[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

[MacDougall]

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

Sorry bit of my post got cut off. Diiny said he was voting for BWT to save himself. But I do doubt that he'd be so blatant if he was that scum role now that I think about it.

Lynch lurker plz.

I gotta work be back later.

[Ricochet]

It's more a read than case, which is why it shows to you as "assorted facts".

I disagree that his RVS is that trivial, because of stuff I mentioned:

-- it was wildly unreasoned, by comparisong with most of the other RVS's
-- he later implied it achieved something and I have no idea what that is

The very first vote on aokiji/motel was, but at least on RYM that would be considered an obvious joke vote. In fact, it was your questioning of that vote that he used as saying it achieved something, that being to educate Syndicaters on the dark and mysterious voting rituals of day 1 RYM. It was basically his own type of "That's how I roll".

You didn't clarify the bolded part about his vote for BWT and why that means something to you.

Yes and when he implied that he achieved something by getting questioned for it, I asked him if that is the kind of desirable content that you'd expect to achieve. "I voted randomly and got suspected for it and that was in fact my goal". Erh?

The bolded part was, as you noticed, more a fact that I reviewed in my read. But to also answer what intepretation I'm giving it, I'm not fully sure; I don't even fully understand all the charges he brought up in that post, aside from BWT's vote being easy and potentially buddying up to JJJ.

If I were to split this chain of sussing, then:

lvl 1 - bea doesn't find that Day 1 brings anything consistent for properly suspecting players, so she uses to refrain from such activities in general | I don't agree with this per se and, as you can read in my read of her, whilst I acknowledge that this is usual meta for her, I'm wary how she pushed this stance in this game, ahead of any actual activity of any sort in this directin

lvl 2 - BWT disagrees with her stance (although also acknowledging her background) and votes her for that

lvl 3 - B24 suspects and votes BWT for what he see as an easy vote, plus other charges I already said I don't quite comprehend (the "direct attention in a very specific direction" or "combination of forced interaction as well as suspicion direction").

If there's something in this vote / exchange that partially adds to what makes me wary of B24, it's that I can't fully grasp what he's aiming for with his reads or input.

[Marmot]

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

Would you join me in a vote for Russtifinko?

[AceofSpaces]

I am putting a vote onto Russ, based on what MacDougall said. I really don't have the time to catch up fully and form a solid opinion right now. Voting for Russ is the best I can do.

[sig]

Ignorant question: Is sig syndicate's sodr?

Also the spoiler tag is blinding me can you change the color of it somehow?

Can you explain this?

[sig]

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

[Epignosis]

Since you asked me to look at past games, I did. I looked at Cards against humanity, and what do you know? Both K4J and I stated there that you were not acting as we expected:

So now the story is that I am quiet Day 1 when I am bad, not quiet in general. You're changing your message to fit evidence that doesn't fit your message. That's good.

In regard to the last quote, Epig often votes early when a civvie. Note that he hasn't voted yet (at least not while I was searching and making this post).

No I don't.

Then I looked at Flash, another game you were bad in and look what I found regarding my thoughts about you there?

I was "bad" in Flash. Okay...I got a role that was "bad" (i.e., not a good guy in the canon), but I had no BTSC and a role ability in a map-based game that would ultimately out me. I had zero chance of winning, and, no offense to the host, it was not a well-designed game. So no interest in that one, I'm afraid. It wasn't a Mafia game.

I'm about to go to sleep. I urge people to look at my case on Epi two posts up. I think it's a good case.

Before you do, it'd be great if you and k4j could answer the questions I asked you.

On mobile, checking in. Will try to check CAH game when I have a chance.
Referring to how you twisted FZ's words…FZ said that quiet Epi is never a good thing. She was referring to what quiet means for your alignment. Not your success rate & suspicions as a civvie, which you made it seem like she was referring to with the example of how you wrongfully suspected her when neutral but civilian allied in Death Note (I think that is the game).

[/quote][/quote]

That's not twisting anyone's words. Sorry. It's twisting what you think her words meant. She made the vague assertion that "quiet epi is never good." What does that mean? Good for whom? Does it mean my alignment must be bad if I'm quiet? There are multiple ways to interpret that statement. I made the point that me being loud isn't necessarily good for the civilians, and therefore isn't good at all. To name some examples:

WWE: Loud and in charge and a civilian loser. (410 posts)
Death Note: Loud and rational and a civilian loser. (663 posts)

Someone once told me I should try being quiet and listen. I've gone that route a few times and I won my first full game ever as a civilian. Frisky Dingo, with 338 posts.

