Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

#2501

Note to self: try to investigate and/or interact with these players more than you have so far.

[sppoiler]Canucklehead
Devin the Omniscient
DFaraday
DisgruntledPorcupine
Dom
Metalmarsh89
nutella
Ricochet
Roxy
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
S~V~S
timmer
TinyBubbles[/spoiler]

Time for bed.

#2502

Nothing more annoying than a failed spoiler tag.

#2503

The C-130's propeller's were roaring through the sky. The pilot looked back at Wilgy and gave him a thumbs up. At the same time, MM and Unfurl awoke from a (somewhat forcibly induced) deep sleep, but before they could even enter a state of confusion wondering where they were, the back cargo door opened and Wilgy pushed them both (with parachutes) out of the plane. Wilgy then leaped from the plane behind them and, while laughing like a maniac and screaming they soared through the sky.

DAY 3 HERE WE COME!!!

#2504

For my part - and I can only speak for my interactions with him, because I haven't looked at full thread context - it feels like Scotty is willfully exaggerating events in order to further his viewpoint. Maybe that's just how Scotty baddie-hunts, but it's a thing I noticed.

#2505

(That was directed at the thread discussion in general, before it got caught in a couple unrelated linki.)

#2506

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Nothing more annoying than a failed spoiler tag.

*Places hand on JJJ's back* It's ok friend... For I accidentally left out a vital comma after the word screaming...

#2507

DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Nothing more annoying than a failed spoiler tag.
*Places hand on JJJ's back* It's ok friend... For I accidentally left out a vital comma after the word screaming...

#2508

So change of pace:

I want to look at some people under the radar so to speak. I talked before about people I thought talked a big game then meshed into the woodwork. SVS responded by saying that I "didn't know her vewy well." Perhaps I don't. But she has had an ability to hold her own in arguments, and not stick her nose out to much. Possible recruiter candidate.

A name that pop up to me as I read his posts:
aapje

aapje wrote:So what is up with DF and DP? DF has missed both polls and DP hasn't contributed anything so far. I honestly wouldn't mind lynching either of them. If we are lynching neutrals anyway we might as well get rid of people who aren't really playing the game to begin with

I gave Russtifinko a pass since he asked to be replaced.

I disagree with the strategy of lynching no-shows this game. While they haven't been strictly no-shows, and I usually operate under the mode of "Come to play" I thought we were actively looking for baddies, not just neutrals. As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.

Spoiler: show

He lists reasons why "people" would be suspicious of voting TH, and even admits that he "doesn't sound very civvie minded either"
He follows this up by VOTING FOR DisgruntledPorcupine for not posting.

When TH responds with a "yeah, it wasn't a very civ-thing to say," aapje says:

aapje wrote:Fair enough. Wasn't planning on voting for you over it anyway. Was just checking what you actually said when people were voting for you.

Ho-hum. To state that he thinks something sounds not civ-like to immediately discrediting himself when TH literally admits to such claims is sketchy at best. It's not enough to warrant a vote, ok. But to say he wasn't going to vote for him at all for sketchy behavior raises my red sails.

#2509

DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Nothing more annoying than a failed spoiler tag.
*Places hand on JJJ's back* It's ok friend... For I accidentally left out a vital comma after the word screaming...

You've been quite touchy-feely with the players this game. What kind of doctor did you say you were?

#2510

Turnip Head wrote:For my part - and I can only speak for my interactions with him, because I haven't looked at full thread context - it feels like Scotty is willfully exaggerating events in order to further his viewpoint. Maybe that's just how Scotty baddie-hunts, but it's a thing I noticed.

What am I exaggerating praytell?

If it's the amount of shits I give, then you might be on to something.

#2511

Scotty wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Nothing more annoying than a failed spoiler tag.
*Places hand on JJJ's back* It's ok friend... For I accidentally left out a vital comma after the word screaming...
You've been quite touchy-feely with the players this game. What kind of doctor did you say you were?

#2512

Dom wrote:I don't understand your change in tone from Day 0 and wanting to find baddies to literally manipulating the thread to kill someone because you didn't want them going after you and you didn't think you'd be not he same team (with extremely flawed logic).

OK, and fair enough. I think I have gotten tangled in trying to explain what I mean by being neutral in the context of playing a game that I think is the same as my civvie-meta, and I can't complain if you feel I've been inconsistent.

