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

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

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.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Honestly that post you reference, in this context, amplifies my concern and makes me outright suspicious of LoRab. She was verbally describing her own quest to find a reason to join the bandwagon against you, and continued in that direction with this most recent cop out vote. The highlighted pink text in there is a pretty literal example of this, and it is expressed in language that I find suspicious at face value. The highlighted orange text is a logical discrepancy and exemplifies a player interested in surface contexts and not deeper critical thinking. I don't think it's hard at all to associate your theorizing about the potential for Epignosis recruiting you with your prior insistence that it would be a bad idea to recruit me onto Epi's team, I'd kill him myself.

This seems like willful ignorance of the most important content in this discussion by LoRab, and a concerted effort to justify the easiest vote on the board.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Don't count DF out just yet. He may be quiet now but he almost always is, and he can be an absolute joy to scheme with in btsc because he's lethal when it matters. Still I think your general point here is an accurate one.

Quiet is an understatement. He hasn't posted for more than three days. I'll try to get his attention:

DFaraday, if you don't get involved then your eventual lynch will be close to inevitable. That's not a winning strategy, mate.

[Golden]

Also, the fact that she was responding to a post in which I literally went out of my way to say "This is NOT new info" - because it was not, but it had been buried because people have (in my opinion) not been actually taking into account and considering a lot of the responses I've been making. That one is one of them.

[Golden]

I'm feeling much more positive today, I've really appreciated posts from people like Sorsha and JJ that have demonstrated that there are people genuinely thinking about and understanding my points about why me being responsible for killing epi makes no sense in the context of my actions before and afterwards.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Golden, if I dedicate some of my Mafia resources to turning a lynch away from you and end up wrong in doing so, then my Syndicate reputation is forever shot.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm feeling much more positive today, I've really appreciated posts from people like Sorsha and JJ that have demonstrated that there are people genuinely thinking about and understanding my points about why me being responsible for killing epi makes no sense in the context of my actions before and afterwards.

I'm glad.

This is a great opportunity for you to harness the good vibes and turn the tide against the thread at large. Someone or someones might be exploiting you, and if so you shouldn't let 'em get away with it ever.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

DisgruntledPorucpine, I see you down there. Say something! Anything! I'm tired of being deprived of your delicious posts! I've waited so long, stop being such a tease.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

lol MM voted for me. Maybe he's trying to tell me something.

Vote LoRab

[Black Rock]

Hey guys. So it turns out I can't fix the poll without deleting the votes so I can either redo the poll at 10pm EST for another 24 hours. I would take a picture and post it at that time or we can continue voting in thread for the remaining of the day period. Thoughts?

[Sorsha]

Time for me to get ready for work. As of right now I have no idea where my vote will go. I'll try to be back in the morning but if the last two nights are any indication: my job is trying to kill me.

[Golden]

Hey guys. So it turns out I can't fix the poll without deleting the votes so I can either redo the poll at 10pm EST for another 24 hours. I would take a picture and post it at that time or we can continue voting in thread for the remaining of the day period. Thoughts?

My perspective - take a photo, do a new poll for 24 hours. Then anyone who does not vote in the new poll can have their votes in the old poll counted.

[Golden]

Time for me to get ready for work. As of right now I have no idea where my vote will go. I'll try to be back in the morning but if the last two nights are any indication: my job is trying to kill me.

Registering a vote for Sorsha's job

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey guys. So it turns out I can't fix the poll without deleting the votes so I can either redo the poll at 10pm EST for another 24 hours. I would take a picture and post it at that time or we can continue voting in thread for the remaining of the day period. Thoughts?

I think the easiest thing for you and Long Con would be to restart the poll when this one expires. Many votes will change anyway, and those that don't can simply be carried over from the old one.

[Bullzeye]

Hey guys. So it turns out I can't fix the poll without deleting the votes so I can either redo the poll at 10pm EST for another 24 hours. I would take a picture and post it at that time or we can continue voting in thread for the remaining of the day period. Thoughts?

My perspective - take a photo, do a new poll for 24 hours. Then anyone who does not vote in the new poll can have their votes in the old poll counted.

