Romance of the Three Kingdoms [ENDGAME]

[Turnip Head]

And Epi was in my BTSC crew for that Recruitment Mafia so I know he's aware of such a role. I think he's even used it before.

[insertnamehere]

Or was Mr. Popular based on number of times quoted? I don't remember... man that was a fun team to be on though.

I had a similar role in the 2013 Champions game, and made up a ridiculous story about having coded a program that would read everyone's posts and calculate their chances of being bad by cross-referencing their word choice with their past games.

Of course, me knowing next to nothing about coding, programming, or computer systems made this a little difficult. But it got people talking about me.

I got through about 3 or 4 lynches despite being the top suspect because people just wouldn't shut up about me, and wanting to prove my cockamamie story wrong.

I really loved that role.

[LoRab]

I am hungry for thread activity guys. I'm feeling directionless and not really confident in any suspicions, and I know we have 24 hours but I'd rather not pull votes out of nowhere. I feel helpless without JJJ or Rico to build cases for me, I could do some ISOs and try to farm something myself but I don't know where to start atm. Someone slip or something.

花生醬，我相信你是好人
你現在感覺如何對movingpictures07
他似乎非常渴望殺死你

I'm highly amused that google translate (which I assume you're using, or a similar translator), translated LA's name when I put your post in google translate as peanutbutter.

Not sure what to make of your posts, or your existence for that matter. I don't know if we can trust you, based on wikipedia.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Not sure what to think of Sloonei yet. I've always thought of him as a mini-Jay who always looks like a civ too but nott that much.

[DFaraday]

Whoever asked me about Sorsha, I'm feeling better about her, but I don't understand her reasoning for anything in this game.

One of Lorab's posts pinged me, so I decided to do a reread, and didn't like what I found.

So after that lynch, this post from Glorf I'm reading in a different light:

I don't know if anyone has made this observation yet but I'll go ahead anyway - If someone has, please accept my most sincere apologies.

I was going back looking at MM's votes during his somewhat limited time with us and would like to make the following observations:

Day 1: MM's votes for Day 1 were on: Dr Wilgy (21) and Turnip Head (22). I obviously don't know MM as well as most of you but is it really THAT likely that he would've voted for TWO of his Nanman team mates on Day 1 From an outsider's perspective, I should think it somewhat unlikely - which on balance is a better look for TH. I'm happy to reconsider this if anyone would like to offer an alternate opinion.

Day 2: MM was the last to cast his votes for Dom (54) and Russtifinko (55). Prior to placing his votes, Russ was 'runner-up' wagon on 7 votes. The next highest wagon was timmer on 6 votes. So assuming MM's vote was a 'hail Mary' self preservation vote, wouldn't it have been more logical for him to have voted the next highest wagons (Russ and timmer) than to place his vote on Dom? Admittedly, timmer's last vote (6) was made immediately before MM's (by Nutella) but I wonder what conclusions could be drawn from that? The vote for Dom was on a slow burn from the beginning of the Day phase (starting on vote (5) and followed by votes (9), (13), (23) and (43). In comparison, timmer's vote was meteoric - picking up 6 votes in a matter of hours (votes (26), (31), (33), (41), (48) and (53). If self preservation were his goal, I'd have thought MM would've voted timmer before Dom

It looks like a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors to get people to turn away from TH and towards Russ. I know this post was influential in m own thinking about Timmer. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't the push of a baddie to get a lynch train going at the top of the hill so that it could speed up on its own.

More suspish of TH now. Starting to be suspish of Glorf.

Can someone summarize why people are suspicious of Sorsha?

I don't like this one because, for one thing, we have no idea of either TH or Glorfindel's status, so it feels unconvincing to me that this is a save attempt. Possible, of course, I don't see it though. In addition, Lorab cites this very post as a reason why she voted Timmer (elsewhere she called it "a good case" and "good pickup and analysis"), yet now suspects Glorfindel for it after the fact. I tend to find people who propose a wrong theory less suspicious than people who go, "Yeah, that sounds good," and even more suspicious than that are people who go along with it, then claim it was suspicious after it was disproven, as if the guilt rests entirely with the original case maker.

I also feel some of her points re: TH are weak:

Well first of all, if I may say, RUDE. I really thought you guys were gonna do it. I really did.

I have read everything.




So I don't have time to respond point by point to each of my accusers from yesterday, but the first major talking point seemed to be about my banter with MM to start the game and I mean yeah, in light of the Wilgy business I can definitely see why that's worth looking into, believe me. But it seems that no one considered the fact that, ever since MM and I became shinigami bros in Death Note Mafia, we mayormaynot vote for each other

in

almost

every

single

game

we

are

in

together.

So, I mean yeah, obviously you have to look into this after MM and Wilgy took turns pulling the WIFOM wagon, but the truth is that this is just a thing that MM and I do, pretty fucking often, and I'm surprised no one has ever noticed it before

(And to the person who said we caught MM for WIFOM so it might work with me too, I would argue that MM's WIFOM alone isn't what got him lynched - at least it wasn't for me. MM slipped. He voted Wilgy as prefect and then he also voted for him Day 1. And then he couldn't come up with any plausible answer for why. That's why I voted for him, and I'm sure it factored into many other's thought processes too; JJJ first and foremost, as he was the one who initially brought it up. For you to then reduce that case to "WIFOM"... I'll bet Jay was rolling in his grave and MM and Wilgy were high-fiving each other in Hell.)




The second point that I noticed that was common among my accusers was "He's rubbing me the wrong way" "He refuses to answer my questions." And to that I say... so what? There's more than one way to scumhunt, and one of those ways is not answering questions that I feel don't need answering. In pretty much every game I will do something "completely unhelpful" such as not answering someone's question directed at me and inevitably someone always gets upset when it's their question. The truth of the matter is Scotty, I didn't feel like answering your question because your question was so far removed from what I was trying to do, that it ended up being more fun to just fuck with you a little bit. Call that unhelpful if you want, but it's not like I'm not trying to be helpful in other ways. I'll say again that there's more than one way to play a good civ game, and sometimes that means playing the slow burn. Some people like JJJ and Ricochet come out here displaying their beautiful civvie feathers and they get taken out before the game even gets interesting. I'd argue that the only players who are worried about "looking weird" are the baddies, and they try to avoid it, because look what happens. Lynch the weirdos during the Day and take out the rational overt civvies at Night. It's a baddie formula that has worked since the dawn of time.

Anyways, to actually be RIGHT about MM this early in the game, only to get silenced by his team the next Day, then taking 5 votes and almost being sent to a duel despite not being able to say a word, only to survive and now have to face the mob of "HE WAS SAVED!!!!" ... it's as if it's all going according to my devious plan. I'm just as shocked as anyone to see I wasn't lynched the way those votes flew in at me in the eleventh hour. You know how much civ cred any of my teammates could have potentially gotten from sealing my fate while I was silenced?! I'd have told them to fucking take that free civvie card, because that kind of cover almost NEVER comes around. So yeah, if you want to now go after the "He was saved", well, you go on ahead with that, since I guess I can't really defend how anyone else played yesterday, and I certainly have no content of my own to point towards from yesterday, on account of being silenced and all


I've got some thoughts about specific people that I wanted to pursue, but I needed to get all that off my chest tonight.

I'm not convinced.

You mischaracterize the accusations on you. It wasn't just voting for MM, it was about you buddying up before that. And his voting for you for prefect. And where you commented that you were his only neutral lead and hahaha, maybe you're teammates.

