[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

[Ricochet]

If you'll take some time to understand the way I'm playing (which I've referenced in the very first post you've quoted as being a nervous rebuttal) and separate the flavour from the real message, then you really don't have to worry about it.

[a2thezebra]

In order to preform my job as well as possible, I will not be voting for JJJ unless absolutely needed.

I'm not voting for JJJ either (today) but what does this even mean?

So as I'm browsing it seems there isn't much worth quoting. Disagreements in play style seem to be at large here. I find it amusing and wonder where it will take us. I'll place a vote on BWT for now, until I have further information about what was stated day 0, and why it was stated. I'm with the others on abolishing RVS, and I won't be voting for JJJ, Epi, Diiny, or Choutas.

Your unflinching confidence in not voting for certain people is utterly bizarre to me. Can someone (you, preferably) explain to me if this is in-character for you and if so, why?

Wilgy, being followed by a pinto bean man, approaches Zebra, introduces them to one another, hands Zebra a note, then walks away. The note reads: It's a thingy I took from MM, he's my friend. I've noticed that he marks off players that he won't vote for based on the days events. I learned that my normal trigger happy playstyle wouldn't work here (on syndicate) a few games ago, so I'm trying to adopt something similar to this. Find players I like, and keep them around until we obtain more information. Based upon what these players have said, I think they would be very good for our team if they are good. This is why I'm willing to keep them around.

Interesting, I guess I can get behind that. Although seeing as how you were the first to vote for bwt, I naturally have to question the validity of this response; I do understand that the baddies of a civvie lynch are more likely to be part of the bandwagon than the initial vote, but still.

Roxy is being classic Roxy from what I can tell (she even called me rude before knowing who I was :P).

When reading this from Rbz's post last night, I was mildly pinged because I did not recall Rbz revealing who he is/was from other forums (the most he said at the time was that he used to play for the Piano), and I did not recall Roxy acknowledging it. So I looked through all of their posts and there was never any such interaction. I became wild with "omgomg slip slip they must have btsc"...however, then I decided that it might be possible Rbz PMed Roxy just to chat about old Piano days or something, so I let it go.

A few pages later...

So RBZDKSIOPWNK is Keterman?

Why not sign up for the game as Keterman? Ya know with your syndicate Keterman account?

So..."before knowing who I was"...when did she find out who you were, and why is she now playing it off like she doesn't know?

I am ridiculously confused as to how you reached these conclusions. For one, I did reveal who I was in that very same post, listing just about every name I've used in a Mafia game before. Keterman is the name Roxy should be most familiar with unless I'm mistaken. Two, Roxy did not acknowledge me revealing my identity, she only said that I was rude because I failed to acknowledge that she voted for me on Dusk 0. Truth be told, the reason I didn't acknowledge it is because I didn't notice it. Again, apologies to Roxy. Now three, "before knowing who I was", to me, means that because I revealed who I was in that same post, noting that she called me rude without knowing meant that she was being classic Roxy because of the game where I got her lynched, where she called me rude quite a few times. I can see how the grammar could be interpreted to mean that she had found out who I was before making that same post, but that's not what I meant, and I think it's a stretch to say that it was.

Perhaps it's weaksauce, and I know many dislike pings based on how people word things, but just sound it out...say it aloud...

She even called me rude before knowing who I was

This implies, that at some point, you found out who he was.

Now, had he said "before finding out who I am" or "before knowing who I am", that would be different. But the way he worded it, in the past tense, it sounds to me like he's saying that you eventually found out who he was, and he found it funny that you called him rude before you found out.

Later, you come on the thread, saying, "So Rbz is Keterman?"

Rbz - Do you mind clarifying your statement about Roxy?

Even when I look directly at the quote specifically looking for the implication, I don't see how the grammar makes a difference. Was/am, really? To call this weaksauce would be giving it too much credit, and at this point it's looking a little bit like the o-word.

