Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

[Canucklehead]

SVS and I agree about something!

I like the case on canuck. That's where I'm putting a vote for now. I think there have been other good options floated too. Juliets definitely seems different to me, but because she is so consistent I'm not sure if 'different' = 'bad' or not. The biggest reason I'm not voting for her right now and canuck instead, though, is I think we could use having some viable competition to see where people land.

The Draconus connections to luke thing also has merit. I think there are several viable options today.

linki - I thought bullz's post makes sense. I understand that when I tunnel it can sometimes damage my ability to hurt the town. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at all the options again.

Hey, G.
Can you also respond to the question I asked SVS (i.e. why, in your view, my actions go beyond simply "not-civ" and land in "probably-baddie", bypassing other options?)
I honestlytruly do not understand why disengaged-random Canuck is looking like a baddie to folks.

[LoRab]

Wilgy I came to your bonfire party you have to come to mine now. We sacrificing some juliets to the god of maphia.

You think juliets is worse than LoRab? I'm not sure how serious you were with your LoRab suspicion

If he was serious about me, it would be nice if he actually said why he was suspicious.

I think he was just another random name he decided out of nowhere to suspect in the final hours of the lynch (as he seems wont to do).

I am always serious. You are a baddie

I was invited to a bonfire though, why should I turn down this bonding moment between friends? You aren't on the pyre anymore would you like to join us?

I'm not a baddie.

And I'd consider joining a bonfire--but how do I know you aren't going to throw me onto it?

linkitis: The way you phrase that is a bit suspect, Bullz. Being suspicious of another player isn't doing YOU any favors? So, you're backing away because it's bad for you? Also, maybe the baddies are actually killing his accusors, because it will seem like a setup (you know, wifom).

Shouldn't I think of myself? What I mean is voting him every day and not really focusing on much else doesn't help me to find other baddies or have opinions on other topics. I don't think it's beneficial to my ability to play when all I'm doing is going after the same person and repeating the same things over and over again with no real effect on anything.

That makes sense to me. I had read it differently.

[juliets]

HamBoy, this is the quote that shows the question Tranq asked and the question I asked. I thought Bugla didn't understand the question which is why I paraphrased.

Spoiler: show

TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?

Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.

Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

To BUGLABUSH it is.

I voted for a2thezebra because he bad

Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.

Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.

I was only able to get a quick glance at the thread, I didn't have time to make a post because I was going out somewhere.
How exactly can it be elaborated on? I do know BUGLABUSH in real life, but I'm still going to treat him (and the other people I know IRL) like any regular player.
My point is that a vague reason is always a suspicious reason.

Buga's vote was a no u vote. How did that make him seem bad? Tranq may have more questions out of what he said but this is the main one.

I wasn't trying to help Luke, I paraphrased hoping he could give a better answer. It was in no way any kind of defense of Luke - it was more an indictment. In day 4 part 1 i shifted my vote because I though Epi made a good point that we had shifted to Luke instead of staying with nutella from the day before. I was in and out that day just like you said.

I think i already explained day 4 part 2 but since I had had Luke in mind the day before I wanted to see if he had relieved the qualms I had or not so I checked to see if he had answered the questions people had. He did a weak job and so I voted for him. I hadn't suspected him because I wanted to set him up for a bus but I guess there is no way to actually prove that.

[HamburgerBoy]

That whole quote pyramid seems to involve Floyd and BUGLA though, not Luke.

[sig]

I think better of Sig after that Luke lynch. Since Nutella turned out not to be part of a baddie team, I think the best place to look would be people potentially trying to save Luke in the previous lynch.

Okay that is good to know, what do you think about Floyd, Tranq did mention him a few times and voted for him, but I'm not sure if that plays into his death.

@Sorsha Any idea who might have killed Tranq?

I'll need to look over juliets, but I do think someone who mildly defended Luke or didn't vote for him and picked a solo vote is a teammate.

[Golden]

SVS and I agree about something!

I like the case on canuck. That's where I'm putting a vote for now. I think there have been other good options floated too. Juliets definitely seems different to me, but because she is so consistent I'm not sure if 'different' = 'bad' or not. The biggest reason I'm not voting for her right now and canuck instead, though, is I think we could use having some viable competition to see where people land.

