[END] Turf Wars: Battle of the Hosts

[Epignosis]

Well, Epi, at least you're willing to entertain other points of view and ways of thinking.

Listen, I think you and Golden are good. Sorry for saying that at Night, but I won't be voting for either of you any time soon. But I am annoyed with how you two have approached lynches late in the day. It makes me think you believe that because "CFD" worked one time, it's going to work again.

To me, that's asinine. I'm not accusing either of you. I'm just asking that you stop being foolish with lynches. I want responsible lynches from here on out.

I hear you.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to berate anybody. I'm just frustrated. I was hoping gleam was bad because he has a history of getting taken out so early. I feel for people like that, know what I mean? I also hate "CFD" because it would suck being taken out of a game just to see how people react to you getting lynched.

Golden is still a nub though.

[Epignosis]

And I can't do anything about you thinking gleam vote wasn't well reasoned. You're wrong. But that's not my problem.

I'm wrong. Okay man.

[Golden]

If you think gleam was cfd, yes. There was no aspect of aiming for chaos or seeing how people reacted. I just voted for who I thought was most likely bad.

After zebras vouch for sig, I had and still have much more doubt about sig.

[Epignosis]

If you think gleam was cfd, yes. There was no aspect of aiming for chaos or seeing how people reacted. I just voted for who I thought was most likely bad.

After zebras vouch for sig, I had and still have much more doubt about sig.

That just makes no sense to me. Eat a camel if sig is good. How do you say shit like that and then vote somebody else?

[Epignosis]

I'm sorry. I'm just bitter over a bullshit lynch. I'll go on to bed now.

[indiglo]

Well, I think that's one thing we all definitely agree on. We're all frustrated! I'm right there with you, and I hate losing a civ like that.

[Golden]

If you think gleam was cfd, yes. There was no aspect of aiming for chaos or seeing how people reacted. I just voted for who I thought was most likely bad.

After zebras vouch for sig, I had and still have much more doubt about sig.

That just makes no sense to me. Eat a camel if sig is good. How do you say shit like that and then vote somebody else?

(Well, I've had this picture of a chocolate camel to use if he comes back good)

[Scotty]

So with Gleam coming up as the traitor, and the cops probably putting 2 and 2 together...which of DDL and SVS do we think is the Don?

I wouldn't normally call out boss man, but at this point, 5 minds have probably figured that out and tried to kill one of them, as well as I am still suspicious of DDL and want to be ever sure if I vote him it won't be a huge mistake.

[Scotty]

Also reading back I see suspicion of me sprouting up from all corners of the globe.

Sloonei, my weak vote for gleam? Eh, it's not like that was a surprise vote out of left field. I voted gleam the day before as well. And I was obviously wrong in my assessment.

Black Rock, I haven't been putting in the same amount of case reads due to time, and as a result I'm legitimately grasping at straws. I'm in the same boat as TH- brutally discombobulated reading people this game. And I'll be the first to admit I've sucked hard.


Let me lay out reasons why I should probably be considered fishy for you so you don't have to:
-I've been awfully lazy on the front end.
-I wasn't a part of the CFD lynching Fuzz, and actually forgot about Fuzz when looking at no-posters on day 1. I swore not to lynch him day 1 because of principle from GTM
-Sloonei and Golden were forces to be reckoned with when it came to sig, and I just agreed with their assessment of his perceived scumminess.
-I still go back and forth over if the most talkative people are trying to steer the thread in a certain direction to further a cop agenda. This probably looks wishy washy because it is.
-I'm wary in giving civ reads to people because I'm having a hard time trusting anyone.


I will gladly take questions because undoubtedly I will get them. My one preface is that I am good, but my reads have been smellier than a locker room for babies.

[Matt]

Good call Scotty.

After the Traitor defected on Day 1...

I think Dragon was hounding me pretty furiously, but only because he genuinely thinks I'm a bad guy. I've played with him acting similarly in a civ role. I said before that I think he's a civ (or rather, I don't have reason to believe he's a bad guy) but I think I'm leaning a bit more towards civ.