First of all, no one is saying you were saved--or maybe someone did and I missed it. Can you point out where that was brought up? You put that out there when it isn't even what's happening in the thread. You weren't lynched because it was realized you were silenced. And the votes for you didn't come at the elevnth hour--they were coming in throughout. You're painting the last lynch in a way that it didn't happen.

Also, you seem like an odd choice to have been silenced. And how do you know who silenced you? Yes, there is a silencer on MM's team, but there are also plenty of secrets in both civvie and baddie roles. It honestly seems more plausible to me that your own team silenced you than to think that MM's teammates silenced you.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying you as civ at this point.

Linkitis: Keep in mind, I was days behind, and read things with the knowledge of later lynches (because I read those posts right away). So, in reading Day 1, I already knew that MM was bad. It was in reading your day 1 posts that I started to suspect you. They just didn't ring true and read like a baddie bantering with a teammate in the thread.

The enlarged points read to me like Lorab has already focused in on TH and is looking for more reasons to justify it. She says that the banter in this game is different from previous games, and thus may be indicative of them being teammates, but this means that A. they have a particular banter style when not teammates as when they are, and B. that the banter as teammates would necessarily involve them publicly declaring their teaminess. I don't even know whether the former is true, and don't take it for granted that a different style of banter indicates their being on a team.

The other point, that TH would be an unlikely choice for silencing, feels forced. Occam's razor suggests that Meng Huo was the silencer; that Lorab calls into question TH's assertion of this point is odd considering the alternative is a potential secret silencing power. It feels like subtle undermining of TH's credibility. She then says that he would be an unlikely target and thus was more likely targeted by his own teammates. Considering that by my count TH had 64 posts at the time of his silencing, I see no reason he should be an unlikely target for silencing. Again, it feels like trying to make the facts fit the narrative.

Add the fact that Lorab did not vote for either confirmed baddie to date, and all of this is to say, I'm likely voting Lorab today.

[DFaraday]

My first guess is that the sockpuppet is one of those things where they gain power when people quote them. I'm going to stay away for now

I have never heard of such a role.

I have never heard of an electropunk mariachi band but I wouldn't be surprised if one existed

[Turnip Head]

My first guess is that the sockpuppet is one of those things where they gain power when people quote them. I'm going to stay away for now

I have never heard of such a role.

I have never heard of an electropunk mariachi band but I wouldn't be surprised if one existed

Oh my god.

I think you bring up some good points about LoRab, DF. I get the feeling that she's already made up her mind about me and she's making the narrative work to fit her suspicion. Confirmation bias or something.

But I also don't think she'd bother picking a fight with me if she was bad. She would either simply kill me or latch onto someone else's argument against me. I'm not the easiest person in the world to lead a lynch against, and she had a golden opportunity to get rid of me yesterday and she didn't. Just my two cents.

[insertnamehere]

It is now time to turn to Insert Namhere. He had a notorious reputation in the province of Me-Dia for his wanton vanity and anger. It was said that the wife of some official, who was rumored to be a witch, had cast a spell on him as a child, such that whenever anyone spoke his name in his presence, he became more powerful than before. Because of this, he demanded that all in his house speak his name whenever anyone was in the same room as he was. One day, a servant insisted on using his courtesy name instead. Insert Namhere ordered the servant taken outside, where he was whipped until he had said his master’s name twenty-five times. Because of the prodigious fear in the land over Insert Namhere’s accumulated power, he was made a prefect so that he would be appeased.

This excerpt from a host post directly references the ol' Mr. Popular/Media role, so I think it's safe to assume Epi's aware of it.

[DFaraday]

Lest anything I'm defending Glorfindel, I actually do suspect him, though not for Lorab's reasons.

Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?

I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

Glorfindel insists that absent players are the most likely candidates, and uses that as justification to suspect them.

So after that lynch, this post from Glorf I'm reading in a different light:

I don't know if anyone has made this observation yet but I'll go ahead anyway - If someone has, please accept my most sincere apologies.

I was going back looking at MM's votes during his somewhat limited time with us and would like to make the following observations:

Day 1: MM's votes for Day 1 were on: Dr Wilgy (21) and Turnip Head (22). I obviously don't know MM as well as most of you but is it really THAT likely that he would've voted for TWO of his Nanman team mates on Day 1 From an outsider's perspective, I should think it somewhat unlikely - which on balance is a better look for TH. I'm happy to reconsider this if anyone would like to offer an alternate opinion.

Day 2: MM was the last to cast his votes for Dom (54) and Russtifinko (55). Prior to placing his votes, Russ was 'runner-up' wagon on 7 votes. The next highest wagon was timmer on 6 votes. So assuming MM's vote was a 'hail Mary' self preservation vote, wouldn't it have been more logical for him to have voted the next highest wagons (Russ and timmer) than to place his vote on Dom? Admittedly, timmer's last vote (6) was made immediately before MM's (by Nutella) but I wonder what conclusions could be drawn from that? The vote for Dom was on a slow burn from the beginning of the Day phase (starting on vote (5) and followed by votes (9), (13), (23) and (43). In comparison, timmer's vote was meteoric - picking up 6 votes in a matter of hours (votes (26), (31), (33), (41), (48) and (53). If self preservation were his goal, I'd have thought MM would've voted timmer before Dom

It looks like a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors to get people to turn away from TH and towards Russ. I know this post was influential in m own thinking about Timmer. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't the push of a baddie to get a lynch train going at the top of the hill so that it could speed up on its own.

More suspish of TH now. Starting to be suspish of Glorf.

Can someone summarize why people are suspicious of Sorsha?

LoRab, for the record, I made an observation based on the facts as I saw them before me and placed my vote on an interpretaion on those facts. I take responsibility for that. If you (or anyone else) regards me as suspicious for actually trying to contribute in this game, so be it. I'm still learning a lot about playing these games and even I would feel less suspicious of someone genuinely trying to contribute than what I've seen so far this game from some other players.

This reads like both playing victim and a passive aggressive swipe at other players.

Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you

I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.

It certainly is an opinion, but I can't dismiss the point entirely on the fact of your opinion. So much of this game is built around forming opinions of things, and my opinion is that this particular opinion you expressed gives the impression of something dishonest. It is not unreasonable to entertain the thought that all potential scum killers could have simply neglected their duties, but to jump to that conclusion as strongly and as swiftly as you did seems like quite a leap. It seems like you were trying to work a specific angle or spread an agenda, or avoid something else.

Please elaborate my friend on precisely what "specific angle" I was working or what agenda I was trying to spread or what it was I was intending to avoid by making the comment that I did. For what it's worth, given the number of absent and semi absent players in this game, I don't know that it is necessarily that long a bow to draw. In any case, if you consider that sufficient grounds to suspect me, it looks like the Mafia teams will have an easy ride of it this game.

Here it feels like a veiled threat against trying to lynch him.

Looking over his votes, Glorfindel did vote to lynch Wilgy, which is a good look for him, but given that there are two bad teams doesn't mean much. Overall, I find Glorfindel moderately suspicious, and may vote him as well.

Dom hasn't been around much, so I don't have much to add to my thoughts on him. I'm about neutral on him right now.

[Glorfindel]

你好朋友
誰今天我們殺

So, uh, are we going to talk about this?

