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

[Ricochet]

Also, I don't think players can ever just come in and shout they've been forced to vote or do something; they can try to signal it, at least. So MP heavily denying to have been forced doesn't fully detract me from finding the other version to be a plausible signal or tactic in dealing with a forced vote. In fact, a pee fountain sort of signaling.

Is there really any precedent for players abjectly denying that they were forced to so something they didn't want to do when that is in fact the truth? Couldn't they just ignore those comments to allow the theories to survive instead of putting a concerted effort into eliminating them?

It's a thing of principle that you carry your cross, when you've been afflicted, and don't resort to admitting, even if the signs are clear or you signal it yourself.

The comments/theories started rolling as early as MP started acting that way, so at first I thought his denial was also part of his "whatcha talkin' about, silly people, I'm real, this is real, Golden must go down, yeeehaw" shtick. Afterwards, I can only assume he had no choice (no pun intended) but to reiterate his denial.

Again, how does MP being genuine in his crazy act make him look better? Sure, I'm not giving any verdict yet that he'd be as suicidal as jumping on a Golden wagon as a bad recruitee, with no prior reasoning, but I still wouldn't be able to call him "genuine" and well intent after such a performance. At best, I'd label him a neutral who did more harm than good by disorienting the game with such antics.

[nutella]

I personally feel boomslang is yet a Neutral. I think JJJ made his points - sure - but imo he is just going for another easy lynch.

This would imply that you found at least one of my points to be inadequate. Please show me. I've tried my best to assess players and come up with reads. If I wanted an "easy" lynch I would have just joined the anti-Golden crusade.

Where did I imply that?
Oh thats right I didn't. You are trying to put something into my post that simply is not there and making my post have a different inflection.

I just think Boomslang would make a horrible recruit. (No offense Boomslang I said the same thing about my own son).
He has not really been in the thread.
You can tell he is not keeping up by looking at his posts.
If he is not around to read or post properly what makes you so sure he has had time to try for a recruitment?

I think you, however, would make an excellent recruit.
you are paying attention to the thread.
You are playing the game and fully reading and posting.
You are under no suspicion but from me.
You have been around to eneter contests for recruitmen
You a good player so you know how to play the same once recruited.
You are pushing neutral easy lynch after lynch.

I actually agree with most of this post, with two caveats:
1) It is equally likely that JJJ has been recruited as a civvie.
2) Why are you discounting the possibility that Boomslang started out as a baddie, as one of the leaders?

[Roxy]

Woah, Gosh *AND* Golly?

I was bummed I missed out on your hug extravaganza

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Ok, I've finally got time to sit down and write a substantial post. So let's do it.

My self-vote was an experiment to see how quickly I could get bandwagoned based on practically no other "baddie" tells. And with that single action, I nearly got lynched. To me, that showed how many people were willing to protect Golden at the drop of a hat. My voters wanted to encourage a game environment in which someone can claim responsibility for a death (CAUSED BY A BADDIE, as Rey pointed out) and not get lynched for it. Although Golden did not flip bad, I maintain that if he had not been lynched for his statements on the death of Epi, it would have opened up the space in which baddies could operate.

I don't understand what you mean by the yellow bit, please expand on that. The orange bit is a very generous self-assessment -- "practically no other baddie tells" is frankly a silly thing to say about yourself. You might not be a baddie, I don't know, but your post history is not some sparkling beacon of town beyond the self-vote.

I also want to point out that JJJ's "case" on me is built almost entirely on an absence of evidence. Of things that I did not do, of brilliant points that I could have made Day 0 or 1 but didn't, of a vote for Bass that was entirely justifiable but not justified by more than one post. Of "confusing" post about G-man's support of Golden that JJJ interprets correctly at the same time he's denouncing it for being confusing. He doesn't have a leg to stand on, and he knows it.

The yellow bit is exaggerated bullsuit. You have no idea what I know and don't know. I was suspicious of you, I built a case explaining exactly why, and have repeatedly taken responsibility for that case. If I "know I don't have a leg to stand on", then why in the world have I worked so hard to point everyone straight to my own case about you every time someone has asked "Why the Boomslang votes???"

