[ENDGAME] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia

[Sloonei]

@Sloonei re: SVS the thing is, I've seen her shrug off some suspicion of her like that in just about every game I've played with her recently. So far I think she would have said the things she's said regardless of her role or alignment. I don't think it points to her being bad but I can understand where your suspicion comes from because she hasn't addressed concerns that you have.

fair enough. I'm going to continue to wait for her to respond to things more thoroughly, but I'm not going to be able to read her the same was as those of you who are familiar with her style.

[Golden]

I still intend to vote SVS. It feels like she has avoided responding to some things posted at her.

There is the possibility she is genuinely overwhelmed - and if so I'm sorry - but I would be foolish to allow SVS to turn me away from a vote for her on an emotional basis. And I know she is sly enough to intentionally do that.

I'm still not voting now because I have time and I still hope SVS is able to be back after work but before I have to vote and she may be able to alleviate my concerns.

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

linki @ sloonei - yes you did, and I think that stuck in my mind when working through what I was thinking about TB.

[Tangrowth]

Also Canuck you no showed the latter half or so of llamas keeler game so he instructed that I dock your score... The only reason it is so low atm is because there have hardly been any games since we started enacting the p score so your score will increase to 66 after this game automatically and will continue to go up

Sorry I didn't PM you about it directly but we are experimenting with it and haven't really had to change anyone's scores yet

I will make sure people are formally alerted in the future

[Sloonei]

Still waiting on Cobalt to post some things as well. I wish I could be considering more names at this point in the Day. Too many quiet people in this game. It's all very suspicious.

[Turnip Head]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

[Long Con]

Long Con, you say this is a shoving match or pissing contest. Can you elaborate? Why do you characterize my posts, which were trying to garner discussion, as both a shoving match and "good to see"? I'm not sure how to reconcile those two separate thoughts.

I was commenting on two different sets of posts, though one leads in to the other. You were firing questions at everyone who was in the thread at the time to get them talking, to get some discussion going. That is what I liked, that's what was "good to see". Soon enough, your questions turned to Epi, and instead of answering, he questioned back at you, and you basically did the same back at him.

No sir. My third post (my first serious post) was a question directed at MP. That was Monday, 2:33pm EST.

MP had seven posts before this, none of which addressed me at all. In fact, he only addressed Devin, not "everyone who was in the thread at the time."

Epi shot first.

Should I attribute this to carelessness or mendacity on your part?

LOL Let's call it carelessness so I don't have to use the dictionary. BR and I are heading out to a Sandwich Shack event, we'll be sure to vote, but sorry, no more time for posting.

[Tangrowth]

I still intend to vote SVS. It feels like she has avoided responding to some things posted at her.

There is the possibility she is genuinely overwhelmed - and if so I'm sorry - but I would be foolish to allow SVS to turn me away from a vote for her on an emotional basis. And I know she is sly enough to intentionally do that.

This

100 percent this

I can see why others are voting cobalt though

Oh and thanks cobalt for addressing all of my questions

To answer yours yes I already hav committed to a moderate level mafia read for SVS and she has not alleviated any of my concerns even though she clearly has been here it's very evasive of her

And as I have stated I will continue to commit particularly after we have one cycles worth of threD info and voting records

I'm not sure why you think I've been particulArly not committing

[Golden]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

[Turnip Head]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

Fair enough.

[Tangrowth]

How the hell does anyone actually play this game from anything other than a computer I commend you people

Alright I'll check back in some time after I get into cincinnati but I haven't seen my parents or bother since Christmas so idk when I'll get around to it

[Tangrowth]

Brother not bother lol these typos

I'm starting to sound like Paul

Alright see you guys later!

[Sloonei]

are votes 100% confirmed changeable?

[timmer]

Looks like they are, to me!

[nutella]

I agree with MP and Golden re: SVS. I could totally see her sneakily hiding behind those emotional appeals. I'd feel bad if she was totally genuine about it, but honestly SVS has done this many many times and she is devious enough to use it to her advantage.

Gonna go ahead and vote for her, no harm doing it now since votes are apparently changeable (which is interesting indeed) but I don't know that I'm likely to change it anyway. Still concerned that these are all still fairly weak Day 1 suspicions, but I really would not be surprised if SVS flips bad.

[Sloonei]

Let's all pretend none of Cobalt, SVS, or Long Con are available to be lynched today. Who do we all vote for then?

