Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

[Golden]

SVS, take the deal!

It's hard for me to know at this point whether I'll be lynched or not, but my spidey sense points to yes. Not only am I going to be away from now until after the lynch, but the things happening in the poll are not the only measures taken against me today. I simply can't afford to take votes today, and there are too many people who are too stubborn to allow me a pass.

My self-vote today was not 'oddly defeatist' - it was oddly realist. There has been a concerted effort to get me out today beyond the votes taken in the thread and there is very little I can do to escape my fate, but I've laid everything out and done the best I can to achieve it. But nevertheless, in the end, I'm going to leave my vote on boomslang. I think my own best interests would be served putting it on rey, but I'm putting it on boomslang because thats who I think is bad right now.

I've done my best to have fun during this game. I hope you continue to make great use of pedantic pink and the bullsuit if I'm lynched. See you guys on the other side, I swear that if I'm lynched I'll try my best to come back so we can kick some baddie butt together. That is all.

(And if I don't manage to get back - thanks for the game hosts and other players. Even though I can't remember any game that I've ever played where so many people have pursued me so avidly but so wrongly, and even though I'll admit not all of it has been easy, I've still had a lot of fun. I asked for a modkill a long time ago in this game. The hosts said no. They were wise, and right. I feel much better for trying as hard as I could to get others to see the light. If I fail, so be it).

@MP - I don't understand your vote. If it stays there, I think you should explain it better.

[birdwithteeth11]

Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

Not really down with this idea. I used to feel that way about players who's attention took up large portions of the thread. But I think it makes it an easy cop-out vote, especially if Golden isn't a baddie recruited or hasn't been recruited to a baddie team.

[unfurl]

unfurl - I am not seeing what others are. I do feel like you have been trying to get into the game but I think the set up leaves you at a loss because of your usual play style isn't really applicable in this type of game. You are right to say to llama that your game is usually full of contradictions. It is just your style especially in the early stages of a game.
One thing that does seem to be missing is your paranoic attitude and the questions that usually come about when you are in that "zone". I agree about Teeth but apparently Imma have to get out of lazy mode and pull quotes to get others to see what I saw. I really feel like you are Neutral atm.

Roxy
I have not reached the paranoic state yet, and I have not hit the zone, cause is just really hard to keep up with everything
I do feel there are lot back in forth, and I do think with lynches result will help down the road to narrow things
I also think there are so many roles and variables that can switch and manipulate things, that I feel lost
According to how much I make it further, then I think I will find a little bit of light in the road

[Golden]

Love you all!

[Bubbles]

i don't think golden is a baddie, i think he wants to cut his losses before he goes on holiday soon, and not have this lingering over his head. granted the self vote looks suspicious but i dont believe golden would use it as a tactic, he's always defended himself through his words before.

what's the case against boom? is there a way to read all his posts together?

[Bubbles]

I'll hug anybody who asks for one

i want a hug!

[birdwithteeth11]

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

Yes, we've had a lot of back-and-forth. But my vote was merely a placeholder in case the thread got locked (before I realized the thread can only be locked for a certain period of time, and not an entire day period).

What is it that I've said that made you not change your mind on me? Or was it more based off the fact that I voted for you again?

[DharmaHelper]

I'll hug anybody who asks for one

i want a hug!

[Bullzeye]

I'm quite sure I won't be voting for Golden today. I think the whole thing has been blown well out of proportion which is why I've pretty much ignored it all game. I'll be around for most of the afternoon and will try to figure out my vote soon but I'm having a busy and frustrating day today apparently.

[unfurl]

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

Yes, we've had a lot of back-and-forth. But my vote was merely a placeholder in case the thread got locked (before I realized the thread can only be locked for a certain period of time, and not an entire day period).

What is it that I've said that made you not change your mind on me? Or was it more based off the fact that I voted for you again?

It was more it the fact that you voted for me again, and the reasons behind it. that you keep saying things I did not say, I dont understand that even if you are neutral, why you would try to make it like I said other things, like I felt you are trying to twist things too

[Bubbles]

I'll hug anybody who asks for one

i want a hug!