That I correctly interpreted a post does not mean it wasn't confusing. That's crap.

The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

How would Golden have that knowledge if he were on the other baddie team? The baddie teams don't start the game aware of one another.

[Roxy]

I cannot continue my case until after work.

Nutella I promise to respond to your posts as soon as I am off work and properly buzzed.

[DharmaHelper]

Woah, Gosh *AND* Golly?

I was bummed I missed out on your hug extravaganza

[Turnip Head]

Nutella I promise to respond to your posts as soon as I am off work and properly buzzed.

Truly the best way to play mafia

[thellama73]

I thought that BWT not accounting for Azura forcing votes in Pos. 5, in the context of assessing MP's vote for Golden, felt like a potential slipup if he knew Azura had targeted players other than MP.

As in "Well hmmm, I know I didn't force MP's vote, and I don't see any other vote forcers, so that can't be it."

Could be. Could also be that he didn't read the roles, which is quite possible in a game with this many complex roles.

Could be. This is the full quote if you're interested.

I don't see anything in the roles for this position about some kind of insanification, forced vote, or any type of posting-altering-related power. So not sure what is going on with MP. I'm starting to wonder if he's trying to prove a point about something.

That is an interesting post, because either he looked and missed it, or he is lying about having looked. It's possible that you are right and it was a slip, but my interpretation would be that if he had a vote force power, he wouldn't forget about it or pretend it didn't exist, whereas it's legitimately easy to miss things in the roles.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Again, how does MP being genuine in his crazy act make him look better? Sure, I'm not giving any verdict yet that he'd be as suicidal as jumping on a Golden wagon as a bad recruitee, with no prior reasoning, but I still wouldn't be able to call him "genuine" and well intent after such a performance. At best, I'd label him a neutral who did more harm than good by disorienting the game with such antics.

It only makes him look better for those who believe his story as he told it after the fact. At the moment I am inclined in that direction, but I admit that I am troubled by the fact that his vote never moved from Golden.

[Boomslang]

Addressing the other vote leaders:

Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

Bubbles, what do you think about Bass, right now, before being presented with any case?

neutral

Would you rather lynch Turnip Head than Golden or Bass?

i'd rather vote for someone who's actually going to be lynched, right now turniphead doesn't look like much of a target. it would be a wasted vote to stay with him. what are most people's reason for voting bass? and why did you go with scotty? (on that note why did scotty vote himself?!)

This is really the only thing that pings me (or, in JJJ's words, makes me "feel something") about TinyBubbles. The idea of the "wasted vote" and wanting to vote alongside others. There's more concern about causing a lynch and blending in than there is about making a personal decision, and that strikes me as fishy.

Lorab just seems to be going back-and-forth with JJJ about the meaning of neutrality in this game, which I think we're all kind of wrestling with. I tend to disagree when Lorab says "no, lynching neutrals is neutral." Lynching neutrals is more favorable to baddies because it increases the ratio of baddies to everyone else, making them more influential in lynch polls. Conversely, I like how Lorab defends the use of Day 0 material when voting Turnip Head: the game is in fact cumulative. JJJ has said that we should be less trusting of our early suspicions, which makes me wonder what people will turn out to have skeletons in their closets as the game progresses.

Linki w/JJJ:
1. The yellow bit means that if Golden had remained unlynched, it would have allowed actual baddies to claim similar shenanigans without being lynched.
2. You'll notice that, in the orange bit, I don't claim to have civ tells. I just claim not to have baddie tells.
3. You say "exaggerated bullshit," I say rhetoric.
4. If Golden were baddie he would have known if Epi were on his team. He thought Epi was bad. If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team, Epi must have been on the other baddie team. That's all I'm trying to say here.

[Scotty]

DharmaHelper: Since you did vote for Golden yesterday, let's look at what led you up to that point.

Day 1- your first mention of Golden:

Spoiler: show

Having read zero percent of the goings on, I will say the thing that prevents me from voting for Golden right now is my absolutely reaming him in Watchmen mafia.

Linky - The fruit had fuzz, like a peach or an apricot.

You admit to not being completely involved in the game, even though you already have 45 posts of absolute marshmallow fluff. And you'll spare Golden on the grounds of not beating him while he's still down from Watchmen.