[fingersplints]

Sorry guys I haven't given this much attention yet. Pages behind but will be around later to catch up I hope

[Cobalt]

What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

In fact, I'll put it more bluntly. You voted Long Con for apparently jokey reasons. Then you started referring to him as scummy, to bolster your vote on him. You've said about three times in different posts that you are going to get around to fully explaining your views on Long Con. BUT YOU NEVER HAVE. instead, though, you've made a handful of big posts mostly discussing MP and Devin.

So i see a problem, there. Please discuss why you keep saying you will explain your thinking on Long Con but never do.

Are you joking or just blind?

Long Con, I'm coming for your weave this game.

My... my weave?

Some fake concerned/scared shit that he's pulling here. I found it uppity/overconfident instead of a joking tone.

You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

I don't buy that he was doing that either, as I already said in a previous post. He was basically saying "I talked shit and called it a shoving match to see what you would say about it", but who lays bait that specific for just one player during day 0 of the game? My post in which I talked about my previous games was a general post to see who would really point it out or come for me with it, because I wanted to see who would pick up on it or call me out on it, if anyone, to get a feel for the field a little bit.

I don't find anything suspicious about Gumshoe contributing to the discussion. I'm more pinged by those, like Sloonei, whose "initial reaction" was that Gum was defending Cobalt. I don't think it's likely that a baddie teammate would "jump to the rescue" so early, and for so little. He's trying to drum up a suspicion between Cobalt and Gumshoe that I don't buy. Is it that easy to catch baddies?

He picked a person that I would be pinged by for trying to drum up suspicion on me this early, like Sloonei, and the tries to make me look better? Or does that make me look worse? What angle is he playing here?

Long Con is still my #1 suspect, however.

His manipulation is transparent to me.

I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

In case I haven't been clear, here is what I see is happening in this one line:

Long Con mischaracterizes and trivializes the exchange MP and I had Day 0. He quoted a bunch of posts from MP and me and called it a shoving match. He said he doesn't like the term "pissing match" (Glad he forewent "tug of war" ). Neither of those terms accurately describes what was going on there.

However, this serves the neater purpose of giving LC a place to vote if either an Epignosis or MP lynch gains momentum. He comments on it without saying anything meaningful about it (except for making it sound uglier than it is), which shows his audience that he is aware something is going on there, all the while leaving himself free to vote for either of us if the opportunity presents itself.

The "manipulation" you're seeing is only your own paranoia. I wasn't manipulating anything, I was just offering my point of view on the current goings-on.

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP. I saw it more as you each confronting the other with questions that demanded answers, while the other deflects it away with a different question. It's pretty much up to any reader to decide if the "shoving match" metaphor is accurate, or way off. It describes how I read the exchange, so it's the metaphor I used.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

He totally goes OMGUS on Epi here and says that he's paranoid when really Epi makes a great point about how he can now commit to a MP or Epi train later on when or if the opportunity presents itself, which I also got a vibe like that from his shoving match post. Why point it out if you don't have something to think about it? (I think someone already said something to the effect of that question. Why not wait until you DO have something to think about it before posting about it? Unless you would use it to pass yourself off later?)

Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

The S~V~S suspicion is based on her possible buddying behaviour to me. I have seen her do this kind of thing in the past, so it stands out to me. It also seems a bit like she was choosing that "issue" to comment and offer opinion about, because it's not a direct player opinion or accusation, but it does show up as contribution. Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

If LC flips bad, I'm inclined to think S~V~S a little bit clearer. She's the other person people have expressed scum leans on, so why throw shade on one of the only other talked about scum reads in the game? As far as I know, some people are willing to lynch Long Con and some people are willing to lynch SVS. Seems like a convenient opportunity to make her look bad if people would be persuaded to vote for her.

So in conclusion, I think a lot of what Long Con says is scummy. Just on gut I got a bad vibe from him, and me saying that I was coming for his weave early in the game was a joke that turned into reality when I found he looked worse with every post he made. Yes, I still want to lynch him as some form of salty revenge for the last game when he successfully fooled me as scum, but much of my vote lies with the above-outlined analysis.

I explained my LC vote and read already. If you're gonna place a vote on me for not doing something make sure to check and see if I actually did it or not first.

[timmer]

Apparently I am blind? How did I miss that? I read all of your posts from top to bottom. That's messed. I'll have to rethink my vote a bit, but it will have to wait until coffee break...

[XthAtGAm3RGuYX]

Got a really weak signal on my phone from a neighbors house. Turns out Time Warner is bullshit. I called to activate my modem and they told me they need to send a site surveyor because they are not currently servicing my house or something. They do offer internet here but I can't use it yet. Fucking bullshit. If I lose this signal ill go up to the library and out a vote on myself. I'm really far behind but once I get this all resolved ill be up to speed. Ive been able to look at the thread at work but in not afforded the time to actually read anything in depth

Update: it took me 15 tries to post this

[Cobalt]

What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

what are your thoughts on the individual players who are currently suspicious of you?

