GY!BE Mafia [E.N.D.]

[timmer]

Epig, to be fair here, and ti avoid any sense that I'm bugging you... I'm trying to help you, here. If indeed you are civ, I'm trying to help you see how what you are doing looks to those of us on the other end of it, to point out to you the deficiencies in your methods.

Waiting until someone has 4 votes against them, and then saying "no, not that guy, the case is crap" just isn't enough. Because the people voting that player clearly don't have a better alternative, if they are civ, and if they are bad, have not been given an alternative choice to be forced to comment on. All I'm asking you to do is offer alternate choices at the time you say a case is bad,rather than simply saying that a case is no good alone. If you genuinely are civ and want to help, that's my advice to you. I don't like arguing with you, or the sense that I'm bugging you. But if you don't so this, eventually you WILL start to seem bad.

Linki: then I'm sorry, man, but you are the last person I'm going to follow.

[Epignosis]

Way to Characterize My Contributions

in a 50 page game you can only point to 3 counterexamples, my characterization stands completely

I Have Accurately Pegged Three Civilians in Three Days And Pleaded Against Their Deaths: How Are You Doing?

No, you voted to lynch a civilian on day 2. Boomslang is also not necessarily civvie, AND your only reason was that you think it would have been a misplay to do what he did (which rules out nothing)

I Voted to Save Boomslang

Way to Characterize My Contributions

in a 50 page game you can only point to 3 counterexamples, my characterization stands completely

How many successful examples would convince you? Five? Ten? This doesn't change the fact that he was right. Also, trying to assess post value by density in this game is ridiculous given the ballooning that occurred in the first couple of days.
Also, literally laughed at loud at the (0:23) tag on Epi's last post.

It's not the number, it's the fact that most of his claims of who's a civilian were without any reason (like I said earlier).

I Gave Reasons

If You Think I'm Gloating Here, I'm Not- I'm Pissed That People Are Running Lynches on People For Stupid Reasons (Like to Punish Them for Saying High Posters Should be Killed or For Having a Snarky Change of Tone), But I Suppose You Could Lynch Me Next to Punish Me for Being Right and Not Doing Enough to Stop People From Making Poor Decisions

Offer an alternative theory then, you haven't done so in the last 2 lynches. Of course, if you were bad you would know who is good and bad, so you could do what you've been doing for civvie cred without ever threatening your teammates.

Am I Bad?

The Tricycle Could Interact With Me in One of Several Ways- He Could Ask Me to Clarify Something, Expound Upon Something, Offer Alternative Explanations for My Observations, or Disagree With Me for His Own Reasons...Instead His Activity is to Outright Discredit Me, and if He's a Civilian, There is No Good Reason for Him to Do That Unless He's Convinced I'm Bad

But I have several times, you ignore most of them because it would require acting like a good player

You Did Not Engage Me About INH Day 1 (You Voted Me to Punish Me), Day 2 You Did Give an Alternative About AP, but it Hinged on Two Very Specific "If" Statements, Your Theory About Boomslang Was Equally Far-Fetched and Could Literally Apply to Anybody Making Any Vote

[Epignosis]

Epig, to be fair here, and ti avoid any sense that I'm bugging you... I'm trying to help you, here. If indeed you are civ, I'm trying to help you see how what you are doing looks to those of us on the other end of it, to point out to you the deficiencies in your methods.

Waiting until someone has 4 votes against them, and then saying "no, not that guy, the case is crap" just isn't enough. Because the people voting that player clearly don't have a better alternative, if they are civ, and if they are bad, have not been given an alternative choice to be forced to comment on. All I'm asking you to do is offer alternate choices at the time you say a case is bad,rather than simply saying that a case is no good alone. If you genuinely are civ and want to help, that's my advice to you. I don't like arguing with you, or the sense that I'm bugging you. But if you don't so this, eventually you WILL start to seem bad.

Linki: then I'm sorry, man, but you are the last person I'm going to follow.

You Have Alternate Choices- They're Call The Other People Playing

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

I Don't Have Three Because That's Not the Way I'm Approaching This

I've never seen someone employ a "POE" quite like this -- near total focus on town reads and minimal focus on baddies. When I use POE, I do work to find townies as a way of reducing the suspect pool, but I still work simultaneously to identify who in that pool is the best lynch option. The method you're claiming here is a rather radical extreme. It isn't necessarily a bad strategy, but what I struggle to understand is your inclination to pass sweeping negative judgment upon those who don't follow each your reads (or more specifically your contests of reads). In these lynches you've opposed, what would you expect [insert civilian] to do with your contributions?

