[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

[Strawhenge]

k4j talked about me.

Save you all the trouble on that number.

So, did you kill him?

No. I said k4j would be my top choice to lynch.

k4j would not be my top choice to kill.

Just to highlight this post, I'd just like to say:

[Epignosis]

As long as you know I'm catching up from the back end a little:

Linki Epi: Why do you say that k4j wouldn't be your choice to kill?

Who would be your choice to kill?

I wouldn't kill k4j for two reasons:

1) I would appreciate the challenge of outsmarting him. Turning the tables and getting him lynched instead...assuming I thought he was bad, which I did.

2) I haven't seen k4j in a month of Sundays. No, I wouldn't kill him.

Who would I kill?

I'd probably kill 3J. I have never been on the other end of his civiliansanity, and I don't know if I'd last.

[Paul Stevens]

As long as you know I'm catching up from the back end a little:

Linki Epi: Why do you say that k4j wouldn't be your choice to kill?

Who would be your choice to kill?

I wouldn't kill k4j for two reasons:

1) I would appreciate the challenge of outsmarting him. Turning the tables and getting him lynched instead...assuming I thought he was bad, which I did.

2) I haven't seen k4j in a month of Sundays. No, I wouldn't kill him.

Who would I kill?

I'd probably kill 3J. I have never been on the other end of his civiliansanity, and I don't know if I'd last.

Would you nightkill me?

[Paul Stevens]

Operator error.

[Epignosis]

I don't think I could.

[Sorsha]

k4j talked about me.

Save you all the trouble on that number.

So, did you kill him?

Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

[Strawhenge]

k4j talked about me.

Save you all the trouble on that number.

So, did you kill him?

Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

No, just gauging reactions. Which seems to have elicited an unsettling, if remarkably candid, reaction.

[Strawhenge]

k4j talked about me.

Save you all the trouble on that number.

So, did you kill him?

Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

Why, did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who came into the thread today to start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

[Sorsha]

No. I didn't.

[Long Con]

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

1. Best place to hide is in plain sight. The ones who are most aware of this role are the role and their teammates.

2. Your "solution" to this role is to pile lots of votes on one person so this role cannot alter a lynch. To me, this is exactly what this role wants, in order to hide out. The last thing this role wants is to be the triple-vote that changes the fate of a lynch - at least, not until much later in the game. I would love to see a lynch where the second-most vote-getter gets lynched unexpectedly, because that would reveal (Nothing But) Flowers and we would have a short list of people it could be.

So you're one of the more suspicious people on my radar right now.

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for BWT to save himself. But I do doubt that he'd be so blatant if he was that scum role now that I think about it.

Ok... so why did you write these two sentences at all?

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

I guess you were right, we should have lynched someone who was not one of the top vote-getters. Should have gone for a lurker instead. Kind of makes me itch, though - maybe you knew you'd be right.

[MacDougall]

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

1. Best place to hide is in plain sight. The ones who are most aware of this role are the role and their teammates.

2. Your "solution" to this role is to pile lots of votes on one person so this role cannot alter a lynch. To me, this is exactly what this role wants, in order to hide out. The last thing this role wants is to be the triple-vote that changes the fate of a lynch - at least, not until much later in the game. I would love to see a lynch where the second-most vote-getter gets lynched unexpectedly, because that would reveal (Nothing But) Flowers and we would have a short list of people it could be.

So you're one of the more suspicious people on my radar right now.

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for BWT to save himself. But I do doubt that he'd be so blatant if he was that scum role now that I think about it.

Ok... so why did you write these two sentences at all?

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

I guess you were right, we should have lynched someone who was not one of the top vote-getters. Should have gone for a lurker instead. Kind of makes me itch, though - maybe you knew you'd be right.

Hi there.

I went back and read all the roles in one big go (not long after I read the entire thread through once because I wasn't around for the first 13 pages) and saw that scum had a role that was directly relevant to the situation at the time I made that post, and nobody had been considering it. To say that talking about it makes me scum is a bit weird considering;

a) The town being oblivious to it is entirely stupid and helpful for the scum
b) Nobody bothered mentioning it and based on the reactions nobody actually knew about it before I did

Sure, I guess that role would prefer to hide. So making a case against lurkers and trying to get people to do it would be dumb when they instead could just cast a vote against someone with zero votes on them and make up a random shitty case for it.