As for the first mindset shift, I can say that I absolutely did have a mindset shift, from 'lets find baddies', to 'Gucking hell I can't believe this bullsuit'.

The mindset shift was not because I was suddenly recruited mid-day. In fact, I think that if you read back you will find that the mindset shift happened before anyone was recruited at all.

#2513

Spacedaisy wrote:I agree. I think that the only people who benefit from the civs not communicating are the baddies. Rainbow lists are no better or worse than back and forth conversation about suspicions or lists of people's reads on others, etc. I don't do them, but I don't mind them either.

Scotty, you take care of RL first and I cannot and will not fault you for that. Also, you are a lot of fun to play with, if you ask me.

Hey thanks, yo! It's a pleasure to fight along with you lovely people I've never met. Love the mustache btw.

inb4 someone thinks I'm buddying up (right @MP?)

#2514

Official Announcement

Team Azura has recruited.

#2515

And the epi stuff did make me rethink my entire approach to the game. Before that point, I hadn't thought through the implications of being neutral yet and what my best move would be.

As I said, this is my first game like this, I've never played anything like it before. If you expect me to have figure the ins and outs of what it might mean for how I have to play before I even started playing, well... I just can't live up to that standard.

#2516

I've been waiting for a chance to use the bullsuit ALL DAY!

#2517

Once again I have spent hours on this game today. If you feel like you are missing a PM please contact me. I need to go to bed.

#2518

Sorry guys, pretty severe stomach cramping tonight, I will have to catch up tomorrow

#2519

Golden wrote:
Dom wrote:I don't understand your change in tone from Day 0 and wanting to find baddies to literally manipulating the thread to kill someone because you didn't want them going after you and you didn't think you'd be not he same team (with extremely flawed logic).
OK, and fair enough. I think I have gotten tangled in trying to explain what I mean by being neutral in the context of playing a game that I think is the same as my civvie-meta, and I can't complain if you feel I've been inconsistent.

As for the first mindset shift, I can say that I absolutely did have a mindset shift, from 'lets find baddies', to 'Gucking hell I can't believe this bullsuit'.

The mindset shift was not because I was suddenly recruited mid-day. In fact, I think that if you read back you will find that the mindset shift happened before anyone was recruited at all.

omg bullsuit.

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that you've been frustrated for most the game. My hope is that in this next day for you to just tune out the naysayers. In the words of the great T. Swift: the players gonna play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate
Baby...just gonna shake, shake, shake
Shake it off. Shake it off"

I want to start hearing more reads from you instead of defense. Because I can't really recall much atm. Who is your strongest suspect for being a Recruiter and recruitee? And why?

#2520

ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

#2521

Scotty wrote:As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.

Now you're speaking my language.

I'm not surprised that aapje is annoyed by the nonparticipants. He wants to win but not with/against sleepwalkers. I thought it was an adequately neutral stance to have.

That said it is a pretty easy vote, and his dialogue with me lacked teeth, like you pointed out. Did he comment at all on Bass/Golden/etc. ?

#2522

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Oh shit son, good point.

I'll place my vote on reywaS for now.

#2523

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

OH! crap... I shouldn't have procrastinated... I got to sleep now, I will try to do as much as I can in the morning... I've been busy car shopping and torturing my little brother...

#2524

OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD

*TUTORING, not torturing... Flippant autocorrect... Just you wait Samantha, I'll get you...

#2525

@scotty, the simple reality is, sometimes all you have time for is to play D. I ought to be posting less. What I am actually going to be doing in this next day is travelling to Australia, so I'm pretty much going to be absent from the thread for the second half of the day period, possibly all the way up until the lynch. There is at least a decent chance that there is really literally nothing I can do to defend myself on this day, so in the time I have left I think it is a really wise thing to do to get my thoughts out there on other stuff.

I have been getting a little bit out, especially around people who I DON'T think seem bad. Maybe I actually should do a rainbow list (I'd put DH at the top for good measure!) But when I'm such a massive topic of focus, often it takes all my attention to those who are interacting with me a lot and I have very little to say on a number of people who aren't (Tranq, Aapje, Lorab, DF for example)

As for who is bad, I'd say rey and bubbles. I don't really know how I would distinguish between recruiter and recruitee, other than how long they have seemed bad I guess.

