The Search for Quin [END]

[Tangrowth]

Sloonei, briefly glancing at your post history I don't see anything alarming per se, but I do think your opinions are relatively... predictable? Not sure what a better word for it would be. You didn't find anything suspicious in Epi's behavior, you then made some good points against LC's reactions but only after Epi already started making them, and then you moved your vote to BWT after sanmateo expressed that things should be shifted to the LC bandwagoners. Your opinions just seem to be moving with the tides of the thread, and now that Epi and I expressed a town opinion of BWT you've shifted again. You're also asking a ton of questions, which I know is your norm, but I don't get the sense from a lot of them that you're forming reads about any of the people you're inquiring from -- Wilgy, sanmateo, etc. It all just seems very safe, like you're trying to seem like you're hunting but ruffling as few feathers as possible. I also felt like you may have shifted your vote to BWT hoping that he would be a mislynch but without really pushing it hard, but now you've backed off of it seemingly. Maybe it's an unfair characterization of your posts, I don't know, and I realize it's possible I'm being overly paranoid due to recency bias. I wouldn't say it's anything other than a minor suspicion at this point, but I do still stand by my overall assessment of it.

The BWT vote was a pressure vote and an attempt to slow the roll on the Long Con wagon. As of right now he's still my intended vote-recipient. But, again, we need more varied discussion, so I'm throwing it around. I'm developing reads. I hope they'll be here soon. I won't pretend to have them before they arrive.

That's fair enough; I understand that conundrum very much. I'll consider other avenues but you better know I'll be keeping my eye on you, buddy.

[Tangrowth]

Thoughts from catching up -

I'm torn on LC. Epi's references to other games are somewhat compelling; I was in those games and thus am fully aware of why Epi feels the way he does about LC, but I'm not necessarily convinced that he has to be right. Players don't always fulfill the patterns you expect across alignments. LC's reactions (especially the one after my post) were pretty over-the-top though and I can definitely see him being a caught baddie here.

At the same time, I'm torn on BWT as well. The circumstances of his info claim and its apparent misguidedness are intriguing, but I grant that it seems unlikely he would claim bad info openly if bad, so it's more likely it was just misguided/misleading false info. But his over-eager "let's all lynch LC" post was very suspicious. I've been considering voting for him but MP's post here rings pretty true to me and I'm inclined to trust his read:

BWT is being indecisive as fuck. That means he's town. If he was bad, he would force consistency.

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

Random thought:

Didn't Epi make a strong Day 1 meta case on you, nutella, in another game in which you both were town? Does someone recall the game I'm referencing?

[Sloonei]

MovingPictures07 I mean, look at your rainbow list. You have 7 people in the neutral territory. How can I be blamed for having lackluster reads when you yourself agree that more than half the players in the game are more or less unreadable at this stage?

linki: fair enough. I look forward to your ISO. I can't blame you if there's lingering suspicion from Street Fighter. I made a deliberate effort to buddy you.

Do you think I'm unfairly questioning you?

I feel your initial read of me was made using a point that should not apply. There's nothing unfair about questioning me.

What point shouldn't apply specifically?

Generally I prefer to stick to POE and usually don't feel comfortable making any firm mafia reads at this stage, but despite being hesitant because I do feel LC is a player who can get himself into trouble early on, I'm relatively convinced by Epi's pursuit of LC and would call him a sole slight mafia read. I also am a bit wary of Sloonei; perhaps it's a bit leftover shock still from Street Fighter, but without taking an in-depth look at his ISO I'm not sure I buy Sloonei's attempts to start discussion to be genuine. Specifically, he doesn't seem that interested in actually developing reads and seems a bit too hoppy. But those are just general impressions and maybe I'm being overly paranoid of him.

You made this point after posting a rainbow list in which more than half the players were listed as null reads. why am I to be blamed for failing to develop reads in the same thread?

[Epignosis]

I'm voting for @Spacedaisy because I want her to say things and she makes me nervous when she isn't posting.

If this came from anyone else I could excuse it, but this guy right here knows that I have barely been on the site in the last few days. He knows that I am juggling multiple writing projects in addition to two games. He knows I've been exhausted and slept a lot more than normal. So tell me why this guy says me being quiet is shady. No, I'm not buying this.

*votes MP*

Woah, hold your horse there. I know you've been really busy and am aware of your preoccupations as well as your work schedule. It's merely a pressure vote. I didn't say you were shady; I just want you to say things and expressed that I get paranoid of you when you aren't talking.

I'm not sure what to make of this reaction, but I tentatively feel OK about it.

Here's the thing. When you are pressure voting someone you are upfront about it. No you didn't use the word shady. You said it makes you nervous when I'm not posting. You didn't say this is a pressure vote. You implied that me not posting is somehow scary. When you know that my not posting has zero to do with my alignment.

I literally said "because I want her to say things". I thought that made it evident enough that it was a vote designed to get you to say things. And it does make me nervous when you're not posting; that's a general fact regardless of the circumstances that may have been keeping you from posting in this game. You and I both know I always try to sort you as quickly as possible for that reason.

Shit dude, I can't think of a single time in my life where I have ever tried to get my wife to say things. You must be new at this marriage gig.

[Tangrowth]

MovingPictures07 I mean, look at your rainbow list. You have 7 people in the neutral territory. How can I be blamed for having lackluster reads when you yourself agree that more than half the players in the game are more or less unreadable at this stage?

linki: fair enough. I look forward to your ISO. I can't blame you if there's lingering suspicion from Street Fighter. I made a deliberate effort to buddy you.

Do you think I'm unfairly questioning you?

I feel your initial read of me was made using a point that should not apply. There's nothing unfair about questioning me.

What point shouldn't apply specifically?