Would you have accepted the lynch of any player at all who you haven't defended without concern over which one?

[Marmot]

And if finding alternatives = the people attacking you, it's another faIL. You tried that with me, as well. If you are fully civ and genuinely want to find badies, going after the people annoyed with your play is destined to not end well, imo.

That said, I am of course paying attention.

He's not just going after people because they're annoyed with his play.

He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

He's going after trice for discrediting him. Trice did vocalize his displeasure of Epignosis, so I suppose this might be more accurate.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

Do you believe all three of these lynches have been low-hanging fruit? I don't care about a GTH read, I will change my mind in a moment if that's what I feel inspired to do. Epignosis has hanged three mislynches on my shoulders without discussing much the reasons I provided myself for contributing to those mislynches. Separatenly, I don't feel he took the steps necessary to change those results and he is saying that he did. That's a significant point of dissent and it relates directly to the sincerity of his content.

That last point requires that either Epignosis fundamentally doesn't understand how the civilian mind operates and believes that resistance to lynches alone is enough to change their course, or it requires him to be pretending to oppose lynches that he is in part facilitating through half-action.

[Epignosis]

Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

I Don't Have Three Because That's Not the Way I'm Approaching This

I've never seen someone employ a "POE" quite like this -- near total focus on town reads and minimal focus on baddies. When I use POE, I do work to find townies as a way of reducing the suspect pool, but I still work simultaneously to identify who in that pool is the best lynch option. The method you're claiming here is a rather radical extreme. It isn't necessarily a bad strategy, but what I struggle to understand is your inclination to pass sweeping negative judgment upon those who don't follow each your reads (or more specifically your contests of reads). In these lynches you've opposed, what would you expect [insert civilian] to do with your contributions?

MP Made 350 Posts By the End of Day 1, and I Read and Considered Every Single One of Them Plus What Everybody Else Wrote Even Though it Was a Grueling Chore and Tired Me Out, but When I Make One Compelling Point in INH's Favor, I Felt Ignored by Him and You, the Two People I Thought Would Most Consider That INH's Posts Did Not Make Any Sense Coming From a Mafia-Aligned Perspective...I Expect People to Ask Themselves If They Are Truly Voting Someone Because They Believe the Recipient of Their Vote Received a Mafia Role, or If They Are Voting Someone Because the Recipient Said or Did Something They Didn't Like

Would you have accepted the lynch of any player at all who you haven't defended without concern over which one?

Hell, I Voted for Wilgy, Didn't I?

[Marmot]

He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

Do you believe all three of these lynches have been low-hanging fruit? I don't care about a GTH read, I will change my mind in a moment if that's what I feel inspired to do. Epignosis has hanged three mislynches on my shoulders without discussing much the reasons I provided myself for contributing to those mislynches. Separatenly, I don't feel he took the steps necessary to change those results and he is saying that he did. That's a significant point of dissent and it relates directly to the sincerity of his content.

That last point requires that either Epignosis fundamentally doesn't understand how the civilian mind operates and believes that resistance to lynches alone is enough to change their course, or it requires him to be pretending to oppose lynches that he is in part facilitating through half-action.

Not necessarily. I still haven't read all of Day 1, so I don't know what happened there, but I would not consider inh a low-hanging fruit. A Person, absolutely. DrWilgy, when he plays like he did this game, then yes.

I know you will change your mind in a heartbeat. My point is that your most recent read of him is good, and that you only voiced suspicion of him after he claimed you are not a civilian. I do agree that Epignosis has been taciturn on who to lynch this game, but there's still the matter that he has been accurate on his civ-reads, and I believe some of his reads have been well-placed.

I think we're getting into mafia theory here, but the civilian mind is completely different from player-to-player. I just made a comment on this earlier, but my civilian mind is not your civilian mind is not Epignosis's civilian mind,and we need to be careful not to project our own ideals on another player.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Epignosis: did you believe that what you were doing stood a good chance of moving votes? Based upon all of the Mafia you have played in your time, did you feel that the sole necessary action for you to take to prevent an unwanted lynch was to mount resistance to that lynch?

[Epignosis]

Epignosis: did you believe that what you were doing stood a good chance of moving votes? Based upon all of the Mafia you have played in your time, did you feel that the sole necessary action for you to take to prevent an unwanted lynch was to mount resistance to that lynch?