Here is the thing about the baddie recruiter that killed epi. Their move can play both ways. It could put heat on me, or it might not. It's no skin off their nose either way. But getting me out of the way couldn't hurt. Right now, I'd have rey as my most likely candidate for being the baddie recruiter on that team, for his push for me, then back off, then sudden push again towards the end of the second day when there was actually a legitimate chance of getting me lynched - felt very very off to me. Rey was not over me at all that day, UNTIL I was suddenly within lynchable range, and then he cast the vote that drew me level with bass at that time and was all over me. It felt incredibly disingenuous.

Bubbles - I never can quite tell with her, but I'm beginning to think llama may have been on to something. Her back and forth on who to vote yesterday did not come across as sincere to me. It felt like she wanted to sound civilian and do what she would do if civilian, but she had no compelling reason to actually vote me or bass, and she ended up voting for me despite the fact that she was acknowledging I often take heat early when good for more or less the same reasons. Adding that to the context that bubbles has never been bad before (hence why she might seem a little stilted, it's a new experience being on that side of the fence), and that she flies under the radar, she fits the profile of a recruit.

linki - and I will also vote rey, noting the possibility of a thread lock.

#2526

DrWilgy wrote:torturing my little brother...

Add wilgy to the list of baddies! No civilian team could recruit this maniac!

#2527

DrWilgy wrote:OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD

*TUTORING, not torturing... Flippant autocorrect... Just you wait Samantha, I'll get you...

I found you, DrWilgy!

#2528

I just realised I could have played that scavenger contest. Just found the devil in one of the posts. I had assumed the previous leader names were simply incorporated into the posts, in which case I thought I had no hope! Never mind (this is what happens when you do focus your time on defense).

#2529

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.
Now you're speaking my language.

I'm not surprised that aapje is annoyed by the nonparticipants. He wants to win but not with/against sleepwalkers. I thought it was an adequately neutral stance to have.

That said it is a pretty easy vote, and his dialogue with me lacked teeth, like you pointed out. Did he comment at all on Bass/Golden/etc. ?

Actually, going through his history, he does not really..the only time he even mentions it is this post:

aapje wrote:Not a big fan of the whole melodramatic Golden stuff. I can see why Epi would be annoying but try taking a deep breath and relax.

I see people considering voting for low (content) posters. Maybe I will go with that. Day 1 is a crapshoot anyway.

He has essentially been a repellent of the Golden/Epi drama, and has sat back on the sidelines with the safe response of not being "a big fan" of it. To be frank, the only discernible striking opinion I read at ALL this game from aapje so far is for you, TH, and even that was through a perspective of other people.

aapje has flown so far under the radar it's not even funny.

Notes:
-His day 1 voting decision: voted for DH on account of the first person that switched votes. No other reason. No follow up.
-He is super -thread- helpful by posting position lists that the hosts have linked to. He has posted charts of vote tallies (that I'm having a hard time reading, but my spatial awareness was never top-notch). He lists possible roles that could have interfered with the lynch poll.
-He takes a stance to vote low-posters. Asks for input from Bubbles' drive-by vote.
-Votes for DP out of nowhere because low post content.
-Asks where DP and DF are, since they have low post content.

I just think it's a super safe route to look only at players with low post content. 65% of his posts have been fluff/questions to hosts/thread jargon. While those later points are certainly helpful, I see no baddie hunting going on, and that greatly disturbs me into Day 3.

VOTES aapje

#2530

Get ready folks, this is a doozy of a post...

So I was reading tonight and felt pinged by something but did not immediately write anything down about it. Later I was trying to remember what it was and who said it, I incorrectly thought at first that it was Nutella, so I did an ISO of her posts. As a result I will share thoughts on her next. But first I remembered who it was that pinged me, unfurl. So here is my impressions after reading all her posts.

First, the two posts that pinged me big time:

Spoiler: show

These two posts felt like they were disproportionate to the situation. What I mean is that low posters, though they have been discussed have not taken any serious heat until bass, and his lynch was a result of the content of his posts, not the quantity. Additionally, the comment about encouraging players to keep playing felt like emotional manipulation. Like, "don't come after me it makes me feel unwelcome here," kind of thing. It felt seriously underhanded. Now, as to her level of contribution, I don't think I agree with the idea she hasn't contributed much. In the first cycle she did not contribute, I'll touch on that more later, but from there she has asked some insightful questions of the hosts and made some accusations and stated clear suspicions for grounded reasons. So I don't think she is a non-contributor. I just really didn't like the feel of the statements she made here, they feel like emotional blackmail , so to speak.