Spoiler: show

I just want to reiterate for no one's benefit: Golden and Epi are not the only ones on the poll despite what they might tell you. Also, they're not the only ones in the thread.

I just want to reiterate for no one's benefit: Golden and Epi are not the only ones on the poll despite what they might tell you. Also, they're not the only ones in the thread.

All I see is Epignosis and Golden. Help!

Its been a long day, but I could whip something up tomorrow.

You attempt to bring attention away from the Golden/Epi debacle. Can't wait to hear what you have to whip up on Day 2.

Spoiler: show

After I'm gone, lynch epi please. Thanks.

Oddly defeatist.

Not much to say with this post. Pretty meh.

You do put up suggestive questioning to the likes of JJJ, Spacedaisy, TH and Me on Day 1, so your suspicions were at least not short-sighted towards one particular person. You then decide to vote Tranq, even though you haven't mentioned his name once all game up to that point. But you change your mind like you're my girlfriend picking a place to eat dinner, and vote me. No real beef on Golden, or anything substantive or followed through on anyone at this point.

Day 2 rolls around:

Spoiler: show

You baited the baddies into killing Epignosis because he suspected you? Since you think HE was a baddie, how did you know that the baddie team he WASN'T on was the one who killed tonight? If he was on the other baddie team, this strategy would have only resulted in more days of derailment, far from the result you wanted.

That was a messed up thing to say, Golden.

Although in fairness, whoever killed Epi obviously did so to make Golden a pillar of discussion.

You're playing devil's advocate here for Golden's defense, and even suggested he might have been set up.

Spoiler: show

@SVS - Multiple ideas are on the table with me at once.

I think epi could be neutral or bad, but I didn't think he was civ.

I also didn't think there was much chance of us ending up on the same team.

What I said is out there and I can see why it seems messed up. But I don't have a team right now, so it seems to me that taking out someone who I don't think will end up on my team is a smart move (I know, it's not certain, but I was trying to set up this move long before rey started pointing out to me that I was wrong to think it wasn't certain).

What exactly do you think is smart about being so openly anti-cooperative and ruthless?

He calls Golden anti-cooperative and ruthless. That was a jump.

Spoiler: show

Regarding Golden, I'm not at all surprised by his explanation. I find him genuine; he won't be receiving my D2 vote.

Fun strategy, is it not?

That said, I don't have any intention of copying it; I just wanted my thoughts on Golden to be made clear, since he's already a hot topic and will likely continue to be one.

I don't think it is a strategy that can be easily copied, or even replicated by me. The baddies may have even known I was doing it, but either way they are only going to see something like that through so many times. Now that I've said thats what I was doing, I can't do it again.

linki @DH - I'm a little unclear. Are you saying you think F and K are likely civ but G is likely bad? And you seem to have a lot in the yellow-orange band...

The only one I trust is I.

Linki - Typhoony is not someone I would personally kill N1, but I'm not willing to discount anyone else from having done it, particularly anyone who has played previous RMs. Dude is scary, better to kill him then let him get scooped up.

Dog v Dog game, he only trusts himself. Fair enough.
He says he wouldn't be the one to kill Typh N1, but validates that kill by saying he's better dead than recruited by the baddies.

Then after being gone for almost 42 hours, and admitting several times throughout the game that he isn't bothering to read:

VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

This literally comes out of left field, and is a weak reasoning in that he's preemptively voting Golden so that Golden doesn't presumably start talking about he and DH being on the same team.

Day 3

Spoiler: show

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

I don't know what point DH is trying to make here besides reiterate that he doesn't want to wait around for Golden to NK him again.

Spoiler: show

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.

What is the difference between seeing you as a threat and being afraid of you leading to my death? Do you think I am threatened that you might hug me too hard?

You didn't even answer my question.

Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

Doesn't address the discrepancy in those quotes I mentioned.

DH rags on Golden for not explicitly answering his bolded question in the discrepancy between seeing him as a threat and being afraid of Golden leading to DH's death. Seems very nitpicky, even when Golden answered with:

Spoiler: show

Imagine this scenario - you are unable to be nightkilled or lynched but you die and lose if the rest of your team dies. You might perceive me as a threat to your chances of winning, despite knowing I wasn't going to be able to kill you.