I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

You are not coming off as sarcastic, but you were coming off as a little frustrated and maybe a bit flustered there. And this is something that I am programmed to find suspicious, unfortunately. I can't go against my programming.
Why do you think I'm town?

Frustrated, perhaps. Every game I play here, despite how hard I try I inevitably end up being falsely accused for reasons that range from the spurious to the ridiculous (and if you don't believe me, go back and read Matt's Two-Face accusation of me - it's typical). I understand that you may find my reaction in this regard suspicious but as you say, you're not familiar with my play style and I'll admit I'm probably somewhat 'unique'

Why do I think you're Town? I didn't say this previously but I was disappointed to lose 3J from this game. His posts were (as usual) masterpieces of analysis and interrogation and that's what I want to try to emulate. Consequently, I have little doubt that he was Town. When he got eliminated, I thought we'd lost that but then we got you and Ricochet that have kept the conversations going (clearly not a Mafia agenda). I see some logic to some of your conclusions (clearly not at least one...) and you are clearly an asset to us. I find some of your conclusions aligning to those I've reached so obviously that helps to.

Every game everyone plays many people get falsely suspected. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be much of a game.

And I would like clarification. Your theory upon seeing no kill after the first night was that 2 entire mafia teams did not show up at all on night 1--not a single member--to send in the team's kill? Can you explain why you thought that was the most plausible explanation?

Also, have you ever seen that happen? Where no one from 2 different mafia teams showed up, on night 1? I'm pretty sure I haven't. So, if it happens regularly in games I'm not playing in, or on other sites, then please enlighten me.

And now that we know that this wasn't the case for at least 1 of the mafia teams, since we've lynched 2 people on those teams, why are you still actively advocating for the lynching of low posters?

Allow me to explain my friend - I'll admit (as I've already done on a number of occasions) that the assumption to which I jumped was a little rash and naive.

Whilst I have never witnessed an absent Mafia team miss their NK, I have likewise never played a game of 37 players where a single Mafia team (one of multiple) make up as little as 8% of the game populace with the extraordinary level of absence and lack of contribution that we've seen this game. Then, there's the fact that one team (on the only time they've had an NK attributed to them) took out a player who'd indicated they would be absent for a substantial period of time and only had two posts...

I also am of the opinion that you are misrepresenting my posts. You claim I'm 'advocating' the lynching of low posters when the ONLY statement I've made in that regard is:

I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

I can't speak for you or for anyone else but that is hardly what I'd call 'advocating' their lynching and to pursue this matter further, I don't recall having given that as a reason for any of the votes that I've submitted since I made that statement (above)

[DFaraday]

My first guess is that the sockpuppet is one of those things where they gain power when people quote them. I'm going to stay away for now

I have never heard of such a role.

I have never heard of an electropunk mariachi band but I wouldn't be surprised if one existed

Oh my god.

I think you bring up some good points about LoRab, DF. I get the feeling that she's already made up her mind about me and she's making the narrative work to fit her suspicion. Confirmation bias or something.

But I also don't think she'd bother picking a fight with me if she was bad. She would either simply kill me or latch onto someone else's argument against me. I'm not the easiest person in the world to lead a lynch against, and she had a golden opportunity to get rid of me yesterday and she didn't. Just my two cents.

I mean, you did take five votes even while silenced. You make a good point that she didn't vote you yesterday, though if she is bad she'd need Timmer gone anyway.

[LoRab]

Whoever asked me about Sorsha, I'm feeling better about her, but I don't understand her reasoning for anything in this game.

One of Lorab's posts pinged me, so I decided to do a reread, and didn't like what I found.

So after that lynch, this post from Glorf I'm reading in a different light:

I don't know if anyone has made this observation yet but I'll go ahead anyway - If someone has, please accept my most sincere apologies.

I was going back looking at MM's votes during his somewhat limited time with us and would like to make the following observations:

Day 1: MM's votes for Day 1 were on: Dr Wilgy (21) and Turnip Head (22). I obviously don't know MM as well as most of you but is it really THAT likely that he would've voted for TWO of his Nanman team mates on Day 1 From an outsider's perspective, I should think it somewhat unlikely - which on balance is a better look for TH. I'm happy to reconsider this if anyone would like to offer an alternate opinion.

Day 2: MM was the last to cast his votes for Dom (54) and Russtifinko (55). Prior to placing his votes, Russ was 'runner-up' wagon on 7 votes. The next highest wagon was timmer on 6 votes. So assuming MM's vote was a 'hail Mary' self preservation vote, wouldn't it have been more logical for him to have voted the next highest wagons (Russ and timmer) than to place his vote on Dom? Admittedly, timmer's last vote (6) was made immediately before MM's (by Nutella) but I wonder what conclusions could be drawn from that? The vote for Dom was on a slow burn from the beginning of the Day phase (starting on vote (5) and followed by votes (9), (13), (23) and (43). In comparison, timmer's vote was meteoric - picking up 6 votes in a matter of hours (votes (26), (31), (33), (41), (48) and (53). If self preservation were his goal, I'd have thought MM would've voted timmer before Dom

It looks like a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors to get people to turn away from TH and towards Russ. I know this post was influential in m own thinking about Timmer. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't the push of a baddie to get a lynch train going at the top of the hill so that it could speed up on its own.

More suspish of TH now. Starting to be suspish of Glorf.

Can someone summarize why people are suspicious of Sorsha?

I don't like this one because, for one thing, we have no idea of either TH or Glorfindel's status, so it feels unconvincing to me that this is a save attempt. Possible, of course, I don't see it though. In addition, Lorab cites this very post as a reason why she voted Timmer (elsewhere she called it "a good case" and "good pickup and analysis"), yet now suspects Glorfindel for it after the fact. I tend to find people who propose a wrong theory less suspicious than people who go, "Yeah, that sounds good," and even more suspicious than that are people who go along with it, then claim it was suspicious after it was disproven, as if the guilt rests entirely with the original case maker.

I also feel some of her points re: TH are weak:

Well first of all, if I may say, RUDE. I really thought you guys were gonna do it. I really did.

I have read everything.




So I don't have time to respond point by point to each of my accusers from yesterday, but the first major talking point seemed to be about my banter with MM to start the game and I mean yeah, in light of the Wilgy business I can definitely see why that's worth looking into, believe me. But it seems that no one considered the fact that, ever since MM and I became shinigami bros in Death Note Mafia, we mayormaynot vote for each other

in

almost

every

single

game

we

are

in

together.

So, I mean yeah, obviously you have to look into this after MM and Wilgy took turns pulling the WIFOM wagon, but the truth is that this is just a thing that MM and I do, pretty fucking often, and I'm surprised no one has ever noticed it before

(And to the person who said we caught MM for WIFOM so it might work with me too, I would argue that MM's WIFOM alone isn't what got him lynched - at least it wasn't for me. MM slipped. He voted Wilgy as prefect and then he also voted for him Day 1. And then he couldn't come up with any plausible answer for why. That's why I voted for him, and I'm sure it factored into many other's thought processes too; JJJ first and foremost, as he was the one who initially brought it up. For you to then reduce that case to "WIFOM"... I'll bet Jay was rolling in his grave and MM and Wilgy were high-fiving each other in Hell.)

