him point out some other suspicions. Did I miss any?

Not minus Epi.

#1918

Golden wrote:
Long Con wrote:Though I was frustrated, I kept my shit together, and said "Why?" No response, so I asked again, "Why, because you think he's my teammate?" and you still don't tell me why, you just give a post about what information you think you'd get. So I ask a third time, "You didn't answer me yet as to why you are connecting us at all?" And you still won't answer the question! And I still keep it cool, even though by this time my frustration level is rising higher.

You don't have to stop suspecting me, but I want you to acknowledge that I was feeling frustrated, because it's the truth and it's bugging me to have you shrug it off as fake. Can you do that for me, old friend?
I don't understand how you could possibly be frustrated in that time frame, but hey, we all get frustrated over things at times that we might not usually, and I do get you'd been taking a lot of heat this game. If it is that important to you for me to understand and acknowledge it's real, then yes, you are telling the truth about that. I can't see any reason you'd ask that of me and lie.

Now - you have to understand where golden is coming from.

You blew up in my face, dude. The second answer was the truth as well - I had already said I thought sig AND G-man were your teammates, so by reading the question 'why, because you think he is my teammate', the truthful answer was not 'yes' - because I thought sig was too. The truthful answer was because I felt stronger about TGG/G-Man being your teammate than about sig being, ergo 'because I think it's more likely to tell me your alignment'. But here is the thing - if you were reading the thread, why shouldn't I be able to assume that you already knew that I thought both of them were your teammates?

I'm in end of financial year here. I have a hell of a lot to do. I worked an 11 hour day yesterday. 19 minutes is not always enough for me to make meaningful answers, and honestly you were about the third person to ask me to repeat stuff I'd already said. People use me in this way - they ask me to do things again because they know I will. And I'm kind of a little sick of it. I shouldn't have to give the same answers over and over.

I didn't see your first question, and I answered the next two with honest answers, and you come in and call me a liar? C'mon, can't you see how bad that looks? Especially when you follow it up with, well, what you've followed it up with. You came at me out of nowhere, with something which looks like a crock.

So, can I see that your frustration is real? Sure. Does that mean I have to believe you meant every word of your case against me? No... because I still think you keep changing what your case actually is, and have been very inconsistent about it.

Don't see the frustration as a 19-minute frustration, see it as a game-long frustration.

I already knew you said you thought G-Man and I were teammates. You just never made it clear why.

I wasn't asking you to repeat anything you had already said, because you hadn't said it yet. You never said WHY you thought I was the teammate. Just that you thought I was.

I wasn't asking you to go back and make a big research post or anything. If you had simply answered "because I suspect you killed Epi" then none of this would have happened. I wasn't asking you to "do anything".

Maybe you thought the answers were honest, but they were not. You said it was fairly clear why you chose me as TGG's teammate, but it wasn't. You had neglected to justify it by telling the thread you thought I killed Epi.

#1919

Long Con wrote:IF you are a Civ, then you simply didn't realize how completely unclear it was why you included me in your G-Man suspicion. You had nothing to do with Epig's death, and you were accusing me of it from an honest perspective. That's where "I don't think you did it intentionally" and "clearer in your mind than the thread" come from.

IF you are a baddie, then your absolute subtlety in adding my name and your following failures to answer my questions about it were because you didn't want to be associated too closely with the tracking of "who killed Epig?" - it's too obvious who set up the frame job if you do it and then start pointing fingers at who you are trying to frame.

But LC, you continually avoid the questions I ask you on the holes in the second thing.

Which are these:

How would avoiding the question and sending you back to read my posts possibly help if I was being so subtle? If I expected you to come back with nothing and say it was unclear, how would that be helpful to me as a baddie? What would it achieve in a nefarious plot? Because I honestly can't see your angle here.

How is it subtle when it is is the only conclusion that can be drawn from my posts, and even the conclusion you drew in your first attacking post?

How would it not be tracked back to me when I'm the one who was putting it together? Even taking as truth that it was not clear, why put together my theory at all if I don't want it tracked back to me?

I don't understand how you can't see that that (very simply explained) case on me just doesn't make any sense from a baddie perspective. No sensible baddie would do it. It doesn't achieve what you say I would do it to achieve, it couldn't achieve it. It would be, frankly, stupid - and even stupider to follow that up by not asking questions directly so you would have your attention drawn to the apparently intentional subtlety of it.

And also - this is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on - but I cannot accept what you keep saying, even in your civilian case here, that the point was 'completely unclear'. That's your opinion, but it's not mine. Other people responding and discussing with me in the thread at the time appeared to understand what I was saying just fine. That's why I asked you to read the thread in context, but oh well. It might be unclear to you, and if so c'est la vie, but please stop making it an objective truth. I honestly do not agree that it was either unclear or, for that matter, subtle. I don't think there was any other way in which you could interpret my series of posts.

#1920

#1921

Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:The thing that bothers me about LC is that he basically went after each person that went after him, minus Epi maybe. First it was Cobalt, and then it was you. I'd like to see him point out some other suspicions. Did I miss any?
Not minus Epi.

