STAR WARS Mafia [ENDGAME]

[a2thezebra]

Regarding Mac's case on MP, I think while it may have some substance to it most of it is just pointing out differences between Mac's and MP's play style. I haven't seen MP do anything yet that has struck me as opportunistic or disingenuous, and I think Mac's case against Enrique is much more convincing.

This is interesting to me, for a few reasons.
1) re: Mac's playstyle. Have you played with Mac a lot before? I've only played with him in World Reborn, and I was not super attentive in that game, but the Mac that I encountered there was NOTHING like this Mac so far (who is reading to me as calm, reasoned, and analytical). Which of these two Jekyll/Hyde sides of Mac is the "real" style, in your opinion? In what way do you see his playstyle as differing form MP's?
2) I didn't read Mac's case on MP (which I thought was good, since I almost always accuse MP of being too hedgey/non-committal, usually on Day 1 ) as accusing him of being "opportunistic" or "disingenuous", but of being overly cautious, non-committal, and wibbly-wobbly (technical term). If you don't agree with Mac's case on "opportunistic and disingenuous" grounds, do you agree with it on "wibbly-wobbly and over-cautious" grounds?

1. Well for starters I was referencing MP's playstyle being the one on trial, not Mac's, but I'll bite. I haven't played with Mac a lot but what I gather from some of his RYM games as well as some games here, is that, like me, he can vary between expressing his opinions in a very detailed and analytical way, or if he's not feeling like it he can just be like nope they're scum. So (and Jekyll/Hyde is a fine comparison I must say) I think the Jekyll/Hyde sides of Mac are equally real, hence why I felt the need to push him into elaborating on his scum thoughts on Enrique earlier, which was successful. As far as MP goes, I think he makes more of an effort that most people to use an objective, unbiased, neutral tone, and to people like Mac that haven't played with him before, that can come across as disingenuous or contrived since it's so unlike most players to not show a huge amount of passion/tunneling/nonsense in their posts. That was my main point. And for the record, I am a fan (and perpetrator) of nonsense, so I'm not criticizing any particular play style. I like them all.

2. See, that's my point: MP (as far as I understand) goes out of his way to not show too much passion in any particular direction with his reads. It goes to show that it's not a very valid suspicion for you or Mac (but you especially) since you yourself said that you almost always accuse him of being like this. I'm not town-reading him yet (or anyone else, frankly) but I don't think he's given anyone a valid reason to suspect him yet. So far every ping against him has simply been part of his nature or "mafia persona", in my opinion.

[Tangrowth]

Canuck, you describe my playstyle as noncommittal. Yet I committed to a stance with my suspicion of Russtifinko. Explain.

[Savage]

As of right now, I feel strongest that zebra is town. This is subject to change depending on how others post, but overall it has to do with how contributive her post are and fingering all people she finds suspect/inquires about. My neutral reads would be people like movingpictures07, MacDougall and MetalMarsh89. These are players that I've noticed post since the start of day 1. Not saying others haven't posted, but I mostly view on mobile(gonna have to change that if I plan to play serious) and so I haven't critically read many post and really only remember post if I notice an avatar I see. Which is why I want to re-read the phase when I have time.

[Canucklehead]

Canuck, you describe my playstyle as noncommittal. Yet I committed to a stance with my suspicion of Russtifinko. Explain.

Ummm, I didn't? I described my understanding of Mac's case against you as being based on non-committalness, and commented that I often accuse you of the same thing.

[Canucklehead]

Regarding Mac's case on MP, I think while it may have some substance to it most of it is just pointing out differences between Mac's and MP's play style. I haven't seen MP do anything yet that has struck me as opportunistic or disingenuous, and I think Mac's case against Enrique is much more convincing.

This is interesting to me, for a few reasons.
1) re: Mac's playstyle. Have you played with Mac a lot before? I've only played with him in World Reborn, and I was not super attentive in that game, but the Mac that I encountered there was NOTHING like this Mac so far (who is reading to me as calm, reasoned, and analytical). Which of these two Jekyll/Hyde sides of Mac is the "real" style, in your opinion? In what way do you see his playstyle as differing form MP's?
2) I didn't read Mac's case on MP (which I thought was good, since I almost always accuse MP of being too hedgey/non-committal, usually on Day 1 ) as accusing him of being "opportunistic" or "disingenuous", but of being overly cautious, non-committal, and wibbly-wobbly (technical term). If you don't agree with Mac's case on "opportunistic and disingenuous" grounds, do you agree with it on "wibbly-wobbly and over-cautious" grounds?

1. Well for starters I was referencing MP's playstyle being the one on trial, not Mac's, but I'll bite. I haven't played with Mac a lot but what I gather from some of his RYM games as well as some games here, is that, like me, he can vary between expressing his opinions in a very detailed and analytical way, or if he's not feeling like it he can just be like nope they're scum. So (and Jekyll/Hyde is a fine comparison I must say) I think the Jekyll/Hyde sides of Mac are equally real, hence why I felt the need to push him into elaborating on his scum thoughts on Enrique earlier, which was successful. As far as MP goes, I think he makes more of an effort that most people to use an objective, unbiased, neutral tone, and to people like Mac that haven't played with him before, that can come across as disingenuous or contrived since it's so unlike most players to not show a huge amount of passion/tunneling/nonsense in their posts. That was my main point. And for the record, I am a fan (and perpetrator) of nonsense, so I'm not criticizing any particular play style. I like them all.