The second point that I noticed that was common among my accusers was "He's rubbing me the wrong way" "He refuses to answer my questions." And to that I say... so what? There's more than one way to scumhunt, and one of those ways is not answering questions that I feel don't need answering. In pretty much every game I will do something "completely unhelpful" such as not answering someone's question directed at me and inevitably someone always gets upset when it's their question. The truth of the matter is Scotty, I didn't feel like answering your question because your question was so far removed from what I was trying to do, that it ended up being more fun to just fuck with you a little bit. Call that unhelpful if you want, but it's not like I'm not trying to be helpful in other ways. I'll say again that there's more than one way to play a good civ game, and sometimes that means playing the slow burn. Some people like JJJ and Ricochet come out here displaying their beautiful civvie feathers and they get taken out before the game even gets interesting. I'd argue that the only players who are worried about "looking weird" are the baddies, and they try to avoid it, because look what happens. Lynch the weirdos during the Day and take out the rational overt civvies at Night. It's a baddie formula that has worked since the dawn of time.

Anyways, to actually be RIGHT about MM this early in the game, only to get silenced by his team the next Day, then taking 5 votes and almost being sent to a duel despite not being able to say a word, only to survive and now have to face the mob of "HE WAS SAVED!!!!" ... it's as if it's all going according to my devious plan. I'm just as shocked as anyone to see I wasn't lynched the way those votes flew in at me in the eleventh hour. You know how much civ cred any of my teammates could have potentially gotten from sealing my fate while I was silenced?! I'd have told them to fucking take that free civvie card, because that kind of cover almost NEVER comes around. So yeah, if you want to now go after the "He was saved", well, you go on ahead with that, since I guess I can't really defend how anyone else played yesterday, and I certainly have no content of my own to point towards from yesterday, on account of being silenced and all

I've got some thoughts about specific people that I wanted to pursue, but I needed to get all that off my chest tonight.

I'm not convinced.

You mischaracterize the accusations on you. It wasn't just voting for MM, it was about you buddying up before that. And his voting for you for prefect. And where you commented that you were his only neutral lead and hahaha, maybe you're teammates.

First of all, no one is saying you were saved--or maybe someone did and I missed it. Can you point out where that was brought up? You put that out there when it isn't even what's happening in the thread. You weren't lynched because it was realized you were silenced. And the votes for you didn't come at the elevnth hour--they were coming in throughout. You're painting the last lynch in a way that it didn't happen.

Also, you seem like an odd choice to have been silenced. And how do you know who silenced you? Yes, there is a silencer on MM's team, but there are also plenty of secrets in both civvie and baddie roles. It honestly seems more plausible to me that your own team silenced you than to think that MM's teammates silenced you.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying you as civ at this point.

Linkitis: Keep in mind, I was days behind, and read things with the knowledge of later lynches (because I read those posts right away). So, in reading Day 1, I already knew that MM was bad. It was in reading your day 1 posts that I started to suspect you. They just didn't ring true and read like a baddie bantering with a teammate in the thread.

The enlarged points read to me like Lorab has already focused in on TH and is looking for more reasons to justify it. She says that the banter in this game is different from previous games, and thus may be indicative of them being teammates, but this means that A. they have a particular banter style when not teammates as when they are, and B. that the banter as teammates would necessarily involve them publicly declaring their teaminess. I don't even know whether the former is true, and don't take it for granted that a different style of banter indicates their being on a team.

The other point, that TH would be an unlikely choice for silencing, feels forced. Occam's razor suggests that Meng Huo was the silencer; that Lorab calls into question TH's assertion of this point is odd considering the alternative is a potential secret silencing power. It feels like subtle undermining of TH's credibility. She then says that he would be an unlikely target and thus was more likely targeted by his own teammates. Considering that by my count TH had 64 posts at the time of his silencing, I see no reason he should be an unlikely target for silencing. Again, it feels like trying to make the facts fit the narrative.

Add the fact that Lorab did not vote for either confirmed baddie to date, and all of this is to say, I'm likely voting Lorab today.

While I'm not bad, I accept that your reasons for suspecting me seems suspicious. They are leading to a false conclusion, but I get where you are coming from.

to defend (in reverse order):

I was not active in the game yet in a real way when either baddie was lynched. Yes, I didn't vote for them. But I wasn't really playing yet, either.

I agree that Meng Huo likely silenced TH. My question is more if Meng Huo silenced a teammate. That TH came into the thread and stated that they were silenced and by what team made me wonder if that were an act of pointing out that he was silenced by a baddie in order to seem more civ. Although, also, with that many secrets, there could be multiple possibilities, so I also was honestly wondering how he knew.

Also, yes, the banter is different. I don't know of a game where the 2 of them were teammates and knew that they were. TH didn't post that in his posty post, so I am guessing that there is no such game. Their banter felt different to me in this game. Therefore I find it suspicious. They have banter in many games that is pretty much the same. In most of those games, they are not teammates. In one of those games, they are, but didn't know it. In this game, the tone of their banter was different. That's my real point.

I can't help if you suspect me for this. But I assure you that you are wrong. And that I honestly suspect TH, and for what I think is good reason. That you disagree with me is fine. How that makes me suspicious, I'm not sure I undersatnd.

你好朋友
誰今天我們殺

So, uh, are we going to talk about this?

I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

You are not coming off as sarcastic, but you were coming off as a little frustrated and maybe a bit flustered there. And this is something that I am programmed to find suspicious, unfortunately. I can't go against my programming.
Why do you think I'm town?

Frustrated, perhaps. Every game I play here, despite how hard I try I inevitably end up being falsely accused for reasons that range from the spurious to the ridiculous (and if you don't believe me, go back and read Matt's Two-Face accusation of me - it's typical). I understand that you may find my reaction in this regard suspicious but as you say, you're not familiar with my play style and I'll admit I'm probably somewhat 'unique'

Why do I think you're Town? I didn't say this previously but I was disappointed to lose 3J from this game. His posts were (as usual) masterpieces of analysis and interrogation and that's what I want to try to emulate. Consequently, I have little doubt that he was Town. When he got eliminated, I thought we'd lost that but then we got you and Ricochet that have kept the conversations going (clearly not a Mafia agenda). I see some logic to some of your conclusions (clearly not at least one...) and you are clearly an asset to us. I find some of your conclusions aligning to those I've reached so obviously that helps to.

Every game everyone plays many people get falsely suspected. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be much of a game.

And I would like clarification. Your theory upon seeing no kill after the first night was that 2 entire mafia teams did not show up at all on night 1--not a single member--to send in the team's kill? Can you explain why you thought that was the most plausible explanation?

Also, have you ever seen that happen? Where no one from 2 different mafia teams showed up, on night 1? I'm pretty sure I haven't. So, if it happens regularly in games I'm not playing in, or on other sites, then please enlighten me.

And now that we know that this wasn't the case for at least 1 of the mafia teams, since we've lynched 2 people on those teams, why are you still actively advocating for the lynching of low posters?

Allow me to explain my friend - I'll admit (as I've already done on a number of occasions) that the assumption to which I jumped was a little rash and naive.

Whilst I have never witnessed an absent Mafia team miss their NK, I have likewise never played a game of 37 players where a single Mafia team (one of multiple) make up as little as 8% of the game populace with the extraordinary level of absence and lack of contribution that we've seen this game. Then, there's the fact that one team (on the only time they've had an NK attributed to them) took out a player who'd indicated they would be absent for a substantial period of time and only had two posts...