If the two of you are going to try to make this kind of case on Day 1, then please report on the data and the context, not tenuous memory erecting some "meta" that doesn't exist.

I'm done with this now. I finally get to sit down at my computer today with no other responsibilities, and I don't plan to squander that time replying to two people who have their minds made up.

On to business.

[birdwithteeth11]

Oh well. I guess it is what it is. I'm just glad with this game that I ended up taking it not so seriously and felt like I actually enjoyed playing for the fun of mafia. Good luck civvies!

The only thing I regret is not being able to compete with Rico for the Live Wire award. I was really excited to try and win that! :P

[Ricochet]

I'll probably resume to covering the main lynch trains, because it's super late here and there's not much time left before deadline.

BWT - I don't oppose his gameplay change pitch, because he didn't even change his gameplay that much since. I don't disagree with his suss on bea. I don't, however, understand his sig suss that he also insists on having fully stated in the game. I mean, is this it? Maybe it's the effect of 4am over here, but I don't understand what that first sentence means. Or is it this, about baddies trying to word their posts carefully?* After these couple of posts, he later just drums on the idea that his sig vote is fixed and stated.

There's also a very early post in which he acknowledges that players getting lynched for wordplay a lot, but with a "same as it ever was" sigh to it, presumably meaning that mislynches happen more often because of that ...yet he still suspects sig for that? Damn confusing.

[Ricochet]

Hol' up bwt, can you clarify what I brought up?

Also yeah, you never had a chance.

[bcornett24]

6 pages since i got off of work, catch up time.

[Golden]

Sig and BWT seem like stock standard day one suspicions for me. BWT in particular always seems to end up on the chopping block on day one. I haven't found the suspicion on either one convincing.

I got to page 16 thoroughly and really only had time to quickly skim the rest. I have no problem keeping my vote on rico, but I doubt anyone else would join me anyway, so I'm going to do something with the potential to be more meaninful.

I'm joining Mac on a vote for reywas. He has posted in other places (like the wrap up of recruitment) in the time he has not posted here. He may be intentionally playing utr.

[Epignosis]

It is 9:23pm EST.

These are the bwt voters as they stand right now:


birdwithteeth11
7
DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (26), HamburgerBoy (28), Sorsha (30), Diiny (31), sig (34)
20%

I plan to reevaluate this septet. I cannot fathom why bwt is this far ahead.

[Strawhenge]

I'm back, and I'm catching up. Sorry for being a lurker. Life, you know.

[espers]

Oh, and on topic, for those who don't know llama I find his conduct to be pretty on par for llama so far.

could you expand on this? the only time i played with him, he grilled (scum) sloonei hard, ended up getting him lynched, and was killed night 1. i've not really seen anything resembling that here.

Ignorant question: Is sig syndicate's sodr?

Also the spoiler tag is blinding me can you change the color of it somehow?

reading through sig's posts i was thinking "it's too bad sodr didn't end up signing up".

jjj's vote makes me uneasy about him, sig is the kind of player i'd expect him to qualify as an "easy-button lynch option" and be more leery of pushing on.

2. Lynch Mac for having it all worked Putin day 0 but not doing a thing to help town in ANY way but to boast. I reakon he is the rogue.

what makes you think he's the rogue? wouldn't he be more likely to be mafia if he's anti-town?

this is reminding me overwhelmingly of when osokoi/longford made a similarly inexplicable rogue read on a player in rym 87, and he was mafia.

voting seaside

To be fair, the player he was referring to in that game (JJJ) was a rogue... Although I see your point in that calling someone out for being a rogue can be another way of saying 'I read them as bad, but I know they aren't on my team, so what else can they be?'

I did want to know why MacDougall is working with Putin, though.

actually, at that point he wasn't a rogue; he was recruited in night 2, that post was in day 2. that aspect is sort of immaterial, though.

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

it's worth noting that if that player is voting now, they're probably voting someone from the same forum to avoid drawing attention on the tally, since there are no other vote manipulation things going on at this point iirc.

changing my vote to russ to make things interesting. i won't be back on till after deadline, at which point i'll have more to say about jjj and llama.

[Strawhenge]

I'm back, and I'm catching up. Sorry for being a lurker. Life, you know.

I also put a placeholder vote on Seaside.

[Golden]

Nor can I, epi.