I Believed it Would Have Been Enough to Get at Least You and MP to Reconsider, but I am Not Responsible Where Other People Vote Regardless of What I Do or Do Not Do

[Epignosis]

He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

Do you believe all three of these lynches have been low-hanging fruit? I don't care about a GTH read, I will change my mind in a moment if that's what I feel inspired to do. Epignosis has hanged three mislynches on my shoulders without discussing much the reasons I provided myself for contributing to those mislynches. Separatenly, I don't feel he took the steps necessary to change those results and he is saying that he did. That's a significant point of dissent and it relates directly to the sincerity of his content.

That last point requires that either Epignosis fundamentally doesn't understand how the civilian mind operates and believes that resistance to lynches alone is enough to change their course, or it requires him to be pretending to oppose lynches that he is in part facilitating through half-action.

Not necessarily. I still haven't read all of Day 1, so I don't know what happened there, but I would not consider inh a low-hanging fruit. A Person, absolutely. DrWilgy, when he plays like he did this game, then yes.

I know you will change your mind in a heartbeat. My point is that your most recent read of him is good, and that you only voiced suspicion of him after he claimed you are not a civilian. I do agree that Epignosis has been taciturn on who to lynch this game, but there's still the matter that he has been accurate on his civ-reads, and I believe some of his reads have been well-placed.

I think we're getting into mafia theory here, but the civilian mind is completely different from player-to-player. I just made a comment on this earlier, but my civilian mind is not your civilian mind is not Epignosis's civilian mind,and we need to be careful not to project our own ideals on another player.

Do You Know it Makes Me Terribly Uncomfortable Having You in my Corner?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Epignosis: did you believe that what you were doing stood a good chance of moving votes? Based upon all of the Mafia you have played in your time, did you feel that the sole necessary action for you to take to prevent an unwanted lynch was to mount resistance to that lynch?

I Believed it Would Have Been Enough to Get at Least You and MP to Reconsider, but I am Not Responsible Where Other People Vote Regardless of What I Do or Do Not Do

I've already discussed why I didn't reconsider. I don't assert you are responsible for other people's votes, but you are responsible for your treatment of other people's votes. You have lambasted those who've contributed to the lynches you don't like, and you've stood proudly upon the fact that you knew better.

Your correctness is not meaningful to me. What's meaningful to me is the investment you displayed in your effort to prevent lynches you didn't like -- perhaps lynches you outright hated given your conduct since their resolutions. Which of the following things is most likely to change the name of the player lynched:

1. Resist the current leaders in the tally

2. Promote an alternative option

3. Resist the current leaders in the tally and promote an alternative option

You've taken door number one. I am saying that most civilians out there, sometimes even including JaggedJimmyJay, might not be wholly inspired by the reasons for resistance you provide. Then even some civilians who are intrigued by the points you make inherently struggle to move their vote without a viable alternative -- unless one is promoted. The methods you employed were insufficient to move civilian votes. Do you reject that assertion?

[Marmot]

He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

Do you believe all three of these lynches have been low-hanging fruit? I don't care about a GTH read, I will change my mind in a moment if that's what I feel inspired to do. Epignosis has hanged three mislynches on my shoulders without discussing much the reasons I provided myself for contributing to those mislynches. Separatenly, I don't feel he took the steps necessary to change those results and he is saying that he did. That's a significant point of dissent and it relates directly to the sincerity of his content.

That last point requires that either Epignosis fundamentally doesn't understand how the civilian mind operates and believes that resistance to lynches alone is enough to change their course, or it requires him to be pretending to oppose lynches that he is in part facilitating through half-action.

Not necessarily. I still haven't read all of Day 1, so I don't know what happened there, but I would not consider inh a low-hanging fruit. A Person, absolutely. DrWilgy, when he plays like he did this game, then yes.

I know you will change your mind in a heartbeat. My point is that your most recent read of him is good, and that you only voiced suspicion of him after he claimed you are not a civilian. I do agree that Epignosis has been taciturn on who to lynch this game, but there's still the matter that he has been accurate on his civ-reads, and I believe some of his reads have been well-placed.

I think we're getting into mafia theory here, but the civilian mind is completely different from player-to-player. I just made a comment on this earlier, but my civilian mind is not your civilian mind is not Epignosis's civilian mind,and we need to be careful not to project our own ideals on another player.

