[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

[FZ.]

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...?

1) Yes, that is actually a very good point. And you could be onto something there.

2) I did vote for Dinny b/c Mac was the only one to make me laugh the whole day. I promised at the beginning of the day that I would vote alongside the person that made me laugh most. Now, Mac did end up changing his vote after that and I was unaware of it until after the poll ended as I was away from the computer. I do not plan on keeping up with this trend, however I do think it is very important to have fun and laughter in a Mafia game and I do hope that at least one person will make me laugh today. Heard any good jokes lately?
As for who I find suspicious, it is difficult for me to tell. First of all, this is a full game and if you remember me, it takes a while for me to wrap my head around SO many players. Add unfamiliar personalities to the mix and I feel I am in information overload when I read the thread. It is my assumption that some of the baddies are lying low while others are quite vocal.

hmm....wow, I started this post hours ago, got busy, and never posted it Well, I will post it now and then catch up.

No offense here, but if you're only looking out for laughs and fun, why not read the jokes section. I thought mafia was about trying to find out who is lying or do the actual lying. If you're not engaged in the latter, how do you plan to go about finding baddies if you're in an overload when reading the thread? Do you expect it to get any better? When do you think it would be okay to expect actual suspicions from you?
This is something I've said before in regard to your posts, but even though I'm usually one of those who believe baddies wouldn't be that obvious in their laziness and lack of trying to find baddies, in your case, this smells like a deliberate attempt to look like you couldn't give a damn. I'm not liking your posts, but if you are a civvie, why not join the team effort to win the game?


linki: Hi Bullz As much as I feel for your condition, I don't know if I can do that without putting my own perspective into that summary. Not sure it's a good thing

[seaside]

we are all very strongly suspicious of rundontwalk and we are about to change all our votes to him.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I dig it Seaside.

Vote for bcornett24.

I may not have time for another post tonight. Need to conserve phone charge.

[MacDougall]

Yeah ok seaside is now a town read haha.

[seaside]

thanks

when is deadline?

[seaside]

or how long till it?

[MacDougall]

I am tied up so I will probably only have time to say this. I am voting for thellama. Post history is whack. Vibey as feck. Am on phone and busy so can't promise I can elaborate much more. Take a look at llama and tell me what you think guys and gals.

[a2thezebra]

Seaside is either scum or a liability that we can't take further into the game.

When I placed my vote for him, I was leaning towards the latter, because I would rather vote for a civilian who's hurting the civilian's progress than someone who migggght be scum but then flips town and sets us even further back. However, if seaside has chosen the more productive path like recent posts would imply, then I can no longer keep my vote on him.

Epignosis is defending more than scumhunting, which is unlike him. Even more unlike him, his scumhunting is super weak so far. At first I was reluctant to give the suspicions towards him much credit, but that was because I assumed his defend:attack ratio would improve. In actuality, it's gotten significantly worse.

[a2thezebra]

I am tied up so I will probably only have time to say this. I am voting for thellama. Post history is whack. Vibey as feck. Am on phone and busy so can't promise I can elaborate much more. Take a look at llama and tell me what you think guys and gals.

You're still voting for Seaside bruh

[a2thezebra]

I didn't have any red flags with llama until his recent posts, and I think they seem scummy to RYMers because of the cultural difference, honestly. If a Syndicateer found his posts suspicious then I would take a second look.

[Roxy]

RIP bwt. I'm sorry to see you go, and feel bad about contributing to your lynch, but I stand by my vote in the fact that it did not appear civvie-like to say and do the things you were doing during dusk. You will be missed, though

Sorsha - Thank you for bringing attention to Rbz's post (the same exact post that pinged me, ironic) where he stated who he was. I shouldn't have missed that, however, since it was in OT green, it's entirely possible I skipped over it. Sometimes I read OT, sometimes I don't. Either way, thanks.

Roxy - I did not want to vote for you or Rbz because I was waiting for Rbz to clarify. Fortunately, Sorsha took the time to show me what was up, contrary to your actions, which was just to NoU me. As for bwt, if I am the only player that thinks his behavior was suspicious Dusk 0, then so be it. However, even after seeing the results of the lynch, I still find his behavior during Dusk suspicious, and believe my reason for voting him was valid.