Aw <3 thanks DH

[birdwithteeth11]

Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs. I've really started to change my feelings on this thought. I don't see how it's beneficial to go after someone who is potentially chaotic neutral when they're a potential civ recruit down the line, when I think there are people who are exhibiting baddie tendencies.....like wanting to vote for someone for being neutral and "playing an anti-civ game". Whatever that means.

Asking someone openly to name whom they think is civ can only help the baddies. Especially in this game, where the baddies do not have a common target but are a common target, and that whole enemy of my enemy thing. I don't think this is a civ-friendly question, and I'm not sure Bass was playing a civ-friendly game, even if not recruited. Or at least wasn't seeming so with this post.

Does enemy of my enemy really apply as the baddies can't win together? Agree with the rest of your point though.

I think it does, as both civ teams want both baddie teams to be dead.

Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Prior to the post you quoted, I had been quite sympathetic to you. However, the more I read your posts, the more I found it difficult to be supportive. I do not say that I outright suspect you of being on a baddie team--I do not. But I do not think your game is pro-civ. And I do think that your posts last night started to sound like a cornered baddie, and that switched my thinking and made me start to look at your posts differently. And what I have read, more and more, does not seem pro-civ to me. And certainly not like a pro-civ Golden. So how would a pro-civ Golden be playing? How is his game so far not pro-civ? How is your game more civ-friendly than his?

And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Honestly that post you reference, in this context, amplifies my concern and makes me outright suspicious of LoRab. She was verbally describing her own quest to find a reason to join the bandwagon against you, and continued in that direction with this most recent cop out vote. The highlighted pink text in there is a pretty literal example of this, and it is expressed in language that I find suspicious at face value. The highlighted orange text is a logical discrepancy and exemplifies a player interested in surface contexts and not deeper critical thinking. I don't think it's hard at all to associate your theorizing about the potential for Epignosis recruiting you with your prior insistence that it would be a bad idea to recruit me onto Epi's team, I'd kill him myself.

This seems like willful ignorance of the most important content in this discussion by LoRab, and a concerted effort to justify the easiest vote on the board.

I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

This is a game where we can change our votes--I don't think anyone stands out as likely on a baddie team. I am happy to change my vote if someone starts to seem actually bad or more detrimental to the civ cause. If I don't suspect anyone of being actually on a baddie team (which is what...4 to 6 players out of 32...not very good odds), then I believe that lynching a neutral who is not being civ-friendly to be the next best thing. I also have long had an innate distrust of neutral roles (which makes this stage of this game interesting in my brain).

Also, he literally asked to be lynched. With how much frustration he had building up, I honestly don't blame him. I've done it myself before when I got tired of defending myself and decided to just let the die be cast. Doesn't necessarily make him detrimental or anti-civ in my book.

Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

And please don't tell me that I don't think deeply. I may notice really odd things in the thread, but that does not mean that I'm not thinking about them. Nor does it mean that I'm jumping on a bandwagon because I voted the same way as a few other people.

Also, the fact that she was responding to a post in which I literally went out of my way to say "This is NOT new info" - because it was not, but it had been buried because people have (in my opinion) not been actually taking into account and considering a lot of the responses I've been making. That one is one of them.

I have taken a lot into account. It is exactly your responses, mainly in tone, that have made me suspicious of your intentions.

lol MM voted for me. Maybe he's trying to tell me something.

Vote LoRab

Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

linkitis: @Golden: That post sounded more honest than anything you've posted in a while. I will strongly consider (and probably take action on) changing my vote. I just need to figure out where to put it.

[birdwithteeth11]

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

I will consider this. But I still don't think it's in the civ's best interests (assuming those are your best interests) to want to go after neutrals who are anti-civ, when the main goal should be baddies.

[birdwithteeth11]

@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

Interesting catch here...will have to think on this one.