The Draconus connections to luke thing also has merit. I think there are several viable options today.

linki - I thought bullz's post makes sense. I understand that when I tunnel it can sometimes damage my ability to hurt the town. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at all the options again.

Hey, G.
Can you also respond to the question I asked SVS (i.e. why, in your view, my actions go beyond simply "not-civ" and land in "probably-baddie", bypassing other options?)
I honestlytruly do not understand why disengaged-random Canuck is looking like a baddie to folks.

I don't think you look disengaged. I think you look like you are trying to look disengaged, while not actually being disengaged. I've felt that way since my day one vote for you.

I just realised that I don't actually agree with SVS, lol. Her reasons for suspecting you and mine are different. I find that the behaviour she points out is indicative of what I think looks like a teammate of Luke, so I find you more suspicious not in spite of luke flipping bad, but because of it.

So it's not about your behaviour 'not looking civ', it is about doing things that I think could point to 'actually cabal'.

[juliets]

That whole quote pyramid seems to involve Floyd and BUGLA though, not Luke.

HamBoy I went through all my posts and the best I can figure I said Luke when I should have said Floyd because Floyd was the person I reinterpreted Tranq's question for. So I think thats just a mistake.

[Canucklehead]

SVS and I agree about something!

I like the case on canuck. That's where I'm putting a vote for now. I think there have been other good options floated too. Juliets definitely seems different to me, but because she is so consistent I'm not sure if 'different' = 'bad' or not. The biggest reason I'm not voting for her right now and canuck instead, though, is I think we could use having some viable competition to see where people land.

The Draconus connections to luke thing also has merit. I think there are several viable options today.

linki - I thought bullz's post makes sense. I understand that when I tunnel it can sometimes damage my ability to hurt the town. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at all the options again.

Hey, G.
Can you also respond to the question I asked SVS (i.e. why, in your view, my actions go beyond simply "not-civ" and land in "probably-baddie", bypassing other options?)
I honestlytruly do not understand why disengaged-random Canuck is looking like a baddie to folks.

I don't think you look disengaged. I think you look like you are trying to look disengaged, while not actually being disengaged. I've felt that way since my day one vote for you.

I just realised that I don't actually agree with SVS, lol. Her reasons for suspecting you and mine are different. I find that the behaviour she points out is indicative of what I think looks like a teammate of Luke, so I find you more suspicious not in spite of luke flipping bad, but because of it.

So it's not about your behaviour 'not looking civ', it is about doing things that I think could point to 'actually cabal'.

Thanks. That makes sense. It's wrong, of course, but it does make sense.


Here's the thing: I know it's early yet, but I am genuinely worried that I will be lynched today. The problem is, I have no defense to the cases made against me because, while the conclusions drawn from my posts and actions are incorrect, the points made about my actions and posts themselves are not totally wrong. I have voted randomly, I have posted based on loose impressions rather than facts, I have jumped on easy bandwagons, and I have (until now......or including now, depending on how generous you are in your reading of my post :P ) made little attempt to defend myself or engage with the cases against me. All I can say is, while it is true that I have thus far not been proactively helping the civ cause, I also haven't been actively harming it (though I'm sure some of you will argue that passivity is it's own brand of harm). I also (and you'll just have to take my word for it) have no intentions of harming the civ cause now or in the future. It would be foolish of me to do so. By thr same token, lynching me will not get us closer to a civ victory, and that's really the best defense I have. Do with it what you will, but I'd really like to stay alive.

[MacDougall]

juliets, if u r not scum then explain how your role card has 'maphia' written on it in big capital red letters please?

Furthermore explain why you were seen purchasing large volumes of fertalizer from the farm store? Are you a farmer?

[LoRab]

juliets, if u r not scum then explain how your role card has 'maphia' written on it in big capital red letters please?

Furthermore explain why you were seen purchasing large volumes of fertalizer from the farm store? Are you a farmer?

Wait...how do you know how it's written if someone is mafia?

[Golden]

Well, Canuck, here is your chance to at least convince me not to vote for you today.

Who are your major suspects and why?

[MacDougall]

juliets can you tell us who you actually suspect? I am seeing defending but not much alleging.