Did I not actually try to get people to vote for reywaS instead? Did I not also actually attract votes onto reywaS? Did I say, "guys we should lynch a lurker, but please don't cast your vote onto the same player as me?" So how does your argument stack up. What if I was able to get the town to lynch, or come within 3 votes of lynching reywaS if I was this scum player? I'm out on day 1 and I'm the worst scum player ever evidently.

Point 2: In honesty I dunno why I bothered finishing that post. I had the post half written and was trying to make a case but then realised my case was flawed. Instead of deleting it I just wrote that. I'm not the first and won't be the last town player to make a post in mafia thread that isn't a perfectly formed case.

Point 3: Your final point, fine, it's possible that I would say that lynching a lurker is preferable to the primary lynch candidate knowing the lynch candidate is a townie. It's also possible that me wanting to lynch a player on day 1 who is posting nothing as opposed to someone who is putting themselves out there is a rational and reasonable thing for anyone to say.

So basically tl;dr you find me suspicious because I am too townie? Because I brought to the attention of the thread a dangerous vote influencing role that nobody was paying attention to and tried to make a case to lynch a lurker instead of a vocal day 1 player.

If you want to find that role I'd suggest looking at people who are voting on a player who has only got their vote on them.

[Ricochet]

RIP K4J and HamburgerBoy.

It's not...yesterday...anymore.

Lots to catch up on, it seems, but I have to study and have some appointments during the next hours.

From the BWT voters, I have some issues with a few, namely Wilgy, b24, sig.

For I may have said myself before about B24's vote, notably him adding a lot of suspicion parameters, besides the "easy vote" part, that aren't clear to me, at least.

And I may have told myself: Wilgy's vote was first, so I doubt it could have influenced the outcome much, but it gives me strange vibe of being a vote planted in the nest and left there. He criticised BWT's as well as my claims of different gameplay once the game started rolling, but he felt satisfied with my explanations, yet kept the suss on BWT. Furthermore, he said he awaited more info or thoughts from BWT himself (which BWT offered, afterwards), but then didn't return for the last 12 hours of the phase. 

And I may have found myself thinking sig's vote for BWT was self-defense - or at least thinking this way because of someone labeling it as such (Golden?) - but it turns out it was a vote based on other's arguments and on BWT being his most suspicious player. Yet I see no traces of BWT growing as a suspect to him. Plus, from his posts, I rather get the feel LC would have qualified as more suspicious overall (on whom he held off voting, preferring BWT instead). 

I also may have noted to myself that, although I don't disagree with the fact that BWT made some uninspired D0/Dusk0 moves (hence I don't disagree with this vote for BWT per se), I found Matt to be, except for something about an exchange between Zebra and Roxy, fixated on D0/DU0 issues, rather than the present time. Not sure what to make of this.

---

As for right now, I find you may ask yourself: what's up with MM voting first (again) and why seaside?

And you may ask yourself: what's up with Floyd voting Ace and saying nothing? Is it true that it's his first game ever? Is he familiarized with the procedures, at least? I can understand the anxiety of participating in such a large game, but I still don't know what to make of his ghost vote moves, since he isn't saying anything about them.

And yes, I may find myself that everyone "town reading" him for as little as this should explain why. Let's not turn this into a running joke for this game, without getting some explanations as well.

[Matt]

RIP HB and kneel.

Rico - Yes, I believe Day 0/Dusk 0 are important. Whether you are civvie or Mafia, I can understand why you wouldn't want a big discussion on Day 0 considering your outright neglect of MP asking for "no ties", but yes, I believe Day/Dusk 0 are important topics. However, I don't think I've even mentioned Day 0 since I posted both polls side by side, and nobody cared to respond.

What's up with reywas? One of my favorite players, and he's barely said a peep. YO REY! Speak.