Now going back to the beginning, I am not the only one who noted these comments from her:

Spoiler: show

She has a very dismissive attitude of the idea anything useful can be learned from any kind of investigation or discussion here, I don't like this. It is not so much that she doesn't seem interested in helping, it is that her dismissive attitude comes across like a discouragement to others from doing anything other than just guessing, because we can't really figure anything out now anyway. Needle in a haystack and all. I don't like this.

Then MP brought up low posters, she immediately joked, that was fast looking forward to seeing these comments. And MP engaged her in conversation about it. This was her response to him:

Spoiler: show

Note please that she says two distinct things here:
1. she understands his point and you're right, it is a good idea to get rid of people not playing because they make the game boring
2. She calls it a LMS set up

Note also: she did not make any kind of clear stand against the idea of voting low posters. In fact as the conversation between them continues it is obvious that MP is discussing with her the fact she doesn't want to talk about anything, not the low poster issue.

MP notes that she has been unwilling to talk about golden vs Epi, and now is unwilling to talk about low posters so he invites her to share what she is interested in talking about and this is her response (including their back and forth conversation):

Spoiler: show

She refused to engage in any kind of conversation and in fact seems to dance around it and turn the tables to make it look like he was somehow the bad guy for asking. It's a hostile tone to me, using phrases like freedom of choice as though he is somehow threatening that freedom.

MP then voted for unfurl and here is her response:

Spoiler: show

MP explained his vote and this was not the reason at all. He explained it was because he believed this early in the game a recruiter would want to be careful not to say too much and make a mistake. He also said earlier that yes he was looking at low posters but of course if he found something that might indicate to him someone is a recruiter then he would vote that way instead. You exhibited an extreme desire not to talk. you made it clear you were just going to take a guess with your vote. He made it clear he voted for you because he believed you might be a recruiter who is nervous about talking too much. But you come at him saying it's because of the low poster idea and because you were standing up to him. Which you did not clearly stand up against it until after he voted, in the following post quoting me... Before that you gave me the impression of someone who is tired of this old debate, being sarcastic jokey about it. And your response to him even seemed to be in agreement with him to some extent.

Now your response to my post:

Spoiler: show

Wait, what? Rewind. You said to MP earlier this IS a LMS set up. Then you say to me this is NOT a LMS set up. You never said any of this about low posters being easy targets, etc. I feel like there are some direct contradictions here from your earlier statements.

Now I want to be fair here, so I will say this is an extremely good point we need to remember. Roles can be recruited by any team, so any messages in thread should always be taken with a grain of salt. This was a very civ minded comment IMO:

Spoiler: show

I feel like there is a good amount of contradiction in the things unfurl has said. Additionally, she was very reticent to even try to have a conversation, which was flat out weird. And her posts after bass was lynched felt like emotional manipulation to me, and I did not like it one bit. That said, she has asked some good civ minded questions of the hosts and she has made a good point regarding message roles. So she is a bit of a mixed bag. At the moment I would call her a contender for my vote, in fact I will put it there for now since votes are changeable, but I am not 100% certain it will stay there yet.

Registering a vote for unfurl.

#2531

Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.

#2532

@Daisy: With LA, I'm hesitant because she could be neutral (and neutral/indy LA reads like baddie LA) like most of us. And also because she's no longer a kid. I mean, I like to think that if I were playing at age 14, my posting and style would change by 21. I'm not trying to defend her, but I figure her style has evolved--and the whole, if I think you're good, you're bad thing has maybe changed (I've had a similar experience with her). I guess I'm wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt. For now.

Golden wrote:Aha, DH brings out honest talk which he has so far very carefully avoided saying.

Being unrecruitable is not a problem. I do think my actions would make it less likely for a baddie to intentionally recruit me. You think I see that as a downside? It gives me more control over my destiny. Also, if I am unrecruitable, I am by definition not a threat. For me it serves two very good purposes off the bat.

I don't think it makes me unrecruitable for the civs, but in any event as long as their are civ contests I will enter them and they might get me anyway. And if they don't get me, I still only have to survive to win. Again, where is the downside?