1. You can't find anyone that suspected or accused me that I haven't "gone after"?

2. You can't find any of my suspicions besides those three guys?

3. Where did I "go after" Cobalt? Wasn't... wasn't it you, splints, that asked Cobalt and I why we suspect each other? *checks* No, it was the other "F" lady, FZ. Pardon me. Anyways, this is what I said to her:

I haven't had any particular case against Cobalt, all I've really been able to do is react to his vendetta against me. I think it's reasonable to believe that he's a Civ with his own motivations in mind, but I sure as hell was not against his lynch. I want to win the game, and if I can't support the lynch of someone who won't rest until I'm dead... that's not a challenge I particularly need in front of me when I'm trying to, like, play Mafia. He also could be bad and pursuing the vendetta for similar singular reasons. One way to look at it is whether you believe that the night 1 Epi kill was a frame-up or a pseudo-tricky-frame-up - did Cobalt kill Epi to shut him up, or did someone do it to frame a Civ Cobalt?

Now that I think about it, Cobalt seems like the kind of player who would straight-up kill someone who was coming after him, rather than resort to double-thinking misdirection... just based on how he's dealing with me, and with his (supposed) power. So, to answer your question, that's the only reason I suspect Cobalt - I think he would have killed Epi. It's only a mild suspicion, and most of my support for his lynch should be considered as me wanting a threat to myself out of the game.

This is not an accurate analysis of my game at all, fingersplints.

#1922

@LC - that answer would not have been the truth either. The truth was what I posted in the third post. I suspect TGG killed epi. I mean, I guess its splitting hairs, because it's a team, but to me the answer was verbatim that third post with the bit I keep underlining, and if I'd simply responded to your question I probably would have responded in a similar way and you still would have attacked the answer for being hedgy and unclear, because until you pointed it out I could never have seen that you wanted me to expressly say 'LC killed epi'.

#1923

Two things:

1) Whackadoodle tinfoil hat theory time: What if LC and Golden have some sort of curse/posting challenge that they have to engage in an insane, over-the-top, uber-melodramatic argument (we are in a Broadway-themed game, after all), with one of them winning some sort of prize (or one of them incurring some sort of punishment), and the whole thing really needs to have no bearing whatsoever on our broader baddie-hunting? I am in favor of this theory because a) it explains why neither of them will just let. It. the. fuck. GO. Already., despite the fact they're both just saying the same thing over and over again and completely talking past each other, and b) it gives us permission to just ignore them both and get on with finding baddies. I, for one, am going to operate as if this were the case for the foreseeable future.

I encourage anyone who values their sanity and a productive application of their valuable reading time to do the same.

2) This is kinda OT, and probably better fodder for another thread (Shameless plug: I recently created a thread where precisely this kind of thing might better be discussed!) but.....

[quote="Neverwhere"]This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind. [/quote]
While I (maybe? It's hard to tell) might agree with your general sentiments here, I honestly don't think vague, non-specific "reminder" (translation: passive aggressive "call-out") posts like this are all that useful in the moment at halting whatever it is you're taking issue with. While general "things are yucky, let's talk about it" discussions can totally work on a site-wide scale, if specific things in a specific game are happening and you want them to stop, SAY WHAT THEY ARE! Otherwise, how the heck are the perpetrators ever supposed to fix them? Conversely, how the heck are people who share your feelings ever supposed to realize that they are not alone?

In my experience, if you don't call out specific actions as they happen, and instead make vague gestures towards a mysterious set of "things that have happened", then those who have done those elusive "things" will inevitably assume it doesn't apply to them, while others who haven't will inevitably take it personally and think you're referring to them. I fully support people calling out exactly what it is that they find bothersome or offensive (though always, it goes without saying, in a respectful manner) in the spirit of open and honest dialogue..... but we as a community can't fix or take action on things that are only vaguely implied or hinted at. Unnecessary vagueness and generalizations - by increasing the levels of misunderstandings and miscommunications - actually contribute to the problem more than fixing it. If you're going to make a public announcement of your disapproval (and don't get me wrong, I fully support doing so, as long as it's done respectfully) it's honestly not super useful to do so in a way that simultaneously implicates everyone and no one. /PSA

#1924

Honestly, I'll save you all the pain and just ask dom to find a replacement.

#1925

LC, why are you calling me Splints? Is that a joke? If so, I missed it. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, that's it.

Canucklehead wrote:Two things:

1) Whackadoodle tinfoil hat theory time: What if LC and Golden have some sort of curse/posting challenge that they have to engage in an insane, over-the-top, uber-melodramatic argument (we are in a Broadway-themed game, after all), with one of them winning some sort of prize (or one of them incurring some sort of punishment), and the whole thing really needs to have no bearing whatsoever on our broader baddie-hunting? I am in favor of this theory because a) it explains why neither of them will just let. It. the. fuck. GO. Already., despite the fact they're both just saying the same thing over and over again and completely talking past each other, and b) it gives us permission to just ignore them both and get on with finding baddies. I, for one, am going to operate as if this were the case for the foreseeable future. I encourage anyone who values their sanity and a productive application of their valuable reading time to do the same.

2) This is kinda OT, and probably better fodder for another thread (Shameless plug: I recently created a thread where precisely this kind of thing might better be discussed!) but.....

[quote="Neverwhere"]This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind.