I also am of the opinion that you are misrepresenting my posts. You claim I'm 'advocating' the lynching of low posters when the ONLY statement I've made in that regard is:

I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

I can't speak for you or for anyone else but that is hardly what I'd call 'advocating' their lynching and to pursue this matter further, I don't recall having given that as a reason for any of the votes that I've submitted since I made that statement (above)

Uh, about 20% of the players are mafia (not even considering dangerous indies). And, even if one team is 8%, given that any team member can send in a group pm (according to the posted rules) I just don't think it likely that no one from the team showed up. You have never seen ithappen. I have never seen it happen. Ihave trouble understanding why you came to the conclusion that that was the most likely possiblity (other than blocks, protections, etc).

And not sure how that team's choice of targets makes it more likely that they are inactive. can you explain what you mean by that?

And you have definitely advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players. Several times. I don't particularly want to go through all of your posts and link every time you've supported that idea, but I'm happy to if you really are going to deny that you've done so.

[nutella]

Sweet lordy could people not repeatedly quote mile long posts every single post.

[Turnip Head]

That TH came into the thread and stated that they were silenced and by what team

I did no such thing.

And no, I can't remember any games where MM and I were teammates aware of each other. I find it interesting that you think our banter was so different here, considering that I'm not bad. You can claim it's different but that doesn't make it true. Eventually MM and I will be teammates and we'll have to double down on this WIFOM dance. But if you're just paying the odds, hoping that it is this game, you're going to be disappointed.

[Turnip Head]

Oh I did say that I thought MM's team silenced me. In case anyone cares, the exact terminology was that I had been "kidnapped", but it was mechanically identical to the Nanman ability, so I do think it was them.

[Turnip Head]

Honestly I thought they silenced me because I was onto timmer.

[nutella]

And you have definitely advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players. Several times. I don't particularly want to go through all of your posts and link every time you've supported that idea, but I'm happy to if you really are going to deny that you've done so.

This is patently untrue. I have verified Glorfindel's claim that the one post mentioned is the only time he says such a thing. Kind of unbecoming for you to assume he's lying and assume you know what he's said better than he does.

[Turnip Head]

Damn girl. Nutella-san brought her A Game.

[LoRab]

And you have definitely advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players. Several times. I don't particularly want to go through all of your posts and link every time you've supported that idea, but I'm happy to if you really are going to deny that you've done so.

This is patently untrue. I have verified Glorfindel's claim that the one post mentioned is the only time he says such a thing. Kind of unbecoming for you to assume he's lying and assume you know what he's said better than he does.

Um. No. He said or implied it several times. Since you've called this into question, I'll go search it out.

[nutella]

I skimmed his ISO since you didn't, and I didn't find anything. I may have missed something but I would like to see proof.

[Glorfindel]

Uh, about 20% of the players are mafia (not even considering dangerous indies). And, even if one team is 8%, given that any team member can send in a group pm (according to the posted rules) I just don't think it likely that no one from the team showed up. You have never seen ithappen. I have never seen it happen. Ihave trouble understanding why you came to the conclusion that that was the most likely possiblity (other than blocks, protections, etc).

And not sure how that team's choice of targets makes it more likely that they are inactive. can you explain what you mean by that?

And you have definitely advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players. Several times. I don't particularly want to go through all of your posts and link every time you've supported that idea, but I'm happy to if you really are going to deny that you've done so.

Let me get this straight - Day 1 our duel contenders were decided on a vote of only 50% of players who signed up for this game and you're discounting the possibility of the absence of a Mafia team consisting of a mere 8% of the populace of this game? Under the circumstances, I think to a degree, that in itself may be a little naive. Clearly, as been pointed out - other forces (like protection, role blocking, etc) may have been at work that Night phase but in the case of TWO Mafia teams in a game this size? I'm not so sure. And as for your accusation that I have "advocated for/supported the idea of lynching low playing players" - knock yourself out!

[Turnip Head]

Where are you looking to vote for today's duel, Glorfy?

[LoRab]

Apologies for the long post and the multiple long quotes. But this was asked for.

Apologies for typos.

But I also wonder, LA. Looking at these posts that I quote here, if you did an ISO of him, how did you not notice these posts?

I skimmed his ISO since you didn't, and I didn't find anything. I may have missed something but I would like to see proof.

OK. Since you ask. Here you go. I didn't want to do this, because I'm unsure of my suspicion on him, and this makes it look like I'm making a solid case, and that's not my intention. I more wanted to spur conversation by bringing him up. But, yeah, he brings up the idea of suspecting low/non posters/players several times. I'm only mentioning those here. No other posts which make me eye him.

After my post about him:

So after that lynch, this post from Glorf I'm reading in a different light:

I don't know if anyone has made this observation yet but I'll go ahead anyway - If someone has, please accept my most sincere apologies.

I was going back looking at MM's votes during his somewhat limited time with us and would like to make the following observations:

Day 1: MM's votes for Day 1 were on: Dr Wilgy (21) and Turnip Head (22). I obviously don't know MM as well as most of you but is it really THAT likely that he would've voted for TWO of his Nanman team mates on Day 1 From an outsider's perspective, I should think it somewhat unlikely - which on balance is a better look for TH. I'm happy to reconsider this if anyone would like to offer an alternate opinion.

Day 2: MM was the last to cast his votes for Dom (54) and Russtifinko (55). Prior to placing his votes, Russ was 'runner-up' wagon on 7 votes. The next highest wagon was timmer on 6 votes. So assuming MM's vote was a 'hail Mary' self preservation vote, wouldn't it have been more logical for him to have voted the next highest wagons (Russ and timmer) than to place his vote on Dom? Admittedly, timmer's last vote (6) was made immediately before MM's (by Nutella) but I wonder what conclusions could be drawn from that? The vote for Dom was on a slow burn from the beginning of the Day phase (starting on vote (5) and followed by votes (9), (13), (23) and (43). In comparison, timmer's vote was meteoric - picking up 6 votes in a matter of hours (votes (26), (31), (33), (41), (48) and (53). If self preservation were his goal, I'd have thought MM would've voted timmer before Dom

It looks like a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors to get people to turn away from TH and towards Russ. I know this post was influential in m own thinking about Timmer. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't the push of a baddie to get a lynch train going at the top of the hill so that it could speed up on its own.

More suspish of TH now. Starting to be suspish of Glorf.

Can someone summarize why people are suspicious of Sorsha?

LoRab, for the record, I made an observation based on the facts as I saw them before me and placed my vote on an interpretaion on those facts. I take responsibility for that. If you (or anyone else) regards me as suspicious for actually trying to contribute in this game, so be it. I'm still learning a lot about playing these games and even I would feel less suspicious of someone genuinely trying to contribute than what I've seen so far this game from some other players.

Glorfindel seems to go out of his way to say "my friend" in nearly every post. Is he projecting his usual friendly civ playstyle? Also hey Matty

I forgot to vote yesterday, sorry about that.

Hey Jan! I didn't realize it was you. It is a pleasure playing with you

Hey, Magnus It's great to have you back playing with us again And no, I'm certain that you know me well enough by now to expect me to be courteous to my fellow players
I notice that you missed the vote at EoD 1. I'm just wondering - were you simply undecided about for whom you'd vote or was there some other reason?

Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?

Assumes one side has been non-participating players.

But before that, after night 1:

Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?

I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

And then:

Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?

And then:

Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?

This seems presuming !

What secrets do you know ? Or what do you want all of us-- the regular people-- to think?

This is not a matter of knowing any secrets, my friend - it's simple logic. If you can come up with another plausible explanation for the lack of ANY NK well, I'm listening...