I did the whole thing in part because I suspected epi was bad AND that he wanted to recruit me, after having thrown sufficient shade at me that it would make the other of us look good should one of us be lynched. (And before anyone goes saying this is new information and why didn't I say it before, when people asked what epi's baddie motivation was for going after me, I already gave that answer, ages ago).

You could have gone in another direction entirely, though, because I did create a much bigger problem for myself - namely, the number of people who want to lynch me.

I honestly have trouble perceiving why anyone would think I was legitimately bad (or at least, legitimately on the team that killed epi). It's like a rinse and repeat of watchmen, where I got lynched essentially for doing something which would have been an obvious thing for a baddie to do. Newsflash - not one of my baddie games has EVER been characterised by that kind of play. I'm amazed at how many people have focussed on my civ-meta (which, as I consistently say, I think I am actually playing to INCLUDING the move on epi) and ignoring entirely my baddie-meta.

So which do I think is more likely? Obviously, I know which is true and my answer is biased. I am neutral and I have no problem staying that way, especially over being recruited bad. I still have to play smart while neutral, because despite best intentions I may be recruited bad. But I think that anyone who knows me should also objectively recognise the second as being more likely, and for that matter anyone who thinks that I actually know how to play the game and wouldn't be stupid enough to do whats its claimed I did - kill epi, and then play some massive wifom when there would have been literally no reason for me to do it.

You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

#2533

Lorab, I present for you, day 1!

Golden wrote:As for mafia motives, can think of two possibilities. One, he was thinking of recruiting me given we worked well together in Guess Who and creating distance first was a tactic to achieve it. Two, he was not thinking of recruiting me and so why not cast suspicion on me.

#2534

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.
There are lots of things you coul have asked Bass. I don't think demanding reads on random people was productive at all. It just seemed mean.
I certainly didn't intend to be mean. I intended to generate meaningful information to further my own understanding of Bass. Bass, if you found my behavior distasteful then I apologize for that.

Did anyone else feel that way? I ask because if this perspective is a trend then I'll need to reassess my approach. I don't want to baddie hunt so hard that I become a jerk.

I don't think it was 'mean' per se; I think it was obvious he was flailing at that point, and asking questions like that was setting him up for failure. I would say that those questions were intentionally designed to make Bass flail worse than he already was. Whether that is because you legitimately thought him bad or because he was the best option for a mislynch, I don't know.

Rather unsurprisingly I am going to vote for Golden.

#2535

Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

#2536

PPPS Rico - welcome to why I say you will end up with a better record than me. You are a better player than me, dude (and I mean that).

#2537

I see. Rico is silenced.

#2538

I shall forever remember this game as the game in which pedantic pink was invented.

#2539

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
aapje wrote:Didn't get to record all votes live but I think this should be pretty accurate:

Day 1 short
Day 1 full
Day 2
What insights have you gleaned from this compilation so far?

Mostly that changing votes are a bitch to keep track of :P

Speaking of votes, I see MM was the 1st (or second, can't be sure since Scotty changed his vote) to vote without posting. It wouldn't surprise me if he were silenced today.

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Not the entire phase:

Long Con wrote:
aapje wrote:How long is the duration of a thread lock? 4 - 6 hours.

#2540

Scotty wrote:A name that pop up to me as I read his posts:
aapje
aapje wrote:So what is up with DF and DP? DF has missed both polls and DP hasn't contributed anything so far. I honestly wouldn't mind lynching either of them. If we are lynching neutrals anyway we might as well get rid of people who aren't really playing the game to begin with

I gave Russtifinko a pass since he asked to be replaced.
I disagree with the strategy of lynching no-shows this game. While they haven't been strictly no-shows, and I usually operate under the mode of "Come to play" I thought we were actively looking for baddies, not just neutrals. As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.

No if they were total no shows they would be modkilled / replaced. Although I have good hopes of DF missing his 3rd vote in a row

Also if the last recruitment games are any indication all teams have a limited number of recruits.

Scotty wrote:
Spoiler: show
aapje wrote:
Golden wrote:I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.
I can see why people could be suspicious of TH.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't want to be recruited. Y'all better leave me alone.
Could it be he doesn't want people to try and recruit him because he's already on a team?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.
Doesn't sound very civvie minded either.

All in all not a whole lot to go on but I can see why people would consider voting for him.

I had to manually create linkbacks for this post like some kind of peasant
He lists reasons why "people" would be suspicious of voting TH, and even admits that he "doesn't sound very civvie minded either"
He follows this up by VOTING FOR DisgruntledPorcupine for not posting.