Same with S~V~S, who also voted for me.

Lulz

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I'm not sure if me and SVS were the only ones to vote for gleam on d1. Temporary votes count too.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

What do we think would be an ideal role the undercover cop would choose? I mean, it wouldn't be the traitor, surely?

Someone with BTSC. Maybe a lover.

Why? The BTSC partner would point the possibility out immediately.

Weren't you one of the people who played around with the idea LC might be a seemer?

No.

I've been playing around the idea that Sig could.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I have to say I agree wih eveything Epi is saying, except for the "lynch DDL" stuff.

The way we are approaching this game is not working. The Fuzz lynch was cool but catching one baddie in four days is not statistically unlikely. We are doing a bad job at scumhunting, and I feel like scum is manipulating us big time.

I am open to a Sig lynch but I want to think hard about it. No more foregone conclusions. We have 72 hours to work on this shit, let's use the most of them we can, not just the first and the last hour.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Know why you're really bitching, epi?

Because you didn't agree, and wanted sig gone. It's as simple as that really. You don't like that sig survived another day.

It's not because the gleam votes weren't well reasoned.

We lynched gleam because he is bad at the game. By bad I mean, he plays in a way that seems not optimal most of the time. It is possible he may not actually be that bad.

We lynch Sig every time for the same reason. We have also lynched people like Metalmarsh, Scotty, Vompatti and many others.

We look for a standard in towniness and lynch anyone who doesn't follow them. Then after we lynch the same player as a civ over ane over, we finally learn they work that way and move on to the next new player with a weird playstyle that shows up. So we can lynch them over and over.

Meanwhile, scum players who are skilled at following the standard and looking town, like Golden, Ricochet and FZ, own this site and contribute for it to have what might be the highest scum/town win rate of the internet.

That has to stop. We need to stop lynching weird players for being weird, anf learn to read them more. I am guilty of that toi, but I am not the only one.

[Golden]

Know why you're really bitching, epi?

Because you didn't agree, and wanted sig gone. It's as simple as that really. You don't like that sig survived another day.

It's not because the gleam votes weren't well reasoned.

We lynched gleam because he is bad at the game. By bad I mean, he plays in a way that seems not optimal most of the time. It is possible he may not actually be that bad.

We lynch Sig every time for the same reason. We have also lynched people like Metalmarsh, Scotty, Vompatti and many others.

We look for a standard in towniness and lynch anyone who doesn't follow them. Then after we lynch the same player as a civ over ane over, we finally learn they work that way and move on to the next new player with a weird playstyle that shows up. So we can lynch them over and over.

Meanwhile, scum players who are skilled at following the standard and looking town, like Golden, Ricochet and FZ, own this site and contribute for it to have what might be the highest scum/town win rate of the internet.

That has to stop. We need to stop lynching weird players for being weird, anf learn to read them more. I am guilty of that toi, but I am not the only one.

No, you know what has to stop in this game?

People assuming the lynches aren't coming from reading people.

People painting others motives as uninformed when they are anything but.

I get told I'm arrogant by you, but then this? Come on!

If you think you know how to catch baddies, then catch them. Get on with it! You must be the great baddie catcher!

I don't think any of the four people who have been lynched have been lynched for the same reasons. Nor have any of the reasons been lazy or uninformed. That includes the two people who were lynched that I didn't agree with. All of them were lynched for proper, well-reasoned thought processes. No-one is phoning it in.

Trying to make it look like we are 'doing something wrong' and there is some objective baddie-finding standard we are all, as a community, failing to meet has just one word to it, in my opinion...

Manipulative.

VERY VERY manipulative.

If people weren't really thinking and trying to solve the game, sig would have been lynched unanimously two days ago.

My win rate as town is pretty good. I don't contribute to a 'high scum win rate'. Since I arrived at this site, I've contributed just as crucially to civilian wins.