While I (maybe? It's hard to tell) might agree with your general sentiments here, I honestly don't think vague, non-specific "reminder" (translation: passive aggressive "call-out") posts like this are all that useful in the moment at halting whatever it is you're taking issue with. While general "things are yucky, let's talk about it" discussions can totally work on a site-wide scale, if specific things in a specific game are happening and you want them to stop, SAY WHAT THEY ARE! Otherwise, how the heck are the perpetrators ever supposed to fix them? Conversely, how the heck are people who share your feelings ever supposed to realize that they are not alone?

In my experience, if you don't call out specific actions as they happen, and instead make vague gestures towards a mysterious set of "things that have happened", then those who have done those elusive "things" will inevitably assume it doesn't apply to them, while others who haven't will inevitably take it personally and think you're referring to them. I fully support people calling out exactly what it is that they find bothersome or offensive (though always, it goes without saying, in a respectful manner) in the spirit of open and honest dialogue..... but we as a community can't fix or take action on things that are only vaguely implied or hinted at. Unnecessary vagueness and generalizations - by increasing the levels of misunderstandings and miscommunications - actually contribute to the problem more than fixing it. If you're going to make a public announcement of your disapproval (and don't get me wrong, I fully support doing so, as long as it's done respectfully) it's honestly not super useful to do so in a way that simultaneously implicates everyone and no one. /PSA[/ot][/quote]
By all means, ignore it, and tell me who you think is bad.

#1926

Golden wrote:I will say this to everyone not named LC as well.

I don't expect any of you to read the whole back and forth between LC and I. You can if you want. I know that by having such a feud, you lose any influence you might have even by succinctly explaining why you think the other is bad.

However, I'm really not a fan of 'it's probably civ on civ' comments because they usually are indicative of someone who really hasn't wanted to read any of the substance of the feud and so I don't think such posts are informed points of view.

I have read the entire feud thus far. As an objective outsider, my view of it is actually potentially more "informed" than yours. I think reading the exchange as "possibly civ-on-civ" is a perfectly valid reading, since most of what we're reading seems to be two egos clashing and two individuals insisting on being "right" and refusing to accept basic premises of the other's argument, rather than *roles* interacting. The level of nitpicking, and refusal to concede anything on either side is, imho, no way indicative of alignment, and therefore it is entirely possible for both of you to be civs.

From my vantage point, I am able to see where each of you is coming from regarding your basic issues of contention. Because I can see each of your sides as possible, I am therefore able to see each of you as genuine. This particular argument is not a zero-sum game, in which one must be bad so the other can be right. I honestly think (and I say this in love and admiration of both of your incredible mafia personalities) that you each are in your own ways unable to see through your need to be "right" about the apparent fallacies of the other.

#1927

FZ. wrote:LC, why are you calling me Splints? Is that a joke? If so, I missed it. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, that's it.

Canucklehead wrote:Two things:

1) Whackadoodle tinfoil hat theory time: What if LC and Golden have some sort of curse/posting challenge that they have to engage in an insane, over-the-top, uber-melodramatic argument (we are in a Broadway-themed game, after all), with one of them winning some sort of prize (or one of them incurring some sort of punishment), and the whole thing really needs to have no bearing whatsoever on our broader baddie-hunting? I am in favor of this theory because a) it explains why neither of them will just let. It. the. fuck. GO. Already., despite the fact they're both just saying the same thing over and over again and completely talking past each other, and b) it gives us permission to just ignore them both and get on with finding baddies. I, for one, am going to operate as if this were the case for the foreseeable future. I encourage anyone who values their sanity and a productive application of their valuable reading time to do the same.

2) This is kinda OT, and probably better fodder for another thread (Shameless plug: I recently created a thread where precisely this kind of thing might better be discussed!) but.....

[quote="Neverwhere"]This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind.
While I (maybe? It's hard to tell) might agree with your general sentiments here, I honestly don't think vague, non-specific "reminder" (translation: passive aggressive "call-out") posts like this are all that useful in the moment at halting whatever it is you're taking issue with. While general "things are yucky, let's talk about it" discussions can totally work on a site-wide scale, if specific things in a specific game are happening and you want them to stop, SAY WHAT THEY ARE! Otherwise, how the heck are the perpetrators ever supposed to fix them? Conversely, how the heck are people who share your feelings ever supposed to realize that they are not alone?

In my experience, if you don't call out specific actions as they happen, and instead make vague gestures towards a mysterious set of "things that have happened", then those who have done those elusive "things" will inevitably assume it doesn't apply to them, while others who haven't will inevitably take it personally and think you're referring to them. I fully support people calling out exactly what it is that they find bothersome or offensive (though always, it goes without saying, in a respectful manner) in the spirit of open and honest dialogue..... but we as a community can't fix or take action on things that are only vaguely implied or hinted at. Unnecessary vagueness and generalizations - by increasing the levels of misunderstandings and miscommunications - actually contribute to the problem more than fixing it. If you're going to make a public announcement of your disapproval (and don't get me wrong, I fully support doing so, as long as it's done respectfully) it's honestly not super useful to do so in a way that simultaneously implicates everyone and no one. /PSA[/ot]

By all means, ignore it, and tell me who you think is bad.[/quote]
Ignore what?

#1928

Golden wrote:Honestly, I'll save you all the pain and just ask dom to find a replacement.

Whoa! Where did this come from? My lighthearted joke about melodrama? Don't quit, Golden. It's just mafia, friend!