[Canucklehead]

Well, Canuck, here is your chance to at least convince me not to vote for you today.

Who are your major suspects and why?

My suspicion of Juliets is legitimate. I found her attempts to explain away Epi's point about her non-questioning of her vote recipient to be really unconvincing, and the certainty/finality with which she dismissed this point really felt off to me. This is what I meant by her "misunderstanding" or (perhaps a better way to phrase it) "selectively interpreting" posts: her response quoted below reads to me like "That point is invalid because I say it is invalid, so now your suspicion is invalid so what other reasons do you suspect me for? None? Good.". Just like her "questioning" of Bugla was not real questioning, her engagement with that suspicion against her was not real engagement. Her repetition of her questions to me (basically, "Why do you suspect me, Canuck?") when there was absolutely NOTHING unclear or ambiguous about why I suspected her (I literally quoted Epi verbatim and said "That's exactly what I think!") reads to me like a manipulative way to dismiss the point. There was no need to ask why I "otherwise" suspected her, since there was no other reason I suspected her and I never implied that there was, nor did there need to be another reason. But by slipping that "otherwise" in there, she implies that she has successfully defended against the suspicion in question (she hadn't, she'd merely hand-waved it away) and that she's ready to take on all other suspicions (all of which would by her implication be similarly invalid) in a similarly reductive way. That, to me, is the mafia version of gentle gaslighting, and it is, as far as I remember, not a feature of juliets usual civ game.

Did you read my response Canuck? I did indeed ask sig a question, "I'm about to vote for you, tell me why I shouldnt". Epig just missed it in his review. Otherwise, what do you think is so off about my posting? Half of my posts have been questions which is normal for me.

"Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not the kind of question you ask of someone you are genuinely interested in having your mind changed about. "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not a request for information, it's a demand that someone prove themselves. Very, very different. Also, it doesn't look to me like Epi missed that post, it looks like he disagrees that it was a "question" asked in good faith (but I'll let Epi answer that himself)

And, as I already mentioned in the post to which you are responding, what is "off" about your posts is what Epi pinpointed....which is why I said exactly that in my previous post. Now, however, I'll add to that a very concerted effort on your part to misunderstand/ignore other people's posts. The tactic of (unconvincingly) dismissing the reason someone suspects you, then asking why they "otherwise" suspect you is not a winning one. There is no "otherwise", lol. I supspect you for exactly the reasons I stated (via a quote from another player), and for no others. I don't need an "otherwise".

So basically, it's a tone thing.

As for other suspects, I'd be willing to vote for Floyd, who I seem to remember being pinged by several times...but I'd need to read through his posts again to refresh my memory about why. My options are also open to hearing other cases for who I should vote for as the day develops. Unlike the vast majority of peeps, I don't think that every vote must be bolstered "My Own 100% Original One-of-a-Kind Never Before Thought of or Stated By Anyone Else and Special Only to Me Because I Thought of Them Myself" reasons. I'm quite willing to follow someone else's case if I think it is well reasoned, plausible, and if I agree that it might net a baddie. (I understand that this is not a popular way of thinking, but Originality in vote-rationale is overrated, imho. I'm starting a bandwagon to restore the reputation of bandwagons in this community. )
....but that's beside the point.

[MacDougall]

Worth noting that poisoner man only bit it yesterday so that's at least 3 poisoned players out there, one of whom is having their lynch vote count tripled today. And Witherdeath know who they are. So if we happen to get votes up on a WC player they could easily slip a vote or two onto a poisoned player and watch as some antagonists go against the grain because of unique snowflake syndrome.

[S~V~S]

SVS and I agree about something!

I like the case on canuck. That's where I'm putting a vote for now. I think there have been other good options floated too. Juliets definitely seems different to me, but because she is so consistent I'm not sure if 'different' = 'bad' or not. The biggest reason I'm not voting for her right now and canuck instead, though, is I think we could use having some viable competition to see where people land.

The Draconus connections to luke thing also has merit. I think there are several viable options today.

linki - I thought bullz's post makes sense. I understand that when I tunnel it can sometimes damage my ability to hurt the town. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at all the options again.