2. See, that's my point: MP (as far as I understand) goes out of his way to not show too much passion in any particular direction with his reads. It goes to show that it's not a very valid suspicion for you or Mac (but you especially) since you yourself said that you almost always accuse him of being like this. I'm not town-reading him yet (or anyone else, frankly) but I don't think he's given anyone a valid reason to suspect him yet. So far every ping against him has simply been part of his nature or "mafia persona", in my opinion.

Thanks for the response. To be clear, I was actually asking for clarification in understanding your viewpoint, and not interrogating or suspecting you.
1)Yeah, I understood what you meant. I was just trying to get your read on Mac, since I've been kind of shocked by how different he is in this game than the only other one I've played with him. These thoughts are helpful in assisting my read of him.
2) In this point I was more trying to point out that I interpreted Mac's case differently than you (i.e. that the case was about being over-cautious, not about being opportunisitic), and see what your stance was on that interpretation of the case. For the record, I added the bit about me thinking Mac's case was "good" as a jokey aside (i.e. a self-conscious admission that I read MP as "suspiciously over-cautious" all the time early game, whether he's good or bad). So in that sense, I agree with you entirely that it's not a particularly valid "ping" for me.

[Tangrowth]

Canuck, you describe my playstyle as noncommittal. Yet I committed to a stance with my suspicion of Russtifinko. Explain.

Ummm, I didn't? I described my understanding of Mac's case against you as being based on non-committalness, and commented that I often accuse you of the same thing.

I must have misunderstood then. Thanks!

I was going to ask for elaboration, but you just provided it.

[Tangrowth]

As of right now, I feel strongest that zebra is town. This is subject to change depending on how others post, but overall it has to do with how contributive her post are and fingering all people she finds suspect/inquires about. My neutral reads would be people like movingpictures07, MacDougall and MetalMarsh89. These are players that I've noticed post since the start of day 1. Not saying others haven't posted, but I mostly view on mobile(gonna have to change that if I plan to play serious) and so I haven't critically read many post and really only remember post if I notice an avatar I see. Which is why I want to re-read the phase when I have time.

As someone who has never played with almost every player here, I'm particularly interested in any elaboration you can provide.

[a2thezebra]

I approve of that response Canuck. You seem a bit different from the playstyle I'm used to. :P

[Tangrowth]

Response to Mac's Enrique case:

Spoiler: show

Why doesn't Yavin have any votes? You guys realize that's literally like the civvie base, right?

And yet you didn't vote for it.

Enrique is scum, confirmed.

I made this fairly sarcastic but partially meaningful accusation because I found it strange that enrique rather than voting for the base and explaining that as his reason, just made this comment without voting. Indicating a cautiousness to make what seems to be a reasonably arbitrary decision. I felt it was a good idea to prod him on it.

His reaction.

I haven't voted at all. I was just wondering if there was a reason not to.

You're right, scum would heavily contemplate the potential of such a thing since their numbers are fewer ergo their demise has more of an impact on their team.

Wondering if there was a reason not to vote for Yavin? This was a strange thought imo. Why/how would there be such things on day 0 as reasons not to vote in a poll. It realistically is the most meaningless poll of the game. His cautiousness is strange.

All of the locations sound dangerous tbh

Hoth had like big yeti creature things. Not nice.

The above was his first post. Yet, he then went on to say that Yavin was the civvie base, and that it was weird that we weren't voting for it. Does that not mean that he actually didn't feel that they all sounded dangerous and that his first post was actually just non genuine fluff. We all know the first post is awkward as scum. This looks like an awkward scum first post.

His two reactions to me accusing him were "huh" and "uhh okie", so he has no desire to be engaged on the subject instead choosing to look elsewhere. Fine, perhaps he just sees the accusations as disingenous or non threatening. I see it as more of him attempting to just calmly dismiss them as me being overenthusiastic about what he'd like to put forth as something that's not a big deal.

He did end up voting for Yavin and called us crazy for not doing so.

Voted Yavin. You guys are all crazy.

Which is strange when he made comments about Endor and Tatooine, indicating that he was genuinely weighing up his options. If it was such an easy decision, why the hell didn't he make it sooner, and why was he looking at Endor or Tatooine as a potential option at all. If Yavin is obvious then no, not every planet is dangerous and why not just vote for it immediately?

Endor is actually a lot more appealing when you read the roles and realize we have an Ewok on our side. Maybe it's not so dangerous after all.

I think Tattooine, in the worst case scenario, would favor the Independents. Do we know what their win conditions are yet?

For a day 1 case, I think it's pretty good.

Mac, I've reviewed your case here, since it didn't register with me much upon first read. Let me know if there are other components you wish for me to consider. Here are my thoughts regarding this case:

- I'm not particularly bothered by an overanalysis of Day 0 polls, since I have seen some over the years that have had meaningful impact on the progression of the game.
- I underlined what I find compelling, i.e. the switch from "all options are dangerous" to "Yavin is the obvious option". After that, it appears he is consistent with the latter. If he had managed to explain a thought process behind this switch, that'd be one thing, but the kicker is that he has failed to address your suspicion whatsoever.

I'm not sold, but I'm listening. I'd like to hear Enrique address your thoughts.