Diiny and sig work as self-defense.

Epi... who would you, given the absolute discretion to determine who got lynched today, choose to go with?

[bcornett24]

Diiny earlier said that he expected so much more out of me, after reading for everything thus far, I would like to point out that many of the players in this game have said little to nothing. Most of the content has been generated by a rather small group of participants.

True, but I don't like this. Don't draw attention away from your own lack of activity; be active! I want to see the brian I know and, if you'll q-quite forgive me, love. That said I'm only skimming so you may have shown that but this jumped out at me

Of the four games, i've played this being the 5th, I have not had the same meta in any game (although, this is open to interpretation), which makes that hardly true.

Meta is not for you to select.

I agree, but when I think a is read wrong, I will address it.

[Roxy]

Teeth - Sure he went lightly on sig and then onto Bea for what feel were for reasons on a similar level to sig, Though he never voted sig but did jump on Bea until asked a question - to which appeared and answered and then swiveled back to sig. And finally voted for him.


Diin - Yah he went after me bc I do not play to his understanding. I felt it was more of a culture clash thing though he did say if I continued to play my own way he would vote for me. I don't think he ever did.



Sig - I don't really know sig that well though I am hosting him currently in a game and learning more. I am not sure the "make a slip" was an actual *slip* if you know what I mean. He seems to be genuine in his responses and they feel honest to me.


MF - Yes I know he may be suspicious of me but it really feels kind of like razzle dazzle - "ooh look Roxy may or may not be acting when she said she did not know RBZ was Keterman until she made that post". But instead of following through he just goes to some Day 0 stuff about Teeth not wanting lynch anyone who voted for and was the last voter for Wiggly and said he was the the winner and then votes for him. It feels slippery like snake oil salesman - - "don't like that than look here". He is an agressive player like I remember but his cases seemed to be based on very little imo.

Epi - I want to comment bc FZ and K4J commented on your style. I know what they are thinking - that you do not put yourself out there, you really offer nothing new or big to the discussion - a quiet version of Epi. But I want to tell them I have seen you like this as a civ. FZ does have excellent sense about slight differences in play style so I do listen up when she points stuff like this out. She may be onto something idk but for now I would not be comfortable making a vote for you based on her word only.

LC - His initial vote and suspicion fooled me bc I thought it was srsbns until he said it was a ploy to see who would run with it. I am not sure he did this bc of the result of llama's post asking if it is normal Bea response. (paraphrasing) and it gained no traction and then looked worse after the responses or bc he was really putting a trap into action. LC is tricksy for sure and always worth watching for now I will give him the botd and keep a close eye on him.

got one more page to read------

[Epignosis]

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.

I don't know how I missed this. But now I REALLY don't feel good about you. I actually agree with JJJ in that if we're actually creating discussion and debating ideas early on in Day 1, it can lead to good leads going forward and possibly make us more likely to catch a baddie.

I know you're coming from an old-school Hedville/Piano mentality, and I can respect that, but the way you've said this really feels like you're trying to detract from a method for catching baddies.

For now, my vote is going to you.

Votes bea

Although I do agree with that there can be meaningful day 1 discussions generated by debating I also think that RVS helps to generate content especially when participation is lacking. I do recognize that day 1 content can often be wishy washy, but this is not to say that the content generated isn't useful to look back on later and in some cases useful on day one. birdwithteeth11

Now to focus on this post, I think this vote is easy, too easy. This is a convenient chance to direct attention in a very specific direction. This also feels like an attempt to buddy up to jay. Based on this post, I'm assuming that you don't care for or participate in RVS making this a very serious vote. Based on that I am not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve. This feels like a combination of forced interaction as well as suspicion direction.

There have been a few questionable statements made by people thus far but none that have truly hit a cord with me, not like this post here.

OK, this post.

bcornett24 agrees with bwt's view (which is also my own) but thinks bwt is just voting someone for a convenient reason? "[D]irect attention in a very specific direction," he says. Yet he doesn't state what directions bwt is (so poorly) moving attention away from. These kinds of phrases "directing attention" and "distracting from things" ring bad to me, because there are over 30 autonomous people here with different schedules and minds- there is no "attention" in the singular.

Could vote here.

[bcornett24]

I remember making this argument on RYM quite a few times when people were screwing around on day 1.

It was always a favourite easy way for me to play supertown as scum.

And you say I influence you...

Have I ever played town cheerleader/head coach as mafia? You bet.