Hey, G.
Can you also respond to the question I asked SVS (i.e. why, in your view, my actions go beyond simply "not-civ" and land in "probably-baddie", bypassing other options?)
I honestlytruly do not understand why disengaged-random Canuck is looking like a baddie to folks.

Becasue the things I think point to you looking bad are not honest mistake kind of things, imo.

At the time you voted, sig had 2 votes, Luke had one. No one else had votes. You popped in, never had mentioned Luke before (you still have not mentioned sig, although you have alluded to him when discussing what constitutes a question with Juliets) yet you decided that Luke was a "no show" even though you had even less posts than he did? Did you look at or consider sig at all? Or your prior suspicions, Juliets (to whom you reverted as soon as you started to take heat) or Buglabush?

That vote seems to me like a vote looking for a reason to be made. It isn't like you came in, and said "hrm, not sure whether to vote sig or Luke; sig seems genuine, Luke is a waffleberry".

Then, and i said this earlier 2x as well, you keep buddying up to people. You have buddied up to Epignosis more than once as well as Golden. You seemed to latch onto Epis case on Juliets more so than you came to the conclusion on your own.

Then you said Juliets was one of only two people with whom you had interacted, but you actually interacted with her, TH & Zebra. Two of the three suspected you.

Linki, no it isn't tone. It's timing, it's what you did not say.

Do you have an opinion on sig?

[Canucklehead]

Responses in purple below:

SVS and I agree about something!

I like the case on canuck. That's where I'm putting a vote for now. I think there have been other good options floated too. Juliets definitely seems different to me, but because she is so consistent I'm not sure if 'different' = 'bad' or not. The biggest reason I'm not voting for her right now and canuck instead, though, is I think we could use having some viable competition to see where people land.

The Draconus connections to luke thing also has merit. I think there are several viable options today.

linki - I thought bullz's post makes sense. I understand that when I tunnel it can sometimes damage my ability to hurt the town. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at all the options again.

Hey, G.
Can you also respond to the question I asked SVS (i.e. why, in your view, my actions go beyond simply "not-civ" and land in "probably-baddie", bypassing other options?)
I honestlytruly do not understand why disengaged-random Canuck is looking like a baddie to folks.

Becasue the things I think point to you looking bad are not honest mistake kind of things, imo.
I've never claimed to have made "mistakes"....just to be flippant/careless with my votes

At the time you voted, sig had 2 votes, Luke had one. No one else had votes. You popped in, never had mentioned Luke before (you still have not mentioned sig, although you have alluded to him when discussing what constitutes a question with Juliets) yet you decided that Luke was a "no show" even though you had even less posts than he did? Did you look at or consider sig at all? Or your prior suspicions, Juliets (to whom you reverted as soon as you started to take heat) or Buglabush?
The relative number of my posts to Luke's isn't relevant, is it? I mean, it might be hypocritical to condemn someone for being a low poster when I am one myself, but since I know my role, I know that my posting-level doesn't equate to baddiness. I voted Luke because he wasn't really playing. I did not consider other options that day, no. Luke seemed like a clear choice from a "death to low posters except ones named Canuck" perspective, and voting for him allowed me to refrain from trying to sort out the ongoing mess with sig, or any of the other cases which would have required more time and thought than I had. Buglabush was never, like, a hardcore suspicion of mine, he was just kinda in the same blob of low-posters as Luke in my mind. He, Luke, and Elo (my other vote on the double decker lynch day) just seemed like a good person to vote for who, if lynched, wouldn't really upset the apple cart too much either way (Oh, was I supposed to make up some other story here, with like reasons and cases and stuff which were actually behind my seemingly rando vote? Oops. I've decided honesty is better )

That vote seems to me like a vote looking for a reason to be made. It isn't like you came in, and said "hrm, not sure whether to vote sig or Luke; sig seems genuine, Luke is a waffleberry".
If you prefer, I can feign that sort of hemming and hawing next time if it will make you feel better. Honestly (and I don't know how many ways to say this) my votes so far this game have been basically devoid of real rationale, other than to reduce the number of blobby/non-participating players from the list. (Add in the usual caveats here about how yes, I too am a low poster)


Then, and i said this earlier 2x as well, you keep buddying up to people. You have buddied up to Epignosis more than once as well as Golden. You seemed to latch onto Epis case on Juliets more so than you came to the conclusion on your own.
This is true (see my post to Golden above). I 100% latched on to Epis case on juliets, because I thought it had merit, and because it chimed with something that had been unconsciously bugging me about juliets


Then you said Juliets was one of only two people with whom you had interacted, but you actually interacted with her, TH & Zebra. Two of the three suspected you.
I did not remember this. Whoops. Apologies for not knowing exactly how many people I'd interacted with. That one is an honest mistake, for realzies.