I don't look for weird play styles. I never wanted to lynch sig because he 'plays weird'. I wanted to lynch him because, in a period of what would have been stress to the baddie team, he came out looking worst in that short period of time. LC wasn't lynched for playing weird. Fuzz wasn't lynched for playing weird. Diiny wasn't lynched for playing weird.

You speak for yourself as to why you voted gleam. I didn't vote HIM because he 'played weird' either.

In truth, if we had caught two out of four cops in the first four lynches, town would be well ahead in this game. We'd be feeling like we were doing really well. Criticising the entire town for playing the game wrong when they've only managed one out of four is, to me, just.... I don't even have a word for it.

I don't like the narrative you and epi are both trying to push. It's really false.

[Golden]

I am open to a Sig lynch but I want to think hard about it. No more foregone conclusions. We have 72 hours to work on this shit, let's use the most of them we can, not just the first and the last hour.

I mean, look at this...

Which lynch so far was a 'foregone conclusion'? In what way can the townie effort in this game possibly be described as an effort derailed by foregone conclusions?

[Quin]

\_(T:)_/

I think things are progressing well, and I'm the one with 3 votes

I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not too late to start pulling the threads through and getting some good lynches in.

[Golden]

\_(T:)_/

I think things are progressing well, and I'm the one with 3 votes

I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not too late to start pulling the threads through and getting some good lynches in.

Thats how I feel too, quin. I really do. It's not time for 'omg, worst civ performance ever, lets throw out baby with bathwater'.

[Quin]

\_(T:)_/

I think things are progressing well, and I'm the one with 3 votes

I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not too late to start pulling the threads through and getting some good lynches in.

Thats how I feel too, quin. I really do. It's not time for 'omg, worst civ performance ever, lets throw out baby with bathwater'.

Whether you do it tonight or when day begins, I don't mind. But would you tell me, in order, who you would lynch were you given complete authority to do so? And are those choices linked to one another (for example: if x is scum, I'll lynch y next. If x is civ, I won't lynch y)

[Golden]

Sure. I need to get to bed, but I'll give you a start now.

DDL would be first. Maybe I'm tinfoiling, but he is criticising the tactics the civs use in this game but he has been one of the floatiest of all, standing for nothing and going with the tide. His posts are so regularly used in ways that could strongly affect the way others think... for example, his reaction to CFD being to tell people to 'wait until tomorrow to lynch your person'.... when the call was to move from a now known civ-gleam to bad-fuzz... his reaction on day 4 to be 'avoid a close lynch to avoid cop mainpulation' when this is the ideal thing for a cop to say if they know all the manipulation that day is in the hands of the civs... and his recent idea that our whole way of thinking is wrong, and we shouldn't lynch people who just play odd...

If DDL is bad, it would prove to me an awful lot. I think he has been overtly manipulative. Now, manipulative can also come from a genuine townie mindset. But, if he is bad, I think there are things that can be read in. For example, his recent criticism of us going after people with odd play styles and us needing to focus more on standard regulars who blend in would be perfect if his team was mostly made up of people with odd play styles.

Another thing that bothers me about DDL was his effort to paint me as bad after EoD2. He put so much effort into talking about how I would bus, that it only served to make me more aware of the fact that he well understands the value of the play. He's seen me win twice as scum doing it. I think he hoped I would be an easy target (and I did look like I was one, for a little bit there) because he can hit touchstones other people know - games in which I have been bad, bussed, and won. But, DDL has SEEN me win twice doing it. Once it was him I was bussing. Do I think he would bus Fuzz if he thought it was the right thing to do? In a heartbeat. He talks about my adaptability under pressure. I think he would be just as able to demonstrate it. He appreciates from experiences how it works, and how effective it can be.