When TH responds with a "yeah, it wasn't a very civ-thing to say," aapje says:
aapje wrote:Fair enough. Wasn't planning on voting for you over it anyway. Was just checking what you actually said when people were voting for you.
Ho-hum. To state that he thinks something sounds not civ-like to immediately discrediting himself when TH literally admits to such claims is sketchy at best. It's not enough to warrant a vote, ok. But to say he wasn't going to vote for him at all for sketchy behavior raises my red sails.

Here is the full response TH made:

Turnip Head wrote:You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

A reply which made sense to me. As you have already noticed, I am not yet in baddie hunting mode. I'm sure I will get around to it, if I had to guess I'd say somewhere after the weekend. As for now I'd rather get rid of some non-contributors.

#2541

got a few pages to catch up with will do it when my Boss is not around today

Sorry to see ya go Gman!

#2542

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?
I'm not sure how this question is relevant.
You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?
You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.
So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?
Were you legitimately scared that if you didn't put the hit out on Epi he would have A) Not ended up on your team eventually and B) Killed you.
A - yes. B - no (why would you NK someone you think you can lynch), but he would have been a threat to me, because he would have been pursuing my lynch.

So hypothetically speaking, Golden, let's say both you and Epig had wound up teammates and you both had knowledge of it. Do you still believe that he would have tried to lynch/kill you?

#2543

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Just goes to show you that it's the doubly landlocked ones you have to watch out for.

#2544

[quote="DharmaHelper"
Of course I am

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list. Let me tell you why your Epi plan was good:

It was good because it got rid of someone you needed to get rid of in order to make it farther into the game. Now let me tell you why your Epi move was the worst possible thing you could have done:

You came up with a solution to a temporary problem that created a problem much bigger, and more difficult to solve. Namely, now you are unrecruitable. No one in their right mind would want you on their team, because of the big fuckin' red X on your forehead right now. You also presented at least one opportunity for the killer(s) to avoid accountability for their kill. Accountability is the most dangerous thing in mafia, and you basically gave whoever killed Epi a free pass.

So either you are a baddie and cooked up the whole "baited" kill as a smokescreen, or you are fine with not being recruited. Which of those do you think is more likely?[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not buying what DH is selling here at all. He's scared of having his name at the top of a rainbow list? Like fun he is. No version of DH I have ever played with would display such cowardice.

Vote registered for DharmaHelper

#2545

Rats, quotefail. EBWOP

thellama73 wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote: Of course I am

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list. Let me tell you why your Epi plan was good:

It was good because it got rid of someone you needed to get rid of in order to make it farther into the game. Now let me tell you why your Epi move was the worst possible thing you could have done:

You came up with a solution to a temporary problem that created a problem much bigger, and more difficult to solve. Namely, now you are unrecruitable. No one in their right mind would want you on their team, because of the big fuckin' red X on your forehead right now. You also presented at least one opportunity for the killer(s) to avoid accountability for their kill. Accountability is the most dangerous thing in mafia, and you basically gave whoever killed Epi a free pass.

So either you are a baddie and cooked up the whole "baited" kill as a smokescreen, or you are fine with not being recruited. Which of those do you think is more likely?
Yeah, I'm not buying what DH is selling here at all. He's scared of having his name at the top of a rainbow list? Like fun he is. No version of DH I have ever played with would display such cowardice.

Vote registered for DharmaHelper

#2546

Spacedaisy wrote:I agree. I think that the only people who benefit from the civs not communicating are the baddies. Rainbow lists are no better or worse than back and forth conversation about suspicions or lists of people's reads on others, etc. I don't do them, but I don't mind them either.

SO MUCH this.

You won't ever catch me doing a rainbow list, but I think they can be immensely helpful if someone does it to organize their thoughts about all the players in a game. Even in a game with as vast a character list as this one.

So if one happens to pop up sometime, I think it will generate some good discussions.

#2547

birdwithteeth11 wrote:So if one happens to pop up sometime, I think it will generate some good discussions.

#2548

damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

#2549

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Uh oh. I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder!

I will probably stick a placeholder vote on someone this morning, just in case such an event occurs later on in the day phase.

#2550

G-Man wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:So if one happens to pop up sometime, I think it will generate some good discussions.

Game End!