#1929

sig wrote:@ Sloonei I've played with someone who would always vote for themselves after to many people became suspicious I don't think it is a good mafia method but one person has in the past fooled me bydoing that and I've seen two others do the same, it is a mindgame which always makes me think they are mafia trying to make themselves seem like civilians.

Nijuuk if your wary of SVS why not vote for her? I'm not understanding your vote

Light attempt to paint Nijuuk in a suspicious... uh, light. Not strong enough to get anything out of just yet.

Spoiler: show

Tries to turn the SVS lynch results against Cobalt, for some reason, and then also throws a mafia read on Long Con after sitting on the fence about him for all of Day 1. it's noteworthy that he's finally decided to pick a side here, and I'm interested in how this read develops over the rest of sig's posts (spoiler: it doesn't look good)

Spoiler: show

sig wrote:
Scotty wrote:
While I'm on the topic, someone else that pinged me in the last 6 pages was Sig.

sig wrote:I don't like how Cobalt switched his vote, he went after LC like crazy yet switches that seems off. I don't think SVS is mafia, but if she is voting for herself is it a tactic to not get lynched or a genuine vote? I really would rather not lynch SVS it is a gut feeling...
OK, questioning Cobalt's merits, doesn't want to mislynch SVS.

sig wrote:I'm here but I'm unsure to vote for I will wait a few minutes, from my brief experience with CObalt he always seems like mafia to me
Uh oh, getting down to the wire. Leaning Cobalt...

sig wrote:We can't absolutely can't have a no lynch today for that reason along with others I will be voting for SVS
MAFIA IS MOST LIKELY TO TIE THE VOTE I'm very suspicious nijuukyugou right know for doing this
Suddenly, you can't have a tie, and so you lean...SVS? Because you're thinking SVS's self-vote is fishy...And then cast doubt on nijuu at the same time.

sig wrote:I have 10 minuets I will reread Cobalts and SVS posts

@Sloonie considering Dom said he has a means of deciding I'm not as worried know I just didn't want a no lynch
Now the no-lynch doesn't matter. So you'll nonchalantly "reread" their posts to see if you want to change your mind, now that you're already currently voting for SVS and not Cobalt.

Which you stick with. Cool, sticking to your guns.
Except,
you changed your vote from Cobalt to SVS to "break the tie", and when you learned that that didn't mean a no-lynch, you just hid behind the barn. Drawing attention away from Cobalt.

And immediately after SVS was lynched:
sig wrote:Quick question do the independents count as civilians against mafia or no? Some games I've played they do others they don't
Weird thing to comment about right after a lynching. What bearing does the answer to your question have on you if you are civ? We don't know what roles independents have, but i can assure you that they are not civilians. They are independent from both mafia and civilians.

I'm on to you, my friend.
As I said Cobalt always seems like mafia to me and the games I've played with him he never is so I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt.

On websites I play on a tie vote equals a no lynch so a wasted first day, with this logic it makes sense that I would view nijuu suspicious as she was bringing it closer to a tied vote. I found the self lynch vote suspicious and I gave my reasoning behind it.

Also I never voted for Cobalt I didn't switch my vote SVS was my first and only vote, so did you misunderstand or are you trying to throw suspicion on me your either lying or have your facts wrong.

This question has a lot of bearing if the independent count as civilians then the mafia is one up, if this was the case I would be more suspicious of Cobalt for his vote switching. As well as the fact that it is good to know our numbers since I've played games were the independents do count as town and some where they do not, I don't see how this is suspicious. Also if I was mafia why would I ask this question on the thread and not in mafia chat?

Your falsehood about my voting as well as what your "pings" are is very strange, what do you Scotty think about the SVS lynch? WHat do you think of CObalt switching votes? How did I draw attention away from CObalt?

I could see how somebody might interpret sig's behavior around the Day 1 deadline as trying to draw attention away from Cobalt, and I won't disagree if anyone says that. But it's not my interpretation. As I've said earlier, it seemed like sig was around at the end of Day 1 to ensure that somebody got lynched rather than any particular person (and this was the biggest reason I became suspicious of him initially). I think he would have been fine with either SVS or Cobalt (but not LC, curiously). That he ended up voting for SVS is not important.

Spoiler: show

waffling on cobalt. However, I get the sense that the waffling is more to do with sig not actually being suspicious of Cobalt but trying to feign a suspicion, rather than being unsure how to act about a player who might be his teammate.

Spoiler: show

Continues to support lynching Cobalt.

Spoiler: show

More of the same RE: Cobalt, and this time he remembers to slip in a very vague and weak suspicious of Long Con, reason unfound.

Spoiler: show

-Weak blanket suspicion of a few quiet players (birdwithteeth, DREAM, Neverwhere). Neverwhere's appearance here is particularly interesting because there are a bunch more quieter players that sig could have picked out. It's not too strong of a thing to make any call on one way or another, but it caught my eye.
-Questions Bubbles voting for Long Con
-Expresses preliminary support of the Black Rock case and expresses a willingness to hop on. It does not appear that sig and BR are partners based on this.
-Disagrees with Long Con about me being suspicious

sig wrote:LC why is Slooni mafia read to you? I asked this earlier but it appears to have gotten lost in the commotion.