[Matt]

Zebra hasn't shouted in all caps yet.

[Tangrowth]

Zebra hasn't shouted in all caps yet.

Matt F, what's on your mind? I can't recall anything you've said, which is either due to the fact that I'm sick and not absorbing the thread as I read it, or because you haven't talked enough yet. Either way... throw some stuff at me.

[a2thezebra]

THAT'S BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN A GRAND DISPLAY OF STOMACH-CHURNINGLY IDIOTIC LOGIC YET. CARE TO ASSIST ME, MATT?!

Just kidding, bubble bath time.

[Matt]

Zebra hasn't shouted in all caps yet.

Matt F, what's on your mind? I can't recall anything you've said, which is either due to the fact that I'm sick and not absorbing the thread as I read it, or because you haven't talked enough yet. Either way... throw some stuff at me.

Most of my posts have been about Day 0 and really wantin' to get up to that Death Star. Nobody wanted to go though (yup, I'm eyein' all 20 some players who didn't vote for Death Star)

I wasn't necessarily joking with that last post of mine, either. The games I've seen of her, she's been all civ and each time she gets really intense (which is a good thing, IMO) but I don't believe I've felt that from her in this game. In addition, in the few games we've played together we've had a few jokey posts and for her to eye me for having fun about Dragon... Hmmm

Zebra - You know I can always assist with idiotic logic. What did you think of this post, for example? Were you really eyeing me for my comment on Dragon or were you having fun?

Hmmm

[a2thezebra]

Zebra hasn't shouted in all caps yet.

Matt F, what's on your mind? I can't recall anything you've said, which is either due to the fact that I'm sick and not absorbing the thread as I read it, or because you haven't talked enough yet. Either way... throw some stuff at me.

Most of my posts have been about Day 0 and really wantin' to get up to that Death Star. Nobody wanted to go though (yup, I'm eyein' all 20 some players who didn't vote for Death Star)

I wasn't necessarily joking with that last post of mine, either. The games I've seen of her, she's been all civ and each time she gets really intense (which is a good thing, IMO) but I don't believe I've felt that from her in this game. In addition, in the few games we've played together we've had a few jokey posts and for her to eye me for having fun about Dragon... Hmmm

Zebra - You know I can always assist with idiotic logic. What did you think of this post, for example? Were you really eyeing me for my comment on Dragon or were you having fun?

Hmmm

I'm unsure about you this game. Which in itself slightly pings me, because I'm usually able to decide which alignment I think you are pretty easily (doesn't mean I'm right of course) when looking at your posts. So I am in fact eyeing you, but I am not suspicious of you, if that makes sense. In other words consider yourself being watched closely but no hypotheses have been made...yet.

And I wasn't necessarily joking with my response, either - you're not going to get all-caps shouting from me unless I feel it's warranted. It doesn't help that all-caps shouting got me lynched in Pet Sounds (based on the aforementioned stomach-churning...well you get the idea) so I'm trying to play a slightly more grounded game. Maybe in an ironic twist of fate people will actually listen to my posts more if they are not shouted.

[a2thezebra]

And it may have been a shorter bubble bath than usual, but I'm disappointed that there has only been one post in its duration.

Where is everybody? I see you Eloh, what are your thoughts?

[MacDougall]

Matt you have managed to completely sidestep contribution in regards to things occurring in favour of discussing other people's reaction to your enthusiasm regarding the death star. That pings the hell out of me. You don't seem to have any interest in catching scum.

[Elohcin]

Bubble baths, Blech! If I could get rid of my garden tub and put in a grand shower with multiple shower heads instead, I so would.I have used my garden tub only once and it was not for bathing.

I feel like the players who are posting the most seem civ. This makes me think the baddies are being quiet for now. I mean, look how many players there are and how many are actually posting. That said, I am civ even though I haven't posted much

[MacDougall]

Aren't the Jabbas supposed to be a mafia team, not independents? We should be hunting for them.

The point was that for someone to identify a specific faction as a target read scum genuinely hunting scum.

Also this "gun to the head" thing is something MP does all the time. He assumes someone is pointing a gun to his head to ask for his reads, then writes a wall of text on them. Otherwise, he asks other people to give him their "gun to the head" reads.

Btw MP, any rainbow lists yet?

Strange that of all the things I posted you replied to these two points only, considering one was the shortest post and the other was the jokey first bit. Do you have no interest in reading entire civ cases DDL?

[Elohcin]

On second thought....Mac just made a good point about Matt. I think its the best ping that's been posted so far. Matt, what do you say to this? You are usually running your mouth around here like nobody's business...full of opinions.

[MacDougall]

OT posts are not always a bad thing to catch out scum on. I often get pinged by people talking about other stuff, if it seems like it's in lieu of actual contribution or seems like a forced line of dialogue. But largely that's a reasonable response DDL.

The point of the OT tags is to say something that can't be used against you.

Now if every single post someone makes is green, that's a different story.

And yet, I used a green post against someone and they were scum in Dune. How neat.

Also this "gun to the head" thing is something MP does all the time. He assumes someone is pointing a gun to his head to ask for his reads, then writes a wall of text on them. Otherwise, he asks other people to give him their "gun to the head" reads.

Btw MP, any rainbow lists yet?

MP does this all the time? Where did you learn this?