Some have been pinged by me voting third for bwt. I've played about two dozen games of mafia, and I don't ever remember this being a thing. I haven't played for about two years, though, so maybe it's something new? Either way, all I can is circumstance. I had to go to work, I wanted to vote early in case I didn't make it home in time (I didn't, btw), and BWT was my strongest feeling at the time.

Straw - To me, it sounded off. "Kinda" and "very" don't go together IMO, in fact, I've never heard anyone utter "I had a kinda very good day" or "My meal was kinda very good", so I questioned him on it. It wasn't a strong ping, but it was there.

Again, RIP birds.

I voted for you and am suspicious of you is a bit more than a No u. That characterization seems to try to make my suspicion into fluff which it is not.

You start out with your bogus claim that RBZ and I had btsc or communicated by PM and that my post saying "Keterman is RBZMNGHJ??" was fake - which if you had actually read the post from which you quoted this "suspicion" would have never happened. The fact that it did happen and that you pushed it (but not hard enough to vote for) is highly suspicious to me.

Then you move onto Teeth - which my vote was NOT based that you were the third voter moine was bc you had pushed me and RBZ then suddenly without so much as have an apple you jump on the Teeth wagon. With your bogus reasoning about the day 0 poll.

You keep saying that he ended the vote when he moved his vote is something I am not grasping please elaborate. Are you saying Teeth personally picked the winner of the Day 0 poll and told MP and Sloon to end the Day 0 bc he had chosen the winner? BC that is what it reads like.
You do realize Teeth was civ right?

When you made your sudden turn onto Teeth you slammed your suspicion down and voted without bothering to wait for a response, which is weird bc you said you did not want to vote for RBZ or me until hearing from him - so why does RBZ have a chance to respond but you give Teeth no window of opportunity to respond? Double standard much?

I see you keep harping on the Day 0 poll crap and tbh it has already led to a civ lynch are you really srsly going to keep going down your bogus path? So much else has happened yet you still hold onto your Day 0 suspicions like they are your last breath. I find it odd.

Yep I am this far behind I read some last night and fell asleep will be on it today.

[seaside]

I am tied up so I will probably only have time to say this. I am voting for thellama. Post history is whack. Vibey as feck. Am on phone and busy so can't promise I can elaborate much more. Take a look at llama and tell me what you think guys and gals.

You're still voting for Seaside bruh

we gotta both unvote on the poll and in the thread?

[a2thezebra]

I am tied up so I will probably only have time to say this. I am voting for thellama. Post history is whack. Vibey as feck. Am on phone and busy so can't promise I can elaborate much more. Take a look at llama and tell me what you think guys and gals.

You're still voting for Seaside bruh

we gotta both unvote on the poll and in the thread?

The poll, essential. The thread, preferable to MP and Sloonei so they can keep track with more ease.

[seaside]

I am tied up so I will probably only have time to say this. I am voting for thellama. Post history is whack. Vibey as feck. Am on phone and busy so can't promise I can elaborate much more. Take a look at llama and tell me what you think guys and gals.

You're still voting for Seaside bruh

we gotta both unvote on the poll and in the thread?

The poll, essential. The thread, preferable to MP and Sloonei so they can keep track with more ease.

im confused as to why you think he is still voting for me then?

[a2thezebra]

Check the poll?

[a2thezebra]

Nvm I got him mixed up with Strawhenge

[a2thezebra]

Which is weird since they're nothing alike

[Long Con]

I'm used to an unchangeable vote mentality for the most part. I'll put a vote on Macdougal for the reasons I gave earlier.

[Long Con]

Ugh, I just realized that my big post last night got messed up, and there were two or three other responses to people that I had put together, but didn't make the final post. Sigh.

[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.

I just want to quote this so Long Con doesnt get to drop a vote on someone he's not sold as being scum later on by sewing the seeds for it now. Which is how this feels.

Thanks for keeping an eye on me, but my vote is more likely to go to someone I think is Mafia.