[birdwithteeth11]

Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

Wait, what? Did I miss something? We have plenty of time left before the lynch ends still, so why decide to go back to admitting defeat?

[Golden]

Off to Oz. I've left plenty of legacy content here. If I die, please use it. And don't assume SVS is genuine just because she has been consistent. She is tricksy like that. Test her!

Bye!

[birdwithteeth11]

[quote="LoRab"No--lynching neutrals is neutral. It does not only help the baddies. An unrecruited player is equally likely to become bad as good. A neutral can be helping the baddies or helping the civies. Unrecruited players just need to survive--they do not need to be playing a game that is supportive of civs. Yes, I realize that people can suspect me just as much as anyone, but I am doing my best to help the civs. I don't think that has been the case with Golden overall, although I am giving him BOTD for the moment.

And it's cute how you say I'm turning the tables when that's exactly what you're doing.[/quote]
Yes, neutral players are as likely to be recruited bad as good. But do you think it's just as easy playing a baddie-oriented neutral role as playing a civ-oriented neutral role? I feel like neutrals who openly play the first one put a bigger target on their back, especially in this game where so many of us are used to trying to be "good civs hunting baddies" and have that mentality in this game as well.

[birdwithteeth11]

I would ask those who are less inclined to feel absolutely certain of me, like lorab and timmer, to consider giving me a pass today given I won't be around a whole lot more for robust conversation and defence. I ask this because I get the strong sense that (because I won't be around) I'm going to be the easy location for drive by votes at end of day.

It's ultimately up to you guys, but if you really want to lynch me more on a hunch or being the 'best option' than anything else, I'd really like if it can be on a day where I can have proper conversation around it, more than I'll be able to today.

Are you shitting me, Golden? So...give you a pass and lynch me instead...is that it?

For fuck's sake, man.

Actually, everyone please take Golden's advice and give him a pass because he isn't going to be around to defend himself anymore than he already is.

Seriously, lynch me. I really don't think that I was ready to come back to mafia yet...especially not in such a large game. I think I probably should have started with a small game. I'm getting way too worked up and seeing this post has really grated on my nerves.

Vote: reywaS and I urge the rest of you to do the same.

...I honestly have no idea what is going on anymore.....

[birdwithteeth11]

I also have a dichotomy. I do not want to vote rey given how things have unfolded, but him choosing not to vote for me also gives me a chance of surviving, so I no longer want to vote for me...

I'll register a vote for Boomslang who I think warrants a decent amount of scrutiny. I think it possible he could be on mafia team two that killed G-Man.

Aapje is going to murder you. :P

The whole switching votes thing you keep doing is really confusing my thoughts on you.

[Roxy]

Teeth you are quick to call out Lorab but not your buddy MP. why? He is voting for Golden bc of his self vote. How is it any different than lorab?

[DrWilgy]

*Pokes head over the window seal, looks inside to see Golden vs. the world still happening, ducks down just as quickly as he appeared. Some scribbling is heard, and a note appears on the window seal, nobody seems to notice the note though.*

[birdwithteeth11]

So after days of saying I was sincere, now I am being intentionally false?

I probably would have bought the frame theory if you had not made that one post after Epi died. I believed then, and still believe now, with all my heart, that a baddie made that post.

Linki, I will cross that bridge when I come to it. But I don't think I will ever come to it. I doubt you will be lynched, you talked your way out of it. Then tomorrow I will be NKed probably, and it will be another attempt to frame poor Golden. And if you are lynched, I dont think you will come up good.

At some point, your choice to be stubborn and not engage has begun to feel to me like insincerity, yes.

And you still say, basically, you are hanging on to that one post - and that you would hang on to a single post while refusing to ever think about seeing it from another angle so stubbornly surprises me.

I tell you what, I'll do a bet with you. I tried to do this in RYM87 and sleepy wouldn't do it, he refused. Do what G-Man asked MP to do. Bet your mafia reputation on it. If, at the end of this game, the wash up makes it clear that I was neutral from the start up until Day 3, you will put in your signature "I staked my mafia reputation on golden being bad and I was wrong."