Linki, no it isn't tone. It's timing, it's what you did not say.
I'm confused. That comment about tone was about my read/feeling on juiets. Not sure why you brought it in here?

Do you have an opinion on sig?
I do not. I have been quite fastidious in skipping posts which involve that case. I am, however, interested in how hard Golden is willing to speak out against his lynch, and have paid attention to that...so I guess in a way I suppose I have a sort of second-hand opinion on sig. Golden's stance makes me not want to bother reading the case on sig, since I can't imagine Golden doing that unless he was sure about it. So my opinion on sig is thus: why spend my time reading a case that I've already decided not to be persuaded by? I doubt that is a satisfying answer for you (and I don't pretend it's one you should be satisfied by), but it is nonetheless true.

Like I said to Golden, SVS, I totally get why you're not willing to see me as a good, proactive civ. That is very clear and understandable. My plea to you is that you consider the fact that, even if this is true (which I don't categorically deny), that my lynch will still not move us towards a civ victory. So if a civ victory is what you want, you're better off voting for someone else.

[Typhoony]

Epi, I see you were juliets' teammate in the Champions game in which she was bad. I don't have the time to go through all her posts in that game atm, I'll do that tomorrow.

Is she acting the same in this game as she was in this game? And if so, how does that differentiate from her civvie game?

[S~V~S]

Wow, I have to digest that. I don't have a gluten issue, so normally don't have problems with waffles, but ... I dunno.

I think you are playing the "lame uninvolved" card WAAAAY too hard. That Luke vote feels, like I said, like a vote in need of a rationale.

[DrWilgy]

LoRab! I would never throw you in a fire that I invited you too!! Shirtless dancing at Mac's Juliets bonfire must commence! MM, Matt, Epi! Join us! *Wilgy's shirt flies off as he approaches the fire energetically. He throws out many dance moves, some involving whips and nay nays. In his hand seem to be two partially full bottles of liquor.*

[Matt]

Turnip Head, what are your feelings on Metalmarsh? W/b btw

[Canucklehead]

Wow, I have to digest that. I don't have a gluten issue, so normally don't have problems with waffles, but ... I dunno.

I think you are playing the "lame uninvolved" card WAAAAY too hard. That Luke vote feels, like I said, like a vote in need of a rationale.

I'm not sure what the gluten comment is supposed to mean?? That I'm waffling?? That my post makes you gassy?? Lol. Sorry. Joke went over my head.

I honestly don't have anything else to help sway you, SVS. I'm playing the lame uninvolved card hard because that is the only card in my hand, because it's just the truth. I could make empty promises about how I'll get better soon, but school is a mess, I'm planning a wedding, and my head is not as in it as it should be right now......but I still don't wanna die!!

[S~V~S]

Have you read back on sig? I am looking forward to your opinion on him.

And I just am not buying that you are so uninvolved. For now i am going to put my vote on you.

I did not think you vote was genuine, having read back I don't think you were honest about your past interactions, and I think you were more involved than you are letting on.

[LoRab]

LoRab! I would never throw you in a fire that I invited you too!! Shirtless dancing at Mac's Juliets bonfire must commence! MM, Matt, Epi! Join us! *Wilgy's shirt flies off as he approaches the fire energetically. He throws out many dance moves, some involving whips and nay nays. In his hand seem to be two partially full bottles of liquor.*

Hmmmm....I'll dance. But I'm keeping my shirt on.

[MacDougall]

juliets explain how u r not scum when in fact u r scum?

[Sorsha]

Wilgy I came to your bonfire party you have to come to mine now. We sacrificing some juliets to the god of maphia.

You think juliets is worse than LoRab? I'm not sure how serious you were with your LoRab suspicion

If he was serious about me, it would be nice if he actually said why he was suspicious.

