Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

[sig]

If I'm on the team that didn't kill Timmer then we killed Zebra tonight? That makes no sense it might have removed someone who would vote for me but it increases mychances of getting lynched.
Know I think your on the team that killed Zebra, in an attempt to get me lynched.
Obviously team 2 is trying to get me lynched Zebra had only many gone after me and this further puts me in the hot seat.

[sig]

Notice DFaraday has once again dropped a fly by vote on me, without explanation or posts about anyone else.

[Bullzeye]

If I'm on the team that didn't kill Timmer then we killed Zebra tonight? That makes no sense it might have removed someone who would vote for me but it increases mychances of getting lynched.
Know I think your on the team that killed Zebra, in an attempt to get me lynched.
Obviously team 2 is trying to get me lynched Zebra had only many gone after me and this further puts me in the hot seat.

I wouldn't have killed Zebra because she was agreeing with me a lot. I don't kill people I think will stick by my side. WIFOM, but ask anyone I've been bad with. I like to have friends in the thread when I'm a baddie. Killing Zebra works in your favour because now I'm the only person arguing you should be lynched, while three people (You, HB, Golden) are arguing against me. You'll also get a lot of people wavering with the typical "surely he wouldn't have done something so obvious" WIFOM.

[Long Con]

Bass_the_Clever has replaced reywaS. He cannot be lynched today.

[Marmot]

Welcome Bass!

[Tranq]

@ Golden: I'm looking into your TinyBubbles suspicion. Am i correct in understanding it boils down to the following?

- Her randomly mentioning Timmer on Day 1 (but not because of Timmer's death)
- Her answering the are-you-civ question with a statement that cannot be lie detected (but not because she didn't simply say she was civ)

Note in RM4 she didn't say she was civ either. She made a joke, but it was a joke that could've been lie detected:

This game:

@turniphead am i bad? go by my track record!

vs
Quote from RM4:

yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.

[Turnip Head]

I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Per the underlined, what does sig gain from sharing knowledge of the baddies' motives to the thread if he's bad? I don't think it makes any sense for sig to make that post if he has inside info, because there's nothing to be gained from posting it in the first place.

Per the bolded, you are the poster boy for overreacting to suspicion.

[Bullzeye]

I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Per the underlined, what does sig gain from sharing knowledge of the baddies' motives to the thread if he's bad? I don't think it makes any sense for sig to make that post if he has inside info, because there's nothing to be gained from posting it in the first place.

Per the bolded, you are the poster boy for overreacting to suspicion.

I don't think he intentionally shared info. He said the baddies are killing low posters as if it was a sure thing that we all understood to be the case in this game. How could he know that? As to your other point I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to say to that.

[MacDougall]

So can we vote for two in either group?

[nutella]

I'm kind of lost as to who I want to vote for today, in both groups. I could see myself voting for Bubbles, I guess. I'm still waffling on Sig -- sometimes I really want to agree with Golden that it's a weak bandwagon, and sometimes I really find him suspicious. In group 2 I could also see voting for Luke or maybe HB.

[Turnip Head]

I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Per the underlined, what does sig gain from sharing knowledge of the baddies' motives to the thread if he's bad? I don't think it makes any sense for sig to make that post if he has inside info, because there's nothing to be gained from posting it in the first place.

Per the bolded, you are the poster boy for overreacting to suspicion.

I don't think he intentionally shared info. He said the baddies are killing low posters as if it was a sure thing that we all understood to be the case in this game. How could he know that? As to your other point I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to say to that.

My point is why would sig even say that? It doesn't benefit him to say that. It makes no sense. That makes me think he was just speculating and worded his speculation poorly.

[S~V~S]

Also lucky he wasn't one of the 7 independents, which he is also not.

This is an extremely definitive statement.

[Bullzeye]

Okay here are a handful of opinions on the people in group one. I have exempted those who missed the night poll and fell into both groups. If you can't live without reading my perspective on Elo, Rey, Bubbles, or TH, then feel free to check the group 2 post I made earlier (probably like 9 hours ago by the time this is done).