[Long Con]

RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

This just seems really idealistic but not very realistic. I think you’d just have easily lynched a civ with that tactic. Its easy to say that bwt didn’t look suspicious after we know he was town but his behavior during the last lynch (flip flopping between sig and bea and then back again). I’m wondering why you wouldn’t have found him suspicious for following your lead on bea. I know you said you didn't think he was suspicious because he found his own reason but, if you hadn't of posted your case on bea I doubt he'd have looked at her.

I disagree with the last part of your post. A reread of BWT's posts shows that he a) answered Llama's question by saying that bea's response to my case was appropriate, and b) had his own, completely unrelated, reason to vote for bea. BWT did not follow my lead in any way. I remember this very well, because I combed his posts looking to find him following my lead, and came up with absolutely nothing.

[FZ.]

I am tied up so I will probably only have time to say this. I am voting for thellama. Post history is whack. Vibey as feck. Am on phone and busy so can't promise I can elaborate much more. Take a look at llama and tell me what you think guys and gals.

llama is known as the guy who gets obsessed with a person and won't quiet down until he does it. He's acting very different, but I think he knows we expect him to do it. I would be very disappointed if he turns out to be a baddie that just isn't trying enough. On the other hand, he tends to get lynched very early as a civvie. This feels like he's trying to lay low, but a little too low if you ask me. I'm really not sure what to make of it yet.

[FZ.]

Seaside is either scum or a liability that we can't take further into the game.

When I placed my vote for him, I was leaning towards the latter, because I would rather vote for a civilian who's hurting the civilian's progress than someone who migggght be scum but then flips town and sets us even further back. However, if seaside has chosen the more productive path like recent posts would imply, then I can no longer keep my vote on him.

Epignosis is defending more than scumhunting, which is unlike him. Even more unlike him, his scumhunting is super weak so far. At first I was reluctant to give the suspicions towards him much credit, but that was because I assumed his defend:attack ratio would improve. In actuality, it's gotten significantly worse.

What do you think about his two "R suspicions" (Rico and Russ)?

[a2thezebra]

Seaside is either scum or a liability that we can't take further into the game.

When I placed my vote for him, I was leaning towards the latter, because I would rather vote for a civilian who's hurting the civilian's progress than someone who migggght be scum but then flips town and sets us even further back. However, if seaside has chosen the more productive path like recent posts would imply, then I can no longer keep my vote on him.

Epignosis is defending more than scumhunting, which is unlike him. Even more unlike him, his scumhunting is super weak so far. At first I was reluctant to give the suspicions towards him much credit, but that was because I assumed his defend:attack ratio would improve. In actuality, it's gotten significantly worse.

What do you think about his two "R suspicions" (Rico and Russ)?

Both of them have caught my eye as well for being suspicious, especially Rico who keeps thinking that by proclaiming that he's not nervous, that will convince people that he's not nervous, as if being nervous is the sort of thing that can be flipped on and off like a light switch.

[Strawhenge]

Nvm I got him mixed up with Strawhenge

Which is weird since they're nothing alike

ಠ_ಠ

And on-topic, am I a huge asshole if I continue to vote for Seaside? Like, am I wrong to still suspect him even when he's talking about real-life obstacles etc.?

Am I literally the worst human?

thellama73 is my second choice. Should I go with that to avoid some sort of karmic backdraft?

[a2thezebra]

am I a huge asshole if I continue to vote for Seaside? Like, am I wrong to still suspect him even when he's talking about real-life obstacles etc.?

Am I literally the worst human?

thellama73 is my second choice. Should I go with that to avoid some sort of karmic backdraft?

No, but you would be wrong. He was a strong town read for me even when I was voting for him, and if he's going to contribute then there's no point in voting for him anymore.

thellama would be a better choice but I'm still not convinced that the supposed pinges on him today are much more than differences between the Syndicate and RYM.

[Ricochet]

I do agree with Wilgy's idea that claiming to want to change up your playstyle post rolecard distribution is fishy. That combined with his timid non-stance on LC and his bea vote make him a lynch I'm certainly not regretful to be securing to save myself.