Generally I prefer to stick to POE and usually don't feel comfortable making any firm mafia reads at this stage, but despite being hesitant because I do feel LC is a player who can get himself into trouble early on, I'm relatively convinced by Epi's pursuit of LC and would call him a sole slight mafia read. I also am a bit wary of Sloonei; perhaps it's a bit leftover shock still from Street Fighter, but without taking an in-depth look at his ISO I'm not sure I buy Sloonei's attempts to start discussion to be genuine. Specifically, he doesn't seem that interested in actually developing reads and seems a bit too hoppy. But those are just general impressions and maybe I'm being overly paranoid of him.

You made this point after posting a rainbow list in which more than half the players were listed as null reads. why am I to be blamed for failing to develop reads in the same thread?

I have to discern whether your behavior is genuine or not; I'm not questioning your lack of reads or hoppiness inherently but specifically thought they seemed opportunistic as I was brainstorming my thoughts on you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Tangrowth]

I'm voting for @Spacedaisy because I want her to say things and she makes me nervous when she isn't posting.

If this came from anyone else I could excuse it, but this guy right here knows that I have barely been on the site in the last few days. He knows that I am juggling multiple writing projects in addition to two games. He knows I've been exhausted and slept a lot more than normal. So tell me why this guy says me being quiet is shady. No, I'm not buying this.

*votes MP*

Woah, hold your horse there. I know you've been really busy and am aware of your preoccupations as well as your work schedule. It's merely a pressure vote. I didn't say you were shady; I just want you to say things and expressed that I get paranoid of you when you aren't talking.

I'm not sure what to make of this reaction, but I tentatively feel OK about it.

Here's the thing. When you are pressure voting someone you are upfront about it. No you didn't use the word shady. You said it makes you nervous when I'm not posting. You didn't say this is a pressure vote. You implied that me not posting is somehow scary. When you know that my not posting has zero to do with my alignment.

I literally said "because I want her to say things". I thought that made it evident enough that it was a vote designed to get you to say things. And it does make me nervous when you're not posting; that's a general fact regardless of the circumstances that may have been keeping you from posting in this game. You and I both know I always try to sort you as quickly as possible for that reason.

Shit dude, I can't think of a single time in my life where I have ever tried to get my wife to say things. You must be new at this marriage gig.

[Tangrowth]

Alright, switching my vote to [mention]NewTraditionalist[/mention] because the fact that this guy hasn't come to play with us yet is perhaps most disconcerting of all!

Seriously man, what do you think of all this stuff that's been said? I know it's probably tough to acquaint yourself with a bunch of content in your first online game ever, but I know you have it in you to bring some serious insight. What you got?

[Sloonei]

It's so obvious, you only got (?) one person to vote, and that was...bird. If in fact you got him to vote because of what you said (I don't think you got anybody to vote LC because of your pile on post).

You counted DDL as a bite, but that doesn't make sense to me either.

You misunderstand me. I was not trying to bait anyone with my "Pile on" post. The thread was quiet, I wanted people to talk, LC was a top suspect, I made a facetious post instructing everyone to pile on.
Later I expressed concern that Long Con could be town and players are opportunistically bandwagoning on him. I count DDL among players who have expressed suspicion of Long Con, and nothing else. I want to hear more thoughts from him.

[Tangrowth]

And... I've spent too much time here. I have more PhD things to do before I can feel satisfied calling it a night, then I better not tempt myself here again.

See you folks close to EoD tomorrow evening.

[Spacedaisy]

I may be convinced I had a knee jerk reaction to you here. I'm leaving it there until I can catch up though

[Sloonei]

MovingPictures07 I mean, look at your rainbow list. You have 7 people in the neutral territory. How can I be blamed for having lackluster reads when you yourself agree that more than half the players in the game are more or less unreadable at this stage?

linki: fair enough. I look forward to your ISO. I can't blame you if there's lingering suspicion from Street Fighter. I made a deliberate effort to buddy you.

Do you think I'm unfairly questioning you?

I feel your initial read of me was made using a point that should not apply. There's nothing unfair about questioning me.

What point shouldn't apply specifically?

Generally I prefer to stick to POE and usually don't feel comfortable making any firm mafia reads at this stage, but despite being hesitant because I do feel LC is a player who can get himself into trouble early on, I'm relatively convinced by Epi's pursuit of LC and would call him a sole slight mafia read. I also am a bit wary of Sloonei; perhaps it's a bit leftover shock still from Street Fighter, but without taking an in-depth look at his ISO I'm not sure I buy Sloonei's attempts to start discussion to be genuine. Specifically, he doesn't seem that interested in actually developing reads and seems a bit too hoppy. But those are just general impressions and maybe I'm being overly paranoid of him.

You made this point after posting a rainbow list in which more than half the players were listed as null reads. why am I to be blamed for failing to develop reads in the same thread?

I have to discern whether your behavior is genuine or not; I'm not questioning your lack of reads or hoppiness inherently but specifically thought they seemed opportunistic as I was brainstorming my thoughts on you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

This is fair. My efforts have been genuine, but I don't expect you to just accept that. Let me know if you find any specific posts that ring false to you.

[speedchuck]

I'm torn on LC. Epi's references to other games are somewhat compelling; I was in those games and thus am fully aware of why Epi feels the way he does about LC, but I'm not necessarily convinced that he has to be right. Players don't always fulfill the patterns you expect across alignments.

And that's why I don't want to bandwagon yet. Epi proved that LC does similar things as scum... but does he NOT do them as town.

The meta BWT stuff has only moved him up to a null read for me. I'm not buying that he is town just because of the N0 info lie thing. That won't cut it for me. I can see either motive for it.

[speedchuck]

Geez, MP, scourge of lurkers

[Sloonei]

Geez, MP, scourge of lurkers

Thoughts on DDL?

[Sloonei]

Thoughts from catching up -

I'm torn on LC. Epi's references to other games are somewhat compelling; I was in those games and thus am fully aware of why Epi feels the way he does about LC, but I'm not necessarily convinced that he has to be right. Players don't always fulfill the patterns you expect across alignments. LC's reactions (especially the one after my post) were pretty over-the-top though and I can definitely see him being a caught baddie here.