Bullzeye

Civviest of the civs. Very attractive, very intelligent, very awesome. Not much more needs to be said.

DFaraday

Always a quiet one... His vote for Sig is actually supported by his own views, which goes a good way toward making him not look like he's trying to be blendy IMO. It would've been easy for him to just sneak onto that bandwagon. I also don't see anything wrong with his two votes today. Neutral read for now, not enough content to make me lean strongly one way or the other but I do think his attempts to not be blendy look good for him.

Epignosis

I disagree with his suspicion of Dom but I think he's genuine in his pursuit of it. I find him generally good, if a bit nitpicky about language (but when isn't Epi?). He does make a good point against an otherwise relatively decent seeming SVS here:

"I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

I think Epi comes off as his usual civ self here. Not seen anything crazy to make me think bad.

Golden

I've already made some of my views on Golden known. I have a slight suspicion of him based on his defenses of Sig - namely that he mischaracterises the case against him and claims to have been Sig's only defender despite HB's ton of posts arguing in Sig's favour. I'm actually surprised HB didn't make a bigger deal out of that. If I'd put in a lot of effort to do something and then someone else showed up trying to take all the credit, I'd have a few things to say to them. HB also actually put in real effort to defend Sig while Golden's defense adds up to "I say don't do it". I think HB's defenses are more real than Golden's.

Anyway... forgetting all of that, his points about Bubbles are good. As I've already said, I don't think not claiming to be civ is a thing to be suspicious of, but he is right to suspect her for pointing out her track record as evidence of her civ-ness. I don't have much else to say about him really. I lean towards distrust.

Juliets

I like what I'm seeing from JC. She comes across very sincere and is making genuine attempts to find suspects. Her Banana vote is also one of the more reasonable. Her Sig vote on day 2 is also well put together and thought out. I think she's civ.

LoRab

Y'know, I'm surprised to see LoRab only has 37 posts so far. I thought I'd seen loads from her. I think her day one suspicion of Mac comes from an honest position and she did raise some reasonable points against him that could be worth keeping in mind. Has supported me a fair bit on the Sig case and overall hasn't said anything I disagree with. I don't think she's bad, leaning towards a civ read.

MacDougall

He has too many posts, let's lynch him. On a serious note, as above, I do think LoRab was justified in suspecting Mac on day one. His whole thing against Matt is not a civ-friendly thing to do and he doesn't come off well in his discussion with LoRab IMO. Of course, his vote didn't end day one with Matt. He voted Dom in deference to Epi, which is not something I associate with civ-friendly behaviour as he puts all the accountability for his vote onto Epi. Bounced his vote around a ton on day 2, which makes it hard for me to figure out who he actually suspects and whether at any point he intended to leave his vote on a person only to change his mind or if he always meant for it to end up on JC. Overall, I don't think I want to trust him at this stage. Neutral/bad read.

MattF

Standard Reasonable (as opposed to Crazy) Matt here. I never really know what to think of him. I don't have reason to suspect him yet though.

MetalMarsh89

Meh, I dunno. He doesn't seem bad but he doesn't seem all that great either. I'm finding it hard to form an opinion either way based on all he's said so far. Neutral read for now.

Nutella

I had some suspicion of her on day one for similar reasons as Epi suspected Dom - I felt like she was trying to look involved by getting out non-controversial opinions on topics she wouldn't have to commit to. I was her number 1 suspect until it became possible to vote for me, for instance. She also has defended Canuck more than Canuck has defended herself. She said she was wary of the Sig bandwagon but then voted him anyway. Interestingly, hers was the 7th vote for Sig and she had four (out of an eventual five) herself at the time, yet implies her Sig vote was motivated by self-preservation. Not sure how much I buy that. Comments on Sig's survival that it's 'interesting' but doesn't tell us anything - we already knew that so this just looks like an attempt to be blendy IMO. If she were in Group 2 I'd probably vote her today.

Sig

Do you even have to ask? My number 1 suspect.