Three people voted for LC Metalmarsh89 Cobalt TinyBubbles
TB and Metal why did you both vote for LC?

sig is getting very interested in all these Long Con votes. Interesting that he's not really making any case against LC, just kinda hanging back asking questions about him while sometimes insisting that he's a scum read. Also continues to ask LC about me.

Spoiler: show

-Failed nightkill means Golden is clean.
-Continues to lump LC and Cobalt together. I do not get why LC is even being mentioned here.
-Seems like he wants to express suspicion against nijuk but when he goes to say it all that comes out is a "hard civ read" instead. This is an interesting thing that I don't quite know what to make of right now, I'd like to hear what others think. At the moment I think I'm leaning toward saying it looks good for Blooper because it seemed earlier like sig wanted to cast suspicion against her but just could not find anything to call her out on.
-"Hey why are we suspicious of Bass? I'd like to hop on that case if possible" Or "He's not scum, back off that's my TEAMMATE!" i dunno, not strong enough to get anything really.
-More support of the BR wagon for the erroneous "slip". I highly doubt BR and sig were teammates. BR could still be scum, of course.
-Questions Metalmarsh's LC vote.

Spoiler: show

He continues to talk a lot about Long Con without really offering any sort of case one way or another. This is what I'm most interested in in this post, as the rest is mostly just sig defending himself against suspicion at this point. I think the way sig has approached LC this whole time looks very bad. Long Con was a top suspect Day 1, but sig never committed to calling him a suspect but was very open that he was considering between lynching Cobalt and SVS on Day 1. After that, he calls Long Con a suspect but never actually puts any pressure on him, and as the Day winds down he just continually asks people questions about Long Con. It looks like sig was nervous about getting his teammate (LC) lynched on Day 1, but then after that it was decided that he should be distancing himself from him, and that only increased when sig became everyone's top suspect. sig's post history has finally convinced me to call LC a suspect.

Spoiler: show

sig reacted strangely when Epignosis voted for him yesterday. Epi, as we all know/assume, was silenced all day and switched his vote from LC to sig late in the day, and sig responded by trying to spin some suspicion against Epi. I did not get the case he was trying to make at the time, but at this point it was fairly obvious he was going down and would flip scum, so I would expect him to be in full distancing mode. I could see this being sig's reaction to a teammate (epi) voting for him late in the day.

sig wrote:0-10 10 highest 1 lowest
0 being 100% civ
1 being hard civ
2 slight hard
3 medium civ
4 light
5 null
6 leanscum
7 mild scum
8 scum
9 Hard scum read
10 Scum100%

You have mafia people here
Sloonei 3
Scotty 6 same as with Nijuuk
FZ. (5
TinyBubbles 9
, Golden 6
Epignosis 7
Metalmarsh89 8
, nijuukyugou 5 she was less scum before her switching andthen saying she would just run and lynch

Not putting this post in a spoiler tag because I want everyone to see it. I asked sig to rate everyone who voted for him from most to least scummy, and this was what he posted. I responded to it earlier, before he was lynched. I thought his completely "null" read on FZ was interesting, like he wasn't even trying to read her. Scotty looks good with regards to his interaction with sig all the way around, and this only adds to that. Also interesting that both Epi and Metalmarsh appear as highly suspicious to him, but that MM is the more suspicious of the two.
I'm also noticing just now that (I think) Blooper and myself are the only two town reads sig ever lists, and with niju it often seems like he's trying to force a read on her in some way, as I've already said, and I continue to be a bit uncertain about this, but it's starting to look suspicious. Why is sig so quietly interested in stating a read on her?

#1930

I encourage everyone else to look back at posts involving sig. We've now got one confirmed scum, and we can learn a lot by looking through his posts and seeing what turns up. Let me know if you disagree with anything I said in my last two posts. Post analysis of dead scums is maybe the most useful scum-hunting tool a townie/civ has at their disposal. I don't have time to do anything else tonight as I finally have to return to work each of the next three nights.
Keep posting as much as you can, good civies. The more we're discussing things, the harder it is for baddies to hide.

#1931

Golden wrote:How would avoiding the question and sending you back to read my posts possibly help if I was being so subtle? If I expected you to come back with nothing and say it was unclear, how would that be helpful to me as a baddie? What would it achieve in a nefarious plot? Because I honestly can't see your angle here.

Here's the scenario: You killed Epi to frame me/Cobalt. You want the frame to be successful. You don't want to be "the guy that accused LC" because my lynch will make you seem suspect.

There's a separate case against me in the thread. You build up the TGG's-team-killed-Epi case, and then you slide the other case in alongside it, dropping Tiny from it. What this accomplishes: Golden wasn't the one who brought LC's name up, it was already out there. Now someone else can pick it up and make the connection that "Hey, maybe LC is a baddie, maybe he killed Epi!" and you barely had to say anything to get it going. Quality frame-up.

A problem arises: LC is asking questions directly of Golden, when the idea is to keep Golden as more of a sidelines guy in the Epi-kill. Give a couple of non-committal non-answers to LC. Long Con won't let it go. Situation explodes.

How is it subtle when it is is the only conclusion that can be drawn from my posts, and even the conclusion you drew in your first attacking post?