At the same time, I'm torn on BWT as well. The circumstances of his info claim and its apparent misguidedness are intriguing, but I grant that it seems unlikely he would claim bad info openly if bad, so it's more likely it was just misguided/misleading false info. But his over-eager "let's all lynch LC" post was very suspicious. I've been considering voting for him but MP's post here rings pretty true to me and I'm inclined to trust his read:

BWT is being indecisive as fuck. That means he's town. If he was bad, he would force consistency.

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

Thoughts on speedchuck?

[Epignosis]

I placed my vote on Long Con. That is where I currently feel most confident.

I think birdie is a goodie.
I suspect Sloonei.
I suspect speedchuck. Details on this development to follow.

[Epignosis]

The meta BWT stuff has only moved him up to a null read for me. I'm not buying that he is town just because of the N0 info lie thing. That won't cut it for me. I can see either motive for it.

Walk me through either motive that you can see.

[birdwithteeth11]

With classic BWT style and grace. I don't like it.

Does anyone have a way I can get a meta on BWT?

Yeah.

I've known the guy now for over 10 years and he's my best friend. I introduced him to mafia about 6 years ago. Despite our familiarity, he's one of the best people at reading me and I was historically one of the worst at reading him. I mislynched him the first three games we ever played together despite being town alongside him two of those three games (used the other one as a convenient mislynch). When he started playing here, he became an often-mislynched player in general (like sig) and barely if ever made it to endgame without being lynched at some point (very occasionally NKed). Simply put, it's because he always plays fast and loose, tends to express his opinion as a function of previously discussed topics, and forms his thoughts with no regards to consistency.

Honestly it can be difficult for me to suss out when he's being mafia vs. town, but I'd generalize that while his meta is typically characterized by the following descriptors, he tends to be more inconsistent, gambit-driven, OT/jokey, and wacky as town than he is as bad. When he's bad, he forces his opinions to be just a bit more logically consistent and tries to not draw quite as much attention to himself. That's just based on my interpretation of years of playing with him though, and I tend to not try to rely too much on meta, but BWT is one of the rare players where I feel like meta is something that needs to be considered a bit more because he always brings the heat on himself. I try to use vote analysis and other methods to catch him as opposed to zooming in on supposed inconsistencies in his opinions (which I tend to focus on in general).

[Sloonei]

I buy Epi's suspicion against me more than MP's.

[birdwithteeth11]

This is what I was going to say earlier, but did not have time, and I'm glad I didn't since people are talking about him.

I like birdwithteeth's early move. I don't believe 3J gave him information about the poll, and I think he lied about it.

But I think he did it just to do it and, just as he said was intention, get something going.

If bwt is bad and did this, knowing he would be exposed very quickly, that's a short-term gain, long-term loss, as they say, and I'm not even sure that it's a short-term gain at all, because unless he set this up so that his teammates could gain some early credibility, I don't see any positive outcome for him at all.

What I do see is a someone throwing something out there to see who will follow him, who will question him, and who will ignore him.

Nothing wrong with that.

Dingdingding! We have a winner!

[Sloonei]

This is what I was going to say earlier, but did not have time, and I'm glad I didn't since people are talking about him.

I like birdwithteeth's early move. I don't believe 3J gave him information about the poll, and I think he lied about it.

But I think he did it just to do it and, just as he said was intention, get something going.

If bwt is bad and did this, knowing he would be exposed very quickly, that's a short-term gain, long-term loss, as they say, and I'm not even sure that it's a short-term gain at all, because unless he set this up so that his teammates could gain some early credibility, I don't see any positive outcome for him at all.

What I do see is a someone throwing something out there to see who will follow him, who will question him, and who will ignore him.

Nothing wrong with that.

Dingdingding! We have a winner!

Thoughts on Sloonei?

[nutella]

Thoughts from catching up -

I'm torn on LC. Epi's references to other games are somewhat compelling; I was in those games and thus am fully aware of why Epi feels the way he does about LC, but I'm not necessarily convinced that he has to be right. Players don't always fulfill the patterns you expect across alignments. LC's reactions (especially the one after my post) were pretty over-the-top though and I can definitely see him being a caught baddie here.

At the same time, I'm torn on BWT as well. The circumstances of his info claim and its apparent misguidedness are intriguing, but I grant that it seems unlikely he would claim bad info openly if bad, so it's more likely it was just misguided/misleading false info. But his over-eager "let's all lynch LC" post was very suspicious. I've been considering voting for him but MP's post here rings pretty true to me and I'm inclined to trust his read:

BWT is being indecisive as fuck. That means he's town. If he was bad, he would force consistency.

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

Thoughts on speedchuck?

Just read his ISO and not feeling great about him actually. He went hard after LC but then backed off and expressed hesitance toward voting for him. If LC is bad I'd look to speedchuck for a teammate, but I could see voting for him independently of LC's alignment as well.

[birdwithteeth11]

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

What do you see from sloonei that strikes you as civ behavior? I see a guy that made claims of a "bandwagon" against someone (LC) and used that to throw shade on someone else who made a bold, gutsy move early in an attempt to see what direction it made the winds blow (me).

[Sloonei]

I don't condemn speedchuck for backing down on the LC bandwagon. I am in the same position. For a time he was the only subject anyone had talked about. Most of my efforts today have been about introducing new things into the conversation. This day was in danger of stagnating and producing very little content for us to work with. But I understand what you are saying and I do not wish to stand in anyone's way of reading speedchuck one way or another. @ nutella

[Sloonei]

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

What do you see from sloonei that strikes you as civ behavior? I see a guy that made claims of a "bandwagon" against someone (LC) and used that to throw shade on someone else who made a bold, gutsy move early in an attempt to see what direction it made the winds blow (me).

Do you feel my suspicion against you is or was unwarranted?

[birdwithteeth11]

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

What do you see from sloonei that strikes you as civ behavior? I see a guy that made claims of a "bandwagon" against someone (LC) and used that to throw shade on someone else who made a bold, gutsy move early in an attempt to see what direction it made the winds blow (me).