This makes sense. Plus people can always re-vote if they need to. It shouldn't cause any problems.

Linki Triple J - if they do that it still ends hours after they want it to :P

[Golden]

Golden, if I dedicate some of my Mafia resources to turning a lynch away from you and end up wrong in doing so, then my Syndicate reputation is forever shot.

I guarantee you that, when this game washed up and the hosts set out what occurred, the record will show that on day three golden was neutral.

I'm not-so-secretly hoping one of the civs will recruit me through that contest, though.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Yeah that's what I mean. Restart it whenever you need to for the correct deadline.

[Golden]

I'm feeling much more positive today, I've really appreciated posts from people like Sorsha and JJ that have demonstrated that there are people genuinely thinking about and understanding my points about why me being responsible for killing epi makes no sense in the context of my actions before and afterwards.

I'm glad.

This is a great opportunity for you to harness the good vibes and turn the tide against the thread at large. Someone or someones might be exploiting you, and if so you shouldn't let 'em get away with it ever.

I'll put my vote back on rey for now.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Russ, you were my boy on Day 0/1. Where'd you go?

[thellama73]

I see that golden is heading out and might not be back much but I have a question or two. Anyone else can weigh in on the answer as well. I have been away from mafia for a while and don't know/can't remember all the player dynamics.

First of all I'm of the mind that golden is not on the team that killed epi night one. I know golden still claims responsibility like that team is going to do his bidding for him but I'd think their motive was more to frame him. Anyone in particular come to mind as one who would do that?

My thoughts on the matter is whoever is really hounding golden in the thread did it. But is it a silly question to ask who would set golden up?

You have not played with Epignosis much. I think it is unlikely that it is a frame becasue if I were a baddie, an Epi/Golden thread derailment would be a major wet dream. Had Epi not died, we would have had 2 more days of nonstop, escalating sniping and talking about almost nothing but Epi & Golden. Any bad team would eat that up. UNLESS Golden or Epi was on their team.

Having played bad against Epi a zillion times, as soon as he mentions a teammate, I kill him, lol. I think most baddies do. But if he doesn't, then he's awesome alive. He's tenacious and always stone certain he is right regardless of whether that is true or not.

So I think either Golden is on Azuras team, OR Azura herself and her first recruit are someone fairly unfamiliar with our site player dynamics. And Goldens reaction to Epis death scotched that for me, tbh. I thought a frame was an outside possibility until golden started talking.

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

I think this is a good point, but there is a thrid option: the killer is someone relatively new in these parts and not familiar enough with Epi's style to foresee what you foresee.

[timmer]

Voted for Golden. At the point I'm at in my read back he's the one standing out as being odd. If I can find time to continue reading before deadline I will but I'm happy with my vote for now.

[thellama73]

So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

switching vote to golden,i am not really convinced about bass and golden hasn't seemed himself.

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

If the content of Golden's posts shouldn't be reason to suspect him, then what made him seem anything other than himself before?

[nutella]

I'm leaving my vote where it is for now, but I'm open to hearing input from people who have played more with unfurl than I have. I would prefer to get a baddie than a neutral personally. They aren't bad lynches but they aren't good ones either.

I have played with unfurl exactly zero times, but I think that might give me a uniquely advantageous perspective (of course people who have played with her often should comment too). I don't have to be concerned with meta when I read her and content can be assessed intuitively at face value. Here's what I see: unfurl is the current best example of the low-hanging fruit in this game, in my opinion. By that I mean she is one of the players that the baddie-aligned teams are counting on as a lynch, and certainly not one they are counting on as a team mate.

That's really the whole matter, isn't it? For all the things you've identified that bother you about unfurl, you're still reduced to those two questions:

1.) Was unfurl recruited by a baddie team?

2.) Is unfurl a baddie recruiter?

If I take her content at face value, my intuition tells me that the answer to #1 is a resounding NO. Unfurl's style was met with criticism quite early in this game, and she has always been at least a backburner suspect for a number of players. Baddie recruiters are certainly paying attention to that, and they're not going to take someone on with a lot of baggage. Of course we can play WIFOM and wonder aloud "well maybe that's what they want us to think!", but I don't think that's logical.