Timmer

Was a civ, and since he's replaced back in he clearly hasn't had the chance to say anything. So I'm leaving him out of this since there's no point analysing what doesn't exist.

Tranq

TH makes a good point that most of Tranq's posts only focus on Floyd, Bugla, and Luke. It's really easy to focus on low-posting newbies (and I still consider Floyd a new player - especially if he's civ in this game it'll be his first time alone). He's since shifted to look at Bubbles and mentioned Nutella as well so I'll see how that progresses but for now I don't feel great about Tranq.

Conclusion

A few suspects here. In order, I'd say I find the following people suspicious:

Sig
Nutella
Golden
Mac
Tranq (very distantly, probably more accurate to say I think he's the least not-suspicious of Group 1)

Obviously this omits those who are in Group 2, as well as my suspects from that Group. I suppose in order of most-least, my suspicion list would look something like this:

Sig
HB
Bubbles
Nutella
Golden
Canuck
Mac
Tranq
Splints

Tranq and Splints are fairly close to being off that list altogether, while Mac is also someone I could easily be talked away from.

[Bullzeye]

My point is why would sig even say that? It doesn't benefit him to say that. It makes no sense. That makes me think he was just speculating and worded his speculation poorly.

So why not just say that instead of immediately NO Uing everyone who dared to question his intentions?

[Bullzeye]

Also chucking my group two vote onto *Bubbles* for previously explained reasons.

[Matt]

My biggest suspects are still nute and Sorsha. I'll placehold them for now, but I'll try to reread last few pages to see if anything else pops out.

Mac - What happens if I vote for you?

[TheFloyd73]

I amused by how Sig is still in a somewhat positive, yet sarcastic mood, considering his vote situation.

[Dom]

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

[Bullzeye]

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

[Golden]

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

I haven't read back on HB, but you keep making out over and over like I didn't address this.

I did not, and still do not, have any recollection of any posts in which HB defended sig. I took his word for it the moment he said it happened, and never claimed to be the only person defending sig thereafter.

[Epignosis]

My number #1 choice to lynch right now is Typhoony.

Explain.

Zebra vs Epi: Wow. Two people who are very confident in their own style of play with just the right amount of tunnelvision clash about the English language. Please don't do that to me again.
Epi sort of backpedalling on SVS is interesting. I don't know how often he actually does that.

This right here.

People mock me for this (when they themselves don't understand the principle behind it), but I have caught Mafia a few times by looking out for and pressing people on the way they word their posts.

First, you raise the back and forth Zebra and I had without commenting on the content. If by "please don't do that to me again," you mean that you read it all, then what does it say about Zebra, if anything? Or me? Did it give you no impression whatsoever?

Second, you called my interaction with S~V~S "interesting," without commenting on why it's interesting. You didn't ask questions about it. You didn't put any pressure on me. You didn't even ask people how often I do that, and, if you knew, state how that would factor into whether or not you believed I was good or bad. You just...mention it and move on.

I only plucked this piece of your post out to give an example of the empty rhetoric that pervades your entire post. It is loaded with fence-riding that goes nowhere. You make a few soft defenses of a few people (like nutella, whom I also suspect) and restate your Day 2 reason for voting Floyd (piggybacking on what Tranq said). Then you throw TH and Golden in there for no specific reason.

This is why I suspect you.

And hey, you and nutella are in two different groups.

[Dom]

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

If Golden is bad how does he know that Sig isn't on the other team?

[Golden]

@ Golden: I'm looking into your TinyBubbles suspicion. Am i correct in understanding it boils down to the following?

- Her randomly mentioning Timmer on Day 1 (but not because of Timmer's death)
- Her answering the are-you-civ question with a statement that cannot be lie detected (but not because she didn't simply say she was civ)

Note in RM4 she didn't say she was civ either. She made a joke, but it was a joke that could've been lie detected:

This game:

@turniphead am i bad? go by my track record!

vs
Quote from RM4:

yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.

Not quite. Timmer dying afterwards is also part of it.

[juliets]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

[S~V~S]

@ Golden: I'm looking into your TinyBubbles suspicion. Am i correct in understanding it boils down to the following?