If you are claiming that you legitimately think I might have been about to kill you, even though I had expressed hardly any suspicion on you and wasn't interested in you at all, on the basis of my epi stuff - well, I would find that to be incredibly disingenuous and my opinion of your vote for me would change considerably.

I think I might just be too tired, but this type of niggling is getting nowhere.

Spoiler: show

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.

Golden is unsure of whether or not DH is accusing him of being a recruiter or recruitee. DH says it doesn't matter, that he can just tell his team to get him killed. That makes sense, though I'm unsure whether or not DH originally thought Golden was Azura or not.

Spoiler: show

Now answer mine.

If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?

OK, so you were scared of me on the offchance that I would pull the same ploy a second time and on the offchance it would work twice (note, even after I had stated I don't think I would possibly be able to replicate it) and on the offchance that if I tried it again I would choose you as the target...

What has 'in good faith' got to do with it?

What I see in your answer to my question is exactly the same as what I thought of your suspicion all along.... you are not particularly scared of me killing you, you just see me, generically, as a threat.

And no, I did not think I could lynch epi (at least not before he lynched me). As I said, when epi has done what he did in this game in the past, it has not worked out well for me. Everything I did to epi was specifically about epi, and the impact he has on games, and I don't think anyone who claims they legitimately think I might do the same to them without any reason to think it is being genuine.

Oh, btw, you didn't actually directly answer my question. I thought I should point that out, since it seemed you had a problem with that when I did it. You've actually been avoiding it all afternoon.

Were you legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

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?

Now here DH actually brings up a good point if Golden is in fact bad and set up the Epi kill plan. It sets up a nice WIFOM which devolves into what it is now. But if Golden were unrecruitable, as DH suggests, then why would he even suggest Golden would have been recruited? The maelstrom that is Golden would prevent that from happening, which would make DH's previous comment on "Why is [whether or not Golden killed Epi] irrelevant?" even more relevant. DH bets on either Golden being a baddie (logic dictates recruiter, but DH doesn't specify), or unrecruited.

He then votes Golden again early in Day 3, and comes back in after Golden is lynched to say:

Bummer man.

I'm going to continue looking at peeps that mentioned Golden, but right now, DH looks like, as llama said, a "shift robot". He's playing a very vague and covert game so far, where his reads are few and far between. He is a potential candidate for framing Golden Day 2, but that's only if he takes into account that SVS would be as gung-ho about him as well. He essentially prods a couple times in Day 2, but doesn't actually come out and say he is bad. Then votes him EoD Day 2 for a bullsuit reason. Day 3's vote for Golden is more metered, as he was sparring with Golden over not answering his question the way he wanted it answered, but even that entire exchange was a bit convoluted.

Anyone care to comment on DH? He seems very advantageous to me and overreactionary. Is this the normal DH we're seeing, or am I just stupidly missing the point?

[Scotty]

Now all of this is to say that Golden was framed, and I'm going to stress that I don't necessarily see that as the case as of now, but if it were the case, I'd gander DH would be a leading candidate.

But I still have to look at TinyBubbles, Dom, LoRab, and as Wilgy just reminded me- Sorcha

[DharmaHelper]

Anyone care to comment on DH? He seems very advantageous to me and overreactionary. Is this the normal DH we're seeing, or am I just stupidly missing the point

Linki:

[DharmaHelper]

.

DH I'm not saying you're bad, so you can take off your hat and have some ice tea or something brotha.