Do You Know it Makes Me Terribly Uncomfortable Having You in my Corner?

Rude.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Also, if Marmot was bad I'd expect him to be gleefully defending me right now for WIFOM's sake, because the easy mindset for people to adopt emerging from my Day 3 vote is that JJJ saved Marmot, they're team mates. He's not playing into that falsehood which suggests to me that he is truly trying to discern the truth of what I'm doing.

[Epignosis]

Epignosis: did you believe that what you were doing stood a good chance of moving votes? Based upon all of the Mafia you have played in your time, did you feel that the sole necessary action for you to take to prevent an unwanted lynch was to mount resistance to that lynch?

I Believed it Would Have Been Enough to Get at Least You and MP to Reconsider, but I am Not Responsible Where Other People Vote Regardless of What I Do or Do Not Do

I've already discussed why I didn't reconsider. I don't assert you are responsible for other people's votes, but you are responsible for your treatment of other people's votes. You have lambasted those who've contributed to the lynches you don't like, and you've stood proudly upon the fact that you knew better.

Your correctness is not meaningful to me. What's meaningful to me is the investment you displayed in your effort to prevent lynches you didn't like -- perhaps lynches you outright hated given your conduct since their resolutions. Which of the following things is most likely to change the name of the player lynched:

1. Resist the current leaders in the tally

2. Promote an alternative option

3. Resist the current leaders in the tally and promote an alternative option

You've taken door number one. I am saying that most civilians out there, sometimes even including JaggedJimmyJay, might not be wholly inspired by the reasons for resistance you provide. Then even some civilians who are intrigued by the points you make inherently struggle to move their vote without a viable alternative -- unless one is promoted. The methods you employed were insufficient to move civilian votes. Do you reject that assertion?

Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

[Marmot]

Also, if Marmot was bad I'd expect him to be gleefully defending me right now for WIFOM's sake, because the easy mindset for people to adopt emerging from my Day 3 vote is that JJJ saved Marmot, they're team mates. He's not playing into that falsehood which suggests to me that he is truly trying to discern the truth of what I'm doing.

I find this sudden defense of me disconcerting.

But I'll accept it nonetheless.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

The purpose of this dialogue is to discern your true investment in preventing lynches you vocally opposed. The purpose of this dialogue is to discern if you're mafia.

[Epignosis]

Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

The purpose of this dialogue is to discern your true investment in preventing lynches you vocally opposed. The purpose of this dialogue is to discern if you're mafia.

False- You Are Picking Apart My Methodology, Trying to Get Me to Behave Differently

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

The purpose of this dialogue is to discern your true investment in preventing lynches you vocally opposed. The purpose of this dialogue is to discern if you're mafia.

False- You Are Picking Apart My Methodology, Trying to Get Me to Behave Differently

I don't give a rat's ass how you behave. I give a rat's ass why. Answer my questions.

[timmer]

I'll try one more time... Epig, what is to stop you from spending the day looking for civs, which is fine, and voicing that you think the vote leader may be civ, which is great, and then, when the day is at that crucial point when votes will start flying in... voicing who you would rather see lynched? There is nothing about POE that precludes you from doing this.

How is it more civvie to do it your way?

[Epignosis]

Do You Want to Pick Apart My Methodology or Do You Want to Find Mafia?

The purpose of this dialogue is to discern your true investment in preventing lynches you vocally opposed. The purpose of this dialogue is to discern if you're mafia.

False- You Are Picking Apart My Methodology, Trying to Get Me to Behave Differently

I don't give a rat's ass how you behave. I give a rat's ass why. Answer my questions.

No.

[Epignosis]

I'll try one more time... Epig, what is to stop you from spending the day looking for civs, which is fine, and voicing that you think the vote leader may be civ, which is great, and then, when the day is at that crucial point when votes will start flying in... voicing who you would rather see lynched? There is nothing about POE that precludes you from doing this.

How is it more civvie to do it your way?

Because I Didn't Have an Answer for That...I Have Two Now

[Golden]

Epi is the easy shot here. The same point has been made around twenty times. What answer do you people want epi to give? It's like a rhetorical question and you are hanging him on volume.

It's not as though epi gave the reason why ap wasn't bad shortly before the deadline. He did it on day 2. The shot taken against ap was a cop out, but blaming epi for it in any way is the even bigger cop out.

[timmer]

Trice and JJJ? That's awesome to read.