Some time between the seventh and the eigth time I was asked to provide a gun to the head of someone during the first game I played here.

And what was MP's alignment in the game you are referring to?

Of all the post I've read I haven't picked up nothing that stands out to me as scum behavior. So for now most of everyone who posted d1 is a neutral or town read to me. When I'm out of class I will re-read the phase just to make sure I haven't missed something and look at others cases

I'm not entirely sure why you would bother telling us this then?

[Elohcin]

I have seen baddie players lie about real life time and time again to try to keep suspicion off of them.

[a2thezebra]

Bubble baths, Blech!

On second thought....Mac just made a good point about Matt. I think its the best ping that's been posted so far. Matt, what do you say to this? You are usually running your mouth around here like nobody's business...full of opinions.

That's another thing. I find it odd for Matt to call me out for playing a slightly different game when he's the one playing a completely different game. I can't shout in all-caps if you give me nothing to work with Matt!

[a2thezebra]

Also has everyone forgotten that MM has already voted? Am I the only one that is extremely bothered by that? Even Mac doesn't seem to care.

[bcornett24]

I've read all the content this far and will be posting after work here in another 5 to 6 hours.

[a2thezebra]

Boooooo just get fired and post your thoughts now.

[MacDougall]

Responses to Mac regarding my suspicion of Russtifinko and his suspicion of me (and tangently related subjects):

Spoiler: show

I can attest to what Golden is trying to express. I see nothing out of the ordinary for either DDL or zebra. on them, for sure, but no reason to eye them more than anyone else at this point.

zebra, you disagree with DDL's logic, yes? However, do you recognize that just because you think someone has reached a conclusion that you find faulty does not necessarily make them mafia?

Do you eye people who you don't suspect generally? Is everyone at a default status of being from you? I tend to feel people generally use that to denote a suspicion a level above default? Just trying to get a feel for you.

Is that last question actually meant to be serious? You are asking Zebra if she is aware that just because someone is wrong that doesn't mean they are mafia? That seems like a borderline disrespectful thing to ask someone who clearly has played this game many times MP.

I can attest to what Golden is trying to express. I see nothing out of the ordinary for either DDL or zebra. on them, for sure, but no reason to eye them more than anyone else at this point.

zebra, you disagree with DDL's logic, yes? However, do you recognize that just because you think someone has reached a conclusion that you find faulty does not necessarily make them mafia?

Of course. But if you read my original post you would know that it wasn't just because I disagreed with him that I was suspicious. It was mainly because I don't understand how someone could point something out and then immediately retract it. Like I said, it comes off as if that person is trying to look like they are contributing when they are not. I also said that it is questionable to use meta as a defense to a slight ping and I stand by that.

I can explain how this occurs to me personally. If I get pinged by something and then start trying to make a post about it but as I make the post I think a little harder on it and start to realise the disputable points of my ping I often trail off the post expressing disputable points to my own case. Personally I tend to do this more as a civ because as a scum I delete half made posts and stay silent far more often than I do as a civ. It is a null tell to me.

That being said on thinking of it, if the disputable detail completely refutes the original ping entirely I see no reason to actually finish making the post, and I probably should not do it, yet I do it quite frequently. A bad trait of mine. If the disputable detail only refutes part of the point, it's certainly worth expressing the entire point as well as the disputable detail, to save someone else from needing to do so and opening up an unnecessary line of discourse.

So that being said, in DDL's case, was there a point to completing the post in light of him disputing his own point? I'm going to say yes, because it is still a relevant subject. I can see a possibility where scum (or a player), if they were to know that the planet that the game is currently on is the planet that is to explode, does vote early in a revealing manner. If it is a player who generally holds their vote, or if it's a throwaway vote of epic proportions.

If we were to attempt to take advantage of the possibility of this we, as civs, would need to be razor sharp with how we choose and direct our own votes, which is something that many civ players fail to do as habitually votes go places out of lazy following of other peoples cases or on minor pings.

Ergo, I think while it's possible, it is incredibly unlikely for us to see anything revealing on it, except for perhaps analysing the previous days poll in reflection after the planet explodes. Even then a scum player would have to have been very poor to stand out.

tl;dr I can see why DDL started making the post. I can see less comprehensive reason for completing the posts but I can sympathise with him having done so. I see this whole discourse as about as likely to net scum as the subject that it is actually discussing.

As for using meta as a defense for a slight ping. I agree with you. A player should not call back on their own civ history as explanation for what they are doing as though it's a defense. I find that pingy too.

At this stage in the game, everyone is worthy of , since no one has reason not to be or to be anything stronger. - Yes but using the eye emoticon so far that I've seen has been a "you are suspicious to me" stance not a "you are default to me" stance.

I didn't see it as disrespectful. zebra is a great player, but she tends to exhibit tunnel vision. I know it well because historically I've had problems with it myself. I was trying to get zebra to understand an outsider's (my) perception of her accusations, and discuss it with her. So, yes, it was meant to be serious, and with no disrespect. Why wouldn't it be? - Perhaps so, but it came across quite belittling to me. You asked her a question that had a really obvious answer to anyone who knows how to play the game. Why not just make the statement instead of asking what I read as a patronising question? This is quite unimportant anyway, I don't see this uncovering some magic scumness.