Note that last post, where he talks about the people who contribute to the high scum win rate here. I can't recall playing with FZ when she is bad, but she is certainly an ace civilian. Ricochet is a lean mean monster no matter what side of the fence he is on, but his civilian performance in Talking Heads was majorly influential in the civ win there. I was an important part of town wins in Roger Rabbit, Bibilical and Dune. Why did he choose those three names? Two of them aren't even in this game... none of them are genuinely contributing to some kind of win imbalance (including me). What DDL doesn't know about me is, in my pre-TS life, I was never known for my baddie gameplay. Economics was the game of my life. I used to be known for my supatowning, and strong civilian instincts. So, here is the thing... the only thing that post achieves in terms of naming me, Rico and FZ as contributing to a high baddie win rate... in terms of this game... is making ME look like a baddie maestro.

I also think maybe llama knows he is right

Sig would be second.

[Golden]

But, I think my reads on who is civilian are far more reliable than my reads on who is bad. If I have a very strong read on someone as a civ, I don't tend to be wrong. Sometimes you can really sense someone is on their civ game. Especially true in a game with only one baddie team.

[Golden]

I really wish I had a better idea of why people were vouching for sig. I'm relying on it, without understanding it. Yesterday's vote for gleam was, for me, just as much about not lynching sig because of the vouches (zebra and TH, but mostly zebra), as it was about gleam actually being lynched.

[Golden]

What about you, quin? What are your thoughts?

[Quin]

I really wish I had a better idea of why people were vouching for sig. I'm relying on it, without understanding it. Yesterday's vote for gleam was, for me, just as much about not lynching sig because of the vouches (zebra and TH, but mostly zebra), as it was about gleam actually being lynched.

For the most part, I'm torn between the fact that I see sig's actions to be scummy, but I'm getting good vibes from him in what's saying. I feel like what he's said, especially in regards to EoD2 to be pretty much a mirror of my intentions when I made my own posts way back when. When it comes to the argument that sig's posts at EoD2 were manipulative, I can't deny that, but that manipulative manner of posting is a town read to me. I mean, if I felt strongly about something, I'd pursue it. I'd like to know what else there is on his case, because I'm not as caught up as I'd like to be.

linki: I'll write it up now. No guarantees it'll be as in depth as yours though.

[Quin]

There are four ideal choices for me right now. Part of why I asked you in the first place was because I wanted to know about what kind of links you could make between your lynch choices. I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but I supposed that's what I get for not making myself clearer.

I've had four people in my mind who would be great lynches. Each of these four have had connections with each other which, to me, came across as building an association with each other that might spare them scrutiny if the others were lynched. You could argue that the links I've made could apply to anybody, and you're not wrong. But I feel confident in these specific ones.

Scotty would be the first. I'm yet to see a side of him in this game I could get a good read from. I think other people are coming around to that realisation as well, which is good. Couple that with my original 'what if' in regards to Tranq, I think he's playing a clever, under the radar game.

If he flipped scum, you would be my next point of interest. I think a lot of your posts have been black and white, an interpretation that others also have commented on. You are also connected to my Tranq case, as you made up a shaky defence for Scotty by saying that the police probably knew Tranq can be a threat, but that didn't address my original point at all.

If you then flipped scum, I'd lynch Sloonei. He and you have had a very interesting relationship in this game. I am almost convinced that you have a BTSC link together. I take this interpretation since you are quite possibly the only player Sloonei has yet to question. (I just confirmed this, and in doing so, I learned that I can filter things!) From my understanding of Sloonei's personality, there's no other conclusion I can make. I don't have the same level of tangible evidence to argue for Sloonei's lynch, but I don't think I was seeing a civilian Sloonei throughout EoD2 to EoD3.

If I was correct yet again, at which point you should be revering me as your one true mafia god, I would lynch Nerolunar. There was a moment that really caught my attention very early, when Sloonei asked if there were any cases that would paint Nero as scum. At this point, I don't think any strong cases painting Nero as scum or civ were out there, so it just seemed a bit wild. This is admittedly the weakest link between the four of you, but no less significant in my eyes. Nero also jumped on the idea of lynching Epignosis for the sake of obtaining information. This is definitely ironic of me to scum read him for, since it was my idea, but Nero has been very 'passive' in this game. He also suggested lynching sig so people would stop talking about him. This is not GOOD town behaviour, in my eyes, so I can only hope is scum for suggesting that.