Elohcin - What's your read on Sorsha? Oh, and (Rico, real quick, cover your eyes) on Day 0, Sorsha voted after you and voted every option you did. Do you think that is coincidence or intentional on her part?

[FZ.]

RIP K4J.
Why'd you have to kill him? I've been waiting for ages for him to come play here again. Kitty, just take it as a freaking compliment.

Excuse me for not buying Epi's claim that he wouldn't kill him. Never on this site, have I seen someone get lynched after the person who suspected them got NK. It always goes the WIFOM way, and people just ignore the dead people's thoughts. This doesn't mean it has to be Epi, but there were so many people to frame here, I don't see why anyone would go for Epi of all of them, especially when we all know it's not going to lead to anything.
Not many people here have played with K4J and know how good of a player he is to want to take him down. I know Roxy knows him, but I'm getting a civvie feeling from her. Some of the syndicaters have played with him a few games, but other than Epi, who already felt K4J's suspicions in the card against humanity game, I don't know who else would think to kill him.

Question to those who have been bad with Epi: Does he really tend to not kill those suspecting him for the sake of trying to outsmart them, or is he lying about that?

And RIP HB as well. Sorry to see you go. Question to Rymers: How much of a threat is he considered to be when a civ? If he's known to be a very good player over there, this could be the job of someone who knows him well, or if he wouldn't be one of the first targets, maybe someone he's mentioned as suspicious

[Choutas]

RIP K4J.
Why'd you have to kill him? I've been waiting for ages for him to come play here again. Kitty, just take it as a freaking compliment.

Excuse me for not buying Epi's claim that he wouldn't kill him. Never on this site, have I seen someone get lynched after the person who suspected them got NK. It always goes the WIFOM way, and people just ignore the dead people's thoughts. This doesn't mean it has to be Epi, but there were so many people to frame here, I don't see why anyone would go for Epi of all of them, especially when we all know it's not going to lead to anything.
Not many people here have played with K4J and know how good of a player he is to want to take him down. I know Roxy knows him, but I'm getting a civvie feeling from her. Some of the syndicaters have played with him a few games, but other than Epi, who already felt K4J's suspicions in the card against humanity game, I don't know who else would think to kill him.

Question to those who have been bad with Epi: Does he really tend to not kill those suspecting him for the sake of trying to outsmart them, or is he lying about that?

And RIP HB as well. Sorry to see you go. Question to Rymers: How much of a threat is he considered to be when a civ? If he's known to be a very good player over there, this could be the job of someone who knows him well, or if he wouldn't be one of the first targets, maybe someone he's mentioned as suspicious

I've been complimenting the dead as a mafia member before. This post seems like something I'd write when scum. My scum sensors are tingling.

[FZ.]

RIP K4J.
Why'd you have to kill him? I've been waiting for ages for him to come play here again. Kitty, just take it as a freaking compliment.

Excuse me for not buying Epi's claim that he wouldn't kill him. Never on this site, have I seen someone get lynched after the person who suspected them got NK. It always goes the WIFOM way, and people just ignore the dead people's thoughts. This doesn't mean it has to be Epi, but there were so many people to frame here, I don't see why anyone would go for Epi of all of them, especially when we all know it's not going to lead to anything.
Not many people here have played with K4J and know how good of a player he is to want to take him down. I know Roxy knows him, but I'm getting a civvie feeling from her. Some of the syndicaters have played with him a few games, but other than Epi, who already felt K4J's suspicions in the card against humanity game, I don't know who else would think to kill him.

Question to those who have been bad with Epi: Does he really tend to not kill those suspecting him for the sake of trying to outsmart them, or is he lying about that?

And RIP HB as well. Sorry to see you go. Question to Rymers: How much of a threat is he considered to be when a civ? If he's known to be a very good player over there, this could be the job of someone who knows him well, or if he wouldn't be one of the first targets, maybe someone he's mentioned as suspicious

I've been complimenting the dead as a mafia member before. This post seems like something I'd write when scum. My scum sensors are tingling.

I knew someone would say that. I don't care.

[FZ.]