[nutella]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

4. If Golden were baddie he would have known if Epi were on his team. He thought Epi was bad. If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team, Epi must have been on the other baddie team. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I still don't get it at all. Let's follow the thread of logic:

Premise 1.) If Epi and Golden are on the same baddie team, then Golden knows Epi is bad -- TRUE

Premise 2.) If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team then Epi must have been on the other team -- TRUE

____

Conclusion: Golden knew Epi was on the other bad team

~~~

I accept your premises. However, the conclusion does not follow from them. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

[aapje]

Wow this is a pain to catch up to
I've literally been reading for hours now

First of all congrats BR, hope you have a great day.
I didn't like the sound of the lynch post, the whole situation sounded ominous to me.
What does ISO stand for?

[DharmaHelper]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What does ISO stand for?

"Isolation"

It refers to reviewing a player's posts in isolation -- their post history and nothing but.

BTW, happy birthday Black Rock.

[Boomslang]

JJJ, you're still missing my point. In addition to your two premises I had assumed Premise 0: Golden is on a baddie team. This was untrue, as we found out, but it was not known to be false at the times I voted.

[Scotty]

I personally feel boomslang is yet a Neutral. I think JJJ made his points - sure - but imo he is just going for another easy lynch.

This would imply that you found at least one of my points to be inadequate. Please show me. I've tried my best to assess players and come up with reads. If I wanted an "easy" lynch I would have just joined the anti-Golden crusade.

Where did I imply that?
Oh thats right I didn't. You are trying to put something into my post that simply is not there and making my post have a different inflection.

I just think Boomslang would make a horrible recruit. (No offense Boomslang I said the same thing about my own son).
He has not really been in the thread.
You can tell he is not keeping up by looking at his posts.
If he is not around to read or post properly what makes you so sure he has had time to try for a recruitment?

I think you, however, would make an excellent recruit.
you are paying attention to the thread.
You are playing the game and fully reading and posting.
You are under no suspicion but from me.
You have been around to eneter contests for recruitmen
You a good player so you know how to play the same once recruited.
You are pushing neutral easy lynch after lynch.

I actually disagree- he doesn't have many posts in the thread, but at the same time his posts seem to have a good grasp of the mechanics of the game even if he isn't here all the time.

You're also assuming all recruiters use your guidelines for recruitment.

We don't know if he has been paying attention- someone like DisgruntledPorcupine could be absent by choice (though I SERIOUSLY doubt that) as a strategy to hang out in the shadows. Someone like Tiny Bubbles posts just enough that we know she is here, but her posts aren't too alarming, she's friendly and amacable. I see plenty of reasons why a recruiter would want her on their team.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

You caught two of them at once eh?

[DharmaHelper]

Wow this is a pain to catch up to

[DharmaHelper]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

You caught two of them at once eh?

We'll see. Or we won't.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ, you're still missing my point. In addition to your two premises I had assumed Premise 0: Golden is on a baddie team. This was untrue, as we found out, but it was not known to be false at the times I voted.

The one point I'll concede was that my post on the Golden-Epi interaction could have been confusing to someone not inside my head. But here's what my thought was at the time: Golden claimed he wanted to kill Epi because he suspected him of being bad. He claims that he baited one of the baddie teams into killing Epi. Golden could not have known that this strategy would work for sure unless he knew for certain which baddie team Epi was on. Golden would only have this knowledge if he were on the other baddie team. Therefore, I interpreted this as a slip of Golden trying to distance himself from being on a baddie team. Obviously that interpretation was incorrect.

4. If Golden were baddie he would have known if Epi were on his team. He thought Epi was bad. If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team, Epi must have been on the other baddie team. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I still don't get it at all. Let's follow the thread of logic:

Premise 1.) If Epi and Golden are on the same baddie team, then Golden knows Epi is bad -- TRUE

Premise 2.) If Golden and Epi were both bad and Epi wasn't on Golden's team then Epi must have been on the other team -- TRUE

Premise 3.) Golden is on a baddie team. -- PRESUMED WITHIN CONTEXT AT THE TIME

____

Conclusion: Golden knew Epi was on the other bad team

~~~

I accept your premises. However, the conclusion does not follow from them. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

The conclusion still doesn't follow. That doesn't fix it.

[Scotty]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

I want to say you are bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were, but I want more input from others before making my decision on you over TinyBubbles, because I made the mistake of latching onto MetalMarsh in 2 separate games because he was shifty and unhelpful for all of the early game, when in reality that was apparently his normal civ play.

[Scotty]

OK I'm out for now. I've been here for hours and I need to go piss.

For at least a few hours.

[DharmaHelper]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

I want to say you are bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were, but I want more input from others before making my decision on you over TinyBubbles, because I made the mistake of latching onto MetalMarsh in 2 separate games because he was shifty and unhelpful for all of the early game, when in reality that was apparently his normal civ play.