Considering how the Wilgy lynch looks in the polls... do you think Boomslang is likely a civ, then? If I picture a baddie team with JJJ, and trice who voted B2B, it looks like that day's lynch was a gimme for them.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm looking through sig's posts, and I am feeling increasingly positive about him. I have one ping that he can talk about:

Spoiler: show

I think sig and Scotty are both suspicious and should be pressured.

I won't be around much, if at all, the rest of the day.

I am unfortunately in the same boat.

Why?

I've been called suspicious a few times already, by Golden, MP, and 3J yet none have given any reason for this read. Are you gut reading me as bad? Is it my posts? I find your lack of explanation disturbing.

This may have been a misinterpretation of Golden in the moment, but it's the "none have given any reason" bit that doesn't thrill me. I know I gave a specific reason for suspecting sig. It was a matter of Day 0 granted, but it was concrete. MP didn't state a negative read in a vacuum either to my memory.

~~~

Otherwise, I see a good number of posts where it looks to me like sig is playing loosely under the time constraints he's faced:

Willing to gripe about my initial GTH reads based upon reasoning typical of a civilian sig (worrying about easy targets being pursued, understandable given his own mislynch history).

Off-hand early defense of BWT and shade against MP, both decisions I would be less inclined to attribute to the opportunist and more to the hunter/protector of LHF. Similarly specific in his beefs with Scotty and Sloonei

Selected one of the two lead wagons late on Day 1 based more on an aversion to an Epi lynch than a desire for an INH lynch. That became something of a trend; his voting behavior late in Day 2 was similar. He has been willing to invite the ire of judging townies by participating in combatting wagons for specific strategic purposes.

I like these reads he provided after pledging them previously. I've one question though sig: what inspired your suspicion that A Person might be the SK instead of a mafioso?

I could list more, but this is a good summary. I think he is exhibiting a good, civ-sig mindset within the time he has to play.

[timmer]

Epi is the easy shot here. The same point has been made around twenty times. What answer do you people want epi to give? It's like a rhetorical question and you are hanging him on volume.

It's not as though epi gave the reason why ap wasn't bad shortly before the deadline. He did it on day 2. The shot taken against ap was a cop out, but blaming epi for it in any way is the even bigger cop out.

Any playstyle that involves never saying who you think the baddies are is going to fall under intense scrutiny. Epig has finally started naming suspicions, though, so I'm happy to move on from it.

[triceratopzeuhl]

His only reason for suspecting either me or JJJ is that we are criticizing his baddie-like behavior

Am I Bad?

I think yes

The Tricycle Could Interact With Me in One of Several Ways- He Could Ask Me to Clarify Something, Expound Upon Something, Offer Alternative Explanations for My Observations, or Disagree With Me for His Own Reasons...Instead His Activity is to Outright Discredit Me, and if He's a Civilian, There is No Good Reason for Him to Do That Unless He's Convinced I'm Bad

But I have several times, you ignore most of them because it would require acting like a good player

You Did Not Engage Me About INH Day 1 (You Voted Me to Punish Me), Day 2 You Did Give an Alternative About AP, but it Hinged on Two Very Specific "If" Statements, Your Theory About Boomslang Was Equally Far-Fetched and Could Literally Apply to Anybody Making Any Vote

I also didn't vote for INH so I don't know what your point is, and no, my theory on boomslang could not have applied to literally anybody making any vote because boomslang was the only person that day voting for a person he supposedly believed was good

Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

I Don't Have Three Because That's Not the Way I'm Approaching This

more like "that would require naming myself and my 2 baddie teammates"

Of course, if you were bad you would know who is good and bad, so you could do what you've been doing for civvie cred without ever threatening your teammates.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Epi is the easy shot here. The same point has been made around twenty times. What answer do you people want epi to give? It's like a rhetorical question and you are hanging him on volume.

It's not as though epi gave the reason why ap wasn't bad shortly before the deadline. He did it on day 2. The shot taken against ap was a cop out, but blaming epi for it in any way is the even bigger cop out.

I am not convinced Epi cared as much about how those lynches progressed as his post-lynch hubris would suggest he cared -- that's about his sincerity; it's about his alignment.

[triceratopzeuhl]

Epi is the easy shot here. The same point has been made around twenty times. What answer do you people want epi to give? It's like a rhetorical question and you are hanging him on volume.