And I would really appreciate it if people stopped ignoring my suspicion of Epi. At least the syndicaters that are supposed to know what to expect from him. Has he really delivered in any sense so far? Every game I've played with him, and he was a civ, he'd manage to either annoy someone, get on their case, find some reason to make sure he's going after them.
Nothing so far. All he's really done so far is:

1. excuse my accusation by making it something it wasn't and then playing ignorant to what I really meant (yes, I meant you being quiet is a bad thing in terms of alignment, not in terms of you not being a lousy civvie like any of us at times).
2. making long posts with multi quoting where he mostly addresses general comments like what is his opinion of lazy playing and other irrelevant topics.
3. Go after BWT's voters when it was an hour before deadline (way too late in my opinion) and comment about how he doesn't understand how BWT was the leading candidate, but not really offering any other solid option other than K4J and saying it was too late (which we know how that ended, by the way), and then voting for someone for the silliest reasons.

And how much has he really posted on topic relative to the civvie Epi you all know in other games?

I'm going to start looking at people who ignore this and don't at least give me a good reason for not suspecting him.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

And RIP HB as well. Sorry to see you go. Question to Rymers: How much of a threat is he considered to be when a civ? If he's known to be a very good player over there, this could be the job of someone who knows him well, or if he wouldn't be one of the first targets, maybe someone he's mentioned as suspicious

Burger is one of the best townies on RYM. His best asset is his tenacity when communicating his suspicions and demanding responses -- when he isn't completely satisfied with someone's answers he will continue interrogating them for literally the entire game until they do satisfy or they die.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Long Con, please address my last response to you regarding your alleged false suspicion of bea on Day 1.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

3. Go after BWT's voters when it was an hour before deadline (way too late in my opinion) and comment about how he doesn't understand how BWT was the leading candidate, but not really offering any other solid option other than K4J and saying it was too late (which we know how that ended, by the way), and then voting for someone for the silliest reasons.

Please expand.

[MacDougall]

All he's really done so far is:

1. excuse my accusation by making it something it wasn't and then playing ignorant to what I really meant (yes, I meant you being quiet is a bad thing in terms of alignment, not in terms of you not being a lousy civvie like any of us at times).
2. making long posts with multi quoting where he mostly addresses general comments like what is his opinion of lazy playing and other irrelevant topics.
3. Go after BWT's voters when it was an hour before deadline (way too late in my opinion) and comment about how he doesn't understand how BWT was the leading candidate, but not really offering any other solid option other than K4J and saying it was too late (which we know how that ended, by the way), and then voting for someone for the silliest reasons.

I just had a good look at both of you. I don't really like your case and I think it counts against you to be honest. You are actually questioning a guy for not lynching a townie which is serious wifom and such a scum thing to do. Not to mention the fact that this post;

Matt F suggested that he might change his vote, but I don't see him doing so at this point.

Somebody read him. I don't believe he ever mentioned bwt prior to his vote.

That's...tacking the third vote on somebody for no stated reason.

In my opinion is a townie post. This is someone who is actively analysing and storing information about gut scum reads. If this is a scum post, you are assuming that Epi made a mental note of a townie saying they might change their vote, waiting a fair amount of time, then calling them out on it, rather than playing what's in front of them to play what suits them at the time. I find it very difficult to believe that a scum player would play this way, especially while being questioned by two other players.

"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."

I concur with epi again.

Does concurring with him affect your trust of him? Do you not find it a little weird that Epi has done nothing to attract any attention so far? Is that what you expect of him in his civvie mode?

You are using meta to draw suspicion against a player who in isolation has done nothing to deserve it. It's fair that of course you have better knowledge of Epi's past play than I, but as a scum player I really love hanging people by their own defined meta. Using meta to call someone scum when they are town is easy because townies generally aren't focused on playing to their meta, scum players are. So to me personally I find scum players more likely to play to a set and publicly known townie meta than scum players. Does that make sense? Like it comes across so far that Epi has a pretty well known townie meta, and is not playing to it. If Epi's meta is so well documented, wouldn't Epi just come into the thread doing what Epi does?