After those 3 posts, soon after the day starting post (the first 2 not in direct response to anything, just speculation)....the various possibilites of what could have happened (other than every single baddie being a no show) are pointed out:

Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?

This seems presuming !

What secrets do you know ? Or what do you want all of us-- the regular people-- to think?

This is not a matter of knowing any secrets, my friend - it's simple logic. If you can come up with another plausible explanation for the lack of ANY NK well, I'm listening...

Pang Tong
Strategist
Pang Tong likes to use trickery to confuse the enemy.
*Secrets*

Sima Yi
Strategist
A devious man, he is the primary strategist for the Wei faction.
*Secrets*

Zhang Jiao
Leader
The leader of the Yellow Turban Rebellion, he is able to summon the wind and rain.
*Secrets*

Zhang Bao
Strategist
The middle brother of the Yellow Turban Rebellion, he is able to summon apparitions.
*Secrets*

Zhang Liang
Strategist
The youngest brother of the Yellow Turban Rebellion, he is able to summon a rockslide.
*Secrets*

Dong Zhuo
Leader
This notorious warlord has an entourage of bodyguards, protecting him always from assassination.
Cannot be Night killed. Inherits the Yellow Turban kill.

Yuan Shao
Strategist
Military strategist and commander.
Each Night, Yuan Shao will attempt to recruit a warrior (anyone with BTSC cannot be recruited). He may recruit up to three warriors (one from each kingdom). *Secrets*

Lu Bu
Warrior
A most fearsome warrior, and rider of Red Hare.
By the third Night, Lu Bu must decide what faction he will fight for and achieve victory with. *Secrets*

Every intance of *secrets* in the setup is a way those kills could have been stopped.

Plus we know the serial killer is bulletproof.

That is true DDL but of the eight instances of *secrets that you quoted from Dom's post, three belonged to the Yellow Turbans and I can't personally see them having/using a lynch stop power when they have one of two NKs each night. Another two of the characters nominated are Independents and I can't fathom how either of them might have a power that might do that... I'll accept my original statement on this matter may have been a little impetuous and naive but I don't think (that in a game with a player base of 37 right now when we had 50% of the players fail to vote EoD 1 and a considerable number still with minimal to no posts) it is necessarily prudent to exclude the possibility that player absence could've been a factor in the result we got at the end of the last Night phase.

Despite a variety of possibilities being pointed out, he still denies that game factors are the more likely scenario to explain the lack of kills.

And then:

Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you

I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.

Here, basically summarizes by asserting that the more likelihood of lack of kills is non-participation.

Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you

I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.

It certainly is an opinion, but I can't dismiss the point entirely on the fact of your opinion. So much of this game is built around forming opinions of things, and my opinion is that this particular opinion you expressed gives the impression of something dishonest. It is not unreasonable to entertain the thought that all potential scum killers could have simply neglected their duties, but to jump to that conclusion as strongly and as swiftly as you did seems like quite a leap. It seems like you were trying to work a specific angle or spread an agenda, or avoid something else.

Please elaborate my friend on precisely what "specific angle" I was working or what agenda I was trying to spread or what it was I was intending to avoid by making the comment that I did. For what it's worth, given the number of absent and semi absent players in this game, I don't know that it is necessarily that long a bow to draw. In any case, if you consider that sufficient grounds to suspect me, it looks like the Mafia teams will have an easy ride of it this game.

Summarizing the last paragraph: it is likely that a non-particpator is mafia, and based on the number of low level players, he is likely right and if you suspect him, then you are making it easy for mafia.

你好朋友
誰今天我們殺

So, uh, are we going to talk about this?

I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

You are not coming off as sarcastic, but you were coming off as a little frustrated and maybe a bit flustered there. And this is something that I am programmed to find suspicious, unfortunately. I can't go against my programming.
Why do you think I'm town?

Frustrated, perhaps. Every game I play here, despite how hard I try I inevitably end up being falsely accused for reasons that range from the spurious to the ridiculous (and if you don't believe me, go back and read Matt's Two-Face accusation of me - it's typical). I understand that you may find my reaction in this regard suspicious but as you say, you're not familiar with my play style and I'll admit I'm probably somewhat 'unique'

Why do I think you're Town? I didn't say this previously but I was disappointed to lose 3J from this game. His posts were (as usual) masterpieces of analysis and interrogation and that's what I want to try to emulate. Consequently, I have little doubt that he was Town. When he got eliminated, I thought we'd lost that but then we got you and Ricochet that have kept the conversations going (clearly not a Mafia agenda). I see some logic to some of your conclusions (clearly not at least one...) and you are clearly an asset to us. I find some of your conclusions aligning to those I've reached so obviously that helps to.

Every game everyone plays many people get falsely suspected. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be much of a game.

And I would like clarification. Your theory upon seeing no kill after the first night was that 2 entire mafia teams did not show up at all on night 1--not a single member--to send in the team's kill? Can you explain why you thought that was the most plausible explanation?

Also, have you ever seen that happen? Where no one from 2 different mafia teams showed up, on night 1? I'm pretty sure I haven't. So, if it happens regularly in games I'm not playing in, or on other sites, then please enlighten me.

And now that we know that this wasn't the case for at least 1 of the mafia teams, since we've lynched 2 people on those teams, why are you still actively advocating for the lynching of low posters?

Allow me to explain my friend - I'll admit (as I've already done on a number of occasions) that the assumption to which I jumped was a little rash and naive.

Whilst I have never witnessed an absent Mafia team miss their NK, I have likewise never played a game of 37 players where a single Mafia team (one of multiple) make up as little as 8% of the game populace with the extraordinary level of absence and lack of contribution that we've seen this game. Then, there's the fact that one team (on the only time they've had an NK attributed to them) took out a player who'd indicated they would be absent for a substantial period of time and only had two posts...

I also am of the opinion that you are misrepresenting my posts. You claim I'm 'advocating' the lynching of low posters when the ONLY statement I've made in that regard is:

I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

I can't speak for you or for anyone else but that is hardly what I'd call 'advocating' their lynching and to pursue this matter further, I don't recall having given that as a reason for any of the votes that I've submitted since I made that statement (above)

Again, he mentions the team that has only had one kill, and this post could be read as implying that it was likely lack of particiation, in light of his other posts. He says that it was a naive assumption, but doesn't seem to go against it, either.

No, it isn't given as a voting reason, but the number of times he mentions it makes me think that he is encouraging voting based on that.

linkitis: And this last post continues the narrative of an entire team made up of non-players. And with the added edge of claiming that it is actually more likely that an entire team does not show up (which please, someone point out a game where that has happened).

[nutella]

I am of course aware of all of those posts. None of them, however, except for that one that was already brought up, actually advocate for the lynching of low posters. He repeatedly discusses the odds of one of the teams being inactive, which I guess you could say implies that he thinks it would be a good idea to go after inactives, but only once does he say it outright, and he never really follows up on it. I guess you and I interpreted his posts differently, but to me, advocating for lynching low posters is a very different thing from stating observations about mechanics and numbers in the game.

[Glorfindel]

Where are you looking to vote for today's duel, Glorfy?

I'll be getting back to you on that later TH. I've been out most of the day and am hoping to spend some time this evening looking through things. I still have bad vibes on Sorsha. I have some things I need to look back on before I commit to anything though.