Spoiler: show

opportunistic

Epignosis votes for sig I suppose because he voted for him as well as mutual appreciation of Kansas. But then we have another inexplicable vote for 3J that is neither explained nor noted other than the vote itself. And now, enter 3J.

I voted sig and sig's choice for his win response. I thought that much was obvious.

I read the rest of your post. I don't agree with you, but I like where your head is.

Way to address a side-note (if it weren't for my "I suppose", I have to wonder how you would've responded to this at all) while ignoring the main point. Your vote for JJJ is still as unexplained as ever.

Erm, yes. I'll color the relevant part that you must have missed.

Whoops. There goes my ability to accuse people of not reading.

Oh sure, Epi's vote for me probably influenced my willingness to vote for him on some level. Still, the reason I provided was the truest inspiration. Every time I've played a game with him so far, he's either died immediately, or died right after he and I started duking it out before we could resolve the fight.

This is, as far as I can recall, true.

So you can freely address JJJ's vote for you but you still carefully ignore the reasons for your vote for JJJ? Maybe my team theory isn't as crazy as I thought.

I didn't ignore anything, carefully or otherwise. If you don't like my reason, that's fine, but I gave the reason I voted 3J.

I stand corrected, and now that I see the reason I actually do like it. As for why sig voted for JJJ in the first place, that is still a little suspicious to me. However, you are totally off the hook in my book, at least regarding the reasons for my initial suspicion.

linki@Ricochet: I'm not worried at all. Are you?

[a2thezebra]

All caught up regarding me me me, now I'll catch up regarding the bwt votes and everything else.

I will say from the skim I just ran, sig's vote for bwt looks the worst, and not just because it was (one of?) the last.

[a2thezebra]

Also, a very belated "what's up everyone?" to all familiars.

[Ricochet]

linki@Ricochet: I'm not worried at all. Are you?

No. You used the worry in this sentence. I was answering.

Everything's under control? I'm not sure if that's a response that I should worry about or not.

[a2thezebra]

[kneel4justice]

RIP BWT

[Ricochet]

I don't know what's the matter.

You must be having fun.

[Marmot]

Zebraman, who would you have switched your vote to if you hadn't slept in?

[a2thezebra]

Zebraman, who would you have switched your vote to if you hadn't slept in?

That's a tough one, it's hard to say because most of my suspicions now are based on the fact that bwt flipped civvie, so I don't know if I can honestly put myself in the position where I don't have that knowledge. I would like to think sig, but I can't be certain. I'm still going over these votes to get a clearer vision of what's happening.

[FZ.]

RIP BWT. No surprise there. I'm glad you at least had fun. It sucks getting lynched so early in the game.



Zebra, do you really think that the baddies tend to bandwagon more than vote first? I don't. Especially at such an early stage. Unless one of those who were close to BWT in vote count was bad, I don't see why they would have to bandwagon. Not saying there aren't baddies in there, but not necessarily the bandwagoners. Baddies don't like to look like they're doing that, because they'd get questioned for it a lot more than they would if they led the lynch.


As for my thoughts on Epi, I'm glad he was saying more towards the end of the day, but I still have to wonder. I'm not ruling out the option that I have tunnel vision, but the fact that he decided to take a closer look at BWT's voters an hour before deadline (I think I'm not wrong about it, but feel free to correct me) can be a very clever thing to do if you know he's not mafia. Especially if the first runner up for being lynched was also a civvie. It would make him look better. That said, I thought the votes for BWT were stupid as well, so there's that. Anyway, I'll still be keeping a close eye on him.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra, do you really think that the baddies tend to bandwagon more than vote first? I don't. Especially at such an early stage. Unless one of those who were close to BWT in vote count was bad, I don't see why they would have to bandwagon. Not saying there aren't baddies in there, but not necessarily the bandwagoners. Baddies don't like to look like they're doing that, because they'd get questioned for it a lot more than they would if they led the lynch.

Generally yes, but don't get me wrong, there are many exceptions. After all, I brought it up in reference to someone who I think very well could be an exception.