- Her randomly mentioning Timmer on Day 1 (but not because of Timmer's death)
- Her answering the are-you-civ question with a statement that cannot be lie detected (but not because she didn't simply say she was civ)

Note in RM4 she didn't say she was civ either. She made a joke, but it was a joke that could've been lie detected:

This game:

@turniphead am i bad? go by my track record!

vs
Quote from RM4:

yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.

Not quite. Timmer dying afterwards is also part of it.

She mentioned him, and then he died?

[Golden]

Also lucky he wasn't one of the 7 independents, which he is also not.

This is an extremely definitive statement.

I hadn't read that back, but it does sound like I'm stating a fact, but thats not what I meant in context. My point was in response to bullzeye saying I was going after civ cred 'when sig flipped civ', and it was in context of me saying 'lucky sig didn't come back on the other baddie team'... 'or as an independent'. Because to be setting up for the cred, I'd have to know that sig wasn't independent as well. Does that make sense?

In terms of the facts - Sig could well be independent, I just don't think he is bad.

[Turnip Head]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

What are the facts of the case, juliets?

[Epignosis]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.

[juliets]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.

Why?

[Bullzeye]

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

I haven't read back on HB, but you keep making out over and over like I didn't address this.

I did not, and still do not, have any recollection of any posts in which HB defended sig. I took his word for it the moment he said it happened, and never claimed to be the only person defending sig thereafter.

I haven't intended to make out that you didn't address it tbf. I know that you said you don't recall HB defending him, but honestly that just makes me question how qualified you are to comment on the Sig case at all given that a big part of it for me is HB's constant defenses. I don't see how you can have read the pages of this thread where the Sig case was developed and failed to notice HB defending him and me (as well as Zebra, LoRab, and possibly others) pointing this out as suspicious. So if anything you saying you don't remember it at all makes even less sense to me.

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

If Golden is bad how does he know that Sig isn't on the other team?

I have already addressed this point. He either hopes, or genuinely believes, that Sig is a civ in this scenario. I've also admitted it's not the best theory in the world and it's only something I'd consider in light of a Sig lynch. For the time being though, it still makes me wary of Golden. I can't see how he can honestly have not noticed HB defending Sig and yet understand the Sig case well enough to criticise it so heavily.

[Typhoony]

Zebra vs Epi: Wow. Two people who are very confident in their own style of play with just the right amount of tunnelvision clash about the English language. Please don't do that to me again.
Epi sort of backpedalling on SVS is interesting. I don't know how often he actually does that.

This right here.

People mock me for this (when they themselves don't understand the principle behind it), but I have caught Mafia a few times by looking out for and pressing people on the way they word their posts.

First, you raise the back and forth Zebra and I had without commenting on the content. If by "please don't do that to me again," you mean that you read it all, then what does it say about Zebra, if anything? Or me? Did it give you no impression whatsoever?

I was referring to your pointless back and forth about the English language. It was just a waste of my time to read all of it, hence "please don't do that to me again". It did not give me any idea about your alignment or zebras, it just gave me a headache.

Second, you called my interaction with S~V~S "interesting," without commenting on why it's interesting. You didn't ask questions about it. You didn't put any pressure on me. You didn't even ask people how often I do that, and, if you knew, state how that would factor into whether or not you believed I was good or bad. You just...mention it and move on.

I didn't call your interaction with SVS interesting, I called you backpedalling interesting, because in my head you have tunnel vision to the max and aren't prone to doing that all. Hence, you backpedaling is something I am not used to which is why it is interesting.

I only plucked this piece of your post out to give an example of the empty rhetoric that pervades your entire post. It is loaded with fence-riding that goes nowhere. You make a few soft defenses of a few people (like nutella, whom I also suspect) and restate your Day 2 reason for voting Floyd (piggybacking on what Tranq said). Then you throw TH and Golden in there for no specific reason.

This is why I suspect you.

And hey, you and nutella are in two different groups.

You're summing up my post as you see it. Thanks.

[Epignosis]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.