Do you feel my suspicion against you is or was unwarranted?

I mean, I'm biased and disagree with it. But I also understand why I would take some flak for what I did for N0. I've already explained my reasoning for why I did it so I won't repeat it again. Whether you take it or leave it is up to you.

[Sloonei]

I might look into joining Sloonei in a DDL vote; I'll look back at DDL next. Not feeling MP's and Epi's suspicion of Sloonei; I'm seeing town behavior.

What do you see from sloonei that strikes you as civ behavior? I see a guy that made claims of a "bandwagon" against someone (LC) and used that to throw shade on someone else who made a bold, gutsy move early in an attempt to see what direction it made the winds blow (me).

Do you feel my suspicion against you is or was unwarranted?

I mean, I'm biased and disagree with it. But I also understand why I would take some flak for what I did for N0. I've already explained my reasoning for why I did it so I won't repeat it again. Whether you take it or leave it is up to you.

But that wasn't the reason I expressed suspicion of you.

[Long Con]

BWT, why did you keep saying it was the truth after the poll was over?

[Long Con]

I don't know why I am even bothering to do this. I'm sure it's a serious personality flaw that I have that I'm compelled to do this.

I'll try to keep this brief.

Spoiler: show

In Mass Effect, an evil independent LC kept calling me nervous. We've had this argument since, but I maintain that I was not nervous, but rather was gleeful that my little scheme to out a member of the mafia was working.

Yes, he'll remind you that I wasn't a civilian (True: I was at the time a neutral who could eventually side with either good or bad) and that he wasn't mafia (True, but he was last man standing, which is a role civilians need dead to win, and is therefore "bad").

My point is that LC framed my posts in such a way that supported his narrative (to get me lynched) rather than one to help the civilians (to get mafia lynched).

No.

Here's what happened, not what Epi's specially selected words choose to tell you. Epi was a complicated Indy who could go either way, and he had a fakeclaim from the host to use. He tells the thread his fakeclaim on Day 2, which I find weird. It made me suspect he was bad, and using a fakeclaim. He wants to spin it like I was some "evil independent" but what do you think my strategy was? Frame someone? I didn't have a team to work with, or for, what I needed was some level of credibility. I was trying to find baddies in as genuine a way as if I were a Civilian.

If you see similarities between that game and this one, then that makes sense enough to me, because my goal was to find baddies in both. In Mass Effect, I was right to go after Epignosis because he, as predicted, joined the baddies. Listen to me again for the first time, here in this game, maybe I'm right again.

Spoiler: show

In Blue Velvet, LC was bad, I was good, and we had a back and forth on Mass Effect. Here is LC's big, misleading post about me.

That was an awesome meta case, thanks for linking it. It has no similarities to this game though. It seems you just brought it up because it's an instance where I made a case against you... that doesn't really make the cut for doing anything to prove your point here.

Spoiler: show

In Night Vale, Long Con and I were both bad- teammates even. What does he resort to?

I look nervous to you, LC?

The line I referenced looks like textbook nervousness... it's not a general thing with all your posts or anything, but come on - you read that line and tell me I'm wrong.

I recall seeing this and rolling my eyes. "Not this 'nervous' bullshit again. Were I not on LC's team, I would have crucified him for it.

FALSE. This is a bogus entry, because I wasn't in any way making a case on Jack. I was laughing at how his post read to me. Try this link to see THE ENTIRETY of the exchange. As in, I wasn't pursuing it as any form of case at all. Epi's attempt to make you believe otherwise is deception.

Long Con's evil M.O. when he is bad is to cavalierly control the narrative to the point of outright making things up and sticking to them even when proof is presented to the contrary. He would make an admirable politician.

Where has that even happened in this game? What proof? What are you talking about?

I'm really disappointed in the players who praised this case as a good one. It doesn't make sense, and proving that didn't take a lot of reading through the links.

That's why I don't buy for a second his insistence that what he has been trying to sell as a joke was a joke.

Despite evidence to the contrary.

[Serge]

Oh hey, this already started. I'm free from the game I subbed in now, so I can finally start here. Looks like the heat is already on?

[Sloonei]

I buy Epi's suspicion against me more than MP's.

I reverse this opinion.

[Sloonei]

I think I see BWT's false info gambit exactly as MP and Epi have expressed it as well. The only way it makes sense as a scum ploy is if he's serving us a healthy heap of WIFOM right off the bat. I don't know him well enough to say with any confidence how likely he is to do that, but my gut tells me it's unlikely.

So what made you vote for him?

Indecision and the speculation that players could be opportunistically piling pressure onto Long Con.

I hope I make sense with what I'm getting ready to say.

bird threw something out there that was, from my perspective, an inconsequential lie (for us) that could have probably gotten him lynched (given his track record).

You threw this out there:

Pile votes on Long Con, let's go.

To me, that's a bit more obvious bait than someone claiming Day 0 information to get people moving on a Day 0 poll.

It's so obvious, you only got (?) one person to vote, and that was...bird. If in fact you got him to vote because of what you said (I don't think you got anybody to vote LC because of your pile on post).

You counted DDL as a bite, but that doesn't make sense to me either.

Contrary to my previous stance of "Pile all votes on Long Con", I am wary of people who have piled suspicion on Long Con, even though I count myself among them. Regardless of how I feel about the Day 1 case around him, I can't ignore that there is easy potential for this bandwagon to be driven by opportunistic scums right off the bat.

That means posts like these catch my eye:

Spoiler: show

Epi vs LC, aka "El Clásico"

I know, right? I mean, I was just joking around... but Epi's reaction! I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say he totally freaked out. He demanded four times that I substantiate my claims, then he throws out a weak-ass OMGUS, and then demands opinions from everyone on it.

Not to mention he completely ignored Wilgy, who also made a very similar joke. I guess he understood that Wilgy's post was a joke, but not mine. This is unexpectedly juicy Night 0 stuff!

I don't like the tone of this post. Sounds like you are trying to make him look back without engaging him yourself.