Timmer - Doesn't pay attention. Voted me because I didn't elaborate on my Long Con vote, which I did.

Scotty - Voted me as a total copout imo. Said he would vote me because he didn't have time to be around later in the day, and my only post @ him was why he was going so hard on the PM's. He said something like, "I'm trying to solve the puzzle, even though it'll make me a likely night kill target" which I thought was BOGUS, and trying too hard to look civ. Scummy read right now.

TinyBubbles - Bullshitter. Voted me because of what Timmer said, and I subsequently explained myself. Doesn't post much at all, actually. Staying out of the spotlight but throwing votes my way to turn me into a potential bandwagon? Likely.

MP - I was only a very slight mafia read for him and as far as I know I've said all I had to say to appease him.

Sloonei - I still wonder why you focused so hard on the interaction between myself and Gumshoe. I still wonder why you haven't committed to a vote, is it to see if my bandwagon takes off before getting on it? You look moderately iffy to me because you won't commit.

[Cobalt]

Apparently I am blind? How did I miss that? I read all of your posts from top to bottom. That's messed. I'll have to rethink my vote a bit, but it will have to wait until coffee break...

So you legitimately missed my explanation of my LC suspicions?

I don't quite know how, it's quite a big wall of text and if you clicked the link for all my posts in-thread, it's hard to miss. Guess it must have been an honest mistake though?

I liked your instincts and your reads, timmer, but your vote on me was misplaced considering you made it after I had already done what you wanted me to do.

[Cobalt]

Due to all that has been said about SVS, I am on board with an SVS lynch if that's the way it goes today. Keeping my vote on Long Con for now until a few more are willing to commit to a vote elsewhere.

[timmer]

@Tiny Bubbles, when you said you agreed with my gut on Cobalt, had you read his posts and come to the same conclusions as me? Or had you just assumed I was right about what I said and went with it?

@Cobalt, yes, I absolutely missed it. I'm not really sure how, but calling you out for it makes no sense when it's obvious now that you laid out your thoughts.

[Cobalt]

@Tiny Bubbles, when you said you agreed with my gut on Cobalt, had you read his posts and come to the same conclusions as me? Or had you just assumed I was right about what I said and went with it?

@Cobalt, yes, I absolutely missed it. I'm not really sure how, but calling you out for it makes no sense when it's obvious now that you laid out your thoughts.

Glad you see it that way. I was a bit frustrated at being called out for not doing something that I did, and receiving votes for it.

[timmer]

Understandable. I moved my vote off of anyone until I can sit down and regroup later.

[DFaraday]

Let's all pretend none of Cobalt, SVS, or Long Con are available to be lynched today. Who do we all vote for then?

*Whom

TB is on my radar with her eagerness to let us know she's a civ. Apparently she's done this before, but it's still pingy to me.

But for now I think I'm going to *vote SVS*. I know she definitely could manipulate voters' sentiments if she wanted to, and I think that could have happened as early as the comments about Epi's "interesting" speech.

[Golden]

Let's all pretend none of Cobalt, SVS, or Long Con are available to be lynched today. Who do we all vote for then?

I vote Hedgeowl.

But if your question went a step further and asked 'who beyond those people you have said you are suspicious of would you vote for'...

I'd choose someone who I know can be a great contributor but hasn't been, even if they are players who are normally quieter. I'm thinking probably BR, whose posts have actually pinged me just a little.

[Canucklehead]

Also Canuck you no showed the latter half or so of llamas keeler game so he instructed that I dock your score... The only reason it is so low atm is because there have hardly been any games since we started enacting the p score so your score will increase to 66 after this game automatically and will continue to go up

Sorry I didn't PM you about it directly but we are experimenting with it and haven't really had to change anyone's scores yet

I will make sure people are formally alerted in the future

Awwwwwww shiiiiiiiit. Yep. I totally bailed on that game...... can't remember what happened.
And I ain't mad, bro. Just surprised to see myself a poor, lone 50%er drowning in a sea of perfect p-scores. I shall endeavor to restore my honor and reputation and never besmirch myself with such vileness ever again.

[Golden]

@Tiny Bubbles, when you said you agreed with my gut on Cobalt, had you read his posts and come to the same conclusions as me? Or had you just assumed I was right about what I said and went with it?

I'm really interested in this too.