I appreciate your thoughts on DDL here. You said the recall previous games behavior pings you; how does that mean you feel overall about DDL at the moment? - - He has pinged me, but I am reading him as a pingy civ that doesn't read posts properly and doesn't consider his use of words.

For this next quote, I'm going to respond with blue in a line-by-line fashion:

Spoiler: show

Gun to my head, I actually find Russtifinko suspicious in that exchange. He seems to express two distinct slight pings of both DDL and zebra, but it seems a bit opportunistic for him to say on the one hand that he is NOT pinged by DDL's logic but that he was pinged by DDL overexplaining it. Could possibly be a disingenuous way for Russtifinko to throw mud at two players who are relatively easier to lynch than the rest of us, particularly this early, since you both tend to post a lot and easily misinterpreted.

As someone who felt differently, I need to respond here. I think Russtifinko came across quite civ in execution, but in general calling someone out for agreeing with your case is a recurring scum tell, so I can see it going both ways.

I'm glad you've responded.

In execution however Russtifinko read genuine to me in the exchange. This post of yours MP I would like to explore some.

For a start, nobody has put a gun to your head.

I realize this. :P

I'm just indicating that, having read through that exchange, while I didn't see the suspicion on either zebra or DDL, I did pick something up on Russtifinko. - Why not say "having read through that exchange while I didn't see the suspicion either zebra or DDL etc. It's just more examples of your verbose waffliness, which to me is the heart of my scum read on you.

You feeling the need to begin your, what I am reading as rather forced, read on the play with that comment serves to downplay the intention of it imo.

How so? I'm only indicating my confidence level, which isn't very strong. - I'm not entirely sure you didn't just lie to me dude. Your case on Russtifinko is probably the most exhaustive of all the cases aside from mine on you so far. Your confidence level seemed to be reasonably strong as you didn't state at all that it wasn't, rather just using words that revealed that you were in fact overly cautious about it.

You say he "seems" to express. MP, I don't think there was any seeming. He bluntly said he was pinged.

Well, you're right, I suppose that's true. What I was trying to express though is that I failed to reconcile "can't decide civ/baddie" and "consider me pinged". To me, "pinged" indicates suspicion, which would then mean that he did decide on baddie, right? - The content of what you were saying isn't relevant to my case on you, it was your choice of words. That being said, I actually see what you mean now and it's that level of detail of your suspicion on him that looks like a case forced out of knowing that he is scum, by virtue of being his teammate. I had to really squeeze my brain to get your point there. Perhaps that's on me.

Your accusing him of being opportunistic, to me, is a little strange. I can't see how I would describe what he did as opportunistic. You have chosen words here that don't sit right with me. I can't see opportunism here because if he was an opportunistic scum, I believe he would have attacked the entire point, like what Zebra has done. Identifying part of the post as a ping, does not read opportunistic, it reads analytics and more genuine because it comes across more thoughtful.

This is a good point that I didn't consider, particularly the underlined.

This does shake my read a bit. Nonetheless I still want to see if Russ can elaborate his thoughts in a manner I can better understand the civilian train of thought. - A suspicious Mac would read this as you attempting to bail on your case on Russ now as it's blown up in your face. But it could just as easily be a discerning man using good judgement so I'll let that slide.

Then you say "could possibly be" and "relatively" which I find similar to "seems" in that it comes across like you are almost, I won't say nervously, I will say cautiously throwing shade on Russ.

That's just how I talk, for one. For two, "cautiously" isn't necessarily incorrect, since I am clearly showing through my word choices that I don't feel very strongly on my suspicion. Nonetheless, I wanted to pursue the suspicion and associated discussion. - I would say that you are clearly showing through your word choices that you are being overly cautious.

You are making posts that remind me of my own scum posts. You are over using words and phrases that hide an actual lack of belief in what you are saying.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

- Everything I have called you out on is behaviour I tend to exhibit when I am scum with my supatown hat on. Literally all of it.

Responses above within the quote.

Spoiler: show

2) DDL, I can't decide whether it's civ-ish or a baddie move to run through all the possible ways you'd catch a baddie based on the planet mechanic before we get a chance to actually use any of the methods. Consider me slightly pinged, there.

I want everyone to discuss this.

How are these two statements compatible?

How are they not? If he cannot work out whether a motivation is civvie or scum, how does him resolving to be pinged make anything but total sense?

I am casting a "fake vote" on Russtifinko. If the hosts allowed changeable votes, I would be casting my vote. Since they are not, I will withhold it. But consider this an official expression of suspicion on Russtifinko.

Russ, when you get a chance, can you answer some of my concerns?

Okay here's where my head is at.

MP as I've expressed I have now got a pretty clear scum read of you and it's because I sense a lack of belief in your case, especially on Russ. Not in the belief of him being scum, but in the points that you've used to reach that conclusion.

I think Russ, has by and large come across quite well, except for the point that bcornett swiftly pointed out, and that you did not point out despite apparently being onto him as scum.

The parts of his posts that you have highlighted do not read scum to me.

It looks to me like you are scum and you are day 1 distancing a scum teammate. Your case on him has all the hallmarks of it. You have confirmation bias when it comes to his posts.

Zebra looks like day 1 civ Zebra to me based on the three games I've played recently with Zebra. Things have pinged me, but Zebra has pinged me in all games we've played and has not yet flipped scum.