[Tangrowth]

Hey all, just a heads up that Daisy has been ill since Monday evening (a fact I referenced in the most recent host post since I had to write it and typically she writes them). We should still probably be able to keep everything on time today, but my work is piling up pretty bad on me as well. So I wanted to tell you all this so that, if Daisy is your host, don't worry, she will be getting back to you ASAP if you have PMs or questions not yet addressed. In addition, we likely won't need to push back the start of Day 5 but there is an outside chance we might. Stay tuned. Apologies for any inconvenience!

[S~V~S]

There are four ideal choices for me right now. Part of why I asked you in the first place was because I wanted to know about what kind of links you could make between your lynch choices. I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but I supposed that's what I get for not making myself clearer.

I've had four people in my mind who would be great lynches. Each of these four have had connections with each other which, to me, came across as building an association with each other that might spare them scrutiny if the others were lynched. You could argue that the links I've made could apply to anybody, and you're not wrong. But I feel confident in these specific ones.

Scotty would be the first. I'm yet to see a side of him in this game I could get a good read from. I think other people are coming around to that realisation as well, which is good. Couple that with my original 'what if' in regards to Tranq, I think he's playing a clever, under the radar game.

If he flipped scum, you would be my next point of interest. I think a lot of your posts have been black and white, an interpretation that others also have commented on. You are also connected to my Tranq case, as you made up a shaky defence for Scotty by saying that the police probably knew Tranq can be a threat, but that didn't address my original point at all.

If you then flipped scum, I'd lynch Sloonei. He and you have had a very interesting relationship in this game. I am almost convinced that you have a BTSC link together. I take this interpretation since you are quite possibly the only player Sloonei has yet to question. (I just confirmed this, and in doing so, I learned that I can filter things!) From my understanding of Sloonei's personality, there's no other conclusion I can make. I don't have the same level of tangible evidence to argue for Sloonei's lynch, but I don't think I was seeing a civilian Sloonei throughout EoD2 to EoD3.

If I was correct yet again, at which point you should be revering me as your one true mafia god, I would lynch Nerolunar. There was a moment that really caught my attention very early, when Sloonei asked if there were any cases that would paint Nero as scum. At this point, I don't think any strong cases painting Nero as scum or civ were out there, so it just seemed a bit wild. This is admittedly the weakest link between the four of you, but no less significant in my eyes. Nero also jumped on the idea of lynching Epignosis for the sake of obtaining information. This is definitely ironic of me to scum read him for, since it was my idea, but Nero has been very 'passive' in this game. He also suggested lynching sig so people would stop talking about him. This is not GOOD town behaviour, in my eyes, so I can only hope is scum for suggesting that.

So no more "lynch SVS"? I am not supporting a Golden lynch, I will actively work hard against it.

My intention is to work to lynch you, tbh.

[Quin]

There are four ideal choices for me right now. Part of why I asked you in the first place was because I wanted to know about what kind of links you could make between your lynch choices. I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but I supposed that's what I get for not making myself clearer.

I've had four people in my mind who would be great lynches. Each of these four have had connections with each other which, to me, came across as building an association with each other that might spare them scrutiny if the others were lynched. You could argue that the links I've made could apply to anybody, and you're not wrong. But I feel confident in these specific ones.

Scotty would be the first. I'm yet to see a side of him in this game I could get a good read from. I think other people are coming around to that realisation as well, which is good. Couple that with my original 'what if' in regards to Tranq, I think he's playing a clever, under the radar game.

If he flipped scum, you would be my next point of interest. I think a lot of your posts have been black and white, an interpretation that others also have commented on. You are also connected to my Tranq case, as you made up a shaky defence for Scotty by saying that the police probably knew Tranq can be a threat, but that didn't address my original point at all.