You are not differentiating between saying "LC is TGG's teammate" and saying "this is why I think he's TGG's teammate: blablabla". You did the first one, and you didn't do the second one. My conclusion in my "attacking post" (really? THAT post was attacking you?) was that you thought the first one, and clarified nothign about the second one.

How would it not be tracked back to me when I'm the one who was putting it together? Even taking as truth that it was not clear, why put together my theory at all if I don't want it tracked back to me?

I think I covered this fully above.

I don't understand how you can't see that that (very simply explained) case on me just doesn't make any sense from a baddie perspective. No sensible baddie would do it. It doesn't achieve what you say I would do it to achieve, it couldn't achieve it. It would be, frankly, stupid - and even stupider to follow that up by not asking questions directly so you would have your attention drawn to the apparently intentional subtlety of it.

Hindsight is 20/20. Looking at it from the way I laid it out above, it makes total sense.

And also - this is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on - but I cannot accept what you keep saying, even in your civilian case here, that the point was 'completely unclear'. That's your opinion, but it's not mine. Other people responding and discussing with me in the thread at the time appeared to understand what I was saying just fine. That's why I asked you to read the thread in context, but oh well. It might be unclear to you, and if so c'est la vie, but please stop making it an objective truth. I honestly do not agree that it was either unclear or, for that matter, subtle. I don't think there was any other way in which you could interpret my series of posts.

Maybe someone else said "Oh Golden is saying TGG and LC are a team because LC is a top suspect for killing Epi!" I'll try to go back and look for that other person. YOU never said why you grouped us.

Try this: replace my name in your oft-quoted series of posts with someone else. DFaraday, for randomness. Then show me how it's clear that you think DF killed Epi.

#1932

Sloonei wrote:
Spoiler: show
sig wrote:I don't see SVS as that suspicious what is the argument against him?

I find Epi interesting he or she? is trying to find the mafia, but with two teams he could be mafia hunting in hopes to get rid of the other team, He is leaning as not a mafia for me at the moment, but only slightly.

I have a null read on Gumshoe, I'm unsure off him from his early engagement with Cobalt. But his response to Golden seemed sound.

Sloonie has contributed alot some fluff some not I find it interesting he says he isn't a noob. You would think if he was mafia he would say he was a noob so any slip ups made could be blamed on his newbieness. Are you suspicious of a Gumshoe/Cobalt mafia team or were you just pointing it out in early posts?

I don't like XthAtGAm3RGuYX waiting until day 2 to be serious however, this doesn't mean he is mafia he could just have that play style in general. Though I don't really like this play style it isn't overly suspicious. I haven't seen a reply about how people are circumventing his methods either which I would like to see. His later replays about how his activity seem fine but, he is null at the moment.

Cobalt why do you think LC is suspicious could you summarize that and why you think Epi is clean? Or is this a gutfeeling? I'm also not so sure about the bandwagon Cobalt seems to be pushing. But then again I'm never sure about Cobalt and find him to be scummy alot.

I'm not sure about LC I'm not seeing damning evidence against him, but I don't see him as clean yet either.LC what do you think of Cobalt going after you so much? LC second post about Scotty Independence claiming is interesting, not sure if it is a joke or if he was trying to put attention on Scotty.

Hedgeowl seems interesting he (sorry if I'm not getting gender right please correct me) has posted a few times but nothing really of substance Hedgeowl what do you think of the LC votes?
Big lit of reads. This could be helpful. I'll ignore what he had to say about dead players.
"null read on Gumshoe", seems totally unsure what to say here, which gives the vibe that Gumshoe is possibly partnered with sig, or that sig was just trying to comment on things but wasn't sure what to say about one particular case that existed in the thread at that time.

Sloonei has some fluff and should have lied about being a noob.

Opportunistically hops on some early Gamerguy suspicion. This does not have the appearance of bussing, but with two scum teams it does nothing to exonerate gamer/g-man.

Complete waffling read on Long Con. "Not sure" "Not seeing damning evidence" "not clean either" asks a lot of questions about posts people have made about LC.

and last but not least, hedgeowl is "interesting". This looks more like sig trying to subtly turn some suspicion against hedge. Long Con looks the worst of all the people mentioned in this post, imo. The way sig seems so unsure of what to say about him suggests he has reason to be hung up on that particular case. LC was obviously a big target early, and sig probably would have felt uncomfortable coming out in strong defense of him (if they are teammates), but he would also have been hesitant to put any more pressure on him. The way sig acts about Long Con in this post (and others, from what I remember) does not make LC look good. He had some posts of a similar tone about Cobalt, but sig seemed more willing to actually get Cobalt lynched at the end of Day 1 (see this post for example)

sig named only a handful of people, so why announce he has a "null read?" Wouldn't it make sense to leave the name off the list entirely? I don't understand the purpose of including names like Gumshoe or XthAtGAm3RGuYX.

sig wrote:I'm not sure about LC I'm not seeing damning evidence against him, but I don't see him as clean yet either.LC what do you think of Cobalt going after you so much? LC second post about Scotty Independence claiming is interesting, not sure if it is a joke or if he was trying to put attention on Scotty.

I want to break this down into its three components and comment on each one.

sig wrote:I'm not sure about LC I'm not seeing damning evidence against him, but I don't see him as clean yet either.