I do it in every game though regardless of alignment, even around here where nobody knows me that well yet and I haven't proven myself.

What do you think Mac? Am I nefarious or not?

The sheer fact that you're in Sweden and play mafia instead of enjoying life proves you're nefarious. Definitely not a guy I'd trust.
That being said don't you find DrWilgy's post too much fluff with little substance?

Interesting proposition

[bcornett24]

I remember making this argument on RYM quite a few times when people were screwing around on day 1.

It was always a favourite easy way for me to play supertown as scum.

And you say I influence you...

Have I ever played town cheerleader/head coach as mafia? You bet.

I do it in every game though regardless of alignment, even around here where nobody knows me that well yet and I haven't proven myself.

What do you think Mac? Am I nefarious or not?

The sheer fact that you're in Sweden and play mafia instead of enjoying life proves you're nefarious. Definitely not a guy I'd trust.
That being said don't you find DrWilgy's post too much fluff with little substance?

Interesting proposition

Then it is claimed to be a joke and jay rebukes, i assume we will see a significant lack in participation from jay for how long?

[Epignosis]

Nor can I, epi.

Diiny and sig work as self-defense.

Epi... who would you, given the absolute discretion to determine who got lynched today, choose to go with?

I just realized I have about an half an hour to vote.

I think k4j jumped onto FZ.'s ideas and held on for dear life. FZ. at least deserves to make my life hell for one game. But the points they raised are demonstrably false. And she says I twisted FZ.'s words (FZ. actually said that, but didn't elaborate), when in fact I provided a response that didn't match her interpretation of FZ.'s words.

I think k4j is being opportunistic. So if I had carte blanche over this lynch, that's where I'd drop it.

[MacDougall]

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

Would you join me in a vote for Russtifinko?

Sure, would you join me in a vote for reywaS?

[bea]

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.

My real vote today will go to sig. Despite the reasonable explanation he had for my original suspicion of him (that he was crafting his posts too much, in a baddie way), I've found a few of his reactions suspicious. His reaction that I was "distancing" from him when I forgot he was the third player involved in an earlier discussion was bizarre, as was his assertion that I (and others) are "desperate to try and get him lynched".

sig, saying we're desperate to try and get you lynched strikes me in two ways, neither of them making me feel comfortable about you. On one hand, it's overdefensive and paranoid, and on the other, it's a way to buffalo us out of voting for you... because who wants to looks "desperate" to lynch someone on Day 1?

It's not much, but it's the behaviour I found most suspicious today, and it's time for me to lock in a vote.

Sorry for using you, bea!

You jerk! For 2 days I've been trying to figure out where the hell that came from. I was all "maybe his vote was forced?" "no that can't be we haven't had a night yet." "I don't think he's bad, but omg wtf is up with LC's lack of reasoning for voting me??!! How does he not know me well enough to know I'm always indecisive day 1?" I even felt bad because I was totally trying to shame the super lame vote.

You just can't resist messing with me somehow in games can you LC?

Ok - still catching up. I'e been roughly two pages behind all day. Guess who's super cute and has no days off this week. Yup. This

[Russtifinko]

Ok, I haven't read everything, but I have read most things, and I am committed to playing this friggin' sweet game with you awesome people. Since the poll is about to end, I'm posting what thoughts I do have and then voting.

Please expect me to be more involved in future days.

[Epignosis]

Matt F suggested that he might change his vote, but I don't see him doing so at this point.

Somebody read him. I don't believe he ever mentioned bwt prior to his vote.

That's...tacking the third vote on somebody for no stated reason.

[Roxy]

Matt F suggested that he might change his vote, but I don't see him doing so at this point.

Somebody read him. I don't believe he ever mentioned bwt prior to his vote.

That's...tacking the third vote on somebody for no stated reason.

I already said I felt he was like Snidley Whiplash (<<<parapharsing)

[Epignosis]

1. I see sig as town and an easy mark, so bird switching from Bea to sig as he did looked suspicious
2. Long Con claimed to set up some kind of trap for people voting for Bea; while bird's reasons for voting for Bea were a little distinct, I wouldn't say completely so
3. Bird's lack of read on Long Con raised flags of avoidance, as does Long Con quickly dismissing his trap and bird's vote; thus I think there is something to learn from a lynch of one of the two regardless
4. This/reason from bcornett24 was a really good point imo
5. Or just read this quote pyramid, I agree with pretty much everything Sorsha is saying there

I think this is a solid post explaining HB's vote (although I don't agree on some of his points).