[Choutas]

The lynch according to players. I bet there's some ingenuine stuff in the pile.[flash=][flash=][/flash][/flash]

My view on the whole bea affair

This is me trying to understand sig and the doctor's playstyles.

My opinion on JJJ and RDW's ingame behaviour

This will be me on day 2. Word up!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey gang, it's MobileJimmyJay with another check-in. Quoting things on this device is a pain in the arse, but I'll try to address some things if the signal holds up on the train.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

espers, you asserted sig might be an example of an easy button lynch, something I'd normally not support. I'd ask you why you think sig fits that description? I thought his content was the most suspicious while I was available to vote, so I voted accordingly. What about my stated reasoning was inadequate?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I remember making this argument on RYM quite a few times when people were screwing around on day 1.

It was always a favourite easy way for me to play supertown as scum.

And you say I influence you...

Have I ever played town cheerleader/head coach as mafia? You bet.

I do it in every game though regardless of alignment, even around here where nobody knows me that well yet and I haven't proven myself.

What do you think Mac? Am I nefarious or not?

The sheer fact that you're in Sweden and play mafia instead of enjoying life proves you're nefarious. Definitely not a guy I'd trust.
That being said don't you find DrWilgy's post too much fluff with little substance?

Interesting proposition

Then it is claimed to be a joke and jay rebukes, i assume we will see a significant lack in participation from jay for how long?

Brian I'm suspicious of you now. What purpose do these posts serve? What thought process is being followed?

Sorry for mass quote, I hate that. Stupid phone.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

[Matt]

Matt, for me it wasn't that you voted third for BWT per se. The main thing that got me was that you voted him without ever having mentioned him before, and for a weak reason. (He changed his D0 vote before other people had voted.)

The thing that pinged me about the timing of your vote is secondary to the point above. That looked bad to me because a third vote at the time put BWT above Diiny and tied him with sig for top vote-getter, and then he took 3 of the next 5 votes. So your vote was a big deal at the time, and it appears to have sparked off a run of BWT votes.

RussT, you're correct. I had not mentioned him before, and for that, I'm sorry. I should've made it known right away about my ping on BWT, but I didn't.

Let me ask you, why is it a weak reason? The Dusk 0 poll decided who the CEO's were going to be, and IMO, the mafia would want at least one CEO on their team. Don't you think? Then for BWT to come in and say "Let's make it interesting ", then end the vote before everyone has a chance to vote (and let's remember he SWITCHED his vote)...it did not sit right with me. Even knowing he is civvie now, it still doesn't sit right. I truly wish he had not done that, because I wouldn't have voted for him had he not.

RBZ - Opportunistic? I think not. I asked you guys a question, and then I refused to even vote for you until you answered. You didn't point this out in your reread, but Sorsha (thankfully while Roxy was NoUing me) let me know what was up in regards to my ping, and that was that.

[Long Con]

Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

[Matt]

Btw peeps, I'm available for about an hour, and then it's work time.

If anyone has any questions for me, seeing as how I'm getting pinged left and right for different reasons, please address them and I will answer.

Long Con - Since you're here, are you feeling better about me in regards to "seems kinda very" or do you still have questions?

[Long Con]

Yeah, that makes sense, thanks MR F!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ

Spoiler: show

1. Responds to Zebra's case. Expertly, as per usual. I foresee small novellas to form out of interactions between these two.It sirengifs me a little bit to see that JJJ deliberately lied to Zebra about his 'minimal' posting. JJJ has lied as a townie before, to gauge reaction (my reaction, to my pants-shitting chagrin), but this is almost a little too babygazelle-ish for JJJ. It's like JJJ emulating rdw, tbh, ikr, lol. That, as a I said, sirengifs my loins.

He then follows up the response with a 'strong town read' for Zebra. Interesting. Based on what? His thorough cases? Do I then get a strong read from you, Jay?