Would you agree with that assessment, Spacedaisy? If not, please state your own thought process.

If you do agree, or at least you see my point as valid, then you're left with #2. Is unfurl one of the two baddie recruiters? Maybe. I think her post history is at least compatible with what I would expect from some baddies in more typical setups. I wouldn't say it screams recruiter at me though, because one key characteristic is preventing me from confidently viewing her as suspicious. Her posts have been so extremely detached -- you and MP astutely observed as much when you noted how little she seemed to want to talk about -- that I am brought to wonder whether a recruiter agenda is actually present at all. Is this how most recruiters would behave? Would they really be so hesitant to even try to make a meaningful dent in even one relevant discussion? Such avoidance is equivalent to the total absence of manipulation, misdirection, or even an effort to obscure oneself.

I agree entirely with this post. Besides the point about recruitments that weren't hand-picked, but there have only been two of those that we know of and they were both particular types of contests so depending on what you know about a player you could potentially assess whether you think it's likely that Unfurl, for example, would have entered/been picked. It would be highly speculative, yes, but I still think there's a pretty low chance she's been recruited, since there haven't been many recruitments yet anyway.

I am fine with the plan to restart the poll. However if some people who have already voted revote in the new poll and some don't, the hosts will have to do careful counting so as not to miss or duplicate votes (and we would probably want to keep track of the actual tallies in the thread). I think it's best if everyone revotes in the second poll, but refer to the first poll for correct ordering and in case anyone misses the revote.

I'm going to change my vote to reywas because I'm okay with aapje's response and because I think Rey could have killed Epi. And I don't really want Golden to be lynched. I didn't like Lorab's reasoning either, though I'm not necessarily suspicious of her for it. I agree that Golden has been a distraction but I think we can move past that now and if we do he can be a huge asset to the civvie cause. Even without G-Man's ass-et.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

This is my first game with him so I have to guess at how his conduct meshes with his expected persona (or doesn't). He hasn't done anything pro-civilian really, but I don't know that I've found him outwardly suspicious either. He seems to be playing as neutrally as possible, like a more abrasive version of Turnip Head.

I kind of want to lynch him just because he is barely trying despite having so many posts, but that's more my personal bias against deliberate non-effort than a real indication of suspicion.

[Golden]

So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

I do, but I also think rey is.

[thellama73]

So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

This is my first game with him so I have to guess at how his conduct meshes with his expected persona (or doesn't). He hasn't done anything pro-civilian really, but I don't know that I've found him outwardly suspicious either. He seems to be playing as neutrally as possible, like a more abrasive version of Turnip Head.

I kind of want to lynch him just because he is barely trying despite having so many posts, but that's more my personal bias against deliberate non-effort than a real indication of suspicion.

What strikes me about him is that, yes, he is barely trying, but then he acted all scared about Golden naming him. If he were as uninvested as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be so worried about gettting NKed. Leading me to believe thta his slapdashery is an act, or his scarednes is an act. Something is definitely an act.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey Boomslang!

Vote Boomslang

aapje is going to murder me

[Golden]

I would ask those who are less inclined to feel absolutely certain of me, like lorab and timmer, to consider giving me a pass today given I won't be around a whole lot more for robust conversation and defence. I ask this because I get the strong sense that (because I won't be around) I'm going to be the easy location for drive by votes at end of day.

It's ultimately up to you guys, but if you really want to lynch me more on a hunch or being the 'best option' than anything else, I'd really like if it can be on a day where I can have proper conversation around it, more than I'll be able to today.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

This is my first game with him so I have to guess at how his conduct meshes with his expected persona (or doesn't). He hasn't done anything pro-civilian really, but I don't know that I've found him outwardly suspicious either. He seems to be playing as neutrally as possible, like a more abrasive version of Turnip Head.

I kind of want to lynch him just because he is barely trying despite having so many posts, but that's more my personal bias against deliberate non-effort than a real indication of suspicion.