I think he was just another random name he decided out of nowhere to suspect in the final hours of the lynch (as he seems wont to do).

You had a suspicion of him on day one and two and said yesterday that he's bad. Could you share your thoughts or find some posts of his that point to why you think he's bad?

[MacDougall]

It's probably the one where I said I was scum.

[Sorsha]

It's probably the one where I said I was scum.

Lol... When did you start that though? Day two or three? She hasn't actually voted for you since you've been saying it...

[MacDougall]

It's probably the one where I said I was scum.

Lol... When did you start that though? Day two or three? She hasn't actually voted for you since you've been saying it...

I know what's with nobody voting me?

[LoRab]

Wilgy I came to your bonfire party you have to come to mine now. We sacrificing some juliets to the god of maphia.

You think juliets is worse than LoRab? I'm not sure how serious you were with your LoRab suspicion

If he was serious about me, it would be nice if he actually said why he was suspicious.

I think he was just another random name he decided out of nowhere to suspect in the final hours of the lynch (as he seems wont to do).

You had a suspicion of him on day one and two and said yesterday that he's bad. Could you share your thoughts or find some posts of his that point to why you think he's bad?

I can put together posts tomorrow. I do think he's bad. I started to suspect him early, and he's only continued to seem bad to me. Especially with, as he says, saying he's bad. I haven't voted for him because he has implied that voting for him is bad juju--and if he weren't going to be lynched, it didn't seem worth the risk. Also, he's not the only person I've found suspish.

[MacDougall]

Pfft nothing you said is true.

[Turnip Head]

full post

- Juliets: She always asks a lot of questions like this, but I found it interesting that she popped up immediately when attention was brought onto her. I know she can be a lurker, but I hope she too can get a bit more involved instead of staying on the sidelines.

full post

Juliets reads like she been in panic mode for most of today, but I do not know if that means a baddie juliets or a civvie juliets.
You say you think she may be trying to make herself look better by hopping off the sigwagon. Do you think she suspects sig is not bad and voted him in the beginning despite that, or do you think as the day passed on she realized this?

full post

I don't know what juliets thinks about sig tbh. I think she had her heart set on voting sig coming into the lynch, maybe to appear consistent with her vote yesterday. She caught flak for it and moved off of it. I think what's interesting is that she didn't stick to her guns by owning up to her vote, but she also didn't noticeably change her stance on sig either. She just sort of moved to other targets.

You said you thought she was possibly trying to make herself look better. I don't think her switching her vote (especially in the way you described) makes her look better, it makes her look flaky and unsure of what she's doing, ie panic mode. Is panic mode indicative of baddie juliets?

full post

I'm gonna try and see if I can understand the case against juliets, cause I don't right now. (With some linki's now, for your pleasure. )

I'm gonna quote that last post in a spoiler tag, because the entire post is Typh interacting with other players' cases on juliets.

Spoiler: show

I'm gonna try and see if I can understand the case against juliets, cause I don't right now. (With some linki's now, for your pleasure. )
As always ,let me know if I missed something or if you disagree with how I said something.

It started with Epi's post where he said that comparing sigs sincerity to LCs was disingenuous. When Juliets asks why, Epi responds that " judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks."
Juliets responds by saying she doesn't know anything about Sig and that sincerity does not equal civvieness. To which Epi responds that sig cannot sound sincere.
To conlude this saga:
Later Epi lists juliets as his suspect, when Juliets asks why, Epig responds.
He thinks that juliets' vote for sig is disingenuous. He expects a civ juliets to engage sig directly with questions instead of talk about him.

My opinion:
- I do not see a problem here. Juliets does not know sig => How would she know if he is able to sound genuine?
- Her posts read a bit like she is in panic mode to me. Last game I remember juliets being bad was Recruitment ... 2? When she was Erlatz. I don't remember her posting like she was in panic mode then, but truth be told, I don't remember how she was posting then at all. Does anyone have a link to a game where Juliets was bad? Thank you

-------------------------------------------------------

TH has a post where he points out that juliets got lynched (or almost) for similar reasons as sig did here.
She responds by saying that she acknowledges the case is not that good, but that it is the best one out there for peeps in group 1.