If you're going to suggest there's something suspicious about me claiming to be a minimal poster in a thread full of people who obviously know better, then I think it's important that you say why it's suspicious. You've stated that I was emulating RDW (I don't really think that was an RDW-type maneuver), but that doesn't mean much to me. If I am ScummedScummyScum making this claim to Zebra, then what is my objective? What scum-friendly goal am I pursuing?

I would assert that there isn't any such goal. It's silly. Because I was being silly in a place where everyone should really know that. I am honestly quite surprised that anyone apart from Zebra himself has seen fit to make anything of this.

I strongly read Zebra as town after seeing his extensive theorizing about Epi, sig, and I. At that point I thought this was his first mafia game ever, and that degree of effort from a first-time player would always scream town at me. It's great initiative, ambition, and motivation that I think a first-timer in a mafia role would be much more hardpressed to display. However, it has since come to be known that Zebra is Keterman/vvlll and this is not his first game at all. So my conviction in that town read is less significant. I still lean more town than not though, because even if this isn't his first game, there's a degree of ambition in his 3-mafia-at-once-on-day-1 thought process that resonates positively for me.

You've not quite done that. You've shared individual reads of a number of people based on content you observe as you catch up. I'd probably read you more positively than not as well, but without the same specific perception of ambition that lends me good vibes on the part of Keterman. You're also the same Strawhenge that I've seen manipulate a thread effectively with posts boasting this very aesthetic, so JJJ gon be a lil' more wary, right?

[seaside]

DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

[Golden]

I agree with those who think bcornett is a likely candidate.

Although poor brian must feel like I always find him suspicious. But I find his denial of him having any meta in particular to be... it just didn't sit right with me.

@MR F - you haven't pinged me, but I'll ask you a question anyway. If someone who has a ping on you is manufacturing it and is a scum trying to set you up, who do you think it would be?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

1. This is the problem. I believe it wasn't that hard for you to find relevant posts by bea, because I suspect you really did see those posts on first review and perceive a reason to bring them up -- either as a genuine expression of suspicion (now doubtful given your current stance), or as a means of unjustly smearing a Day 1 target. If I follow your posts during the incident in question and try to formulate a perspective of your mindset, I find it much easier to believe that you truly did invest yourself in an anti-bea agenda for whatever reason and expanded on your misgivings when so prompted than you made it up as a gambit to expose bandwagoners.

2. Do you have any other thoughts at all about the people who interacted with you relative to your stated suspicion of bea? That is: anyone who expressed faith in bea, doubt in your case, or suspicion of you for your case?

3. It appears a convenient explanation because you were drawing heat from multiple players specifically for your treamtent of bea. To suggest that the very conduct that was getting you in trouble was actually some manner of test is inherently convenient. That doesn't imply that you must be lying, but I think it's fair to think you might have been lying given the context I'm pointing to now.

In fact, I'm going to revisit the entire scenario and illustrate what my doubts are:

Spoiler: show

Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

This is a specific accusation of bea which can be supported, whether it's correct or not, with content in her post history. This was the first expressed suspicion of bea to my knowledge by anyone in the thread. Given your current explanation, I am forced to observe this post through two lenses and decide which one is more believable:

1. Long Con was not suspicious of bea at all, and placed this post here with supportable assertions against her and a vote as a tactic to expose anyone who might follow his lead.

2. Long Con was genuinely suspicious of bea and stated his genuine misgivings.

3. Long Con was not suspicious of bea, but claimed to be with supportable assertions because he stood to gain from the appearance of his mafia hunting and the resulting pressure on bea.

You've taken away #2. We cannot work on that assumption anymore. When I compare #1 with #3 while looking at the post you made, #3 speaks to me more. I don't see a test. I see a real move against bea. I think the hangup here is that your initial points against bea were valid (not necessarily indicative of her alignment, but valid). I have my doubts that you brought attention to real, verifiable content in bea's posts which can validly be called suspicious independent of meta without wholly intending the resulting pressure to land on bea herself.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

Why two scum, why those two?