What strikes me about him is that, yes, he is barely trying, but then he acted all scared about Golden naming him. If he were as uninvested as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be so worried about gettting NKed. Leading me to believe thta his slapdashery is an act, or his scarednes is an act. Something is definitely an act.

My take was that his attempts to appear uninvested have definitely been deliberate -- but that they could promote a genuinely neutral agenda. He's a threat to exactly nobody right now, and being night killed would lose him the game after all. I'm wondering whether this unique setup is the inspiration for his approach.

We agree that he is invested in this game. He wouldn't have as many posts as he does otherwise.

[LoRab]

Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Asking someone openly to name whom they think is civ can only help the baddies. Especially in this game, where the baddies do not have a common target but are a common target, and that whole enemy of my enemy thing. I don't think this is a civ-friendly question, and I'm not sure Bass was playing a civ-friendly game, even if not recruited. Or at least wasn't seeming so with this post.

Does enemy of my enemy really apply as the baddies can't win together? Agree with the rest of your point though.

I think it does, as both civ teams want both baddie teams to be dead.

Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

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.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Prior to the post you quoted, I had been quite sympathetic to you. However, the more I read your posts, the more I found it difficult to be supportive. I do not say that I outright suspect you of being on a baddie team--I do not. But I do not think your game is pro-civ. And I do think that your posts last night started to sound like a cornered baddie, and that switched my thinking and made me start to look at your posts differently. And what I have read, more and more, does not seem pro-civ to me. And certainly not like a pro-civ Golden.

And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

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.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Honestly that post you reference, in this context, amplifies my concern and makes me outright suspicious of LoRab. She was verbally describing her own quest to find a reason to join the bandwagon against you, and continued in that direction with this most recent cop out vote. The highlighted pink text in there is a pretty literal example of this, and it is expressed in language that I find suspicious at face value. The highlighted orange text is a logical discrepancy and exemplifies a player interested in surface contexts and not deeper critical thinking. I don't think it's hard at all to associate your theorizing about the potential for Epignosis recruiting you with your prior insistence that it would be a bad idea to recruit me onto Epi's team, I'd kill him myself.

This seems like willful ignorance of the most important content in this discussion by LoRab, and a concerted effort to justify the easiest vote on the board.

I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

This is a game where we can change our votes--I don't think anyone stands out as likely on a baddie team. I am happy to change my vote if someone starts to seem actually bad or more detrimental to the civ cause. If I don't suspect anyone of being actually on a baddie team (which is what...4 to 6 players out of 32...not very good odds), then I believe that lynching a neutral who is not being civ-friendly to be the next best thing. I also have long had an innate distrust of neutral roles (which makes this stage of this game interesting in my brain).

Also, he literally asked to be lynched.

Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

And please don't tell me that I don't think deeply. I may notice really odd things in the thread, but that does not mean that I'm not thinking about them. Nor does it mean that I'm jumping on a bandwagon because I voted the same way as a few other people.

Also, the fact that she was responding to a post in which I literally went out of my way to say "This is NOT new info" - because it was not, but it had been buried because people have (in my opinion) not been actually taking into account and considering a lot of the responses I've been making. That one is one of them.

I have taken a lot into account. It is exactly your responses, mainly in tone, that have made me suspicious of your intentions.

lol MM voted for me. Maybe he's trying to tell me something.

Vote LoRab

Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

linkitis: @Golden: That post sounded more honest than anything you've posted in a while. I will strongly consider (and probably take action on) changing my vote. I just need to figure out where to put it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I feel like I should clarify something: something I say semi-often in Mafia games is that a player "isn't interested in 'deep' critical thinking". This might come off as an insult; I don't mean it to be an insult. It's an accusation that a player is deliberately focusing on surface content and not the finer points/implications within it.

I hope nobody takes offense.

[Golden]

Thank you, Lorab. No-one should feel they are obligated to give me a pass for a day, but my self-vote definitely came from a place of feeling helpless because it felt like I already had a whole bundle of guaranteed votes plus I wasn't going to be around to defend.

Plus, I've realised that I can turn this around by actually catching Azura, and my lynch is not necessarily inevitable, so now that's what I'm focussed on. If its someone like rey, and they are lynched and flip, it would then be obvious it isn't me killing epi.