Why?

Without meaning to cause offense to sig, Long Con is a far more experienced player than him, and far more accomplished in the art of deception. When sig is telling the truth, he looks like the worst of liars.

If anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. You judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks.

[Golden]

@Bullz - because I was focussed on sig's posts when considering whether he was bad. The whole case fell down from the start. To me, the details after that point become irrelevant. I didn't need to get bogged down in the detail of understanding every aspect of the case. I understood enough - you thought sig was on the team responsible for timmer's death and I do not.

I don't think it could be any more plain that that. I haven't gone back to read the case again or think through it at all because I do not need to. It's like if someone makes a case on me - I know I am civ, so I know the case is wrong. I don't have to understand the case to know it is wrong. In this case, I am sure your case is wrong, even though I think it is sincere, and it may also be really good.

It also doesn't help that in reading HB I was much more focussed on the stuff I was interested in, which was his position in relation to people I actually think could be on the team that killed timmer.

I've been way more defensive of sig than I should have, and I do recognise that you could be right that he is bad and I could be wrong. But I do not think he was responsible for killing Timmer, so can you see how it is hard for me to see the need to understand the fine detail of your case?

@epi - if anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. That is truth. Poor sig ties himself up in knots, but I think his sincerity is the most reliable aspect.

[juliets]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

What are the facts of the case, juliets?

sig made a post that read to me like he had knowledge of one of the baddies team, specifically their strategy for kills. He was then asked about that post and in my opinion he overreacted to what was being said about him. The argument grew into words that he thought another person used - Bullz I think - that he didnt think meant the same as his words (I disagreed - I saw these things as acceptable paraphrases). These overreactive defenses looked baddie in nature as imo most overreactive defenses looked. As I look at his whole behavior through this period my opinion is he is likely bad. I'm sure I've left something out but that is the nutshell of the case for me.

[S~V~S]

@Golden~ Bubbles & Timmer; what's the connection? I am missing why you think she killed Timmer.

[juliets]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.

Why?

Without meaning to cause offense to sig, Long Con is a far more experienced player than him, and far more accomplished in the art of deception. When sig is telling the truth, he looks like the worst of liars.

If anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. You judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks.

I don't know anything at all about sig or how accomplished he is in the art of deception. If the comparison doesnt fit because of what you say then just strike it from the sentence. The point still stands, sincerity does not equal civvness.

[Epignosis]

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.

Why?

Without meaning to cause offense to sig, Long Con is a far more experienced player than him, and far more accomplished in the art of deception. When sig is telling the truth, he looks like the worst of liars.

If anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. You judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks.

I don't know anything at all about sig or how accomplished he is in the art of deception. If the comparison doesnt fit because of what you say then just strike it from the sentence. The point still stands, sincerity does not equal civvness.

What? No, the point doesn't stand at all!

Just because Long Con tricked you doesn't mean Long Con was being sincere. He wasn't sincere, and you were fooled.

Sincerity is a trait of the civilian. Tricking people is the trait of the Mafia.

What you are saying here is essentially that sig is being sincere but simultaneously tricking the thread?

[juliets]

Epi I don't know what you're trying to say but sounding sincere is something anyone can do, baddies do it all the time.

[Epignosis]

Epi I don't know what you're trying to say but sounding sincere is something anyone can do, baddies do it all the time.

sig can't.

[HamburgerBoy]

Golden

I've already made some of my views on Golden known. I have a slight suspicion of him based on his defenses of Sig - namely that he mischaracterises the case against him and claims to have been Sig's only defender despite HB's ton of posts arguing in Sig's favour. I'm actually surprised HB didn't make a bigger deal out of that. If I'd put in a lot of effort to do something and then someone else showed up trying to take all the credit, I'd have a few things to say to them. HB also actually put in real effort to defend Sig while Golden's defense adds up to "I say don't do it". I think HB's defenses are more real than Golden's.