Out of all the BWT votes I think Wilgy's is one of the worst. Guy's a scum lean for me, now. Basing a vote on day 0 shit and sticking with it and not grappling with anything else for the rest of the day is bad stuff in my book.

Explain this flip.

[FZ.]

I think I'd rather we leave llama alone and go with someone else. I'm actually feeling better about Rico, so won't be going that way either.

I think my top options at the moment are: Epi and Eloh. I'd like to see a fight between the two

[Tangrowth]

Effective immediately, Black Rock is replacing AceofSpaces (who replaced TinyBubbles).

[Golden]

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.

Howe wll do you know LC? I realise that you did not play real time with him in Bullets over Broadway. Have you at all? LC's ability to demonstrate real investment in a completely fake case would not surprise me in the slightest, that's pretty normal LC.

Also, I think you used escapism wrong.

[Draconus]

Welcome BR!!

Just popping in to say I'm going to keep my vote where it is today. I skimmed through MacDougal's posts like I said I would, and I'm just not seeing what LC is seeing atm. I'm marking him down as neutral for the time being.

Linki: Having been his teammate in The Flash, I completely agree with that, Golden.

[Golden]

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.

Good catch MR F, this does really ping me... any lack of feeling like the person has a consistent thought process. Sorsha is now on my radar.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@Golden:

I've never played with LC in a game in which our identities were openly visible.

[Golden]

Oh, I completely should have read Sorsha's response first. The thing that pinged me in there was the flip on BWT, but now I see there was no such flip. Never mind and carry on.

linki @JJJ - OK. LC could be bad, but an elaborate fake case is something he would do (on any affiliation) so I don't find it persuasive one way or the other. Just look at recruitment for how LC can spin an immersive tale.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

My suspicion of LC has since waned at least a little bit. The most important thing to me was that he be thoroughly challenged on his proposed ruse instead of taken at face value. He's answered all of my questions as well as I could reasonably expect.

I want to see if Brian has the meta that he doesn't have.

[Golden]

I also want to see if brian has the meta he says he doesn't have. I would really like the lynch to go that way today.

But, despite me trying hard, I'm still way behind. Posting is happening so quickly! Thankfully, it's Friday today and then it's weekend and if I haven't caught up before that (I should have some time today) then I'll definitely be caught up tomorrow.

[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.

Howe wll do you know LC? I realise that you did not play real time with him in Bullets over Broadway. Have you at all? LC's ability to demonstrate real investment in a completely fake case would not surprise me in the slightest, that's pretty normal LC.

Oh yes. I'm a complete sociopath. Better run run run run run run run away.

[Bullzeye]

linki: Hi Bullz As much as I feel for your condition, I don't know if I can do that without putting my own perspective into that summary. Not sure it's a good thing

This was actually part of why I asked :P I'm also very slow at catching up as a replacement because I skim way too much and keep having to go back and read chunks again. So far I've got almost all the way through my first read through. I am going to look back at day one and today because a few things aren't adding up to me. The only trouble is I don't have much time to do that since the poll ends at nearly 5am and I want to be in bed wayyy before that.

Not yet sure who I want to vote for today. I will probably make another post soon after I get to look through some things more thoroughly. Will also be keeping an eye on the latest posts as I do.

[Ricochet]

Imma watch Stop Making Sense in a bit...

I'm also presenting my Skittles Talking Heads version of a read spreadsheet. Skittles because the whole rainbow thing suddenly make me think of that and Talking Heads because hmm I wonder why...