I also find meta is actually bullshit. People play the way they play and it's only really nervous first time scum players that stick out like dogs balls. Anyone who has played a few times just plays the way they play, town or scum imo. Like I said, I use meta as bullshit to get people lynched. In fairness I do it when I'm town as well when I have a gut read on someone I want lynched, and you have been tunneling the shit out of Epi, so I could easily see you just wanting to get Epi lynched and pulling bullshit out of the air to do so town, or scum.

I find it funny that me and K4J are the only ones thinking Epi might be suspicious. K4J looks more civvie to me, so I'm wondering if this is a case of culture thing (we both come from the same site), or what, but I can't understand how no one else is even considering Epi. All he's done so far is agree with people and make a joke about my suspicion. JJJ says he didn't do a no U. Like Epi would be caught dead doing a No U.

linki: LOL, we think alike too much

This is from the previous day where you say "all he's done ... then proceed to reduce his posts down to something to suit an agenda. I really don't like this. If you want to question a guy's posts can you directly refer to them, quote them. Don't just paraphrase them, especially when it turns out you are actually bullshitting. " When you say "make a joke about my suspicion" what you actually mean is made a small case about your suspicion being scumfounded. When you say you agree with people, what you mean is agree with a point JJJ made so hard that he publicly proclaimed him a town read. You also failed to point out this post, which doesn't fit into either of the categories you lumped all of Epi's posts into.

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.

...I understand it is Day 1 and we have little to go on but this seems kinda very weak.

Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?

I like Matt F's point here.

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.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

I don't like this. "All arguments [Day 1] are based on very little." All? No, no they aren't. I think I (and others) have demonstrated time after time that Days 1 are a civilian's greatest tool for setting up a winning game. To shrug it off like this in praise of randomness (and who is to prove if someone actually voted randomly) doesn't look good.

Don't validate random voters. Random votes suck, and if you're a civilian, you shouldn't make them.

I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Voting random people with no concrete evidence is just as good to get the ball rolling. Random voting phase is a legitimate strategy and not something we made up on rym. If only more people voted randomly and sparked discussion on day...if only.

It is a strategy, but it's a lazy one, and one that is prone to Mafia abuse. How many of you actually RANDOMLY vote? I would say it isn't random voting, but lazy voting. Instead, engage people in conversation. Judge their tone. Set them up if you must. "Random" voting just telegraphs your moves to the Mafia. If I were bad on your site, I'd eat you alive. Often.

I miss Flyin' High. Like lots.

I miss her too. She single-handedly won my first hosted game.

On to someone else, quiet Epi is never a good thing...

Is loud Epi always a good thing? Be careful what you wish for.

And I think...

...nope, I'm going to harp on this one comment.

"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."

And it is this last point that gets you my early vote. Because you seem to be more interested in getting Epi lynched than finding scum. So I will be voting for FZ.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm going to be out much of this real-time day. At the moment I am most suspicious of these folks:

Seaside
Long Con
sig

All three have plenty of material they can respond to though, I'm not locked in on anyone. Change my mind.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

[Elohcin]

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.

Maybe we are just cooler than everyone else.

No, but seriously. Do you really think if we had BTSC that we would vote the same way? And, I think I was the first to vote too. I think you are grasping at straws here Matt. (Nice to have you back on the syndicated though I have fond memories of our BTSC together. Don;t ask me the name of the game, I never remember that sort of thing. But I remember having fun with you.)

[Choutas]

Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

[Marmot]

As for right now, I find you may ask yourself: what's up with MM voting first (again) and why seaside?

I'm leaving town today and need to vote. I picked seaside because of his "I reckon there's two baddies on the BWT-lynch. How about these two?" comment.

Also, on a side note.



Linki: wait what?

[Choutas]

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.

Maybe we are just cooler than everyone else.

No, but seriously. Do you really think if we had BTSC that we would vote the same way? And, I think I was the first to vote too. I think you are grasping at straws here Matt. (Nice to have you back on the syndicated though I have fond memories of our BTSC together. Don;t ask me the name of the game, I never remember that sort of thing. But I remember having fun with you.)