For now I am going to put on ice my scum read of enrique in light of his reaction to bcornett's point. My case on him was a day 1 case and does not come close to how I feel about this one, so allow me to put that back in my pocket for the time being. His response to bcornett's Russtifinko suspicion looks genuine and should Russ be scum, he would not be in my opinion.

Maybe I have a different definition of "pinged" than others do? It seems as though he resolved it to be a mafia read, even if slight, which contradicts what he said before. That's what I was getting hung up on. - Sorry I'm not following here.

Not sure what I can say with regards to you perceiving my case as a lack of belief. To some degree, that is true; I didn't feel Russ was 100% mafia or anything even remotely close.

I appreciate that you have commented on the matter in such a level of detail, particularly since you disagree so strongly, and you've made points that are worth considering.

I didn't pick up bcornett's observation, no, I didn't think of it that way. I still think my observations made more sense. - Yes, but for someone who seemed to be quite pinged by Russ, for you to not mention that part reads to me like you didn't want to put it on him TOO hard, or that you weren't actually looking through all his posts for genuine opportunities to see a scum. Just enough to distance.

I don't understand the logic behind jumping to the conclusion that I'm mafia distancing from a teammate. Because you think I've made points of suspicion that you believe make him appear the opposite, so thus I must be bad and he is on my team? Am I missing a link here? - I've elaborated a little on my point on that matter in this post, but it's the fact that your points on him seem to be making a lot out of what I perceive to be a really civ looking ISO, yet the part that pinged me the post you didn't make a point of addressing, whether by virtue of having not bothered reading it, or by virtue of seeing that it would have drawn the heat on Russ a little TOO much.

I coloured my stuff pink because it's pirdy.

[a2thezebra]

Why not say "having read through that exchange while I didn't see the suspicion either zebra or DDL etc. It's just more examples of your verbose waffliness, which to me is the heart of my scum read on you.

See, and this is my problem with your case. What to you is waffliness is, to me, MP's way of speaking as a player in mafia games.

I'm more bothered that MP has clearly been keeping up with the thread yet never responded to this:

How beneficial would it be to appear as if one is contributing in town's favor when they are not? That's the go-to mafia tactic, MP. Now there's no motive to retract one's hypothesis in the same post that they proposed it, but that's not the issue.

But it clearly is the issue when that is what you "don't understand".

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are finding issue with DDL proposing his analysis and then retracting it, not the actual proposal itself, correct?

It's not the issue because the action in itself isn't justifiable from a town or scum perspective. It is only more applicable to the scum perspective because it's more likely (in my opinion) the result of the mafia tactic I described than a town perspective with an undefined motivation. It would help if you could explain how that's just as likely (or better yet, more likely) to be an action from a town perspective than scum mimicking town.

I don't interpret MP's short back-and-forth with me as condescending, but I do think it's odd that he would attempt to usher me into understanding his point-of-view (as if I didn't already) but when upon returning to the thread, he ignored my clarification that was preventing him from understanding my point-of-view.

[Golden]

Btw MP, any rainbow lists yet?

Not yet, still trying to make sense of the thread, but I'm sure I'll force myself to make one before Day 1 ends.

He will force himself. Get it??

@MP - if its worth anything, I don't share your suspicion on russti. It's consistent with the way I think to express a ping on someone when I see behaviour that I find odd, even if I feel like 'I'm not sure if it is civ or bad'. For me, the most accurate definition of what I would say I mean by 'ping' is 'I found something you did odd and so now I'm paying attention to you'.

When I see behaviour that I don't think is civ (ie I feel like 'that must be bad') I'm not nearly as likely to describe it as a ping. I only really use ping when I can also see the potential civilian perspective.

[Golden]

Regarding Mac's case on MP, I think while it may have some substance to it most of it is just pointing out differences between Mac's and MP's play style. I haven't seen MP do anything yet that has struck me as opportunistic or disingenuous, and I think Mac's case against Enrique is much more convincing.

This is interesting to me, for a few reasons.
1) re: Mac's playstyle. Have you played with Mac a lot before? I've only played with him in World Reborn, and I was not super attentive in that game, but the Mac that I encountered there was NOTHING like this Mac so far (who is reading to me as calm, reasoned, and analytical). Which of these two Jekyll/Hyde sides of Mac is the "real" style, in your opinion? In what way do you see his playstyle as differing form MP's?
2) I didn't read Mac's case on MP (which I thought was good, since I almost always accuse MP of being too hedgey/non-committal, usually on Day 1 ) as accusing him of being "opportunistic" or "disingenuous", but of being overly cautious, non-committal, and wibbly-wobbly (technical term). If you don't agree with Mac's case on "opportunistic and disingenuous" grounds, do you agree with it on "wibbly-wobbly and over-cautious" grounds?

My take on Mac so far is that he is Jekyll and Hyde, but that it's not like 'Jekyll is civvie'. I think he is like some other players you and I have played with a lot (the rabbits and dutchies of this world) who take joy in mixing up their calm and chaos, even when civ, to preserve their game better when they do roll bad.

[Golden]

wibbly-wobbly

timey-wimey?

[Golden]

If he had managed to explain a thought process behind this switch, that'd be one thing, but the kicker is that he has failed to address your suspicion whatsoever.

I'm not sold, but I'm listening. I'd like to hear Enrique address your thoughts.