[Matt]

DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

I just re-read Sorsha...

Though I thank her for pointing out my mistake in regards to Rbz/Roxy, I was mildly pinged by what she said after posting RBZ's original post...

I just wanted to highlight the post so that we don't have hundreds of posts building suspicion on players having btsc, on an error.

Check it out. Before I quit playing Mafia over two years ago, I might've played two games with Sorsha, if that. Also, back in the day at least, I was known for literally typing out hundreds (okay maybe not hundreds but a LOT) of posts on a simple ping because of my tunnel vision. I've been (successfully, I believe) trying to not do that in this game, but anyway...

I was quite literally the only person pushing the RBZ/Roxy theory, and considering I am known for typing out endless amounts of posts, and considering I've barely played with Sorsha, which was over two years ago, I'm wondering why she typed the above? Perhaps she just has a super good memory of my playstyle despite me not playing with her all that much, which was over two years ago? Or maybe something else...

Anyway, checked out some of her other posts...

At one point, she tells Long Con that she disagrees with him on his mild ping of BWT, but then later...votes BWT.

In addition, after Long Con says that his vote for bea was a fake, she responds saying how she figured that's what Long Con was doing. However, after that, she says "I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy".

Seems a lot of back and forth on her part.

Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

Sorsha, can you explain why you disagreed on LC's ping on BWT, but ended up voting for him? And can you also explain why you said you figured that's what LC was doing in regards to bea, but then later say "I don't know if he's bad or not for that". I mean, you said you figured that's what LC was doing, but now he might be bad because of it?

Linki Golden

I think people have had valid questions in regards to my approach to the game. In fact, and I probably hurt myself by just saying it, but I find it more suspicious when people agree with me.

However, if I had to pick one...

Though he let it go after I asked him about it, I'm wondering why Long Con came after me about "seems kinda very" when it is quite obvious I simply asked sig a question and then I let it go. Maybe Long Con just hasn't been reading the thread?

Nah, but for real, I dunno. I get pinged about every two seconds, so I can see why people get concerned with some of them when they focus on wording and the like.

[Draconus]

RIP Birdman. Quit being so suspicious this early on, okay?

[motel room]

straw, if you use quote tags inside the spoilers they become white-on-black and far more readable, just fyi.

I'm using the 'prosilver' theme on this board, and I've turned off signatures, and now everything is ultra-readable.

just tried this. both ways look suss at work on my screen.
Is there a theme that makes this site look like an esri helpdesk forum thanks

[Sorsha]

I just re-read Sorsha...

Though I thank her for pointing out my mistake in regards to Rbz/Roxy, I was mildly pinged by what she said after posting RBZ's original post...

I just wanted to highlight the post so that we don't have hundreds of posts building suspicion on players having btsc, on an error.

Check it out. Before I quit playing Mafia over two years ago, I might've played two games with Sorsha, if that. Also, back in the day at least, I was known for literally typing out hundreds (okay maybe not hundreds but a LOT) of posts on a simple ping because of my tunnel vision. I've been (successfully, I believe) trying to not do that in this game, but anyway...

I was quite literally the only person pushing the RBZ/Roxy theory, and considering I am known for typing out endless amounts of posts, and considering I've barely played with Sorsha, which was over two years ago, I'm wondering why she typed the above? Perhaps she just has a super good memory of my playstyle despite me not playing with her all that much, which was over two years ago? Or maybe something else…

It wasn’t directed at any specific person. I was playing catch up in the thread and I saw it mentioned a few times. I don't know if you were "quite literally" the only person talking about it, I didn't make a note of the specific players saying something about it. I remembered reading it in one of Zebras posts and just wanted to bring it up so that the next time I play catch up I don’t have to read through all those unnecessary posts after it snowballed out of control only to be easily explained away.

Anyway, checked out some of her other posts...

At one point, she tells Long Con that she disagrees with him on his mild ping of BWT, but then later...votes BWT.

LC didn’t find bwt suspicious, I disagreed because I did find him suspicious. Here is the post:

LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.