It's not as though epi gave the reason why ap wasn't bad shortly before the deadline. He did it on day 2. The shot taken against ap was a cop out, but blaming epi for it in any way is the even bigger cop out.

Any playstyle that involves never saying who you think the baddies are is going to fall under intense scrutiny. Epig has finally started naming suspicions, though, so I'm happy to move on from it.

Yeah, he only adjusts his behavior after he comes under fire for it - same as day 1 when he refused to post any content and ended up risking being lynched for it. Not at all indicative of a civ wanting to lynch baddies.

[Epignosis]

Trice and JJJ? That's awesome to read.

Considering how the Wilgy lynch looks in the polls... do you think Boomslang is likely a civ, then? If I picture a baddie team with JJJ, and trice who voted B2B, it looks like that day's lynch was a gimme for them.

Boomslang is the Only Person Left Alive I Feel Confident is Good

[Golden]

Epi is the easy shot here. The same point has been made around twenty times. What answer do you people want epi to give? It's like a rhetorical question and you are hanging him on volume.

It's not as though epi gave the reason why ap wasn't bad shortly before the deadline. He did it on day 2. The shot taken against ap was a cop out, but blaming epi for it in any way is the even bigger cop out.

Any playstyle that involves never saying who you think the baddies are is going to fall under intense scrutiny. Epig has finally started naming suspicions, though, so I'm happy to move on from it.

Yeah, he only adjusts his behavior after he comes under fire for it - same as day 1 when he refused to post any content and ended up risking being lynched for it. Not at all indicative of a civ wanting to lynch baddies.

Nor indicative of a baddie wanting to avoid heat....

[triceratopzeuhl]

Trice and JJJ? That's awesome to read.

Considering how the Wilgy lynch looks in the polls... do you think Boomslang is likely a civ, then? If I picture a baddie team with JJJ, and trice who voted B2B, it looks like that day's lynch was a gimme for them.

Boomslang is the Only Person Left Alive I Feel Confident is Good

What is your reason for believing that? What is the point in claiming to use so-called POE if it's gotten a grand total of 1 green name on your list?

Epi is the easy shot here. The same point has been made around twenty times. What answer do you people want epi to give? It's like a rhetorical question and you are hanging him on volume.

It's not as though epi gave the reason why ap wasn't bad shortly before the deadline. He did it on day 2. The shot taken against ap was a cop out, but blaming epi for it in any way is the even bigger cop out.

Any playstyle that involves never saying who you think the baddies are is going to fall under intense scrutiny. Epig has finally started naming suspicions, though, so I'm happy to move on from it.

Yeah, he only adjusts his behavior after he comes under fire for it - same as day 1 when he refused to post any content and ended up risking being lynched for it. Not at all indicative of a civ wanting to lynch baddies.

Nor indicative of a baddie wanting to avoid heat....

So he doesn't mind the heat then - still not acting good or helpful

[timmer]

Yeah, I do think people need to watch that they don't put blinders on, re: Epig. Could this be an ingenious baddie ploy on his part? Absolutely. MP starts in with POE, Epig sees an opportunity to take on a fairly bulletproof persona and runs with it? Sure. The baddies know who the civs are of course, so it all could fit. But the key word is could.

Just as pressure and the threat of lynching can make a low poster perk up and start participating, and it isn't alignment indicative, the same goes for Epig. If his persona is legit and he had no bad reads, but now he does, that is plausible and if it maybe came from a bit of pressure against him, all the better if he is civ and it brought a few reads out of him.

[Epignosis]

baddie-like behavior

No Such Thing (by John Mayer)

[Epignosis]

Good or Helpful = Lynching Civilians and Threatening to Vote Another One for Not Being Good or Helpful

[timmer]

@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

[Epignosis]

@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

[timmer]

What is your reason for believing that? What is the point in claiming to use so-called POE if it's gotten a grand total of 1 green name on your list?

When someone sets out on Day 1 to use POE, they cannot know how effective it will be by the end of Day 3. Just as some games I'm all "imma be da king baddie catcher" and I do nothing but fuck up and make poor choices all game, couldn't an attempt at poe, which he's doing his no actual help, also just simply not pay off as much as he had hoped? How is this indicating baddieness ?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'd like to know what others think of Scotty right now. Each time I look at the player list his name stands out loudly to me.

[timmer]

@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

By voted first, do you mean he voted before MM had any votes? If so, it certainly dilutes the idea, yeah. It doesn't kill it, though, as AP was definitely going to be a likely vote-getter, but dilutes...