My opinion:
She voted for a shitcase... As you have probably many times TH. We already talked about this a bit but I don't see what would make her bad here? What would be her baddie reason to vote for a shitcase?

-------------------------------------------------------

Canuck made a post where she says juliets makes a concerted effort to misunderstand/ignore othe people's posts. Juliets says she has no idea what Canuck is talking about basically.

My opinion:
I have no idea what Canuck means either. I think Juliets has responded to everything people have thrown at her (hell, too eager and flimsy at times, ie panic mode). Combine that with the fact that Canuck ignores juliets post where juliets ask which posts she ignored, a point made by Canuck, is lolworthy and makes Canuck look worse than juliets imo.

----------------------------------------------------
Back to Epignosis:
His post this time is about juliets D1 vote for Banana. He does not believe a civ juliets would leave a pressure vote on low hanging fruit like Banana.
Juliets responds by saying she made more posts about Banana and that she left her vote there because Banana did not respond and she continued to be suspicious

My opinion:
Seems meta based, and I don't think this is uncivvie like for juliets. A link to a baddie game for juliets would help though

----------------------------------------------------

And last but not least, HamburgerBoys post about juliets. He says that:
- Juliets was the last one on the Luke train and this is a really bad look.
- She was pressured by Epi to change her vote from Luke to nutella.

My opinion:
Ok?
- How does this make her look bad Hboy? Juliets was indeed the last one on the Luke train, she had also said multiple times that she was away and wouldn't know for sure when she would be back.
- She already said her vote for Luke was provisional.

------------------------------

Overall:
What exactly in this is baddie behavior for juliets?
Her behavior overal has been iffy, asking lots of questions, changing opinions a lot, but is that baddie behavior? More specifically, is it baddie behavior for juliets?

Linki:

Here you go, MarshMellow. Enjoy.
Provisional vote on your spiky ass as well.

full post

Epi, I see you were juliets' teammate in the Champions game in which she was bad. I don't have the time to go through all her posts in that game atm, I'll do that tomorrow.

Is she acting the same in this game as she was in this game? And if so, how does that differentiate from her civvie game?

There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

[Draconus]

Putting my vote on Canuck. Really right now my only suspicion of her is because of her Luke vote. It reeked of indifferent baddie bandwagon voting...ness. But seriously, though, her vote post did strike me as that of a mafia member throwing her vote on the tail end of a bandwagon to attempt to blend in with the rest.

Linki: I think it's worth noting that my vote here has nothing to do with Typhoony's defense post of Juliets. I still am unsure of how to feel about her myself.

[MacDougall]

What. The. Heck.

Can you guys just lynch me instead please?

[Turnip Head]

Turnip Head, what are your feelings on Metalmarsh? W/b btw

I think he's paying closer attention to the game than he's letting on Consider the entirety of MM's Day 3 contributions:

November 3, 1:25am EST:

Rest in peace Zebra

More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.

November 3, 10:26am EST:

Rest in peace Zebra

More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.

Why do you need a placeholder vote? So if you conveniently forget to vote, you have a built in excuse if TH gets lynched?

Time to reread Zebra.

It is my duty to check if votes in polls are changeable. I had no reason to vote Turnip Head twice, other than his name being on the poll twice.

I have no qualm with you.

Reinforcing that his vote is a placeholder, implying that he will be changing it eventually.


November 3, 4:37pm EST:

Welcome Bass!

Welcoming Bass. Bass was announced to be subbing in 2 minutes before this post was made.


November 4, 10:43pm EST:

The marmot rolls out the red carpet for the doctor's entrance. This doctor is most definitely a doctor, and has come to cure us all from our previously fatal diseases.

The pinto bean man will replace in next. He and the doctor will dance together in the fields, and have many good times.

Welcoming Wilgy. Wilgy was announced to be subbing in 3 minutes before this post was made.


November 4, 10:46pm EST:

I hope the last option in the poll wasn't a Host-specific option.

Jokes about the nightpoll.


November 5, 1:40pm EST:

Rest in peace Zebra

More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.

Eh? Eh?

Sorry. Sorry.

I find myself terribly behind this game.

Says he's behind.

I understand being behind in the game, but MM commented in real-time when Bass and Wilgy replaced into the game, meaning he was at the very least following along the current posts. Yet there are no game related posts from him, all the same.