This was posted Day 1. Do people normally see someone as "clean" on Day 1?

sig wrote:LC what do you think of Cobalt going after you so much?

What is the purpose of this question? How is LC supposed to respond? "Well, gee, I really like that Cobalt is putting forth such an effort to get me lynched, thanks for asking!"

sig wrote:LC second post about Scotty Independence claiming is interesting, not sure if it is a joke or if he was trying to put attention on Scotty.

sig could have asked LC if he meant for his post about Scotty being an independent, but sig speculated instead.

Speaking of Long Con, I found this gem, which spells out what a Cobalt lynch would mean regarding LC.

sig wrote:At this point I'm not sure what to think of Cobalt I still have him down as heavily suspicious, but i'm not going to go into day 2 voting for him. I want to see Cobalt offer opinions/suspicions on other players besides LC I don't like that he is tunneling LC, but I'm not sure if he is mafia or just very focused. Tunneling a player seems like a bad way for the mafia to act since when said player flips civilian the spot light is on them. However, if CObalt doesn't offer thoughts on other players and stops with the non caring about getting lynched I could support a Cobalt lynch. If he flips mafia we are good, if he flips town we are even better. Flipping town would lead me to believe his few earlier reads were right such as hi s LC tunneling, while flipping mafia would make LC more clean.

So as of right know he would be my number one.

I underlined the relevant part, and enlarged the qualifier that doesn't make any sense to me. Remember that Cobalt changed his vote from LC to S~V~S at the last minute on Day 1. Now, according to sig, Cobalt being Mafia would make Long Con "more clean."

I maintain that Cobalt and Long Con are teammates and this tiff between them is hard distancing, and I think sig's comment here indicates that he knows Cobalt was bad. Lynching Cobalt would thus accomplish two things: Making sig look better and making LC look better.

#1933

Awesome work on the sig digging, Sloonei. I've only glanced over those two posts so far because I can't devote my full attention atm, but on first pass it looks like lots of things to mull over and look into there. Should be good fodder for tomorrow's discussion.

#1934

@canuck - I don't care whether I'm right or not, honestly. Go ahead and tell me what my fallacies are about LC.

#1935

epi - do you think it could be sig/cobalt/TGG/LC?

#1936

Canucklehead wrote:
Golden wrote:Honestly, I'll save you all the pain and just ask dom to find a replacement.
Whoa! Where did this come from? My lighthearted joke about melodrama? Don't quit, Golden. It's just mafia, friend!

Nah, people are not lighthearted about it. They genuinely want me and LC to let it go, you included, so lets not pretend otherwise.

#1937

Canucklehead wrote: Ignore what?

The LC-Golden drama. Who do you find suspicious?

Golden! Don't even think of asking to be replaced! It's just hard for me to follow, and I think we should focus on others as well. But you are needed right here!

Sloonei, so after reading all of Sig's posts, what is your best assessment?

#1938

FZ. wrote:LC, why are you calling me Splints? Is that a joke? If so, I missed it. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, that's it.

I don't know why my mind told me fingersplints posted that when it was you.

And since it WAS you, what gives? Why would you say I "went after" Cobalt, when you already had the answer I quoted?

#1939

Long Con wrote:Try this: replace my name in your oft-quoted series of posts with someone else. DFaraday, for randomness. Then show me how it's clear that you think DF killed Epi.

It couldn't possibly be clear, and people would immediately say 'why df'?

I don't think it needed to be said that epi was strongly going after you on day one?

#1940

Canucklehead wrote:Two things:

1) Whackadoodle tinfoil hat theory time: What if LC and Golden have some sort of curse/posting challenge that they have to engage in an insane, over-the-top, uber-melodramatic argument (we are in a Broadway-themed game, after all), with one of them winning some sort of prize (or one of them incurring some sort of punishment), and the whole thing really needs to have no bearing whatsoever on our broader baddie-hunting? I am in favor of this theory because a) it explains why neither of them will just let. It. the. fuck. GO. Already., despite the fact they're both just saying the same thing over and over again and completely talking past each other, and b) it gives us permission to just ignore them both and get on with finding baddies. I, for one, am going to operate as if this were the case for the foreseeable future. I encourage anyone who values their sanity and a productive application of their valuable reading time to do the same.

2) This is kinda OT, and probably better fodder for another thread (Shameless plug: I recently created a thread where precisely this kind of thing might better be discussed!) but.....

[quote="Neverwhere"]This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. I am possibly posting this too late, in which case just read it as a reminder...but I feel like some the things that have happened in this game or some of the ways people have been talking are a little disrespectful to Dom and all the effort he's put into making such a great game. Let's just keep that in mind.

While I (maybe? It's hard to tell) might agree with your general sentiments here, I honestly don't think vague, non-specific "reminder" (translation: passive aggressive "call-out") posts like this are all that useful in the moment at halting whatever it is you're taking issue with. While general "things are yucky, let's talk about it" discussions can totally work on a site-wide scale, if specific things in a specific game are happening and you want them to stop, SAY WHAT THEY ARE! Otherwise, how the heck are the perpetrators ever supposed to fix them? Conversely, how the heck are people who share your feelings ever supposed to realize that they are not alone?

