Now that I've gone and looked like a dummy...
ACTUAL Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.
Long Con
So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:
Long Con wrote: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*
Long Con wrote:bea wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.
I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.
bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".
bea wrote:kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.
As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.
I snipped the quote for clarity.
Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.
bea wrote:Roxy wrote:Diiny wrote: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.
Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"
It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.
DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.
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.
Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.
I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.
Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!
Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too...
how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?
bea wrote:Long Con wrote: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*
Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....
I expect better from you tbh.
I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??
Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.
to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?
Long Con wrote:FZ. wrote: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.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!
Long Con wrote:Sorsha wrote: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.
More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.
Long Con wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con wrote: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:
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.
Now, I saw that others had addressed this fact, but here are my highlights (follow the colors and underlined).
I feel that this is a good example as to why I believe this is well... unbelievable. The fact that Long Con saw the Roxy + Bea (and other players) correlation and pointed them out, but somehow isn't suspicious of bea bothers me immensely. It feels like a contradiction in logic, at least civ logic. Civ logic would've meant that upon making this statement, there was some momentum to be gained towards finding the solution, regardless if it was a "false case" or not. Plus I don't understand how you can see that create a "false case" and not walk away with any suspicion towards the person unless you knew their alignment. I'm suspicious of everyone, all civ thinking players should be. Some more than others, sure, but not suspicious at all?
This is a contridiction, unless something between these two posts convinced you that she wasn't suspicious.
This doesn't make sense either. If you were looking for a scumslip why did you let up pressure? Also, why list so many routes? why list so many goals? why look for Civvie accolades? It was simple, you were looking for day one intel (if you are civ). These goals feel forced.
This line bothers me. It feels like LC is saying, If I look scum, it's because I'm totally not scum, I just look scum because I like to. Also, doesn't this contradict the "most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful" line? It continues the question why let the pressure off of bea
A proper sum of my thoughts on LC can be described in one word: "Why" There's too much senselessness in this whole charade, and I don't see what was gained out of it by the time of the "teehee it was all fake" reveal.
Now, I'm not done with LC yet, but I wanted to get this part to you so you can at least see my efforts.
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