Since votes are changeable, I'm going to go ahead and put mine on Long Con for now. But since it's still early on Day 1, it's a very weak baddie read right now, but looking back at the initial start I feel like LC looks more bad than Epig.

If I were someone else I'd be wary of me too.

As an aside, my Q and w keys are not working, so any time I need to call in either of those letters I've been copy & pasting from elsewhere on the page. I just want to document my struggle and ask if anyone knows a better solution than my Ctrl + v strategy.

I wouldn't regard either of these are piling suspicion on Long Con. You do though. And you voted birdwithteeth11, and then moved your vote to DDL.

This all strikes me a charade- a dance, if you will- intended to protect Long Con while giving yourself an avenue of looking open-minded in case he got lynched after all.

"Look at all the opportunistic mafia! All two of them!"

This whole post strikes me as a poor reading of my own posts. I think it's pretty clear that my position on Long Con has not wavered. He has been my preferred lynch candidate for the entire day to this point. However, I was wary of the ease with which a bandwagon was forming against him, and the one-sided direction of the conversation in the thread, a point which I have brought up several times today. Epi himself has expressed the same sentiment, and yet he holds it against me for doing exactly what he himself is doing.
Furthermore, he interprets this post of mine in a much harsher light than I think anyone should. I obviously have a self-favoring bias here, but I think my first paragraph emphasizes the point that I'm not accusing either bwt or ddl of nefariously piling on suspicion, rather merely acknowledging the possibility of such a strategy being used at this stage in the game:

Contrary to my previous stance of "Pile all votes on Long Con", I am wary of people who have piled suspicion on Long Con, even though I count myself among them. Regardless of how I feel about the Day 1 case around him, I can't ignore that there is easy potential for this bandwagon to be driven by opportunistic scums right off the bat.

There's also a clear indication that my "pile votes on LC" comment was to be taken as a true stance of mine, and not a trap being set for others, as Epi so liberally discerned. I then highlighted two posts which might represent this hypothetical strategy I had become wary of and Epi presented a case against me based off of this as though I had come down hard on both bwt and ddl in an attempt to save Long Con, the player whose lynch I was advocating for at the time.

I do not think this is an honest case from Epi, but that might just mean he's pushing my buttons to see how I'll react. However, this has given me just enough pause to make me reconsider my stance on Epi and, by extension, LC as well. I'll see where my head is at in the morning, but I wanted to get this out before going to sleep.

[sanmateo]

i think given what people have said about bird i wont vote for him today. sloonei threw out both of the posts that i singled out beforehand but he still seemed steadfast on voting for LC until i wrote that post. something doesn't really track there, i was taken aback by him being that easily convinced but it seemed like people were moving away from that bandwagon so it'd make sense that scum sloonei (scoomei?) would switch. if what he said about looking at bwt's claim in the same way as mp07 and epignosis is true, then why wouldnt he vote for dragon from the start?

that's less simple than the reason i suspect dragon, so it feels less likely to be true. thus im probably voting for dragon. but my uni canceled classes today so i have time to spare

[sanmateo]

no wait actually they didnt. i'm voting now

[Long Con]

no wait actually they didnt. i'm voting now

Must have been a nice two minutes before you realized.

[Epignosis]

I think I see BWT's false info gambit exactly as MP and Epi have expressed it as well. The only way it makes sense as a scum ploy is if he's serving us a healthy heap of WIFOM right off the bat. I don't know him well enough to say with any confidence how likely he is to do that, but my gut tells me it's unlikely.

So what made you vote for him?

Indecision and the speculation that players could be opportunistically piling pressure onto Long Con.

I hope I make sense with what I'm getting ready to say.

bird threw something out there that was, from my perspective, an inconsequential lie (for us) that could have probably gotten him lynched (given his track record).

You threw this out there:

Pile votes on Long Con, let's go.

To me, that's a bit more obvious bait than someone claiming Day 0 information to get people moving on a Day 0 poll.

It's so obvious, you only got (?) one person to vote, and that was...bird. If in fact you got him to vote because of what you said (I don't think you got anybody to vote LC because of your pile on post).

You counted DDL as a bite, but that doesn't make sense to me either.

Contrary to my previous stance of "Pile all votes on Long Con", I am wary of people who have piled suspicion on Long Con, even though I count myself among them. Regardless of how I feel about the Day 1 case around him, I can't ignore that there is easy potential for this bandwagon to be driven by opportunistic scums right off the bat.

That means posts like these catch my eye:

Spoiler: show

Epi vs LC, aka "El Clásico"

I know, right? I mean, I was just joking around... but Epi's reaction! I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say he totally freaked out. He demanded four times that I substantiate my claims, then he throws out a weak-ass OMGUS, and then demands opinions from everyone on it.

Not to mention he completely ignored Wilgy, who also made a very similar joke. I guess he understood that Wilgy's post was a joke, but not mine. This is unexpectedly juicy Night 0 stuff!

I don't like the tone of this post. Sounds like you are trying to make him look back without engaging him yourself.

Since votes are changeable, I'm going to go ahead and put mine on Long Con for now. But since it's still early on Day 1, it's a very weak baddie read right now, but looking back at the initial start I feel like LC looks more bad than Epig.

If I were someone else I'd be wary of me too.

As an aside, my Q and w keys are not working, so any time I need to call in either of those letters I've been copy & pasting from elsewhere on the page. I just want to document my struggle and ask if anyone knows a better solution than my Ctrl + v strategy.

I wouldn't regard either of these are piling suspicion on Long Con. You do though. And you voted birdwithteeth11, and then moved your vote to DDL.

This all strikes me a charade- a dance, if you will- intended to protect Long Con while giving yourself an avenue of looking open-minded in case he got lynched after all.

"Look at all the opportunistic mafia! All two of them!"