I think the day 0 poll for the extra power is not as important as the assistant to the CEO poll where we have no idea what was gained. If for example it's some kind of immunity scum would be extremely interested to take at least one of the two openings. Even that poll is pure theory. Perhaps if the first scum flips we can confirm if he had something to do with the polls until then ingame behaviour is much safer to use for voting someone.

[bea]

Rip kitty and hb boy.

Long day is long today. I have to open/close and have visitors to the store today. Doubt I will be around much.

[Long Con]

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.

If you find it easy to believe, then good. It was supposed to be believable. I wasn't planning on "expanding on my misgivings" so much, but I got questioned hard (by you if I recall correctly), so I shrugged and gave it the ol' college try, bringing up bea's posts and going through them one by one to find scraps that would support my "case". You both led my posts in that direction, and then followed them now. My posts weren't made in isolation; they were prompted by you yourself. Don't ask for something and then bring it up a day later that I provided what you asked for as suspicious.

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?

I'd like to know bea's alignment before jumping to any conclusions about those people. Any pings or nods in that direction would be tenuous at best for now.

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.

I have never been afraid to draw heat. Most games, I'm more than happy to draw just the right amount of heat in order to stay alive on those cold, murderous nights.

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.

I am not suspicious of bea. That doesn't mean she's not a baddie. I don't think that her actions on Day 1 constitute enough evidence to conclusively say she's bad, like I did. But she might be! Maybe it will turn out that my "case" was exactly right and now we have a scum tell for bea that we can carry through the ages. I didn't make any attempts to prevent some pressure landing on bea, and I wouldn't try to prevent it in hindsight. From my perspective, that's a good side effect. You of all people should be able to appreciate some added pressure on a player.

[Long Con]

Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

Ugh. It makes me want to lynch him, but not because I particularly believe he was handed a Mafia card at the start. It's ugly, and ugly is such a smelly word.

[Choutas]

My first vote for the day goes to Devin. His style is similar to mine and I hate myself so make the math.

[Matt]

Maybe we are just cooler than everyone else.

No, but seriously. Do you really think if we had BTSC that we would vote the same way? And, I think I was the first to vote too. I think you are grasping at straws here Matt. (Nice to have you back on the syndicated though I have fond memories of our BTSC together. Don;t ask me the name of the game, I never remember that sort of thing. But I remember having fun with you.)

Hi Elo. I forget the game, too, but I believe it was one of your first on TS, if I recall? Good times

Now, down to business...

1) Maybe you wouldn't vote together if you had btsc. But if Sorsha was mafia, would you put it past to her to intentionally vote the same three options as a Civ and/or possible indy? This way, if she were to be lynched, especially early in the game, people might look at the person she voted with?

2) Who are you looking at today? Rereading you, I see you voted Diiny on Day 1 because Mac made you laugh...?

[thellama73]

Wow, bloody night, RIP everybody. THere are a lot of posts for me to catch up on, but I'll make sure to vote for a baddie today.

[a2thezebra]

Whoa brothers and sisters, all I said was that it's likely that two of the people of the Day 1 lynch vote are baddies. I made no guesses as to who that might be (save for sig, but that was in a different post and it was not just because he voted bwt but because his vote was weak IMO) so I am not too comfortable being lumped in with the big red, ya dig? I find Seaside's suggestion suspicious as well but he's been tripping me out the whole game. Right now it's looking like a cruise between him and sig, duel to the death.

[a2thezebra]

I like this rainbow rankings idea. Hold up

[Marmot]

@Zebra, I know you did.

Why 2 out of 7? Why not 3, or 4, or 0?

[a2thezebra]

I'm going in, cover me!