[thellama73]

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

My point is this: even if you think Golden's play is anti-civilian, a neutral Golden is by default not an ideal lynch. An ideal lynch for a player pursuing a pro-civilian agenda would be a recruited baddie or a baddie recruiter. Any other result is less than that -- indeed they are the only truly good results. Those should be your goal.

What about Golden's play makes you think he is deliberately playing in an anti-civilian way?

I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

I'll reiterate that this is a very specific distinction and it demands thorough explanation. My intuitive reaction is to doubt that you sincerely have this perspective.

Also, he literally asked to be lynched.

Exactly. That is not a valid justification for any vote.

Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

I didn't necessarily accuse you of hypocrisy. I suggested you might be deliberately avoiding an important component of the Golden case which was directly relevant to this issue. I'll restate it more clearly.

When Golden and Epignosis were dueling, one thing Golden said was this (paraphrasing): If I end up on the same team as Epignosis, I will kill him myself.

Don't you think this maneuver by Golden, which on the surface seems like an absurd statement, might have an underlying meaning which strongly supports what he has been saying? If some part of Golden suspected Epignosis was a recruiter with an interest in recruiting him, then that seemingly absurd statement suddenly makes perfect sense. He'd have been literally instructing Epignosis not to recruit him because he didn't want to be recruited by Epignosis. "Don't do that or I'm going to be a detriment to your win condition."

Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

I'm always willing to respect an alternative thought process. Mafia games are won when people of differing perspectives work together. I just need to know exactly why you think Golden's play is both neutral-indicative and anti-civilian. That's a strong and complex read you have espoused and I need to see how your brain developed it to believe that you believe it.

[S~V~S]

I have got to say that today has been the MOST emotionally manipulative day I have ever read, lol.

I am happy with my vote where it is.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't know about The Syndicate, but in my experience appeal to emotion is a town tell far more often than an anti-town tell. That doesn't mean players should be exonerated for making emotional posts, but those emotional posts shouldn't be doubted simply for being emotional.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

My cries for attention from the lurker crew aren't working.

[LoRab]

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

[Turnip Head]

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

This.

As someone else already pointed out, lynching neutrals only helps the baddies.

A quite unneutral thing for LoRab to say

(Wait, did I just agree with something that llama said in a mafia game? )

linki: Will contemplate.

[Dom]

Golden, where did the hosts indicate that?

I don't know, dom, I didn't go back and check whether it was day zero or day one. I was just posting from what I thought was the case, but you could just as equally be right. I still haven't checked, but I will do so now.

You're so bad.

This was from day 0:

Official Announcement

All PM's must now be directed to both hosts (the other one being Long Con) as I am leaving for work soon and he will be home.

ALL Leaders please submit a list of three players for options of your first recruit.

So, really, it could be Day 0.

Official Announcement

All PM's must now be directed to both hosts (the other one being Long Con) as I am leaving for work soon and he will be home.

ALL Leaders please submit a list of three players for options of your first recruit.

There will be 4 by days end. We are just waiting on something before the recruits will be officially told.

You are right, it was day zero. My bad. So your theory about my tone change is completely legitimate.

But the real reason my tone shifted is that when I went toe to toe with epi, it got me thinking about the nature of the game and what it meant to be neutral in a way I hadn't until that point.

I have tried to explain that I've never played a game like this before. I'm not sure that you or some others have recognised that this comes with growing pains and I was thrown into the spotlight very early while I was still figuring the game out (frankly, I still am figuring the game out).

That's nice, and I appreciate your honesty here.
I truly think you are bad. I think you are cornered and have freaked out. You also lashed out at me, saying you agreed with "others" (nutella) about my posting. When I addressed this with you, I don't recall a response.
Why is that?
Did I miss it?

You have not played with Epignosis much. I think it is unlikely that it is a frame becasue if I were a baddie, an Epi/Golden thread derailment would be a major wet dream. Had Epi not died, we would have had 2 more days of nonstop, escalating sniping and talking about almost nothing but Epi & Golden. Any bad team would eat that up. UNLESS Golden or Epi was on their team.