This whole post strikes me as a poor reading of my own posts. I think it's pretty clear that my position on Long Con has not wavered. He has been my preferred lynch candidate for the entire day to this point. However, I was wary of the ease with which a bandwagon was forming against him, and the one-sided direction of the conversation in the thread, a point which I have brought up several times today. Epi himself has expressed the same sentiment, and yet he holds it against me for doing exactly what he himself is doing.
Furthermore, he interprets this post of mine in a much harsher light than I think anyone should. I obviously have a self-favoring bias here, but I think my first paragraph emphasizes the point that I'm not accusing either bwt or ddl of nefariously piling on suspicion, rather merely acknowledging the possibility of such a strategy being used at this stage in the game:

Contrary to my previous stance of "Pile all votes on Long Con", I am wary of people who have piled suspicion on Long Con, even though I count myself among them. Regardless of how I feel about the Day 1 case around him, I can't ignore that there is easy potential for this bandwagon to be driven by opportunistic scums right off the bat.

There's also a clear indication that my "pile votes on LC" comment was to be taken as a true stance of mine, and not a trap being set for others, as Epi so liberally discerned. I then highlighted two posts which might represent this hypothetical strategy I had become wary of and Epi presented a case against me based off of this as though I had come down hard on both bwt and ddl in an attempt to save Long Con, the player whose lynch I was advocating for at the time.

I do not think this is an honest case from Epi, but that might just mean he's pushing my buttons to see how I'll react. However, this has given me just enough pause to make me reconsider my stance on Epi and, by extension, LC as well. I'll see where my head is at in the morning, but I wanted to get this out before going to sleep.

I have never been concerned with a bandwagon here. My post you linked to only concerns myself- I did not want to exhaust my energy on one person today.

And I'm not going to stop issuing my interpretations of what people say just because they might reconsider their stance about me.

[Epignosis]

I don't know why I am even bothering to do this. I'm sure it's a serious personality flaw that I have that I'm compelled to do this.

I'll try to keep this brief.

Spoiler: show

In Mass Effect, an evil independent LC kept calling me nervous. We've had this argument since, but I maintain that I was not nervous, but rather was gleeful that my little scheme to out a member of the mafia was working.

Yes, he'll remind you that I wasn't a civilian (True: I was at the time a neutral who could eventually side with either good or bad) and that he wasn't mafia (True, but he was last man standing, which is a role civilians need dead to win, and is therefore "bad").

My point is that LC framed my posts in such a way that supported his narrative (to get me lynched) rather than one to help the civilians (to get mafia lynched).

No.

Here's what happened, not what Epi's specially selected words choose to tell you. Epi was a complicated Indy who could go either way, and he had a fakeclaim from the host to use. He tells the thread his fakeclaim on Day 2, which I find weird. It made me suspect he was bad, and using a fakeclaim. He wants to spin it like I was some "evil independent" but what do you think my strategy was? Frame someone? I didn't have a team to work with, or for, what I needed was some level of credibility. I was trying to find baddies in as genuine a way as if I were a Civilian.

If you see similarities between that game and this one, then that makes sense enough to me, because my goal was to find baddies in both. In Mass Effect, I was right to go after Epignosis because he, as predicted, joined the baddies. Listen to me again for the first time, here in this game, maybe I'm right again.

If people would have listened to you, they would have wasted a lynch. You weren't right to go after me. Nobody was, because nobody needed me dead to win.

I don't know how else to spell that out for you.

Spoiler: show

In Blue Velvet, LC was bad, I was good, and we had a back and forth on Mass Effect. Here is LC's big, misleading post about me.

That was an awesome meta case, thanks for linking it. It has no similarities to this game though. It seems you just brought it up because it's an instance where I made a case against you... that doesn't really make the cut for doing anything to prove your point here.

I don't agree.

Spoiler: show

In Night Vale, Long Con and I were both bad- teammates even. What does he resort to?

I look nervous to you, LC?

The line I referenced looks like textbook nervousness... it's not a general thing with all your posts or anything, but come on - you read that line and tell me I'm wrong.

I recall seeing this and rolling my eyes. "Not this 'nervous' bullshit again. Were I not on LC's team, I would have crucified him for it.

FALSE. This is a bogus entry, because I wasn't in any way making a case on Jack. I was laughing at how his post read to me. Try this link to see THE ENTIRETY of the exchange. As in, I wasn't pursuing it as any form of case at all. Epi's attempt to make you believe otherwise is deception.

Most inclined to vote Sprityo for self preservation lolololol or Epi for picking on someone he may view as weak.

Why that many "ol" additions the first time? Possible tell that you were thinking too hard about that post, and baddies must generate content whole-cloth. Could be an indication of teamwork, again playing off meta.

"Mind Meld" I guess - I thought it looked like nervous laughter.

Long Con could yet get my vote too, although I tend to start reading him well if I give him some time, which I'm always mindful of.

I need more content, I think. I haven't fully gotten into this yet. Just caught up.

You...you mean you said something that could be construed as a serious suspicion and later indicated it wasn't serious?

[Long Con]

I don't know why I am even bothering to do this. I'm sure it's a serious personality flaw that I have that I'm compelled to do this.

I'll try to keep this brief.

Spoiler: show

In Mass Effect, an evil independent LC kept calling me nervous. We've had this argument since, but I maintain that I was not nervous, but rather was gleeful that my little scheme to out a member of the mafia was working.

Yes, he'll remind you that I wasn't a civilian (True: I was at the time a neutral who could eventually side with either good or bad) and that he wasn't mafia (True, but he was last man standing, which is a role civilians need dead to win, and is therefore "bad").

My point is that LC framed my posts in such a way that supported his narrative (to get me lynched) rather than one to help the civilians (to get mafia lynched).

No.

Here's what happened, not what Epi's specially selected words choose to tell you. Epi was a complicated Indy who could go either way, and he had a fakeclaim from the host to use. He tells the thread his fakeclaim on Day 2, which I find weird. It made me suspect he was bad, and using a fakeclaim. He wants to spin it like I was some "evil independent" but what do you think my strategy was? Frame someone? I didn't have a team to work with, or for, what I needed was some level of credibility. I was trying to find baddies in as genuine a way as if I were a Civilian.