	FZ	Will fight with understanding	A few aggressive demands, snappy lines and shooting down players' suspicions by invoking the "why would any baddie do that" viewpoint away from townreading her, but overall I'm feeling good about her.
	Zebra	I kinda like that style	Aside from getting a bit eyeballery lately, I stick to what I've said about feeling good about his activity.
	Mac	What's the matter with him? He's alright!	A two-Day hunt already against either removing low posters (his vote for rey D1) or removing undesirable ones (his seaside early D2 push) and his switch to Llama, with his thoughts on him dating way back on D1, raise me an eyebrow for now, otherwise I'd be lying if I'd deny that his activity doesn't give me an impressive town vibe.
	LC	I like this curious feeling	I sure hope he isn't "Scum Conning" and thus make me regret saying this later on, but I'm ok with his game so far. Whilst I'm not so confident it would have achieved the fishing results he desired, his bea gambit doesn't strike me as different from any baiting attempts players might try at this early stage; in fact, it's more developed than the usual bait & hook attempts I've seen. Some players are unnerved by how genuine his case seemed for a sec, but it doesn't give me the feel that it was anything but well developed.
	Roxy	She's gonna hold it, move it	Bantervotegate in the past, I see she moved to some mild, but serious thoughts, which read like regular Roxy to me so far.
	Bullzeye	Show me what you can do	No read until he's properly engaged.
	espers	Moon occults the sun
	Matt	I'm looking back	I really wouldn't mind hearing more from him on players' current activity, at least as much as he's making D0 connections
	Eloh	She must be having fun	Hardly involved so far - went for "selling" her vote D1 to the funniest poster (which was MacDougall), although she also mentioned a suss reason for Diiny which I'd like her to maybe elaborate further. That D1 caught-up-yet-not-adressing-anything post also pinged me a bit. Waiting to hear more from her, tough to discern right now if genuinely laidback or sidelining.
	Choutas	good kid, m.a.a.d city	Bit heavy on meta and such interpretations in his posts overall. On its own, if seaside will flip bad, I doubt a teammate would stick his neck for him so much - RYMers: is Choutas usually playful with this kind of thing? I've had no pings from him on Day 1 and still don't overall, although I'd say his D2 activity has dropped to slightly more wishy-washy posts and interactions.
	Sorsha	Who knows, who knows, what she's thinking	Some of her early thoughts (thinking sig "slipped", agreeing with B24 on BWT's vote) are pinging me, plus her BWT vote is clearly not stellar (but also seems like a typical sanction for BWT flip-flopping or something like that), but I don't get a strong read out of everything else. Her inquiry on LC's choice for baiting and her stance on not lynching players just for their undesirable status sound reasonable.
	motel	Who is it
	Epig	And the heat goes on	My initial feeling was also that Epig is quieter this game, but upon re-reading, that's not quite the case; furthermore, by saying he didn't step on anyone's toes yet, it still doesn't exclude the beef between FZ. and him having turned into that, as of right now. As far as I recall, when he goes quieter and players pick up on that, he always brings the argument that, technically, no one is ever satisfied with him, whether he's vocal and agressive or he suddenly cools it - and this particular discussion always reaches a sort of dead end, afterwards. The facts he brings in his rebuttals seem to check out and I don't think he was word-twisty with FZ, nonetheless I would once again stress that it wouldn't be unlike him to counter hard or to enjoy putting WIFOM or such up in the thread.
	JJJ	I got a question	I'll be perfectly honest, 9 out of 10 games, JJJ will probably disarm me with his posting volume and style; when civ, I can totally relate to it; if he's doing it as a baddie, it blinds me. That being said, his repeated questionings of what other players meant with their own suspicions did give me a slight ping, as if it's an added dimension to his inquiring that might come off as phony, since I don't recall it much in previous games. But not ready to rule on him.
	Golden	A big chief with a golden crown	My instinct has him right now at a status of not giving us enough as to feel like he's playing at his civviest. And it doesn't have anything to do with his RL hindrances or such; quite simply, out of all the big players, he gives me the feel of skating on the surface the most, currently. Furthermore, of all the players suspecting me, I'm still surprised, to say the least, of his meta-less interpretation of my defensiveness; granted, he's become more of an unfortunate spectator (i.e. getting lynched already, early on) by the time I heavily manifested these same traits in my recent previous games, still, I'd expect him to correlate this, instead of simply forwarding that my behaviour must be as plain as aggressively trying to turn the heat off me.