What do you think this was (from before your post):

thats like the biggest nonstory ive seen presented as a case on mafia

tbh i had no idea what "Yavin" was until i read the descriptions, at which point it was a bit of a no-brainer. like really? the place is literally the civvie base where the civvies do cool things in the movies. i DID consider my options (tattooine, endor) up until i found out about yavin. but then when it looked so good, surely i was missing something that kept people away from it? nobody gave it any consideration so i just put it down to lack of familiarity and went ahead and voted.

like i dont even understand what the baddie logic behind anything there would be.

Whether the truth or not, it definitely is a 'thought process behind the switch'.

[Golden]

Also has everyone forgotten that MM has already voted? Am I the only one that is extremely bothered by that? Even Mac doesn't seem to care.

It's hard to be bothered by MM's normal civilian behaviour.

[Bass_the_Clever]

You guys are posting so much lol. I'm reading now but am tried so I might take a nap before I post.

[Tangrowth]

zebra, I apologize for not responding directly; it's on my "to do" list. I came in the thread this morning, caught up, responded to Mac, etc., but I'm not finishing discussing and digging into existing thread material, and still have more posts I want to make that I haven't had the chance to yet. I read your response, but I haven't mulled over it enough without multitasking yet to be able to craft a proper response. I am current on the thread, yes, but I'm still trying to get a hold on everything, since I've been catching up in spurts in between sleeping/feeling sick and doing PhD work.

Matt F, I do recall you pushing Death Star. Your suspicion of zebra seems a bit undeveloped. You don't think zebra has been "intense" this game? Can you elaborate on why you believe that to be the case? I don't think many would echo your assessment. Do you have any thoughts on my post regarding Russ, or any thoughts on anyone else?

Elo, you said you believe the people talking the most are civilian. Why? Also, you brought up mafia lying about real life; is there something specific in this thread that you are referring to, or was this just a commentary on what you've seen in general? I got a bit lost there.

Mac, thanks for responding; I'll return the favor in a detailed fashion hopefully this evening (Central time). We'll see. Shame I don't get paid to play this game. :P

Golden, I appreciate you weighing in on the Russtifinko suspicion. Based on feedback from Mac and now you, I'm starting to think that maybe I'm just getting hung up on a diction issue more than a sincerity issue. I await his response as well.

Also, Golden, regarding Mac being Jekyll versus Hyde, what is your current GTH read on Mac? I'm trying to get a feel for him; so far, he "feels" civilian to me, but I am approaching that read with trepidation and want input from others.

linki w/ Golden: Thanks for pointing that out, I must have missed that post by Enrique. It's clear that I'm not fully absorbing the thread. I'll try re-reading backwards when I return, since it's apparent that I need to.

[MacDougall]

Also has everyone forgotten that MM has already voted? Am I the only one that is extremely bothered by that? Even Mac doesn't seem to care.

It's hard to be bothered by MM's normal civilian behaviour.

Initially I assumed it was a joke vote and that he hadn't noticed that there were no vote changes, but...

Votes are not changeable in this poll.

So actually what the hell did you vote for me for Metalmarsh?

[MacDougall]

If he had managed to explain a thought process behind this switch, that'd be one thing, but the kicker is that he has failed to address your suspicion whatsoever.

I'm not sold, but I'm listening. I'd like to hear Enrique address your thoughts.

What do you think this was (from before your post):

thats like the biggest nonstory ive seen presented as a case on mafia

tbh i had no idea what "Yavin" was until i read the descriptions, at which point it was a bit of a no-brainer. like really? the place is literally the civvie base where the civvies do cool things in the movies. i DID consider my options (tattooine, endor) up until i found out about yavin. but then when it looked so good, surely i was missing something that kept people away from it? nobody gave it any consideration so i just put it down to lack of familiarity and went ahead and voted.

like i dont even understand what the baddie logic behind anything there would be.

Whether the truth or not, it definitely is a 'thought process behind the switch'.

Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

[Tangrowth]

Also, I am also "bothered" by MM's vote, zebra, but I'm not sure what to do about it other than try to engage MM in conversation, probably with mixed success. In my opinion, any other action, such as policy lynching Metalmarsh just because he threw away his Day 1 vote as quickly as possible (again), is not a wise way to approach the Day period.

[a2thezebra]

Good to know MP, take all the time you need. And I'm not anywhere near advocating a policy lynch of MM (I'm against policy lynching actually) so I'm pinged that you painted my stance that way out of nothing. My intent is for MM to be engaged in conversation as well, I'm just bothered that so far I'm literally the only player that has done so, and with zero (rather than mixed) success.

Also has everyone forgotten that MM has already voted? Am I the only one that is extremely bothered by that? Even Mac doesn't seem to care.

It's hard to be bothered by MM's normal civilian behaviour.

So what is his normal scum behavior? Is there anything he can't get away with just because it's normal for him?

[Tangrowth]

zebra, I was not implying that you suggested policy lynching MM. I did not intend to. I brought up that possibility to the table and was expressing my dislike for that option.

[a2thezebra]

Scratch that, I now see that someone else has finally decided to engage MM about his Mac vote. And it is Mac himself of course, about time.