I haven't intended to make out that you didn't address it tbf. I know that you said you don't recall HB defending him, but honestly that just makes me question how qualified you are to comment on the Sig case at all given that a big part of it for me is HB's constant defenses. I don't see how you can have read the pages of this thread where the Sig case was developed and failed to notice HB defending him and me (as well as Zebra, LoRab, and possibly others) pointing this out as suspicious. So if anything you saying you don't remember it at all makes even less sense to me.

I'm not going to take it personally if someone glosses over my case; in absence of anything else, had golden claimed to defend sig solely that on its own wouldn't really bother me. It's possible for him to overlook another person's case. I'd disagree that I spent that much time defending sig anyways; I defended nutella a fair bit as well, and have had suspicions in/arguments with at least a handful of other players, including Mac and Epi prior to my defense of sig. The biggest thing that's pinging me of all about golden is that the first statement he made on me, was in this post:

I've caught up on all the sig stuff and... I think voting for sig is a bad idea.

I don't think the case is strong, and besides that it seems like more or less everyone is happy lynching him. The bandwagon is coming together far too easily. It doesn't feel right to me.

@Sorsha - the more you post, the more I feel like my initial instincts about you were wrong. You are feeling relatively townish to me at the moment.

@Mac - you remind me a little of talking heads mac, in that I can't quite get a read on what parts of what you are saying are serious and what parts are not. I don't think this is necessarily a bad sign for you (even though you were bad in that game) but I would like to get a clear sense of, I guess, the hierarchy of your suspicions, since you seem to be throwing a lot out there.

I don't agree with a lot of the votes going on in this day. A lot of the people who are taking a lot of discussion and votes I have an active civ vibe from. HBoy, SVS, Dom... I think all are civ.

Note that he doesn't explain why he thought I was civ, but that in the same post he mentioned that he just finished catching up with the sig material. If not for my defense of sig, why did he have me as a civ read? I feel like he wanted me in his back pocket so to speak, tread lightly, give a quiet town read on me, and let me go after other players. This is especially the case when after I voiced my own suspicions, he pulled the "But we got along so well in past RYM games" card, which I think was him genuinely annoyed that I was interfering with a long-term plan of his.

For the record, I'd still like an answer for your earlier civ read on me regardless.

[Golden]

@Golden~ Bubbles & Timmer; what's the connection? I am missing why you think she killed Timmer.

So is everyone else.

[S~V~S]

@Golden~ Bubbles & Timmer; what's the connection? I am missing why you think she killed Timmer.

So is everyone else.

....so why don't you explain it for me?

[Golden]

I'm trying to find the quote!

[Golden]

Here you go SVS...

Most importantly... Timmer died. And I know that bubbles has seen me pull that exact move on her just before I killed her, to make me seem less responsible for the kill, in a game I went on to win.

I think bubbles used the post and vote about timmer as a distancing tactic, because I know she is very aware of a time when it worked.

Lets not forget, the baddies have a range on their kill. I'm guessing they already knew what options were available to them.

If not this - why did bubbles call out specifically and only timmer out of all low posters? Not rey, not canuck... etc.

[Golden]

@HB. I see little value in throwaway town reads as a baddie.

I said I thought you were civ because I did. You were defending dom when people continued to push for yet another ridiculous lynch train. You sounded to me like someone trying to solve the game.

The only time I started to doubt your civvieness was your post that was something about choosing to vote nutella over sig, even though you were defending nutella, because it stuck out to me like a sore thumb, and immediately flipped my view on you.

I find you odd in this game. The moment I had realised you were defended sig as well, I did a mea culpa. But for some reason you've seen that whole thing not as you doing something legitimately odd (saying you'd vote nutella while defending her), but me having some nefarious reason to be pinged by it. You've claimed I'm wishy washy in this game, which I think couldn't be further from the truth, you keep trying to compare my game to 89 when I honestly can't think of another game where I've played so similarly to 87. I don't understand where your head is at, any more, at all.

[Sorsha]

I was just going through Goldens posts as well and found this one which he explains in a little more detail about the Bubbles/timmer theory:

Bubbles being a low poster is not suspicious on its own. She is always a low poster.