	sea	Cool down, stop acting crazy	His posts and reads up to his clarification/apologetic (?) statement seemed written whilst tripping balls, but now he appears to acknowledge them as such. Not sure I totally understand his "I wanted to get lynched" viewpoint (I mean, you'd still make us waste a lynch, regardless how beneficial you'd wish for your removal to be). His aversion to lurking it out (or to players doing that) is also interesting - I'd agree with some of the names he called out on (like RDW), but seeing as he dumped everyone else with minimal writing in there as well, I'll be curious to see if he keeps drumming on this policy lynching thing or develops his reads into much more in the upcoming days
	Llama	Facts are never what they seem to be	This gent has turned it very low on hunting (even for fishing purposes or on BS pings), which makes me just slightly curious if it's pure avoidance after his Recruitement debut where, as a pure-blood baddie, he BS'd everyone with one of his usual gambits. His hunch of K4J never being off'ed by a local also reminds me of how players filtered in Recruitement, after Typhoony was murdered N1, that a player who played before with him would never have done such a hideous deed (incidentally, it was Llama who killed Typhoony, but since he indeed had never played with him before, the "prediction" still came true). I wonder if it would be true in this case as well - aka an RYMer being K4J's murderer - or if Llama is just throwing such speculation in a cheeky way. Furthermore, it has to be noted that we're talking about a 7-member mafia that killed K4J; if Llama is really serious that no Syndicateer would agree to off K4J on the first Night, it's quite a strong and crazy supposition that the mafia team is strictly RYM comprised. I could technically lower him to a redder skittle for all of this, but I want to gather more info and reads on him before deciding whether to purse lynching him.
	bea	Same as she ever was	Little new input on D2, mostly on LC's "gambit". When LC announced his case on her was fake, she reacted in a playful manner, but since she returned during the Night, suddenly finding it odd that he would ever pick her. Perhaps an easy fine-tuning to the rest of the chorus that did not appreciate LC's moves? I don't think she understood too well my own suspicion on her either: I didn't imply she was steering the discussion into a "let's not give too much weight to D1 pings and such" direction, I said that I feel she pushed her credo ahead of any real activity and reads. Anyway, I still can't say that I trust bea much in this game, right now.
	rey	I'm not lost, but I don't know where I am	The more he stays in the game and plays nada, the more he'll give me the worst vibes, because of his Recruitement stunts. In Syndicate Mafia he subbed out when he (I assume) couldn't play anymore and I'm pretty sure he had a civ role there (although there's still some unresolved conflict around that particular issue), so why hold on to the role here? I mean no offence, but he should consider subbing here as well, if he's civ and can't play.
	Devin	Why, why, why, why start it over?	Not very focused posts and votes so far. Since he's repeating his votes so far (Diiny) I'd expect him to elaborate some more. That throwback post about how rey played as an SK, given that he more or less pulled the same card with a similar status, really doesn't sit well with me and gives me a bad vibe.
	MM	Takes a lot of time to push away the nonsense	Ugh. Getting tired of this feeling. I don't find that his posts have a lot of substance so far, he made his D1 vote based on "pingiest of pings" and has left today a vote adrift, because he'll go AWOL. What was his eyeballin' of Russ for, even? Russ said the Host warned him on participation requirements, not that anyone else via supposed BTSC did. Anyway, Marsh is being Marsh and whilst I probably need to take a break from being annoyed of Marsh being Marsh, I pretty much get nothing but bad vibes from him currently.
	RDW	Better ru- nah too easy	I guess we still need a Bass player, don't we? So far his posts seems like whole lotta waffling, with every major thought he came up with sounding more like a different culture mentality ("players should just post gut reads instead of elaborating"; "scum players would act tearjerky about the night victims" etc.) than some serious suss leads. At least in my view, of course.
	Floyd	...comes to town	Must be town. Seriously though, those ghost moves, I don't like them one bit.
	b24	Same as he ever was	AWOL since Day 1. My suspicion of him still stands.
	Wilgy	Doctor, doctor, tell me who you are	Until further development, same as I was saying. No me gusta his D1 vote.
	sig	Setting a bad example	Feeling much worse about him since the BWT vote, I still don't get what he meant by "them" in the context of HB being killed by one SK.
??????	Diiny	Flippy floppy	Holy shit, I was this close to green skittle him (just like on D1), until dat flip-flop on Wilgy.