"Want to say"

"Wouldn't surprise"

Nice weasel words m8.

[Boomslang]

Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

[timmer]

You have been recruited. I would bet my sweet ass on it.

While anything I say in reply is obvs wifom-y, I'm actually still unrecruited. I have no preference of whether I'm bad or good, I've been applying to all of the recruitment drives, but so far...

But, again, I know, WiFOM, etc.

[Scotty]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

I want to say you are bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were, but I want more input from others before making my decision on you over TinyBubbles, because I made the mistake of latching onto MetalMarsh in 2 separate games because he was shifty and unhelpful for all of the early game, when in reality that was apparently his normal civ play.

"Want to say"

"Wouldn't surprise"

Nice weasel words m8.

*sitting on toilet*

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be certain that you are bad just yet. Golden was certain he and Epi wouldn't be on the same team, and look what happened to him.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Could someone who is not Boomslang nor I please review our recent exchange and provide your take?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Scotty, I was under the impression that your review of DH's content would be the objective sort -- to determine how you feel about him. It seems though that each of your points about his posts is distinctly negative without caveat (as if an alternative perspective wasn't in your mindset). Do you see any non-baddie motives for DH to do what he's been doing?

[DharmaHelper]

Scotty, I was under the impression that your review of DH's content would be the objective sort -- to determine how you feel about him. It seems though that each of your points about his posts is distinctly negative without caveat (as if an alternative perspective wasn't in your mindset). Do you see any non-baddie motives for DH to do what he's been doing?

[nutella]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

I am not on a team with Scotty. I cannot vouch for him. I have agreed with a lot of his posts in the game but I have no reason to defend him in terms of alignment.

What does ISO stand for?

"Isolation"

It refers to reviewing a player's posts in isolation -- their post history and nothing but.

BTW, happy birthday Black Rock.

I didn't actually know this, lol. I was familiar with its use as an acronym for "In Search Of" and I thought that use kiiind of made sense in this context since you're looking at the search results for a player's posts, but I was never clear on why this term is used and this makes more sense. Silly me.


linki @ JJJ: I think the problem that you are not quite articulating to him is that he's going from "Golden strongly believes Epi is bad" to "Golden knows for certain that Epi is bad." But I also think this logic argument is kind of a useless tangent.

[Boomslang]

Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Ok, fine, add Premise 4, which was assumed by Golden: Epi is bad! Mafia is a game of fuzzy and unproven assumptions, my dear JJJ, and we shouldn't be trying to solve a game of hunches like it's Fermat's last theorem.

That's the problem. You can't combine Golden's assumption with your own and then suppose a sensible point can be drawn from it. Under all circumstances it would be impossible for Golden to know Epignosis was on a different baddie team.

This isn't some minor point I'm harping on. You based your accusation of Golden partly on this concept, and it doesn't make sense. My supposition is that you might have made it up and made a logical mistake in so doing.

I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?

What do you disagree with?

I don't think you're stupid, hence my concern.

[DharmaHelper]

I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

I am not on a team with Scotty. I cannot vouch for him. I have agreed with a lot of his posts in the game but I have no reason to defend him in terms of alignment.

What does ISO stand for?

"Isolation"

It refers to reviewing a player's posts in isolation -- their post history and nothing but.

BTW, happy birthday Black Rock.

I didn't actually know this, lol. I was familiar with its use as an acronym for "In Search Of" and I thought that use kiiind of made sense in this context since you're looking at the search results for a player's posts, but I was never clear on why this term is used and this makes more sense. Silly me.


linki @ JJJ: I think the problem that you are not quite articulating to him is that he's going from "Golden strongly believes Epi is bad" to "Golden knows for certain that Epi is bad." But I also think this logic argument is kind of a useless tangent.

You have no reason to defend him but you did anyway. Aight.

[nutella]

When did I ever defend him?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

linki @ JJJ: I think the problem that you are not quite articulating to him is that he's going from "Golden strongly believes Epi is bad" to "Golden knows for certain that Epi is bad." But I also think this logic argument is kind of a useless tangent.