***snipped to save room***

In addition, after Long Con says that his vote for bea was a fake, she responds saying how she figured that's what Long Con was doing. However, after that, she says "I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy".

Seems a lot of back and forth on her part.

Yes, because I’m not sure if LC is good or bad based off of it. It was a risky plan… what if players just started dumping votes on bea and she was civ? I saw nothing unusual about beas posts. LC, bea and I have been playing mafia together for years. Bea is loved by everyone who knows her so for LC to come out swinging for her on day one was a major ping. LC wouldn’t do that… that’s why I figured it was some plan of his.

If he was trying to set someone up for a lynch I think bea would be one of the last people chosen for that. But I dunno, I shouldn’t speak for LC. Maybe he hates her? I would like to know why he chose bea though.

I’m just kinda confused over the situation though. I’m guessing he thought players were going to jump on the case and vote bea, he’d come out and say “Just kidding” and then he’d be able to pick who to vote for from the players who fell for it? …. but that didn’t happen. I think bwt was the only one to follow his vote and he decided bwt wasn’t suspicious for it.

Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

I don’t have btsc with Elo or anyone else in this game. I picked option 2 because it would give the girls btsc. Options 5 and 7 were pretty popular with everyone.

Sorsha, can you explain why you disagreed on LC's ping on BWT, but ended up voting for him? And can you also explain why you said you figured that's what LC was doing in regards to bea, but then later say "I don't know if he's bad or not for that". I mean, you said you figured that's what LC was doing, but now he might be bad because of it?

I’m pretty sure that I answered all of this above but if not let me know.

[Marmot]

DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

I disagree with the first statement, and with whoever said almost these exact same words before (I think it was Zebra).

The number selected is seems arbitrary and unfounded. Picking suspects based on that is illogical in my opinion.

Why those two?

[Marmot]

Yep, it was Zebra.

I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.

[bea]

Lc hates me?!?!

[Marmot]

Lc hates me?!?!

Lc's drunk

[bea]

Not possible. I'm way more adorable when the other person is drunk. Search your past. You know it's true.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

bea, what do you think of LC's test?

[Marmot]

Not possible. I'm way more adorable when the other person is drunk. Search your past. You know it's true.

His judgment was irreparably impaired.

[Russtifinko]

Matt, for me it wasn't that you voted third for BWT per se. The main thing that got me was that you voted him without ever having mentioned him before, and for a weak reason. (He changed his D0 vote before other people had voted.)

The thing that pinged me about the timing of your vote is secondary to the point above. That looked bad to me because a third vote at the time put BWT above Diiny and tied him with sig for top vote-getter, and then he took 3 of the next 5 votes. So your vote was a big deal at the time, and it appears to have sparked off a run of BWT votes.

RussT, you're correct. I had not mentioned him before, and for that, I'm sorry. I should've made it known right away about my ping on BWT, but I didn't.

Let me ask you, why is it a weak reason? The Dusk 0 poll decided who the CEO's were going to be, and IMO, the mafia would want at least one CEO on their team. Don't you think? Then for BWT to come in and say "Let's make it interesting ", then end the vote before everyone has a chance to vote (and let's remember he SWITCHED his vote)...it did not sit right with me. Even knowing he is civvie now, it still doesn't sit right. I truly wish he had not done that, because I wouldn't have voted for him had he not.

RBZ - Opportunistic? I think not. I asked you guys a question, and then I refused to even vote for you until you answered. You didn't point this out in your reread, but Sorsha (thankfully while Roxy was NoUing me) let me know what was up in regards to my ping, and that was that.

Thanks! That actually makes me feel a bit better.

Having not been around for Day 0, I didn't see BWT's move there in real time. That could play a role in why I wasn't convinced he was bad, although the major point for me was just that I've played with him a lot, and he always seems bad except when he is bad. Point being, I suppose I can see where you were coming from. I still don't think your vote timing or reasoning at the time were great, so I'll be eyeing you. Thanks for the response.

DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

To echo someone (JJJ??), why them in particular? Vote order? Posts? One of them ate all your Cheez-Its? And while I'm asking you things, why is Floyd a major town read?

3. Floyd is a huge town read.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight

Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

Anyway, checked out some of her other posts...

At one point, she tells Long Con that she disagrees with him on his mild ping of BWT, but then later...votes BWT.

In addition, after Long Con says that his vote for bea was a fake, she responds saying how she figured that's what Long Con was doing. However, after that, she says "I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy".

Seems a lot of back and forth on her part.

Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

Sorsha, can you explain why you disagreed on LC's ping on BWT, but ended up voting for him? And can you also explain why you said you figured that's what LC was doing in regards to bea, but then later say "I don't know if he's bad or not for that". I mean, you said you figured that's what LC was doing, but now he might be bad because of it?

I wasn't convinced by JJJ's single read on Long Con. The Llama Gambit (saying you're suspicious of someone you're not to see who bandwagons it) is a fairly common Syndicate ploy. But this analysis by Matt F might have some merit. The posts you're highlighting show Sorsha acting how I'd imagine myself acting if I were on a baddie team with LC. Sorsha, you say you and LC have been playing together for years, but what made it obvious to you that LC's suspicion of bea was a ploy if you think she's the last person he'd use to pull a ploy?
LC, what are your thoughts on Sorsha at the moment?

sig, you said earlier you're a weak player and an easy lynch candidate. Any examples? I'm not sure if I've played with you before.

espers, why did you change from voting seaside with a reason to voting me without one? And no, "to make things interesting" does not count. If tightening up the lynch was really your objective, sig would've made more sense than me as he was closer to BWT in votes.

[Sorsha]

Yep, it was Zebra.

I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.

I think Epi singled out the seven of us to. He did make posts on a couple of us but I don't remember which ones. (and I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time to check myself)

[Sorsha]

Anyway, checked out some of her other posts...

At one point, she tells Long Con that she disagrees with him on his mild ping of BWT, but then later...votes BWT.

In addition, after Long Con says that his vote for bea was a fake, she responds saying how she figured that's what Long Con was doing. However, after that, she says "I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy".

Seems a lot of back and forth on her part.

Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

Sorsha, can you explain why you disagreed on LC's ping on BWT, but ended up voting for him? And can you also explain why you said you figured that's what LC was doing in regards to bea, but then later say "I don't know if he's bad or not for that". I mean, you said you figured that's what LC was doing, but now he might be bad because of it?

I wasn't convinced by JJJ's single read on Long Con. The Llama Gambit (saying you're suspicious of someone you're not to see who bandwagons it) is a fairly common Syndicate ploy. But this analysis by Matt F might have some merit. The posts you're highlighting show Sorsha acting how I'd imagine myself acting if I were on a baddie team with LC. Sorsha, you say you and LC have been playing together for years, but what made it obvious to you that LC's suspicion of bea was a ploy if you think she's the last person he'd use to pull a ploy?
LC, what are your thoughts on Sorsha at the moment?

I was able to recognize it as a ploy because it wasn't like LC to go after bea or try to get a bandwagon going against her. Why he chose bea is something I'd like him to answer tbh. I don't know why he picked her. It doesn't really make sense.

[Strawhenge]

JJJ, my mentioning you seeming RDWish was simply an observation that you're doing something differently than you normally do. Which is important to note in these games, don't you? The scum-friendly behavior is simply intimidation. Roaring at a baby gazelle, as it were. Again, this isn't necessarily scum behavior. Just not exactly JJJ behavior.

[Marmot]

Yep, it was Zebra.

I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.

I think Epi singled out the seven of us to. He did make posts on a couple of us but I don't remember which ones. (and I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time to check myself)

It's one thing to focus your attention on each of the players that voted on a civilian lynch-wagon.