Having played bad against Epi a zillion times, as soon as he mentions a teammate, I kill him, lol. I think most baddies do. But if he doesn't, then he's awesome alive. He's tenacious and always stone certain he is right regardless of whether that is true or not.

So I think either Golden is on Azuras team, OR Azura herself and her first recruit are someone fairly unfamiliar with our site player dynamics. And Goldens reaction to Epis death scotched that for me, tbh. I thought a frame was an outside possibility until golden started talking.

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

This.

SVS, the killing of epi derailed the thread. Are you telling me that what has occurred would not be a desirable outcome?

Also, if my goal was to kill epi so as to minimise the amount of attention on me in the thread (which has to be the reason, right?) then why do I immediately go and say something that will inevitably immediately reinvite that attention?

See.... it is NOT desirable if you're bad.

Don't count DF out just yet. He may be quiet now but he almost always is, and he can be an absolute joy to scheme with in btsc because he's lethal when it matters. Still I think your general point here is an accurate one.

Quiet is an understatement. He hasn't posted for more than three days. I'll try to get his attention:

DFaraday, if you don't get involved then your eventual lynch will be close to inevitable. That's not a winning strategy, mate.

What does this mean?

I don't know about The Syndicate, but in my experience appeal to emotion is a town tell far more often than an anti-town tell. That doesn't mean players should be exonerated for making emotional posts, but those emotional posts shouldn't be doubted simply for being emotional.

I wouldn't say either one is more characteristic of an alignment-- it ouwld vary by person, I think.

[LoRab]

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

[Tangrowth]

Sorry guys, I've been super busy today, and will continue to do so. I should be around more to talk tomorrow (latter part of D3) than today, but even then I'll be swamped.

I'm voting Golden because he asked to be lynched and seems to really want out.

[Dom]

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

He was.

[Turnip Head]

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

[LoRab]

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

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.

Vote: TH

[reywaS]

lol 4 votes after taking a temporary break from the game. This should be good.

[Turnip Head]

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

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.

Vote: TH

It's literally a question, one that was answered by multiple people, and I then stated I was proven wrong about all teams being equal.

I don't understand how any of this equates to you voting for me.

[Golden]

That's nice, and I appreciate your honesty here.
I truly think you are bad. I think you are cornered and have freaked out. You also lashed out at me, saying you agreed with "others" (nutella) about my posting. When I addressed this with you, I don't recall a response.
Why is that?
Did I miss it?

No

I do think your posting had been - keeping things close to your chest, I would call it. Which is what I think nutella was seeing. I wanted to draw more out of you. When I've directly asked you questions, you've answered them completely. So while I think nutella was accurate in describing your style of play, I don't find you suspicious. Earlier on, I couldn't gauge whether or not your suspicion of me was sincere. Now I believe it is.

[Golden]

SVS, the killing of epi derailed the thread. Are you telling me that what has occurred would not be a desirable outcome?

Also, if my goal was to kill epi so as to minimise the amount of attention on me in the thread (which has to be the reason, right?) then why do I immediately go and say something that will inevitably immediately reinvite that attention?

See.... it is NOT desirable if you're bad.

That's my point. Do you still think I'm bad having caught up today?

[reywaS]

I'm going to respond as I read because I have missed a shitload of posts and can't imagine making a single post.

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?

First, I see the votes cast are likely because of the thread lockdown thread...much less dramatic than i initially thought. lol I also notice that Golden jumped in with the "Just lynch my guys and when I flip go after rey next." Too funny. Funny because I notice that his vote is no longer on himself.

"Rey's suspicion on me is literally bullshit." shocking turn of events. What is the difference between a literal bullshit suspicion and a figurative bullshit suspicion? Lorab pointed out that the more you post the more you look like you are grasping at straws. Very well point by Lorab and I totally agree. Golden, for a lot of our interactions you seemed like you were trying as best as you could to change my mind...you even went so far as to say that you understood where I was coming from. I think that was you trying to get me to shut up about you and to move on to someone else. Then it turned into calling my ideas bullshit and saying that I must be bad because of it. Grasping at straws indeed, sir.