Do you disagree with me when I assert that Boomslang may have been manufacturing a fake reason to cast suspicion on Golden and made a mistake? That's what I'm trying to convey here.

[DharmaHelper]

When did I ever defend him?

You leapt immediately after me once I decided to go after him.

[Boomslang]

Nutella just stated the issue exactly. Ok, Golden can't know for sure that Epi is on a different baddie team. But if he strongly suspects Epi of being bad, then he's taking Premise 4 to be true anyway. I can combine assumptions because this is Mafia, and that's what people do, guess what other people are guessing and make decisions based on those assumptions. I also agree with Nutella that this logic tangent has lost its value, and I'll be making no further comment so as not to clog the thread even further.

[Scotty]

Scotty, I was under the impression that your review of DH's content would be the objective sort -- to determine how you feel about him. It seems though that each of your points about his posts is distinctly negative without caveat (as if an alternative perspective wasn't in your mindset). Do you see any non-baddie motives for DH to do what he's been doing?

I will admit that I may have a slight bias against him at the moment of writing that, but I try to comprehend the posts as I go. If you follow my previous ISOs of the Golden voters, you'll see that nothing is completely subjective. In DH's case, since his posts have been rather unsubstantive, I'm going to remark on that. Not all of my points I made were bad, but none of them were good either. He's been pretty much an unhelpful player in that regard.

If I were to go back and look at him through a different lens, like a specific civ role, I'm sure I could find positives that would afford him motives for being good. But on the surface, it's hard to see civ motives. I'll attempt to do that later tonight.

JJJ, what is your opinion of DH- do you see any civ motives?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'd appreciate it if a lot of you folks could share your take on my exchange with Boomslang during this phase. It's a serious infraction for me, but I don't want to tunnel him hard based on one thing (shades of S~V~S on Golden). You folks can help me decide whether I am making too much of a fuss about it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ, what is your opinion of DH- do you see any civ motives?

No. But I'm not looking for "civ" motives. I'm looking for "baddie" motives and "non-baddie" motives. I don't struggle at all to find the latter with DH. He's more suspicious to me than he would be if he had approached this game in a more civilian-friendly mindset, but that doesn't mean he should be a suspect by default. He's playing for himself -- ask yourself what that might mean.

[Canucklehead]

In a game with two baddie teams, why would anyone need to "manufacture" suspicions on anyone? Why not just baddie hunt? And why would a baddie team want to orchestrate the lynch of the Ayer almost singlehandedly responsible for monopolizing the is issuing in the thread? Doesn't make sense to me, so I'm more willing to buy that potential baddies are in the camp of Golden apologists, rather than the Gokden witch-hunters.....but wifom is a thing, so

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Nutella just stated the issue exactly. Ok, Golden can't know for sure that Epi is on a different baddie team. But if he strongly suspects Epi of being bad, then he's taking Premise 4 to be true anyway. I can combine assumptions because this is Mafia, and that's what people do, guess what other people are guessing and make decisions based on those assumptions. I also agree with Nutella that this logic tangent has lost its value, and I'll be making no further comment so as not to clog the thread even further.

You asserted that Golden knew Epignosis was on the other baddie team, and provided a supporting argument for how he knew that. That is in itself an assertion based on something you would call logical. I'm trying to convey that it wasn't. And that it's different from the point you're making in this post here.

I'm not bringing logic tables into this discussion because they look nice. I'm making a specific point.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

In a game with two baddie teams, why would anyone need to "manufacture" suspicions on anyone? Why not just baddie hunt? And why would a baddie team want to orchestrate the lynch of the Ayer almost singlehandedly responsible for monopolizing the is issuing in the thread? Doesn't make sense to me, so I'm more willing to buy that potential baddies are in the camp of Golden apologists, rather than the Gokden witch-hunters.....but wifom is a thing, so

Baddies are more likely to participate in lynches they don't actually support than non-baddies -- even when there are multiple teams. They have to justify their participation somehow.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

In any event, I've said enough about Boomslang. At the very least this conversation has gotten him involved and there is a lot of content for people to assess him by.

I need to check out Ricochet. He has a ton of posts and I've barely interacted with him so far.