It's exactly what she did in economics - said "I think x has good instincts, I'll vote the same way as them"... and she was correctly identifying baddies that way. I'd really like to understand more of her thought process behind it.

[Golden]

And since our votes are changeable, there is really no longer any reason I shouldn't vote SVS now, so I will.

[Canucklehead]

I'm voting for Golden because he's being too hedgey for comfort. Civ Golden is a hurricane of self-assurance. This Golden is making sure he has lots of padding of previously expressed misgivings in case any of the bandwagons he joins snuff a civ

[Golden]

I'm voting for Golden because he's being too hedgey for comfort. Civ Golden is a hurricane of self-assurance. This Golden is making sure he has lots of padding of previously expressed misgivings in case any of the bandwagons he joins snuff a civ

Such as?

[Golden]

Civ Golden is a hurricane of self-assurance.

I may have to sig this, btw!

I don't think you are wrong about that at all - It's a very good assessment of my civ style. But I'm also well aware that the biggest weakness in my civilian game is believing I'm right to such an extreme that I don't hear valid counterarguments. Two of the last three times I've been civ, (economics, RYM86) I've been lynched for some variation of "he sounds like he is observing the game, not in the game". It's because I'm making a concerted effort to see all sides. I do think that this should look quite different from 'lots of padding of previously expressed misgivings', though.

[Sloonei]

Sloonei - I still wonder why you focused so hard on the interaction between myself and Gumshoe. I still wonder why you haven't committed to a vote, is it to see if my bandwagon takes off before getting on it? You look moderately iffy to me because you won't commit.

This does not feel like a natural case against me. You said earlier in the game that you like to "address the situation directly" when your name is involved, and I've been naming you a lot all Day. You've been addressing my posts, but it has not been as aggressively as I would expect a townie player who is directly addressing the situation to act. You have lingered on my initial post about Gumshoe even though that particular post has hardly been a factor in my case against you. I initially brought it up out of suspicion for Gumshoe, not you. Your reaction was what triggered my suspicion. I feel if you were really a townie/civ you would have tried harder to case me than you have. You've hardly pushed back at all, and now you've put a somewhat weak scum read on me for my failure to commit to a vote. I feel like I've made it clear in all of my posts that I like to keep as open a mind as possible on Day 1, and as such my vote is not likely to come until the end of the day.

However, as votes are changeable, I feel comfortable putting an early vote on Cobalt.
There is still plenty of time left in the day, though.

[Sloonei]

I like that Canucklehead is pursuing a name outside the normal three choices. I think much of this Day 1 was wasted discussing the same few names and would hope thay this changes as the game moves forward.
I've seen TinyBubbles's name come up on a few suspect lists recently. Golden has drawn the attention of at least one player, Epi and MP07 haven't really been scrutinized too hard, metalmarsh is absent, along with a bunch of others. Townies moving forward should try to make sure everyone is examined equally.

[Epignosis]

Townies moving forward should try to make sure everyone is examined equally.

Good luck with that. I disagree.

[Golden]

I understand Sloonei's sentiment and agree with the principle even though I recognise that it is not overly practical.

Sloonei - have you played games with two mafia teams in it before? The one thing I think is most challenging in this game is that everyone is going to be hunting baddies - even baddies have baddies to hunt.

[Sloonei]

i've only played a couple, and not for a very long time. I admit that i'm not even factoring that into my thinking right now. It's somethig I should be more conscious of moving forward.

[S~V~S]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

[S~V~S]

Due to all that has been said about SVS, I am on board with an SVS lynch if that's the way it goes today. Keeping my vote on Long Con for now until a few more are willing to commit to a vote elsewhere.

Why? Can you explain it to me in your own words, rather than referring to what has been said?

[S~V~S]

I still intend to vote SVS. It feels like she has avoided responding to some things posted at her.

There is the possibility she is genuinely overwhelmed - and if so I'm sorry - but I would be foolish to allow SVS to turn me away from a vote for her on an emotional basis. And I know she is sly enough to intentionally do that.

This

100 percent this

I can see why others are voting cobalt though

Oh and thanks cobalt for addressing all of my questions

To answer yours yes I already hav committed to a moderate level mafia read for SVS and she has not alleviated any of my concerns even though she clearly has been here it's very evasive of her

And as I have stated I will continue to commit particularly after we have one cycles worth of threD info and voting records

I'm not sure why you think I've been particulArly not committing

Nope, a mafia read of me is incorrect. What concerns? That I read Epi as aggressive, and Golden as kissing up to him?

