With less than three hours to go (it will probably be less than two when I submit this), I feel like giving a mini-read on some things and call it a day. I'll be the first to admit my D1 has been kinda shitty, but I'll try to shift into a better gear from now onwards
(I had hoped that I could keep my summer prolific, hyperactive, carefree mafia playing mojo until at least the first half of September, but RL stuff I should work on are starting to pressure me with every passing day, plus the whole playing two full games on two difference sites at once is throwing me off balance, it seems)
on good vs evil VS LMS factions debate this feels oddly like Death Note all over again, where the premise for a more complex game was offered, but anyone wanting to embrace it was shot down and eyeballed by everyone wanting to keep things simple; as I've said a while ago, any debate of this kind in this game feels like D0 material that leaks into the regular gaming. I think both camps made good arguments, in particular timmer's post and Spacedaisy's reminder of the group's win cons being fair, that don't exclude each other, but only highlight what a mixed format this game actually is. I'm not inclined to treat this as basis for hunting atm: for all the talk that the players pushing the LMS angle might be baddies trying to divert attention, the same could be said that the ones saying this is clearly good vs bad at its core might be blending as "purists".
on BWT, I don't think I have meta on him being mafia from the games I've played with him, but the heat he's getting still is something I'm familiar with; in those previous games he'd normally spook the rest or catch fire with a vote option or reasoning that would seem contradictory or phony or farfetched (and get mislynched), compared to which the onset here is even earlier than that. The problem I'm currently having with BWT stems from this
claim about trying to shake off his previous meta, after the hiatus, and improve his style by being more upfront and cutting down on the waffling. The problem is he hasn't so far and his claim is now heavily influencing me in how I'm reading his others posts: ante-claim he was easily drawn in by
MP's idea to target low-posters and then post-claim, he's drawn in by JJJ pointing out
Golden's wording, he's drawin in by llama's theory that
Spacedaisy might be a good recruit candidate and he engages in rebuttals in Golden only to then call it a cautious thing. Maybe I misunderstand what he meant by being more deliberate and less tangled in waffleness, but I'm not seeing it take place so far. His claim is hence often inconsistent with the way he jumps into multiple discussions (with variable stances) and his change of views on Golden; everything can sound like fair assessing, but it feels like the old-style BWT that he claims to want to get past. Not sure I can do a recruiter/recruited profile on any of this, but it's enough to make me suspicious of him.
something probably minor in today's context for me, but
bea, for all her busy B, pretty active and solid activity, pinged me a bit with
this post to JJJ, in which she apparently doesn't like the "suspicious" approach in finding one of the original or recruited baddies (thinking they're too few right now to have a good shot at it or something?), for which she will go with the randomizing option. I think she also misunderstood me in
this reply: I specifically said 4 out of 36 are currently baddie-aligned, I didn't talk about the 4 leaders split into 2 civs and 2 baddies, which is what she's referencing. In my post, I said that hunting for 4 baddies right now isn't different from starting any mafia game with a three or four-baddie team, except that in this case the field is larger and the mechanics trickier. Yet why is she pessimistic about this precise angle, making her take the "random" road so easily? Overall, these two posts strangely feel like some sort of detachment coming from her in desiring to hunt any baddies today.
on Llama and/or MP in dialogue with me - I left it at that back then, but overall, I have to say I'm a bit discontent with how it went and it definitely boils down to MP's bias call on me. It's such an odd angle to interpret my case and I have no idea why MP, out of all people, would go out of the blue for sudden meta rather than analysis. I clearly pointed to him there is no real meta on me ever jumping on llama like that, so why would he have in mind that it would be in my habit to hunt llama out of bias, enough to immediately bring it up? Anyway, as I've said, the whole bias discussion took a lot of space afterwards (with further twists in the discussion) and llama himself, as far as my read on it goes, surfed on it as well instead of addressing anything. With him RL-busy until Tuesday (or?), all this will probably be inconsequential by then. So in other, less elegant words, my case has gone to shit thanks to that exchange. I doubt either of them will gain today significant traction (I mean idk the votes are really spread so far, but there are more expected), but I might still vote for llama based on my read; plus, the more I think of it, I'm wary of the way MP approached that.
I don't think I have the strength for an in-depth read about
Golden vs Epi, for which I apologise; oddly enough, at some point during the spat, my gut read was feeling that Golden is a bit too defensive and elaborate in rebutting about the whole thing, sort of giving me the vibe that, if he's actually a recruiter and a baddie-aligned one, all of this would make him alarmed, in a sort of "this can't be happening" way. Nonetheless, it's also consistent to affirm that Golden can heavily defend as a civ, too, especially in situations when he's not getting through with his explanations or being stonewalled by his accusers (Watchmen comes to mind). I may come back to analyse this, but for now I don't have a strong opinion.
voting Llama and it'll probably stay that way, unless for some real EoD dramatic twist
they love it when people do that!
Fiddler on the Roof
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
--hey look! It's a Purple Woman!