I, on the other hand, if I am bad, will post in my sig "S~V~S called me out, wouldn't back down, and was right."

The other part of this deal is, loser doesn't get to vote for the other one for the next five games we play together and loses their rights to claim they can read the other.

Deal?

I never get these sig bets. To me, it seems so easy to back out on it and not take someone's word to them agreeing to do it.

Also, still sounds like a huge emotional appeal.

[Roxy]

[birdwithteeth11]

@ Spacedaisy
Im usually full of contradicitions , it does mean nothing to my alliance ever, Im weird person that is true, still it means nothing wheter Im good/bad/Neutral
Is very easy for people to think of me as bad, I dont express myself good enough for most people taste

I was fine with a lot of your response to Daisy except for this. So we shouldn't judge anyone based on what they say???

Let me see if I can be clearer
of course in a game people are judge based in what they said and their actions
Im still trying to get the hang ouf ot it, and she was saying that I was saying weird things, fyi, I always say weird things, or at least there is usually someone unfamiliar with me that vote for me, for me saying weird things, I blame my weird sense of humour, to me it sounded more like she suspected me because she thought I was being snarky and that was not my intention, so my response is dont judge me just based in the weird things (which is relative to each player to)

I'll be honest, this is the first thing you've said so far that sounded genuine and sincere to me. I also might have been interpreting your snarkiness and sarcasm as a daft response to what I was saying about you. I have a weird sense of humor sometimes too so I can relate there.

Not sure I've taken my eyes off you completely yet, but you're on the back burner now for me.

[Roxy]

*Pokes head over the window seal, looks inside to see Golden vs. the world still happening, ducks down just as quickly as he appeared. Some scribbling is heard, and a note appears on the window seal, nobody seems to notice the note though.*

I noticed the note but could not read the scribbling

How about you read it to me.

[birdwithteeth11]

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

Yes, we've had a lot of back-and-forth. But my vote was merely a placeholder in case the thread got locked (before I realized the thread can only be locked for a certain period of time, and not an entire day period).

What is it that I've said that made you not change your mind on me? Or was it more based off the fact that I voted for you again?

It was more it the fact that you voted for me again, and the reasons behind it. that you keep saying things I did not say, I dont understand that even if you are neutral, why you would try to make it like I said other things, like I felt you are trying to twist things too

I think the whole thing boils down to I didn't understand where the sarcasm and humor was coming from. Hence my initial reaction. But I feel a bit better about you now.

[birdwithteeth11]

Teeth you are quick to call out Lorab but not your buddy MP. why? He is voting for Golden bc of his self vote. How is it any different than lorab?

Still catching up. Going to address that when I get to it.

[birdwithteeth11]

I still think Golden needs to go so I'm still voting for him.

This seems like a lazy vote from me. I know you're busy and all and are currently having a hard time keeping up, but it also feels like you're pulling a 180 on Golden to me. What made you change your mind on him besides the self-vote?

[birdwithteeth11]

Penny for your thoughts?

I also just realized I have something like 15-20 of the 20 or so most recent posts. Makes me feel like I'm talking to myself.

Going to go on a walk and I'll be back.

[Roxy]

Penny for your thoughts?

I also just realized I have something like 15-20 of the 20 or so most recent posts. Makes me feel like I'm talking to myself.

Going to go on a walk and I'll be back.

I wil expand on my ponder when my boss leaves.

[timmer]

Facts: Golden expressed sincere desire to see Epignosis killed. Epignosis is killed on night 1 by Azura.

How Golden and his new cheerleader MovingPictures come off to me:

"Hey, guys, look I know that I/Golden am/is responsible for Azura (A confirmed baddie) killing Epignosis when literally the only person going after Epig was Golden, but he's getting a bad rap and I think everyone just needs to trust the guy. I promise he's not bad. You're crazy for going after him. Actually, you read as bad to me because you aren't giving Golden a free pass."


It's insanity. lol

Still reading, still catching up, but yeah... THIS^.