AceofSpades - A little on the lurky side, but decently-excused and not too alarm-setting. Methinks he's on our side.
bcornett24 - Some questionable posts to be sure.
bea - I haven't seen a good case against bea. I don't know. Maybe I missed it. But she's in the clear in my book, at least for the time being.
Choutas - IDK
Devin the Omniscient - Light town read, but I need more content. There is too little to go on.
Diiny - I had some qualms with earlier posts and the recent lurking has not helped with that. Leaning baddie on this one, yes yes.
DrWilgy - I love the flair ("exotic" is right) of Wilgy's posts; as for the logic, it seems disingenous, scheming, evil, etc. Baddie read.
Elohcin - Neutral read, true neutral if you will. Eloh has not given me a reason to think that she is town; or scum. A common scum tactic, but...
Epignosis - Unlike what others have suggested, I don't see anything abnormal about Epi's behavior in this game. However if you are town as I think you are Epi, you should town harder, not just for our sake but yours.
espers - No idea.
FZ -
Golden -
JJJ -
Long Con -
MacDougall - Tougie. Let's make it just one eye for now.
Matt F - Town.
Metalmarsh - Town, or pro scum.
motel room - More posts mane, more content. As for now I don't know but I would like to think town
reywaS - No idea. [2] Side note: If it turns out the mafia team consists of the quietest players in this game, I'm gonna be madddd.
Ricochet - Nervous defense after nervous defense, but like I said before, nervousness isn't necessarily bad...I do have a gut feeling he's against us.
Roxy - Classic Roxy aka impossible to read. No idea and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
rundontwalk - Stop lurking and start supatowning like your reputation would have me believe. New forum my buttcheeks, until you start wreaking havoc I can't begin to trust you.
Russtifinko - I sense a baddie here.
sanmateo - No idea. [3] Side note [2]: again, I'm hoping at least one of the baddies is one of the more vocal posters, otherwise cheeeeeap.
seaside - Clusterfuck post history in this thread, easy baddie read but also an easy mislynch? We shall see, right now I have a baddie read.
sig - Strongest baddie read here.
Sorsha - Slight town read.
Strawhenge - Fairly strong town read.
TheFloyd73 - Stopppp lurkingggggg
thellama73 - Moderate town read.

[a2thezebra]

@Zebra, I know you did.

Why 2 out of 7? Why not 3, or 4, or 0?

Actually, I said at least two. Which encompasses all whole numbers save for one.

[a2thezebra]

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.

[a2thezebra]

Incidentally, you were the next person to post after I posted that, and at the time you didn't have any objections. It was only after others had pointed out that it could be seen as suspicious that you started agreeing.

HMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmm

[Marmot]

Incidentally, you were the next person to post after I posted that, and at the time you didn't have any objections. It was only after others had pointed out that it could be seen as suspicious that you started agreeing.

HMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmm

What?

"Others" started using the word arbitrary after I did. I saw your comment, and considered it for a bit. Then I saw seaside's, which bothered me more. At that point, I brought it up.

[Marmot]

@Zebra, I know you did.

Why 2 out of 7? Why not 3, or 4, or 0?

Actually, I said at least two. Which encompasses all whole numbers save for one.

I also know this, but noticed that you reiterated in your recent defense post.

[a2thezebra]

[a2thezebra]

I demand a list of reads from all players. I know mine's prettyintricate, detailed, and cohesive, but yours doesn't have to be quite so professional.

[Marmot]

Why do you have me listed as "town or pro scum"? Is that not the same as neutral?

Linki: I may or may not post one before I leave tonight. Probably will.

[a2thezebra]

It means you're playing either a decent town game or an excellent scum game. Neutral would be a broader, less informed opinion.

[Matt]

Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

So why did you vote for him in the Dusk 0 poll when we were deciding on who our CEO's should be? If you knew he was going to try and get himself killed early on, it doesn't seem townie to me for you to vote that way.

I think the day 0 poll for the extra power is not as important as the assistant to the CEO poll where we have no idea what was gained.

I voted for seaside and Matt F. Seaside because he's a functional alcoholic and needs all the encouragement we can give him and Matt F cause he's Matt.

So you believe the Day 0 poll was important, yet you vote for seaside, who told you he was going to do his best to get killed, and me, whom you've never played with once.

[a2thezebra]

Here is where time is on our side.

[Marmot]

It means you're playing either a decent town game or an excellent scum game. Neutral would be a broader, less informed opinion.

[a2thezebra]

It means you're playing either a decent town game or an excellent scum game. Neutral would be a broader, less informed opinion.

Run run run run run run run awayyyyyyyyyyy