If you see similarities between that game and this one, then that makes sense enough to me, because my goal was to find baddies in both. In Mass Effect, I was right to go after Epignosis because he, as predicted, joined the baddies. Listen to me again for the first time, here in this game, maybe I'm right again.

If people would have listened to you, they would have wasted a lynch. You weren't right to go after me. Nobody was, because nobody needed me dead to win.

I don't know how else to spell that out for you.

No one wants to read Mass Effect arguments:

Spoiler: show

That's just not a logical assessment of the situation. If you chose to turn Civ, then the Reapers would likely kill you. Turning Civ was never a good option. So you turn Reaper. Civs need all Reapers dead to win. Civs need Epignosis dead to win. But fine, I'll concede that there are multiple ways to look at the situation, and your role can be put into a very different light depending on what you want to believe is likely and logical versus a cold take on a role read. That's as far as I can go, because I have the biggest proof that what I put forth many times in that game was right: it's exactly what happened. Yes, I have the actual past on my side of the argument. Let's drop it.

Spoiler: show

In Blue Velvet, LC was bad, I was good, and we had a back and forth on Mass Effect. Here is LC's big, misleading post about me.

That was an awesome meta case, thanks for linking it. It has no similarities to this game though. It seems you just brought it up because it's an instance where I made a case against you... that doesn't really make the cut for doing anything to prove your point here.

I don't agree.

Predictably inadequate.

Spoiler: show

In Night Vale, Long Con and I were both bad- teammates even. What does he resort to?

I look nervous to you, LC?

The line I referenced looks like textbook nervousness... it's not a general thing with all your posts or anything, but come on - you read that line and tell me I'm wrong.

I recall seeing this and rolling my eyes. "Not this 'nervous' bullshit again. Were I not on LC's team, I would have crucified him for it.

FALSE. This is a bogus entry, because I wasn't in any way making a case on Jack. I was laughing at how his post read to me. Try this link to see THE ENTIRETY of the exchange. As in, I wasn't pursuing it as any form of case at all. Epi's attempt to make you believe otherwise is deception.

Most inclined to vote Sprityo for self preservation lolololol or Epi for picking on someone he may view as weak.

Why that many "ol" additions the first time? Possible tell that you were thinking too hard about that post, and baddies must generate content whole-cloth. Could be an indication of teamwork, again playing off meta.

"Mind Meld" I guess - I thought it looked like nervous laughter.

Long Con could yet get my vote too, although I tend to start reading him well if I give him some time, which I'm always mindful of.

I need more content, I think. I haven't fully gotten into this yet. Just caught up.

You...you mean you said something that could be construed as a serious suspicion and later indicated it wasn't serious?

A concocted connection, barely even tenuous. What was going on there was me buddying two Civs. What went on in this game was me observing your behaviour and finding it suspicious.

[Sloonei]

i think given what people have said about bird i wont vote for him today. sloonei threw out both of the posts that i singled out beforehand but he still seemed steadfast on voting for LC until i wrote that post. something doesn't really track there, i was taken aback by him being that easily convinced but it seemed like people were moving away from that bandwagon so it'd make sense that scum sloonei (scoomei?) would switch. if what he said about looking at bwt's claim in the same way as mp07 and epignosis is true, then why wouldnt he vote for dragon from the start?

that's less simple than the reason i suspect dragon, so it feels less likely to be true. thus im probably voting for dragon. but my uni canceled classes today so i have time to spare

I had not made up my mind about birdwithtweeth earlier. I changed my vote when I came to see his behavior in a more favorable light. This is the most attention I've ever received for a Day 1 pressure vote.

[Long Con]

Sorry I'm a one-track mind right now, but:

I don't know why I am even bothering to do this. I'm sure it's a serious personality flaw that I have that I'm compelled to do this.

I'll try to keep this brief.

Spoiler: show

In Mass Effect, an evil independent LC kept calling me nervous. We've had this argument since, but I maintain that I was not nervous, but rather was gleeful that my little scheme to out a member of the mafia was working.

Yes, he'll remind you that I wasn't a civilian (True: I was at the time a neutral who could eventually side with either good or bad) and that he wasn't mafia (True, but he was last man standing, which is a role civilians need dead to win, and is therefore "bad").

My point is that LC framed my posts in such a way that supported his narrative (to get me lynched) rather than one to help the civilians (to get mafia lynched).

No.

Here's what happened, not what Epi's specially selected words choose to tell you. Epi was a complicated Indy who could go either way, and he had a fakeclaim from the host to use. He tells the thread his fakeclaim on Day 2, which I find weird. It made me suspect he was bad, and using a fakeclaim. He wants to spin it like I was some "evil independent" but what do you think my strategy was? Frame someone? I didn't have a team to work with, or for, what I needed was some level of credibility. I was trying to find baddies in as genuine a way as if I were a Civilian.

If you see similarities between that game and this one, then that makes sense enough to me, because my goal was to find baddies in both. In Mass Effect, I was right to go after Epignosis because he, as predicted, joined the baddies. Listen to me again for the first time, here in this game, maybe I'm right again.

If people would have listened to you, they would have wasted a lynch. You weren't right to go after me. Nobody was, because nobody needed me dead to win.

I don't know how else to spell that out for you.

Very clever, Epi. You completely sidestepped the relevant point of what I said to focus on the Mass Effect argument instead. The relevant point was that I was trying to find baddies in that game, as I am in this one, and so any similarity you want to point out only hurts your case.

But you knew that having the appearance of winning an argument or point was more important to some of these other players than what you were winning. I don't think you really believe I am bad, you just want to win a lynch on me. If you really cared about whether or not I'm bad, then you wouldn't be sidestepping points that don't fit into your narrative.

[speedchuck]

The meta BWT stuff has only moved him up to a null read for me. I'm not buying that he is town just because of the N0 info lie thing. That won't cut it for me. I can see either motive for it.

Walk me through either motive that you can see.