[DrWilgy]

*Roxy notices the note and reads it*

Vote registered for SVS

Out of everything I've observed, I'm uncomfortable with how hard both SVS and Rey went in on Golden. I still think Golden is neutral, he's posting too much without doing anything that makes me think he's any worse than neutral. SVS is also one of the players that received a vote day 1, meaning there's a chance for her to be Azura. I'll change my vote to save Golden if needed, but only if he doesn't self vote.

Also, don't strafe too far away from the players that avoided lynch day 1 (this includes me... I know...).

[JaggedJimmyJay]

It's not insanity. It's critical thinking. Mafia is nearly never that simple.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

[Tangrowth]

My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I still think Golden needs to go so I'm still voting for him.

You seem to have pulled a 180 on this issue. What made you change your mind about Golden?

The self vote.

You're going to need to be more thorough. Why did the self vote affect your stance so significantly?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

[Tangrowth]

It's clear to me this golden discussion is completely derailing the thread and i can't wait for him to get the chance to tell all of you "told you so".

Linki at Jay, I've just changed my mind. Golden's self vote, I've been there man. I've felt that emotion before. I'm just helping him move on.

[Tangrowth]

My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

You're entirely right, Jay.

What do you think that means?

[Tangrowth]

Be back shortly sorry

[DrWilgy]

DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

*Another note appears on the window seal*

not Azura, but Ubzargan. I'm dumb and got the baddies names mixed up in my head. Ubzargan was immune to lynch day 1, meaning there's a higher chance of hitting him if we vote for those who received a vote day 1.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

You're entirely right, Jay.

What do you think that means?

The most logical assumption would be that your win condition has changed for the worse.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

*Another note appears on the window seal*

not Azura, but Ubzargan. I'm dumb and got the baddies names mixed up in my head. Ubzargan was immune to lynch day 1, meaning there's a higher chance of hitting him if we vote for those who received a vote day 1.

They day ended early though, should we assume it was lynch immunity? I haven't thought so.

[Scotty]

Cast your vote in this poll, do not use the "parking spot" because you voted before. Ideally every player who had voted before would cast the same vote as when it had reset, and move one from there. We did not record the votes in order to add the two polls together. Every player should have voted for another player on this poll by the time it ends!

I don't understand why they cast their votes in the parking spot anyway.

Yall need to move dem votes!

I'm on my phone right now, so not a big post, but a teensy check-in one.

Golden, man. I understand a legacy post, but not 36 of them. And you're so sure youre getting lynched, I feel hoodwinked that you would appeal to my emotions so far in advance of the vote. I'm actually very curious now to what neutral alignment you could have. I think it would definitely put the thread to ease if your role was revealed via lynch. I don't want to think that you are bad, nor do I think that you are, but your constant defending has cluttered my judgment of the entire thread to an extent.

Reywas I already talked a little bit about, and it's a shame that he's also getting frustrated though also very early. I don't yet know if it was an act of resignation on the part of a guilty party, but I think it is safe to assume that he is looking for a replacement. I liked this dude, and hope that isn't the case

Bubbles continues to drift around and occasionally say something of note, and is flying under that radar still, though other people are picking up on it now.

What do people think of those players asking for replacements? We don't know who they are yet, but I'd wager DP, DF and Reywas are likely candidates. I can't say for sure that I suspect too much any of the 3 enough to vote for them, since some of the big talkers I feel are more dangerous.

I will probably move my vote off aapje at some point today, since his response to my questions were pretty safe and nothing looked fabricated. But that doesn't mean I'm not suspecting him. Ohhhh no, he's still a prime candidate for baddie teams I feel. There just might be better options today.

[DrWilgy]

DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

*Another note appears on the window seal*

not Azura, but Ubzargan. I'm dumb and got the baddies names mixed up in my head. Ubzargan was immune to lynch day 1, meaning there's a higher chance of hitting him if we vote for those who received a vote day 1.

They day ended early though, should we assume it was lynch immunity? I haven't thought so.