[Roxy]

I feel most strong about MF my vote is going there

[Roxy]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

[Epignosis]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

[Golden]

I feel better about a rey vote than a russti vote.

@Roxy - isn't that a little hypocritical, given the side you took in the Diiny conversation?

Rey and russti are also content.

[Epignosis]

I feel better about a rey vote than a russti vote.

@Roxy - isn't that a little hypocritical, given the side you took in the Diiny conversation?

Rey and russti are also content.

Why's that?

[Russtifinko]

As I catch up, I'm starting to get used to how often this community straight up asks out of the blue "are you bad?" to other players for little to no reason. Maybe it's a useful tactic here but in my experience it only does any good for the mafia. For example, I didn't like the look of this:

I accidentally implied I was civilian.

But you're not, right?

How can you accidentally imply you are civilian? Isn't that like the most basic claim used in mafia history, at the beginning and throughout the games?

Here, lemme make you imply some more: Are you bad?

To me it's so obvious that mm was joking that it seems opportunistic to call him out for this, but if it's a community thing, feel free to shoot me down.

I like Zebra! Seems like a heckuva player for Day 1. I also agree that it seemed super obvious MM was joking. It seems on reading Rico's posts that he is playing a joking style as well, so maybe he was bantering back, but this post in particular read pretty serious to me. And maybe he really didn't get the joke, but I think Rico is plenty smart to get it and was trying to throw shade.

Someone called me the most active user in the old thread and I've explained why I haven't posted much and why they are brief posts. If you refuse to see the difference between that and someone who has only posted a couple times without providing a reason, then u are angling which is scummy as!

In defense of seaside he did tell he's leaving for the countryside, I think it was a footy match or something. As long as he commit later on I don't think it's bad if some people have a slow start.

How can you have Desmond Green as your avatar and still say "footie"? Pick a side of the Atlantic!

On to someone else, quiet Epi is never a good thing...

Is loud Epi always a good thing? Be careful what you wish for.

And I think...

...nope, I'm going to harp on this one comment.

"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."

But the "never a good thing" comment is referring to your alignment. Not your success rate.
While you might wrongfully lynch civvies when vocal, I think that your vocal persona is associated with civilian. Maybe you're not leading the lynches of civvies when quiet, but who's to say you're not killing us off instead?
It is weird that you would try to write your quietness off as something positive, IMO.

I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him.

Posting because the host tells me I will be a non-participant if I don't.

I will read up throughout today and try to say something intelligent.

I hope you're able to get involved Russ. I've only gotten to play with you for maybe one day phase, and I think we'd get along great (just generally speaking as players).

Thanks, JJJ! Don't think your buddying up will get you anywhere with me, though, bub!

Linki: Damn, that Matt F vote though. And it being the 3rd one looks really bad, since 3 votes is about the threshold where the top candidates are. 3 of the next 5 votes went to BWT after. Matt F may not know, but as some have already pointed out, BWT always looks suspicious, pretty much without fail. Even without that it looks bad.

I will pursue Epi and Rico more tomorrow, but I am voting Matt F today.

Double Linki: But Epi, he's not new to mafia, right? I mean, he may not know BWT, but any experienced player would know that vote looks suspicious, right?

Triple linki: content?

[Roxy]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

If you are referring to my vote - he is not new to me.

Linky - Golden - what do you mean "side I took"?

[Epignosis]

I think I'm more up for a Russ lynch, myself.

[Epignosis]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

If you are referring to my vote - he is not new to me.

Linky - Golden - what do you mean "side I took"?

No, you always harp against voting new people- well half the people here are new.

[Russtifinko]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

If you are referring to my vote - he is not new to me.

Linky - Golden - what do you mean "side I took"?

No, you always harp against voting new people- well half the people here are new.

But new to this site =/= new to mafia. RYMers seem very experienced, generally speaking.

[Ricochet]

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

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

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

[Roxy]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

If you are referring to my vote - he is not new to me.

Linky - Golden - what do you mean "side I took"?

No, you always harp against voting new people- well half the people here are new.

We are all new to each other. This set up makes it hard not to vote for someone "new" though Matt F is def not new. I did not vote a new player day 1. My self rule still stands. Though maybe he played here before under a different name? Idk. Even if he is new to the site my vote will remain this self rule is now fucked in your eyes - this I know.