[LoRab]

I am of course aware of all of those posts. None of them, however, except for that one that was already brought up, actually advocate for the lynching of low posters. He repeatedly discusses the odds of one of the teams being inactive, which I guess you could say implies that he thinks it would be a good idea to go after inactives, but only once does he say it outright, and he never really follows up on it. I guess you and I interpreted his posts differently, but to me, advocating for lynching low posters is a very different thing from stating observations about mechanics and numbers in the game.

Semantics, then. To me, bringing up the likelihood of low posters being mafia is the same thing as advocating for lynching inactives. And while I have not made this point until now, I would even say that mentioning this again and again and not actively advocating for lynching is actually more suspicious behavior. Baddies more often plant seeds and don't actually overtly advocate for what they want to happen. They make posts where their ideas are implicit, so that they get out there, but then are difficult to point out.

Their posts aim to create the possibility of conversations exactly like this.

Do I think he is bad? I'm not honestly sure. I know he has been falsely lynched before and that gives me pause.

Do I think he has shown some really suspicious behavior? Yes, absolutely. If my suspicion of him is correct, we'll se..

[nutella]

Also, lack of precedence does not mean lack of probability. There's probably a fancy logical fallacy term for that but idgaf. Just because you've never seen an inactive mafia team before doesn't mean it couldn't happen, especially considering the Yellow Turban team only consists of three players, and this game has WAY more than three inactive players. They only killed once, and it was on SVS, an inactive player -- perhaps if nobody in the team had been paying attention they wouldn't know SVS hadn't been participating and just picked her to get rid of. Idk, I just think Glorfindel's lines of thinking are not entirely unreasonable

[Glorfindel]

I am of course aware of all of those posts. None of them, however, except for that one that was already brought up, actually advocate for the lynching of low posters. He repeatedly discusses the odds of one of the teams being inactive, which I guess you could say implies that he thinks it would be a good idea to go after inactives, but only once does he say it outright, and he never really follows up on it. I guess you and I interpreted his posts differently, but to me, advocating for lynching low posters is a very different thing from stating observations about mechanics and numbers in the game.

THANK YOU! A voice of reason at last...

I think this distraction has gone on long enough and derailed this game for too long. If you think any of what you have accused me of LoRab justifies your vote on me, go right ahead. I'm moving on from this - I'm not going to contribute to this distraction any longer and intend to focus my efforts on removing Mafia.

[nutella]

Actually Glorfindel, I'd like your opinion on something. Considering Lorab hadn't even been aware that the game had started at the time of the YTs' first missed kill, and considering her outright despisal of your hypothesis, do you think she could be one of them? (I personally don't really think so but it would be pretty funny if so)

[LoRab]

Also, lack of precedence does not mean lack of probability. There's probably a fancy logical fallacy term for that but idgaf. Just because you've never seen an inactive mafia team before doesn't mean it couldn't happen, especially considering the Yellow Turban team only consists of three players, and this game has WAY more than three inactive players. They only killed once, and it was on SVS, an inactive player -- perhaps if nobody in the team had been paying attention they wouldn't know SVS hadn't been participating and just picked her to get rid of. Idk, I just think Glorfindel's lines of thinking are not entirely unreasonable

Possible, yes. Probable, no? I mean, really, you've played many games. You've played many large games. Have you ever, in your entire mafia history, seen that happen?

In the past 8 years, I can't even count how many games I've played. Several dozen. I can't be far off from 100 games, but I don't keep track any more. My point is that I have never seen that happen. Ever. And I've been in really big games. And I've seen proportionally small mafias. I have never seen an entire no show team. So, no, it doesn't seem like the more likely or evvey very likely possibility.

[Golden]

It especially doesn't seem likely in an epi hosted game, who I think would reroll if he rolled a list that included a team likely to be inactive. I think epi would make sure he had at least one player he could rely on to be active before accepting the randomised list.

However, one idea I could see as a bit more possible is that some of the baddies in the yellow turbans are amongst those who have been nked early.

Glorfindel looks townie to me. Very townie. Enough to vote in his defence.

[nutella]

I mean, I would be surprised if nobody on the team participated, but let's just take Night 1 -- missed PMs happen, and again, there were enough inactive players at that point that I could see a three-person team missing their night PM. I'm not saying it's necessarily the most likely explanation and I didn't really agree with Glorf when he suggested it, but it's not exactly improbable either and I think you're being pretty harsh on him.

Linki: Fair point, yeah, I guess Epi wouldn't let a team be made up of only inactives (though there might be a couple players who have been inactive this game that he might not have foreseen as such)

[LoRab]

I mean, I would be surprised if nobody on the team participated, but let's just take Night 1 -- missed PMs happen, and again, there were enough inactive players at that point that I could see a three-person team missing their night PM. I'm not saying it's necessarily the most likely explanation and I didn't really agree with Glorf when he suggested it, but it's not exactly improbable either and I think you're being pretty harsh on him.

Linki: Fair point, yeah, I guess Epi wouldn't let a team be made up of only inactives (though there might be a couple players who have been inactive this game that he might not have foreseen as such)

You literally asked for posts showing that he had posted about inactives more than once. I responded by posting examples. You aren now saying I am being harsh. I think you are being disingenuous.

I don't suspect you for it (yet), but I also don't see you as being fully fair in your assessment.

And, sure, disagree with me. But enough with the subtle not quite accusing me but sort of saying you think I'm bad. If you think I'm bad. Say so. If you don't, quit with the quasi-accusations. Either way, I'm civ. But I'm not sure what your'e trying to get at with this whole line of whatever.

[Golden]

I think epi knows from experience who he can rely upon to get pms and votes in even when they are busy. It doesn't take much hosting to know, and he does plenty.

However, I find glorfindel laying out his theory to be logical, genuine and sensible. I don't think Epi would do it, but I also think it's a pretty rational explanation for no kills and I don't really feel as though he is pushing it too hard.

[nutella]

I mean, I would be surprised if nobody on the team participated, but let's just take Night 1 -- missed PMs happen, and again, there were enough inactive players at that point that I could see a three-person team missing their night PM. I'm not saying it's necessarily the most likely explanation and I didn't really agree with Glorf when he suggested it, but it's not exactly improbable either and I think you're being pretty harsh on him.

Linki: Fair point, yeah, I guess Epi wouldn't let a team be made up of only inactives (though there might be a couple players who have been inactive this game that he might not have foreseen as such)

You literally asked for posts showing that he had posted about inactives more than once. I responded by posting examples. You aren now saying I am being harsh. I think you are being disingenuous.

I don't suspect you for it (yet), but I also don't see you as being fully fair in your assessment.

And, sure, disagree with me. But enough with the subtle not quite accusing me but sort of saying you think I'm bad. If you think I'm bad. Say so. If you don't, quit with the quasi-accusations. Either way, I'm civ. But I'm not sure what your'e trying to get at with this whole line of whatever.

I don't think you're bad, actually. The above post to Glorf was mostly a joke. I actually think that your absence for the first few days makes you pretty unlikely to have BTSC. I just haven't agreed with your accusations against Glorf and I was pointing out what I understood to be a false accusation. I thought you were being harsh on him well before you responded with the posts from his iso -- in fact, the thing that mainly struck me as harsh was your insistence that he had said those things without providing the receipts.

Anyway, I think Glorf has a point -- this is all pretty tangential and getting the thread off track, and I don't suspect either of you. Who do you think we should talk about?