It's another thing to say that 2 of the 7 voters are probably bad, and to try to fit two players into that statement.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ, my mentioning you seeming RDWish was simply an observation that you're doing something differently than you normally do. Which is important to note in these games, don't you? The scum-friendly behavior is simply intimidation. Roaring at a baby gazelle, as it were. Again, this isn't necessarily scum behavior. Just not exactly JJJ behavior.

I'm not sure it's so abnormal for me to goof around a little bit, particularly early in a game. In any event, if you really perceive it as being a stylistic difference then I wouldn't take issue with you making the observation. Truly I think my behavior is sometimes perceived to be more restrictive than it really is. A few components of my methods (logical breakdown through questioning, post-by-post analysis, etc...) are recognized while other things that I do in nearly every game don't seem to be noticed as much -- or recognized as something typical of me. I mess around a lot in mafia games, I even make a decent number of irrelevant posts. I don't seem to carry that reputation though for some reason.

[HamburgerBoy]

Between that and his random town-read on TheFloyd (and his out-of-meta tons-of-questions day 0 stuff), I feel pretty strongly that Seaside is scum this game. It's worth noting that Seaside sometimes lets BTSC stuff leak out in the thread as well. For example, his scum game on RYM's #79 Inception Mafia, there was some specific theory the entire mafia team wanted to sell to help them in some way; I forgot the specifics, but this was the post, Seaside echoing aether (who was also scum that game). Of course, there's a bit of a difference between the Inception thing and some off-hand attempt to try and smear people on a mislynch, but since games here should require more focus on lynch tallies (with no roleclaiming allowed), I'll use it to put Zebra/vvlll under more scrutiny too.

[Sorsha]

Yep, it was Zebra.

I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.

I think Epi singled out the seven of us to. He did make posts on a couple of us but I don't remember which ones. (and I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time to check myself)

It's one thing to focus your attention on each of the players that voted on a civilian lynch-wagon.

It's another thing to say that 2 of the 7 voters are probably bad, and to try to fit two players into that statement.

Ok I see what you mean

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll make a preliminary rainbow now actually since no one else has yet. Just five colors, and there are a lot of players (mostly Syndicaters) I still don't have a good grasp on yet that will be excluded.

sig
Sorsha
golden
bcornett24
Roxy
Metalmarsh89
Russtifinko
TheFloyd73
motel room/aokiji
Ricochet
Strawhenge
Diiny
MacDougall
Choutas
Bea
JaggedJimmyJay
Matt F
rundontwalk
Long Con
Seaside

[bea]

Everything about LC's gambit is weird to me. Even taking the fact that it was me out of the picture, I still can't see his logic into picking a player like me. I wouldn't think on Day 1 I'd done anything that you could even attach a small case to. His initial vote post about me was vague enough that JJJ had to ask for clarification as to his though process.

My mental stumbling block is that it just seems like such a sloppy move for a baddie LC to make. And LC is ANYTHING but a careless baddie. And for the life of me, I can't figure out a civ reason for him to pick me. I would think there would have been other supects who would have been "easier" to make a mark out of to pull the gambit with.

Everything about it was just weird. I honestly had to keep telling myself there wasn't a way for his vote to be forced day 1 because that's what it felt like to me. Like LC had been forced to vote for me.

[HamburgerBoy]

Oh, missed espers. Put him in the low light green or maybe the high yellow for now; he isn't pinging me as strongly as I'd expect him to, but going back and reading his posts, I find them generally agreeable.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What's your beef, Burgs?

[Strawhenge]

I'll make a preliminary rainbow now actually since no one else has yet. Just five colors, and there are a lot of players (mostly Syndicaters) I still don't have a good grasp on yet that will be excluded.

sig
Sorsha
golden
bcornett24
Roxy
Metalmarsh89
Russtifinko
TheFloyd73
motel room/aokiji
Ricochet
Strawhenge
Diiny
MacDougall
Choutas
Bea
JaggedJimmyJay
Matt F
rundontwalk
Long Con
Seaside

Why so confident in sig?