[Golden]

Hey, Rico

If you expect me to correlate to metas in games where I'm not alive and totally active, you are way overestimating me in the first place.

Even so, my sense of you is that you legitimately don't have a meta. I think you are particularly adept at mixing it up, like epi. So, I'm not swayed by meta arguments, and I take you as a case by case basis. I may be wrong about that, but I've personally never had a sense from you of a particular meta for me to catch on to.

[Draconus]

I'm not sure I get you. "Why, why, why, why start it over?" Is this a song reference I'm not understanding?

[sig]

Welcome BK/Bull

I already thought Seaside shouldn't be lynched and after reading his post that has enforced my belief.

I have given my reasoning for a Long Con lynch already, I don't believe he was only testing bea or trying to find mafia and his posts are scummy. For these reasons I will be voting for Long Con, and I encourage the other players to read through Long Con's post history.

Lynch Long Con


linki: Here is why I voted for BWT

I will be voting for birdwithteeth11 this phase I like the argument presented against him and out of a few I find him the most suspicious. Part of this is because yes he voted for me, but I also like the other points against him. As it stands know I would be willing to lynch Long Con tomorrow, but I will need to review that first.
Lynch birdwithteeth11

But I'm slightly confused since earlier in day 1 you said this

Ugh this is impossible I pushed my wrap too close to the deadline

I revised Diiny and sig and don't have any strong feelings on them. Diiny exchange with Roxy doesn't ping me in any way as forcing. The suspicions on sig seems to draw in on his attention to writing (revising his posts before submitting them, concerned not to make slips); his input on that is slightly on the defensive and insistent side, but it doesn't give me the vibe that it's coming from a baddie with an anxious rebuttal MO.

I have nothing strong on these three players - although I would differentiate them a bit as BWT > sig > Diiny on the wary scale. I will stick to my bea suspicion, for believing there might be some act behind her stance. Had it come as a rebuttal when/if suspected for not committing, it would have seemed more genuine (and in accordance to her meta). But she built this stance a priori and based on justifying another player's own ways of playing. It seems like a wall raised around herself prior to any proper committing or not.

This puts BWT as someone who you found suspicious. So why do you find it suspicious that someone would vote for BWT while you yourself considered that vote. Instead of switching to a top lynch target you kept your vote on bea correct? So you stayed out of the center instead putting your vote on a player with no votes but kept your option open to vote for the three top people who could have been lynched. This seems strange to me.

Then this

RIP K4J and HamburgerBoy.

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). 

As I said in my post part of the reason I voted for him was because he voted for me which I guess counts as self defense and at that point a Long Con vote would have done nothing to help me, it would have been just one scattered vote, instead the BWT vote allowed me to increase his votes, as well as lynch someone who I thought was mafia.

[seaside]

i'm going to swap my vote in the interest of survival. i'm deciding between bcornett and long con.
i'm going to place it on long con as i'm bout to go to work, but ill check at lunch back and have a think and see if i want to stick with it.

[seaside]

actually, i just realised that long con is on 3 when i voted and not 2. good chance i'll keep the vote there.

[Ricochet]

I'm not sure I get you. "Why, why, why, why start it over?" Is this a song reference I'm not understanding?

Could well be.

Is that really your only concern with my read on you?

[Ricochet]

Hey, Rico

If you expect me to correlate to metas in games where I'm not alive and totally active, you are way overestimating me in the first place.

Even so, my sense of you is that you legitimately don't have a meta. I think you are particularly adept at mixing it up, like epi. So, I'm not swayed by meta arguments, and I take you as a case by case basis. I may be wrong about that, but I've personally never had a sense from you of a particular meta for me to catch on to.

Just so we're clear, "meta" for me doesn't mean pulling a game tactic completely as you played it in a different game. Various background details in one's gaming can constitute meta. Me referencing that my defensive style is not uncommon from past games is just that, referencing meta.

Also, your sense of b24 was that he has a meta when he denied having ones, but your sense of me is not having meta when I claim to have. What da heck?

Anyway, curiouser and curiouser. I'd literally never expect someone to say "Rico doesn't have any particular meta".

As for the overestimating, yes, supposing you kept an eye on the thread after dying in a game is a stretch, but I'd still imagine you being the type to spectate enough to get the way the game evolved. Even if not, that history is still there to be checked.