[Epignosis]

"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him."

That adverb.

How do you KNOW I deliberately did something? Maybe I didn't mean to...maybe I misunderstood. That, of all the things you supposedly read, you chose to comment on this?

And you can't deliberately misinterpret something. If you deliberately misinterpret something, we have another word for it: You're lying. There's no such thing as deliberately misinterpreting something. That's like saying, "He deliberately misjudged the trajectory of his car so he could run over a civilian."

Nah.

Voting Russtifinko.

Addendum: Roxy harps against voting people new to the site (that's my understanding of her ways).

Or maybe I'm deliberately misinterpreting something.

[Epignosis]

Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

If you are referring to my vote - he is not new to me.

Linky - Golden - what do you mean "side I took"?

No, you always harp against voting new people- well half the people here are new.

We are all new to each other. This set up makes it hard not to vote for someone "new" though Matt F is def not new. I did not vote a new player day 1. My self rule still stands. Though maybe he played here before under a different name? Idk. Even if he is new to the site my vote will remain this self rule is now fucked in your eyes - this I know.

Sometimes you explain the joke to where it isn't funny anymore.

[Russtifinko]

"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him."

That adverb.

How do you KNOW I deliberately did something? Maybe I didn't mean to...maybe I misunderstood. That, of all the things you supposedly read, you chose to comment on this?

And you can't deliberately misinterpret something. If you deliberately misinterpret something, we have another word for it: You're lying. There's no such thing as deliberately misinterpreting something. That's like saying, "He deliberately misjudged the trajectory of his car so he could run over a civilian."

Nah.

Voting Russtifinko.

Addendum: Roxy harps against voting people new to the site (that's my understanding of her ways).

Or maybe I'm deliberately misinterpreting something.

I don't know you deliberately misinterpreted it. But as I said in the next sentence, it looked that way to me.

If vertically challenged = short, deliberately misinterpreted = lying. So yeah, I think you lied. Rattled much?

My word! I've incurred the Wrath of Epi! Someone save me! Have mercy!

[bcornett24]

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.

I don't know how I missed this. But now I REALLY don't feel good about you. I actually agree with JJJ in that if we're actually creating discussion and debating ideas early on in Day 1, it can lead to good leads going forward and possibly make us more likely to catch a baddie.

I know you're coming from an old-school Hedville/Piano mentality, and I can respect that, but the way you've said this really feels like you're trying to detract from a method for catching baddies.

For now, my vote is going to you.

Votes bea

Although I do agree with that there can be meaningful day 1 discussions generated by debating I also think that RVS helps to generate content especially when participation is lacking. I do recognize that day 1 content can often be wishy washy, but this is not to say that the content generated isn't useful to look back on later and in some cases useful on day one. birdwithteeth11

Now to focus on this post, I think this vote is easy, too easy. This is a convenient chance to direct attention in a very specific direction. This also feels like an attempt to buddy up to jay. Based on this post, I'm assuming that you don't care for or participate in RVS making this a very serious vote. Based on that I am not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve. This feels like a combination of forced interaction as well as suspicion direction.

There have been a few questionable statements made by people thus far but none that have truly hit a cord with me, not like this post here.

OK, this post.

bcornett24 agrees with bwt's view (which is also my own) but thinks bwt is just voting someone for a convenient reason? "[D]irect attention in a very specific direction," he says. Yet he doesn't state what directions bwt is (so poorly) moving attention away from. These kinds of phrases "directing attention" and "distracting from things" ring bad to me, because there are over 30 autonomous people here with different schedules and minds- there is no "attention" in the singular.

Could vote here.

To me, it felt like an easy attempt to direct suspicions roxy's way, while various people have stated she is matching her meta.

[Roxy]

<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sometimes you explain the joke to where it isn't funny anymore.

Don't you mean every time?

[Epignosis]

"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him."

That adverb.

How do you KNOW I deliberately did something? Maybe I didn't mean to...maybe I misunderstood. That, of all the things you supposedly read, you chose to comment on this?

And you can't deliberately misinterpret something. If you deliberately misinterpret something, we have another word for it: You're lying. There's no such thing as deliberately misinterpreting something. That's like saying, "He deliberately misjudged the trajectory of his car so he could run over a civilian."

Nah.

Voting Russtifinko.

Addendum: Roxy harps against voting people new to the site (that's my understanding of her ways).

Or maybe I'm deliberately misinterpreting something.