[S~V~S]

....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

[Golden]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

Can I suggest - because it's easier for me than breaking it down - that you in topic me and go to the post where I respond to some of your points in pink. Especially the first pink comment I make, because my biggest suspicion of you comes down to what was behind your search on the word 'interesting'. But really, the things I feel are outstanding about you that I don't feel comfortable about are probably all in that single post.

[Epignosis]

....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

You always say what you think when you are civilian, but you avoided the thread because you didn't want to have a meltdown on Day 1?

I think you're Mafia, and you're caught.

[S~V~S]

No, I am not. I freaked out on you over a silly day one standard Epi ploy. It was poorly done of me, and I was going to lose it. So I left.

What did I do that you think I was "caught"?

[S~V~S]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

Can I suggest - because it's easier for me than breaking it down - that you in topic me and go to the post where I respond to some of your points in pink. Especially the first pink comment I make, because my biggest suspicion of you comes down to what was behind your search on the word 'interesting'. But really, the things I feel are outstanding about you that I don't feel comfortable about are probably all in that single post.

The only thing I can find in pink is your gender list. I am in the light scheme, maybe that has some bearing? Some colors are hard to see in that scheme, but I have problems with the dark on my phone. I will try again.

[S~V~S]

....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

You always say what you think when you are civilian, but you avoided the thread because you didn't want to have a meltdown on Day 1?

I think you're Mafia, and you're caught.

You haven't noticed that I have been avoiding mod discussions too, until they are over, basically? especially when they are adversarial? I have been avoiding YOU, I am ashamed to admit. But it's true.

[Epignosis]

No, I am not. I freaked out on you over a silly day one standard Epi ploy. It was poorly done of me, and I was going to lose it. So I left.

What did I do that you think I was "caught"?

Very well.

You said you went to the host. Why not the mod? I know you said the host sees eye to eye with you on most things, but still, I find that unusual given how we, as a site, are pumping the mod-on-duty function.

Anyway, you said the host told you you were reading aggression where there was none. All right. But you imply later that I'm the only one you found aggressive. Now, early this morning, you acknowledged (presumably of your own accord) this, which says you should have rolled your eyes and went about your business (which is equally dismissive as you saying I'm full of shit, which you said in the post prior without saying why, but I don't mind).

If you were willing to divulge that you sought counseling from the host, I think you would have mentioned that early this morning, not just now. I think you are grasping at straws at the eleventh hour.

....AND I was avoiding the thread since I did not want to have a meltdown, tbh. I could feel it coming on. But I decided it would be abysmally unfair to ruin Doms lovely role without even a fight. So I am rapidly getting over myself, and trying to make a come back

I say what i think always when a civ, I don't care how it makes me look.

You always say what you think when you are civilian, but you avoided the thread because you didn't want to have a meltdown on Day 1?

I think you're Mafia, and you're caught.

You haven't noticed that I have been avoiding mod discussions too, until they are over, basically? especially when they are adversarial? I have been avoiding YOU, I am ashamed to admit. But it's true.

If this is the case, then this shouldn't have been brought up here.

[Golden]

@TH - my problem is this - she can shrug off the concerns, but the concerns are real. If she shrugs them off, I have no choice but to go ahead on the basis of those concerns, without really having anything from SVS to make me feel more comfortable.

No I get that. I guess my point is, shouldn't a baddie-SVS be trying to make you NOT feel comfortable voting for her?

And what did she do? Posted she was demoralised and needs a mafia break... exactly the kind of things that would normally make me hesitate. Especially since I believe they are the truth no matter her affiliation.

If you are still here, tell me what your concerns are in a way I can answer in a few minutes, lol.

I think I am over reading into things, tbh. I think i need a break. I talked to the host, who often sees things as I do, and he thinks I am reading aggression where there is none. So I have to go with that assessment, I trust him totes.

Can I suggest - because it's easier for me than breaking it down - that you in topic me and go to the post where I respond to some of your points in pink. Especially the first pink comment I make, because my biggest suspicion of you comes down to what was behind your search on the word 'interesting'. But really, the things I feel are outstanding about you that I don't feel comfortable about are probably all in that single post.

The only thing I can find in pink is your gender list. I am in the light scheme, maybe that has some bearing? Some colors are hard to see in that scheme, but I have problems with the dark on my phone. I will try again.

Sorry SVS. If it helps, it's a quote of your post and I've made comments inline of your post when responding to it.

[Golden]

One thing I don't think SVS ever does is lie about stuff like 'contacting the host'.

I completely believe she has been honest about all of that.

I do not think it necessarily points to her being civ, I still think she could be bad, but I by no means call into question the truthfulness of her talking about that stuff.