Event: BWT lies about having info on night one. That's literally all that happened.

Town motive: Give people something to talk about, get discussion going, etc. Doesn't mind having any suspicions thrown his way over it, after all, it is night zero, and this is purely a mechanical bit that will make him look good for being bold. A better lynch might come out of the discussion.

Scum motive: Give people something to talk about, get discussion going, etc. Doesn't mind having any suspicions thrown his way over it, after all, it is night zero, and this is purely a mechanical bit that will make him look good for being bold. A different lynch might come out of the discussion.



Scum likes people to talk, make cases, and get to the lynchy bits. So long as scum it's getting lynched. I see nothing alignment indicative here. Along with the meta-read of BWT just ruining my case on him, I've placed him at null.

[Sloonei]

Long Con is accusing Epi of the same thing I argued for last night; he is deliberately misconstruing facts to fit his argument. If this is a legitimate accusation then it is not a good look for Epi. However, I did not necessarily feel that he was doing it in a sinister way against me last night (though his underwhelming response doesn't inspire much confidence), and I also still do not have enough trust in Long Con to side with him definitively in their back and forth. Also, sanmateo presented a similar, though less extreme, interpretation of my behavior as Epi did last night, so it's possible I've come off a bit shadier than I believe.

Does anybody else get the sense that Epi is being intentionally deceptive in his arguments?

[speedchuck]

Geez, MP, scourge of lurkers

Thoughts on DDL?

DDL's only posts of content are bandwagoning onto LC. The way in which he does it, though... I could see DDL as scum regardless of LC's alignment, I think. The reasoning he uses is similar to ours, but not quite the same, and he phrased it in a way that is easily defeated.

Not only that, but most of the time when I see DDL, he's a lot more aggressive than in this game. Maybe I'm misremembering. Feels like he's being careful.

linki: I always get the sense that Epi is being intentionally deceptive. I'm honestly not sure what Epi's trying to accomplish right now. If he presented the evidence clearly, then it would be best to let us draw our own conclusions. That would feel more honest. Instead, the two players are clarifying context and evidence over and over. All that does is make the game more heated and remove other avenues of discussion. Bleh.

Rant over.

[Sloonei]

It has been a surprisingly long time since I played with DDL. I also remember him being a force early in most of our games together though. I do not hold it too much against a player when it simply appears that they've been more absent than passive, which is the case with DDL right now. I was hoping to hear more from him today. I have the same minor reservations about his Long Con position, but that's about it.

[Sloonei]

As seems to always be the case these days, I will be at work when the deadline comes.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Im here. 3g is horrible but Ill try to catch up.

Plz dont lynch me.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

How is it manipulative? Is there something untrue in it? I'm looking at it right now and it's a direct accounting of what happened.

And yet you have no problem with this entirely made-up post:

The past three or four times you have been bad, you've done this very thing: Manufacturing a narrative for my actions or reactions that isn't true.

I made the mistake of waving that off once or twice, citing recency bias to myself. Surely LC wouldn't keep doing the same things over and over when he is bad.

Now it's a pattern. This is just what you do when you are bad.

I said it gave me this feeling, because of the jester-y way you were accusing Epi. Not that ou are actually lying.

As for the fake news thing, without actually doing research, I find it more likely that Epi would be mistaken about your previous game history, because those things are easy to remember wrong, than blatabtly fake meta evidence that would get him lynched for it.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

How is it manipulative? Is there something untrue in it? I'm looking at it right now and it's a direct accounting of what happened.

And yet you have no problem with this entirely made-up post:

The past three or four times you have been bad, you've done this very thing: Manufacturing a narrative for my actions or reactions that isn't true.

I made the mistake of waving that off once or twice, citing recency bias to myself. Surely LC wouldn't keep doing the same things over and over when he is bad.

Now it's a pattern. This is just what you do when you are bad.

I said it gave me this feeling, because of the jester-y way you were accusing Epi. Not that ou are actually lying.

As for the fake news thing, without actually doing research, I find it more likely that Epi would be mistaken about your previous game history, because those things are easy to remember wrong, than blatabtly fake meta evidence that would get him lynched for it.

[Sloonei]

[mention]Dragon D. Luffy[/mention], when you have caught up, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Epi. Do not worry about answering me if you still have stuff to read.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

A reads/preliminary rainbow list for me right now would look something like this:

Moderate Town -- would NOT vote
birdwithteeth11
Epignosis
sanmateo

Slight Town -- would NOT vote
speedchuck

==================================================

Neutral-- would potentially vote
Dom
Dragon D. Luffy
DrWilgy
NewTraditionalist
nutella
Serge
Spacedaisy

Slight Mafia-- would potentially vote
Long Con
Sloonei

Players are not ranked within groups, only across groups.

Generally I prefer to stick to POE and usually don't feel comfortable making any firm mafia reads at this stage, but despite being hesitant because I do feel LC is a player who can get himself into trouble early on, I'm relatively convinced by Epi's pursuit of LC and would call him a sole slight mafia read. I also am a bit wary of Sloonei; perhaps it's a bit leftover shock still from Street Fighter, but without taking an in-depth look at his ISO I'm not sure I buy Sloonei's attempts to start discussion to be genuine. Specifically, he doesn't seem that interested in actually developing reads and seems a bit too hoppy. But those are just general impressions and maybe I'm being overly paranoid of him.

As for my neutrals, well, I'm not sure how to sort Wilgy or DDL yet. Everyone else has been too quiet or essentially nonexistent, which is disconcerting. Hopefully we hear from them before the deadline.

I'm going to be pretty busy tomorrow, so my activity will be less than ideal. I'll be here in the hour or two leading to EoD though at a minimum; I think I can set aside that time at least.

Weird, Sloonei is givig me strong town vibes. But I guess thats my default reaction to those Jay-type posters who analyse everything. I think Ill spend the game rradig him as civ yet being paranoid about it.

Wilgy made one post (dont remember which) that looked uber civ. But the last time that happened he was bad. So I dunno what to think.