The game is economics. I deliberately made a post on her as the kill was incoming, then posted it right after she died, saying 'oops, I was writing this when the post came in, I guess I may as well post it anyway'. And yes, I know for a fact she remembers it well.

I know bubbles very well. I played in her first game. I've played in nearly all of her games. Her calling out timmer was odd in the extreme. Her not saying she was civ was odd in the extreme. It all makes sense in context.

I never said I don't want to touch the SVS, Dom, Epi thing. In fact, I've made it very clear that I think they are all town, and if I knew one was bad I would lean epi, but I think the entire thing is civ civ civ. I said I wouldn't put my VOTE anywhere in that triangle, which is a very different thing indeed.

I made my own post on bubbles yesterday for some slight pings I had of her play so far which prompted a no u vote from her.

One of my votes will be for bubbles, not sure on the other one yet. I won't be joining the sig voters.

[HamburgerBoy]

Daily reminder that golden also made a day 1 vote on timmers, but had the sense to switch it to Canuck, and then make Bubbles look like she had committed an unforgivable sin, after golden already washed himself clean.

[S~V~S]

Here you go SVS...

Most importantly... Timmer died. And I know that bubbles has seen me pull that exact move on her just before I killed her, to make me seem less responsible for the kill, in a game I went on to win.

I think bubbles used the post and vote about timmer as a distancing tactic, because I know she is very aware of a time when it worked.

Lets not forget, the baddies have a range on their kill. I'm guessing they already knew what options were available to them.

If not this - why did bubbles call out specifically and only timmer out of all low posters? Not rey, not canuck... etc.

So Bubbles, who you say has never been a baddie before, convinces her team to kill the person she voted for? Based on a move you JUST did to her. Do you figure she did not think you would recall that?

That sounds like a stretch.

If it was a serial killer, I could see it, but not on a team. I know if I were bad and a teammate said to me, "Hey, Golden just did this to me. Let's do it to someone else!" and Golden was playing, I would say, um, no, let's not.

[HamburgerBoy]

@HB. I see little value in throwaway town reads as a baddie.

I said I thought you were civ because I did. You were defending dom when people continued to push for yet another ridiculous lynch train. You sounded to me like someone trying to solve the game.

The only time I started to doubt your civvieness was your post that was something about choosing to vote nutella over sig, even though you were defending nutella, because it stuck out to me like a sore thumb, and immediately flipped my view on you.

I find you odd in this game. The moment I had realised you were defended sig as well, I did a mea culpa. But for some reason you've seen that whole thing not as you doing something legitimately odd (saying you'd vote nutella while defending her), but me having some nefarious reason to be pinged by it. You've claimed I'm wishy washy in this game, which I think couldn't be further from the truth, you keep trying to compare my game to 89 when I honestly can't think of another game where I've played so similarly to 87. I don't understand where your head is at, any more, at all.

Is voting nutella that odd? I defended sig earlier than her and only began to defend her when she seemed like the only counter-wagon building against sig. You admitted yourself that lynches aren't as flexible here; if I see the two clear lynch candidates both as town, why would I not vote for the one that seems less obviously town if my vote can make a difference? I mean, hell, you even framed it that way in your first reply to me on the matter:

HBoy - your defence of nutella sounds sincere. But it looks like it is either sig or nutella. Will you put your money where your mouth is and show you prefer a nutella lynch to a sig one?

Notice that you were only able to say that because you pretended I hadn't defended sig. If you had acknowledged it, you would be acknowledging that I was being forced between two people with rapidly growing bandwagons around them, and therefore couldn't try pressuring me into a nutella vote.

[HamburgerBoy]

For what it's worth, I think golden is relying on more than just the timmers vote and Bubbles not answering "Are you civvie?" on day 1. That TinyBubbles would say golden of all people should know implies to me some kind of map-based BTSC gone wrong. He's pushing her lynch consistently and there's no way that it's any kind of bus, but I don't that his instincts on her alone are doing this. Unless Bubbles wants to come back and clarify that she was purely referring to the many games they played together in the past?