*Flings a paper wad through the window, constant scribbling can now be heard coming from outside*

Just because the day ended early doesn't mean our votes at the time of the end were irrelevant. RNG chose someone to die out of all 12 of us that had 1 vote. RNG happened to choose someone that didn't die though.

[LoRab]

For what it's worth, in my experience with SVS, no matter her allegience, she doesn't make up suspicion--her cases are nearly always genuine.

@TH: forgot to quote you, but the post you quoted was more me remembering that you had been one of the posters earier in the game who were pushing against this being a good/bad game (and as someone who has played recruitment games before) when daisy had initially brought it up, than turning the tables.

Also, I don't like Lorab's reasoning on going after Golden. If she is advocating lynching neutrals, then in my view she is also playing an anti-civ game, the very thing she accuses Golden of.

I would prefer to lynch baddies. But no one had, at least then, appeared to be bad to me.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

I will consider this. But I still don't think it's in the civ's best interests (assuming those are your best interests) to want to go after neutrals who are anti-civ, when the main goal should be baddies.

I agree that should be the main goal. But part of what compelled me to vote Golden earlier (and have since moved my vote) is that he is keeping things all about him. Like Dr W said, Golden vs the world. I believe his emotion to be authentic, but because of it, and because he seems insistent/convinced that he's going to be lynched next, it remains the focus of the thread and makes it more challenging to find baddies. Also, I'm not sure baiting the baddies into killing Epig was a good choice for the civilian cause. It's like when a lynch switcher switches a lynch to a player that no one else finds suspicious, because it's in that individual's self interest.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with my thought process. I'm just explaining what I was thinking.

And, yes, I would prefer to lynch a baddie. And right now, I think TH is showing baddie tendencies, so that's where my vote remains at the moment.

[G-Man]

RESURRECT ME (NOW THAT I AM DEAD)

It broke my heart
To die so early
I was only just getting warmed up
And now I'm back, to let you know
I would like a second chance

Resurrect me!
(I’m a funny guy)
Resurrect me!
(Promise to try)
Now, resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
Now that I am dead
(Dead)

Rez me now!
Oh, (rez, rez)
Oh, rez me now, baby
(Rez, rez)
I don’t want to hear “maybe”
(Rez, rez)
Give me back my precious soul now
(Rez)

I can build a spreadsheet
(I can build a spreadsheet)
And I can write some posts
(I can write some posts)
Now tell me, baby
(Tell me, baby)
That you’ve PM’ed the hosts
(That you’ve PM’ed the hosts)
Rez me
(Rez me)
Rez me

Resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
Now, resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
Now, resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
Now that I am dead
(Dead)

Rez me now!
Hey! (rez, rez)
Oh, rez me please, rez me
(Rez, rez)
Please don’t let me down now
(Rez, rez)
Oh, give me back my soul now
(Rez)

(Rez, rez)
Oh, rez me, rez me, baby
(Rez, rez)
Oh, it’s driving me crazy
(Rez, rez)
Oh, don't get lazy
(Rez)

I can build a spreadsheet
(I can build a spreadsheet)
And I can write some posts
(I can write some posts)
Well now tell me, baby
(Tell me, baby)
That you’ve PM’ed the hosts
(That you’ve PM’ed the hosts)
Rez me
(Rez me)
Rez me

Resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
Now, resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
Now, resurrect me!
(Will you rez me?)
(Now, now, now)

Hey! (Rez, rez)
Oh, I want back in, baby
(Rez, rez)
And it’s driving me crazy
(Rez, rez)
Now don't you get lazy
(Rez)

(Rez, rez)
Oh, hey hey, baby
(Rez, rez)
Death is driving me crazy
(Rez, rez)
Don't you get lazy
(Rez)

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What is "RNG"?

[DrWilgy]

*Another wad of paper flies through the window*

RNG is short for Random Number Generator. Whenever something is at random it can be called RNG.

[Tangrowth]

Jay, you really think so?

Why would I make my win condition change so apparent?