[Marmot]

You talking smack about me TH?

[sig]

I think better of Sig after that Luke lynch. Since Nutella turned out not to be part of a baddie team, I think the best place to look would be people potentially trying to save Luke in the previous lynch.

Okay that is good to know, what do you think about Floyd, Tranq did mention him a few times and voted for him, but I'm not sure if that plays into his death.

@Sorsha Any idea who might have killed Tranq?
/quote]

Sorsha could you answer this also who are your top three scum reads?

[Turnip Head]

You talking smack about me TH?

I dunno, are you reading the thread?

[Marmot]

You talking smack about me TH?

I dunno, are you reading the thread?

I've kept up with the important events.

Would you join me in a vote of TH?

[Marmot]

EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.

[Turnip Head]

You talking smack about me TH?

I dunno, are you reading the thread?

I've kept up with the important events.

Would you join me in a vote of TH?

I would not

[Turnip Head]

EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.

I think my opinion of him is reliant upon juliets, but he's acting sketchy.

What do you think of juliets?

[Canucklehead]

Putting my vote on Canuck. Really right now my only suspicion of her is because of her Luke vote. It reeked of indifferent baddie bandwagon voting...ness. But seriously, though, her vote post did strike me as that of a mafia member throwing her vote on the tail end of a bandwagon to attempt to blend in with the rest.

Linki: I think it's worth noting that my vote here has nothing to do with Typhoony's defense post of Juliets. I still am unsure of how to feel about her myself.

I was like the second or third vote on him? Lol.

[Turnip Head]

Putting my vote on Canuck. Really right now my only suspicion of her is because of her Luke vote. It reeked of indifferent baddie bandwagon voting...ness. But seriously, though, her vote post did strike me as that of a mafia member throwing her vote on the tail end of a bandwagon to attempt to blend in with the rest.

Linki: I think it's worth noting that my vote here has nothing to do with Typhoony's defense post of Juliets. I still am unsure of how to feel about her myself.

I was like the second or third vote on him? Lol.

FWIW I think your voting record looks much cleaner than juliets', especially re: Luke. And I doubt you and juliets are teammates based on your interactions.

[DrWilgy]

Who has flipped already and what was thier role and alignment?

TH were you ded bro?

[Turnip Head]

TH were you ded bro?

I got better.

[Turnip Head]

Who has flipped already and what was thier role and alignment?

They're on the front page.

[Marmot]

EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.

I think my opinion of him is reliant upon juliets, but he's acting sketchy.

What do you think of juliets?

No idea.

As for Typhoony, I don't like this post. For someone who has talked so much about juliets (as you pointed out), his opinion of her ended up being very on-the-fence.

[Turnip Head]

EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.

I think my opinion of him is reliant upon juliets, but he's acting sketchy.

What do you think of juliets?

No idea.

As for Typhoony, I don't like this post. For someone who has talked so much about juliets (as you pointed out), his opinion of her ended up being very on-the-fence.

That's exactly my point about him.

[LoRab]

Pfft nothing you said is true.

Well, given that it's inpterpretation and opinion, of course it's not true--it isn't subject to true and false. It's opinion.

But, yeah, I do think you're bad. And have thought so for a while. The fact that I think so, that is fact. Whether you are, that is not subject to true or false at the moment, within the game (except for your own statements). /semantics

[Sorsha]

I think better of Sig after that Luke lynch. Since Nutella turned out not to be part of a baddie team, I think the best place to look would be people potentially trying to save Luke in the previous lynch.

Okay that is good to know, what do you think about Floyd, Tranq did mention him a few times and voted for him, but I'm not sure if that plays into his death.

@Sorsha Any idea who might have killed Tranq?
/quote]

Sorsha could you answer this also who are your top three scum reads?

I have ideas, yes. A couple people who I'll be keeping an eye on in regards to the Typh kill but nothing I can say solidly.

I'm trying to work out what's going on between Mac and LoRab. I'm probably going to have to wait on that till tomorrow though, when I see what LoRab has to say about him. I'm still looking at a Juliets vote for today.

What do you think of the cases on Canuck by SVS and Typhoony by TH?