[Ricochet]

linki: Here is why I voted for BWT

I will be voting for birdwithteeth11 this phase I like the argument presented against him and out of a few I find him the most suspicious. Part of this is because yes he voted for me, but I also like the other points against him. As it stands know I would be willing to lynch Long Con tomorrow, but I will need to review that first.
Lynch birdwithteeth11

But I'm slightly confused since earlier in day 1 you said this

Ugh this is impossible I pushed my wrap too close to the deadline

I revised Diiny and sig and don't have any strong feelings on them. Diiny exchange with Roxy doesn't ping me in any way as forcing. The suspicions on sig seems to draw in on his attention to writing (revising his posts before submitting them, concerned not to make slips); his input on that is slightly on the defensive and insistent side, but it doesn't give me the vibe that it's coming from a baddie with an anxious rebuttal MO.

I have nothing strong on these three players - although I would differentiate them a bit as BWT > sig > Diiny on the wary scale. I will stick to my bea suspicion, for believing there might be some act behind her stance. Had it come as a rebuttal when/if suspected for not committing, it would have seemed more genuine (and in accordance to her meta). But she built this stance a priori and based on justifying another player's own ways of playing. It seems like a wall raised around herself prior to any proper committing or not.

This puts BWT as someone who you found suspicious. So why do you find it suspicious that someone would vote for BWT while you yourself considered that vote. Instead of switching to a top lynch target you kept your vote on bea correct? So you stayed out of the center instead putting your vote on a player with no votes but kept your option open to vote for the three top people who could have been lynched. This seems strange to me.

Then this

RIP K4J and HamburgerBoy.

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). 

As I said in my post part of the reason I voted for him was because he voted for me which I guess counts as self defense and at that point a Long Con vote would have done nothing to help me, it would have been just one scattered vote, instead the BWT vote allowed me to increase his votes, as well as lynch someone who I thought was mafia.

I suspected BWT based on his vote on you (the way he worded, the way he came back to it at the end of the Day and considered it persuasive enough to drum on it etc.), but not on other charges and not enough to pull the trigger on it. This is the eloquent post for that.

As for your vote, you can well interpret your self-defense because he suspected and voted you, however you pushing him at 7 vs 4 (both you and Diiny) can hardly be called a self-defense vote. It can be interpreted more like pushing him further into the water.

Plus, like you said, that's "part of the reason" and my issues are with the rest of your reasons.

[FZ.]

Rico, you're such a teacher's pet with that table. I'm kind of afraid to make this confession, but I don't know any TH songs (at least not that I know of)

But it's interesting that you say you feel good about me when I said the same.

I find it funny that all the votes for LC are coming from the Rym players, and Sig. Where is Sig from?

I personally feel that LC tries to be more "helpful" when he's bad, which makes people inclined to not put him want to trust him. I don't feel like he's doing it this game. He's one of the best baddies I've seen on this site. The memories of Flash mafia still hurt... So obviously, he can fool everyone. But I'm getting a more snarky feeling from him, like he's not trying to please anyone.

[FZ.]

Sorry, going to try the last paragraph again:

I personally feel that LC tries to be more "helpful" when he's bad, which makes people want to trust him. I don't feel like he's doing it this game. He's one of the best baddies I've seen on this site. The memories of Flash mafia still hurt... So obviously, he can fool everyone. But I'm getting a more snarky feeling from him, like he's not trying to please anyone.

[Golden]

Also, your sense of b24 was that he has a meta when he denied having ones, but your sense of me is not having meta when I claim to have. What da heck?

See Rico, every time you talk to me, you just say another thing that makes me feel icky about you.

There is no value to this statement. It is completely accurate, but why should it be confusing? Both of you are claiming things about your own metas that I do not have any evidence to believe, it's a big 'wifom' that you are trying to get me to buy into.

What is even slightly confusing about that statement? That I can think different things are true of different people? If I think one person has a meta, I must think everyone does? It seems to me that this comment has only one function, and that is to get people to look sideways at me and think that I am being inconsistent in my thinking. In fact I am not.