[Golden]

Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

Nope, I had the context exactly right. MP said he found Enrique suspicious because 'he hadn't given a thought process behind his change in view' when in fact Enrique had. The fact that MP said that in the context of also responding to other posts is not important. It demonstrated to me that MP's suspicion was based on the fact he had missed Enrique's post, and if anything was being swayed by posts from you saying Enrique hadn't responded... even though Enrique subsequently did.

@zebra - nope. Marmot can pretty much get away with anything. He went through a period of being lynched day one over and over and over and basically always flipping civ. So, now we recognise that it isn't alignment-related behaviour. It's just him.

[Tangrowth]

I'll be back later, not sure when. Too much to do.

[a2thezebra]

zebra, I was not implying that you suggested policy lynching MM. I did not intend to. I brought up that possibility to the table and was expressing my dislike for that option.

It definitely came across as more the former than the latter, but in time we shall see which one is the truth.

[a2thezebra]

So if MM can get away with anything how are we supposed to catch him if he is scum? Again I ask, if his actions are meta-proof, what is his normal scum behavior?

[MacDougall]

Golden I expect better from you. This is a textbook example of taking something completely out of context.

MP was referencing enrique's initial reactions to my initial suspicions and his lack of response to them, anything that enrique said subsequent was not on the table.

Nope, I had the context exactly right. MP said he found Enrique suspicious because 'he hadn't given a thought process behind his change in view' when in fact Enrique had. The fact that MP said that in the context of also responding to other posts is not important. It demonstrated to me that MP's suspicion was based on the fact he had missed Enrique's post, and if anything was being swayed by posts from you saying Enrique hadn't responded... even though Enrique subsequently did.

@zebra - nope. Marmot can pretty much get away with anything. He went through a period of being lynched day one over and over and over and basically always flipping civ. So, now we recognise that it isn't alignment-related behaviour. It's just him.

No, you didn't. He was referring to his lack of reaction to the suspicion initially, not subsequently. He quoted a post that I had made before enrique had responded. The fact that MP himself didn't defend himself with this very easily raised refute to your point indicates that he doesn't want to play with you in the thread Golden.

[MacDougall]

I am going to be very busy for the next 48 hours so I will probably only make 100 posts instead of 300.

[Golden]

Thanks for your psychoanalysis of MP, Mac. Lets see which of these is most likely to be true. Occam's Razor time.

1) MP claimed Enrique had never said something that he had said, but he only did it because he was putting it 'in context' and so was able to ignore the fact that Enrique said what MP claimed he did not say. MP fully knew that Enrique HAD said what MP claimed he hadn't, but he went ahead and said it anyway, knowing that you, Mac, would understand the so called 'context' of his post didn't include Enrique's actual response, that he claimed didn't exist. Then, when I pointed this out to him, he said 'thank you' to me, rather than him deciding to clarify that he intended that statement only to be read in context. He said thank you because he, the overlord of engaging people in the thread, and whom I have a very good working relationship with, wouldn't want to engage with me. Just because. But he also asked me for a gth read on you. Because he only wants to engage me a little bit.

2) Or... MP stated his (at the time) current thoughts on Enrique but had missed Enrique's post, and when he said 'thanks for pointing it out' he meant it, because I was helping him figure out where he stood on Enrique (whether it changes his mind or not), while at the same time clearly engaging me by asking me questions.

I dunno, take your pick people.

[a2thezebra]

Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

[MacDougall]

Thanks for your psychoanalysis of MP, Mac. Lets see which of these is most likely to be true. Occam's Razor time.

1) MP claimed Enrique had never said something that he had said, but he only did it because he was putting it 'in context' and so was able to ignore the fact that Enrique said what MP claimed he did not say. MP fully knew that Enrique HAD said what MP claimed he hadn't, but he went ahead and said it anyway, knowing that you, Mac, would understand the so called 'context' of his post didn't include Enrique's actual response, that he claimed didn't exist. Then, when I pointed this out to him, he said 'thank you' to me, rather than him deciding to clarify that he intended that statement only to be read in context. He said thank you because he, the overlord of engaging people in the thread, and whom I have a very good working relationship with, wouldn't want to engage with me. Just because. But he also asked me for a gth read on you. Because he only wants to engage me a little bit.

2) Or... MP stated his (at the time) current thoughts on Enrique but had missed Enrique's post, and when he said 'thanks for pointing it out' he meant it, because I was helping him figure out where he stood on Enrique (whether it changes his mind or not), while at the same time clearly engaging me by asking me questions.

I dunno, take your pick people.

Firstly, the fact is that I called enrique out on the behaviour on day 0 and enrique did not reply then. The fact that he replied after I elaborated much later does not take away the fact that he did in fact reply to me with dismissive non posts. Yes, I do think it's fair for MP to have suspicion on enrique for an initial reaction without needing to address the subsequent one. The fact that he chose not to say "Golden I was referring to the fact that enrique didn't reply to Mac's initial points" alarms me, because it looks to me like that is entirely what he has done. I was not inferring that he doesn't want to engage with you "just because", I believe he didn't attempt a defense because he is already caught scum for other reasons and chose to take the easy way out and just apologise for his behaviour.

How MP chooses to respond to our conversation is going to be very telling isn't it.

[MacDougall]

Is there a third option for who gives a shit? You guys are going back-and-forth about an issue that boils down to insignificant nonsense regardless of which one of you is right.

How is exploring intention behind in thread play insignificant nonsense Zebra?