[nutella]

Rare for the two of us to be so at odds, though -- we so often think alike as civs. Perhaps we have drifted apart

[Glorfindel]

It especially doesn't seem likely in an epi hosted game, who I think would reroll if he rolled a list that included a team likely to be inactive. I think epi would make sure he had at least one player he could rely on to be active before accepting the randomised list.

However, one idea I could see as a bit more possible is that some of the baddies in the yellow turbans are amongst those who have been nked early.

Glorfindel looks townie to me. Very townie. Enough to vote in his defence.

Thank you for your support Golden, I certainly appreciate that.

With respect to your other comments, our only NKs so far have been 3J, S-V-S and Ricochet as far as I can recall. Am I correct in understanding that you are proposing that at least one of them may have been a Yellow Turban?

[Glorfindel]

@Sorsha: I'm not sure if you've answered this or not (please forgive me if I missed it) But Day 2, these were two consecutive posts you made:

I'm here

Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?

Have only been skimming. Looks like Dom is mostly getting votes for the trump schtick, mm for some connection to wilgy and I have no idea what Russ did to be suspicious. My own suspicion is inh but it could probably be more of an annoyance than suspicion. Lobbying for prefect and promising to be active and then bailing.
I don't really find Dom suspicious I could be ok with a mm vote, Russ I don't know yet.

Voted for myself and inh

I'm wondering if you can cast any light on why the change of heart on MM? He was the only one taking heat that you considered worthy of your vote at the time MP questioned you. I acknowledge your reasoning for the INH vote but are you really saying that in the space of three hours you concluded that you were a better choice than MM?

[Glorfindel]

Actually Glorfindel, I'd like your opinion on something. Considering Lorab hadn't even been aware that the game had started at the time of the YTs' first missed kill, and considering her outright despisal of your hypothesis, do you think she could be one of them? (I personally don't really think so but it would be pretty funny if so)

Nor do I, my friend but anything is possible I suppose.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Having secomds thoughts about MP today. The way I see he is asking for a duel either because:

1- He wants to die and come back to RL. if that is true, I can't see him as someone with BTSC. And in that case, it is in our best interests NOT to help him with that.
2- He wants to duel because he thinks he'll have some advantage.
3- He is playing some kind of reverse psychology gambit.

1 and 2 are reasons not to lynch him and I'm not willing to bet my vote on 3. I think I wanna see more from MP in this game before droping the axe on him.

Having second thoughts about Nutella and Glorf. Nutella looks forced sometimes, but she also looks okay other times and I haven't had the chance to ISO het yet so yeah.

Glorf is kind of obnoxious but I know I tend to think he is bad even when he is not so others (like Golden) saying he is a top civ read make me doubt my own judgement.

Think I'm gonna go with Boomslang (as pointed out in the ISO and also my last post on him at the start of d3) and Russ (seriously, WHY IS THIS GUY STILL ALIVE? He is basically trying to get lynched. Let's end his misery already).

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Also one think I just noticed: for all the meta talk about how Mac likes to pressure people and play aggressively, I don't recall seeing him do that since day 1. It's like he just attacked people enough to make people say "yep, that's the Mac we all know" then got satisfied and slipped into the shadows.

[Glorfindel]

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

You weren't the first to notice it:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 59#p296459

[Glorfindel]

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

You weren't the first to notice it:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 59#p296459

Well actually, I did read that post and it really didn't draw the correlation (and inconsistency to my way of thinking) linking Boomslang's vote for MM's Prefecture on Day 0 and subsequent duel nomination on Day 1 that I pointed out in my post above nor the comparison to the Wilgy/MM case. Again, my apologies if I got that wrong.

Also...

Glorfindel is always nicer than a puppy.

Glorfindel is illogical as fuck and I've caught myself lynching him for that when he was just being a clueless townie.

Your post makes sense but I'm not sure if it's possible to read Glorf by evaluating his posts as nonsensical. He is nonsensical by default.

Glorf is kind of obnoxious...

Remind me to never come to you looking for a character reference, my friend

[Boomslang]

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

[Quin]

not sure if i'll be on in the morning for days end so I'll vote now.

One of them is gonna go to Glorfindel. I think he has more going against him than for him at this point, and what he's said since things really took off haven't changed my mind on him.

I'm a bit iffy about the second vote. Nobody wants to even entertain the Dom train anymore which annoys me to no end, so I'm gonna put my second down on DisgruntledPorcupine just to see what kind of response I can get here. Dropping unexplained votes in on main wagons at the very end of the day is not helpful to the civ cause. I'd like to see you duel.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Sorry bro, I think you must be a really nice person IRL, but I can't bring myself to like the way you play the game.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

Why is it that you always seem to appear only when people mention you?

[Boomslang]

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

Why is it that you always seem to appear only when people mention you?

That is patently untrue, as even a cursory read of my post history would indicate. I just thought Glorf's post was particularly egregious.

[Dom]

My first guess is that the sockpuppet is one of those things where they gain power when people quote them. I'm going to stay away for now

This is a weird assumption, folks. Why did your head go there immediately?

Is it because you know there is one?

I am of course aware of all of those posts. None of them, however, except for that one that was already brought up, actually advocate for the lynching of low posters. He repeatedly discusses the odds of one of the teams being inactive, which I guess you could say implies that he thinks it would be a good idea to go after inactives, but only once does he say it outright, and he never really follows up on it. I guess you and I interpreted his posts differently, but to me, advocating for lynching low posters is a very different thing from stating observations about mechanics and numbers in the game.

Semantics. Sad ! You are bad !

Also, lack of precedence does not mean lack of probability. There's probably a fancy logical fallacy term for that but idgaf. Just because you've never seen an inactive mafia team before doesn't mean it couldn't happen, especially considering the Yellow Turban team only consists of three players, and this game has WAY more than three inactive players. They only killed once, and it was on SVS, an inactive player -- perhaps if nobody in the team had been paying attention they wouldn't know SVS hadn't been participating and just picked her to get rid of. Idk, I just think Glorfindel's lines of thinking are not entirely unreasonable

You are not wrong in that.

However, I find the probability to be very low. Hostin' Epi does not randomize roles. He cherry picks roles-- or has int he past. I doubt he'd put all people he suspects might be no-shows as his baddie teams. And he didn't. MM and Wilgy are not no-shows.

So your ignoring the facts is troublesome. Very troublesome. We need a better leader than that.

Rare for the two of us to be so at odds, though -- we so often think alike as civs. Perhaps we have drifted apart

Bad ! Manipulating with emotion. Guilt. Bad !

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

You weren't the first to notice it:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 59#p296459

This makes me reconsider my stance on boomslang.

Just another observation here...

As I understand it, part of the case that brought MM undone was his inconsistency in voting for Dr Wilgy for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted to have him duel on Day 1 - is that correct? I note that another player did a similar thing in that Boomslang voted MM for Prefect on Day 0 and then voted him for the dueling ring on Day 1.

The vote for MM's prefecture was mid-poll (i.e. 39th out of 62) so it wasn't really influential and it was MM's only vote for Prefect. I'm not sure what this says but personally, I didn't vote anyone for Prefect about whom I had doubts

Well, if you're not sure what it says, what do you think it says? Or is this one of those baddie "let's plant a seed without actually taking sides and hope it grows into a mighty lynching tree" moves?

Why is it that you always seem to appear only when people mention you?

That is patently untrue, as even a cursory read of my post history would indicate. I just thought Glorf's post was particularly egregious.

As does him using the same phrase as nutella did when she refuted LoRab's claims.