I don't know you deliberately misinterpreted it. But as I said in the next sentence, it looked that way to me.

If vertically challenged = short, deliberately misinterpreted = lying. So yeah, I think you lied. Rattled much?

My word! I've incurred the Wrath of Epi! Someone save me! Have mercy!

No. Syntax.

"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point."

The predicate here indicates a posteriori knowledge that I was being deceptive. That you add a phrase that does more than qualify (it negates what you imply) looks even worse to me.

If you think I'm a liar, come out and call me a liar. Don't use weasel words and say you're gonna read me tomorrow.

[Strawhenge]

::stretches neck::

::cracks knucks::

Alright, bros. Let's @#$%.

(Hey Syndicats, just a disclaimer: when I case people it's not always things that I'm counting against them. It's anything of note.)

Okay, pages 4-5, first two pages of Day 1.

B. Cornett XXIV

Spoiler: show

1. Throwaway vote on Keej a.k.a aokiji a.k.a motel room. My old impulses, long since dulled by repetition in RYM games, flare every time I see jokey throwaway votes. I want to be all like, 'Oh, trying to be active, huh?' But then again I do other things to try to be active other than jokey throwaway votes so...yeah.

JJJ

Spoiler: show

1. Responds to Zebra's case. Expertly, as per usual. I foresee small novellas to form out of interactions between these two.It sirengifs me a little bit to see that JJJ deliberately lied to Zebra about his 'minimal' posting. JJJ has lied as a townie before, to gauge reaction (my reaction, to my pants-shitting chagrin), but this is almost a little too babygazelle-ish for JJJ. It's like JJJ emulating rdw, tbh, ikr, lol. That, as a I said, sirengifs my loins.

He then follows up the response with a 'strong town read' for Zebra. Interesting. Based on what? His thorough cases? Do I then get a strong read from you, Jay?

Matt F

Spoiler: show

1. Calls sig out on word choice. Normally I'm all (makes jerkoff motion with hand whilst blowing a raspberry) when it comes to picking apart wording this pedantically, and yes I know this is probably incredibly hypocritical of me, shut up RYMers. But that's actually my point. Why say anything? 'Kinda,' 'very,' 'seems,' 'is,' what's the difference in this case? Kinda is seeming very weird to point that out.

Metalmarsh89

Spoiler: show

1. Rundown of our Day 0 thread.
[quote="Metalmarsh89]
Nothing. :P [/quote]
Interesting. Really? Nothing happened? Nothing to go on?

Strawhenge posted too many sirens for my liking.

Oh, bro, you have no idea.

sig

Spoiler: show

1. Criticizes Zebra's points about the CEO votes. It has a faint whiff of OMGUS about it, with that first sentence about scum trying to prod him into playing sloppy.

thellama73

Spoiler: show

1. Says that asking if someone's scum is scummy. Maybe this is just a divergence in our universes, but, 'Are you scum?' is basically like saying, 'Hi, I am pleased to make your acquaintance. Would you like to partake in civil discourse over a, perhaps, croissant? Or scone? We can speak of literature and the political ideal' around RYM's neck of the woods.

But I think it's a good thing to keep in mind wert Syndicats, inversely. Like, if a Syndicat is all like, 'Are you scum or smth?' we can be all, 'Omg are you?!' and we can spend eight pages on it.

2. Goes on to ask Zebra if he's bad. Probably a joke, but then the WIFOM sets in and I get the spins. Zebra calls him out on it, and I tend to agree that it's odd, joke or no. Hmm.

Zebra (who equals Keterman? As in the Keterman who was on RYM? As in vvlll? Uh, hi!)

Spoiler: show

1. Talks about JJJ on a couple points: JJJ describing his post style as 'minimal', and sig and Epignosis voting JJJ without explanation as CEO. Since Trip-Jay has burned me before—even when we were both town, for Christ's ass's sake—I always have a modicum of suspicion for him. However I don't think there's anything scummy about these points.

2. Response to sig. He calls sig out for being really defensive, which I agree with.

[Golden]

I feel better about a rey vote than a russti vote.

@Roxy - isn't that a little hypocritical, given the side you took in the Diiny conversation?

Rey and russti are also content.

Why's that?

I feel as though russti had demonstrated he was genuinely present and ready to contribute, and may have been genuinely busy, whereas rey had posted on other parts of the site while not posting here.

[Strawhenge]

I'll do more later tonight.

Is discussion allowed at night?