In my experience, if you don't call out specific actions as they happen, and instead make vague gestures towards a mysterious set of "things that have happened", then those who have done those elusive "things" will inevitably assume it doesn't apply to them, while others who haven't will inevitably take it personally and think you're referring to them. I fully support people calling out exactly what it is that they find bothersome or offensive (though always, it goes without saying, in a respectful manner) in the spirit of open and honest dialogue..... but we as a community can't fix or take action on things that are only vaguely implied or hinted at. Unnecessary vagueness and generalizations - by increasing the levels of misunderstandings and miscommunications - actually contribute to the problem more than fixing it. If you're going to make a public announcement of your disapproval (and don't get me wrong, I fully support doing so, as long as it's done respectfully) it's honestly not super useful to do so in a way that simultaneously implicates everyone and no one. /PSA[/ot][/quote]

Ok then. The people who just aren't or weren't taking the game seriously and fucking about. All the unnecessary aggro and drama and everyone and their mother subbing out the whole game. I get it sometimes happens, but I feel like there's been so much drama this game and i dont get why people can't just chill the fuck out. This is a game, it's not personal.

#1941

FZ. wrote:Sloonei, so after reading all of Sig's posts, what is your best assessment?

Long Con is scum, niju is a maybe, TinyBubbles is less scummy than before. A bunch more names are iffy.

Next up would be to dig through other people's post history for mentions/references to sig, but I don't have time to do that right now. I encourage everyone else to do it, though.

#1942

Golden wrote:epi - do you think it could be sig/cobalt/TGG/LC?

I do.

#1943

Golden wrote:@canuck - I don't care whether I'm right or not, honestly. Go ahead and tell me what my fallacies are about LC.

The most pertinent one I see is that you insist he's lying about feeling frustrated. That seems to be what keeps fueling LC's fire. Conversely, LC seems unwilling to accept that while you may not have explicitly stated in minute detail how you were connecting him to your TGG suspicions, that in context it was reasonably clear how you were arriving at your conclusions. That's what I meant by the "fallacies" that you are each claiming against the other. Fallacies is probably not a great word, but it's what I stuck in there anyway.

#1944

Golden, you promised to look into Splints' behaviour at the end of the day. Did you have time to do it?

Canuck and Slonnei, what's your opinion of her?

linki: LC, to be honest, I still have a gap I haven't read from the end of day 1, and people kept saying it was you vs. Cobalt hogging the thread. I assumed it wasn't just him but you as well, and that later you back-pedalled a little. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry

#1945

Gotta go to work now. I'm not on a team with any of those people, or anyone at all. Glad to chat more after work.

#1946

FZ. wrote:Golden, you promised to look into Splints' behaviour at the end of the day. Did you have time to do it?

Canuck and Slonnei, what's your opinion of her?

linki: LC, to be honest, I still have a gap I haven't read from the end of day 1, and people kept saying it was you vs. Cobalt hogging the thread. I assumed it wasn't just him but you as well, and that later you back-pedalled a little. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry

I have no strong opinion on splints yet and don't have time right now to do a thorough analysis of anything, unfortunately.

#1947

Sloonei wrote:
FZ. wrote:Sloonei, so after reading all of Sig's posts, what is your best assessment?
Long Con is scum, niju is a maybe, TinyBubbles is less scummy than before. A bunch more names are iffy.

Next up would be to dig through other people's post history for mentions/references to sig, but I don't have time to do that right now. I encourage everyone else to do it, though.

Okay, thanks. I personally think Splints is bad, hence why I asked your opinion of her. I agree about Tiny bubbles, and have said so last day.

Epi, why are you so short on words now? I'd expect you to be a lot more talkative after being silenced.

#1948

FZ. wrote:Epi, why are you so short on words now? I'd expect you to be a lot more talkative after being silenced.

Do you need me to say anything more than I have?

#1949

FZ. wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
FZ. wrote:Sloonei, so after reading all of Sig's posts, what is your best assessment?
Long Con is scum, niju is a maybe, TinyBubbles is less scummy than before. A bunch more names are iffy.

Next up would be to dig through other people's post history for mentions/references to sig, but I don't have time to do that right now. I encourage everyone else to do it, though.
Okay, thanks. I personally think Splints is bad, hence why I asked your opinion of her. I agree about Tiny bubbles, and have said so last day.

Epi, why are you so short on words now? I'd expect you to be a lot more talkative after being silenced.

why do you think splints is bad?

#1950

LC - since when is 'go back and read the thread' a non-committal answer. You still haven't addressed how you think I thought I could hide from you by doing that?

I mean, at some point this has to end, so I will leave it at this and choose not to keep quoting back and forth. I don't think your explanation for why I would do it as a baddie makes sense. But more important is that I simply don't believe YOU believe I would do it as a baddie, because I think you know me better than that.

@FZ - yes, but for me this is the start of this day, I will do it when I have a moment.

@canuck - well I've acknowledged he is telling the truth about being frustrated now. Clearly he was, and that's ok. If that's what was really getting him - I mean, I completely understand why it would be upsetting and frustrating for someone to think you are lying about something you are not. But him being frustrated is not a fallacy in the logical side of my case against him, just in my own view about how he is feeling. Any others you think I could address?

And thank you for saying that you see the bit in his case that was a fallacy because really, thats what is at the heart of me keeping on pushing it too, I think you have been very astute in noticing that.

Who killed MM? (not changeable)