[Epignosis]

@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

By voted first, do you mean he voted before MM had any votes? If so, it certainly dilutes the idea, yeah. It doesn't kill it, though, as AP was definitely going to be a likely vote-getter, but dilutes...

That's What it Looks Like

[timmer]

Yes, that's I'm asking. I see trice voted before MM had any votes, so is that what you meant? I'm guessing yes.

[timmer]

Or he was first overall. Either way, I see your point. I don't think it writes it off, though.

[Epignosis]

@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

By voted first, do you mean he voted before MM had any votes? If so, it certainly dilutes the idea, yeah. It doesn't kill it, though, as AP was definitely going to be a likely vote-getter, but dilutes...

Sorry For Being Pissy at You Yesterday by the Way

[timmer]

Sorry For Being Pissy at You Yesterday by the Way

No worries, same here.

[Marmot]

@Epig, how do you feel about MM, then? Do you think trice and JJJ worked to save him by jumping on/promoting the AP train?

I Have Learned Not to Have Opinions About Marmots Because They Are Always Wrong...But Trice Voted First, so That Isn't the Impression I Get

ture

[LoRab]

Meh. Although I still say he wasn't playing a civ role in a particularly helpful way to the civ cause, so I'm not particularly bothered by the result as non mafia lynches go.

Then You Are Part of the Problem

No. I'm not. I'm just expressing the opinion that if a civ is going to be lost, it's relatively less bad that it be a civ who had made posts that are actively civ-unfriendly.

Also (and in sure I'll get flack for this) the more I think about it, the more I wonder if his role was to be Lynched and if there's a civ benefit for it. 2 days in a row or some unseen benefit--a town fool role. He role name us death in it after all. And in a game with this many secrets, I think it is possible. And even if I get flack, I think it is important to consider all possibilities, even those less likely or less obvious.

I Want to Lynch Triceratopzeuhl and Lorab in that Order

Don't know about trice, but lynching me would be lynching another civ.

The Minute People Stop Lynching Because Someone Isn't Being Helpful or Said Something You Didn't Agree With is the Minute Mafia Trembles

Not sure this is addressed to me, but that isn't why advocated for a person's lynch.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Dom's post history has a sort of aimlessness. The individual posts on their own power look fine to me generally, but I can't quite figure out where his thought process is moving at any juncture of the game. That's not the most ideal description of a player's content, but it also meshes pretty well with this:

Hey Dom, what moved you to make your Wilgy vote in the end?

i really struggled with my vote last phase. i softened my view on you because of how hard you were trying to communicate with what appeared to be a very difficult curse. i saw this as genuine effort ingto finding baddies. i felt so conflicted that i just voted with you bc i thought your suspicion was genuine and i understood it.

i am also sick, overworked, and haven't been reading as closely as i'd like.

He looks like a player who has struggled to find his footing in this game, and his self-assessment reflects that. Otherwise, I am inclined to judge his content item-by-item and then arrive at a "sum".

Things I like:

~ His willingness to vote for DrWilgy alongside me on Day 2. It ended up as a mislynch, and it wouldn't represent the most careful baddie conduct for him to participate in it without already having a readily visible gripe with Wilgy elsewhere in the thread.

~ His reads haven't been static -- even if the development of those reads is rather sporadic. Circumstance has seemed to influence his feelings in a meaningful and believable way.

~ He hasn't appeared concerned with where he hurls his accusations.

Things I don't like:

~ He latched on to some easy button opportunities to throw shade on Days 0 and 1.

~ It's so hard to do a standard-style ISO on him given the disjointedness of the post history, and I don't feel like I can draw a more developed conclusion instead of this sort of "sum" game conclusion.

~~~

Overall I think I feel a little better about him.

[Golden]

I'd like to know what others think of Scotty right now. Each time I look at the player list his name stands out loudly to me.

I briefly felt good about him when he helped me communicate. But this is a good way to get townie points.

It does seem scotty is very rl busy and so I don't think his relative quietness is inherently bad. The problem is, though, that catch up posts or 'I'm behind' posts are often still used constructively by civs. They haven't been yet by scotty.

It's hard for me to say whether this is what g-man would call 'the deborah'... but that's not a bad card for a baddie to play when we are otherwise running up the wrong tracks and he is taking heat. I certainly will be considering scotty in the mix for tomorrow.

[Golden]

Good to see your isos jay. Looking forward to the conclusions.