If you then flipped scum, I'd lynch Sloonei. He and you have had a very interesting relationship in this game. I am almost convinced that you have a BTSC link together. I take this interpretation since you are quite possibly the only player Sloonei has yet to question. (I just confirmed this, and in doing so, I learned that I can filter things!) From my understanding of Sloonei's personality, there's no other conclusion I can make. I don't have the same level of tangible evidence to argue for Sloonei's lynch, but I don't think I was seeing a civilian Sloonei throughout EoD2 to EoD3.

If I was correct yet again, at which point you should be revering me as your one true mafia god, I would lynch Nerolunar. There was a moment that really caught my attention very early, when Sloonei asked if there were any cases that would paint Nero as scum. At this point, I don't think any strong cases painting Nero as scum or civ were out there, so it just seemed a bit wild. This is admittedly the weakest link between the four of you, but no less significant in my eyes. Nero also jumped on the idea of lynching Epignosis for the sake of obtaining information. This is definitely ironic of me to scum read him for, since it was my idea, but Nero has been very 'passive' in this game. He also suggested lynching sig so people would stop talking about him. This is not GOOD town behaviour, in my eyes, so I can only hope is scum for suggesting that.

So no more "lynch SVS"? I am not supporting a Golden lynch, I will actively work hard against it.

My intention is to work to lynch you, tbh.

I expected this. I took your whatever it was you were trying to achieve personally, and I take it back. Still don't see any legitimacy to what you're trying to put forward though, and your argument has zero value to anyone until you explain yourself. I don't see that happening, though.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

2 walls of texts. Danmit, Golden. This will take time.

[S~V~S]

There are four ideal choices for me right now. Part of why I asked you in the first place was because I wanted to know about what kind of links you could make between your lynch choices. I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but I supposed that's what I get for not making myself clearer.

I've had four people in my mind who would be great lynches. Each of these four have had connections with each other which, to me, came across as building an association with each other that might spare them scrutiny if the others were lynched. You could argue that the links I've made could apply to anybody, and you're not wrong. But I feel confident in these specific ones.

Scotty would be the first. I'm yet to see a side of him in this game I could get a good read from. I think other people are coming around to that realisation as well, which is good. Couple that with my original 'what if' in regards to Tranq, I think he's playing a clever, under the radar game.

If he flipped scum, you would be my next point of interest. I think a lot of your posts have been black and white, an interpretation that others also have commented on. You are also connected to my Tranq case, as you made up a shaky defence for Scotty by saying that the police probably knew Tranq can be a threat, but that didn't address my original point at all.

If you then flipped scum, I'd lynch Sloonei. He and you have had a very interesting relationship in this game. I am almost convinced that you have a BTSC link together. I take this interpretation since you are quite possibly the only player Sloonei has yet to question. (I just confirmed this, and in doing so, I learned that I can filter things!) From my understanding of Sloonei's personality, there's no other conclusion I can make. I don't have the same level of tangible evidence to argue for Sloonei's lynch, but I don't think I was seeing a civilian Sloonei throughout EoD2 to EoD3.

If I was correct yet again, at which point you should be revering me as your one true mafia god, I would lynch Nerolunar. There was a moment that really caught my attention very early, when Sloonei asked if there were any cases that would paint Nero as scum. At this point, I don't think any strong cases painting Nero as scum or civ were out there, so it just seemed a bit wild. This is admittedly the weakest link between the four of you, but no less significant in my eyes. Nero also jumped on the idea of lynching Epignosis for the sake of obtaining information. This is definitely ironic of me to scum read him for, since it was my idea, but Nero has been very 'passive' in this game. He also suggested lynching sig so people would stop talking about him. This is not GOOD town behaviour, in my eyes, so I can only hope is scum for suggesting that.

So no more "lynch SVS"? I am not supporting a Golden lynch, I will actively work hard against it.

My intention is to work to lynch you, tbh.

I expected this. I took your whatever it was you were trying to achieve personally, and I take it back. Still don't see any legitimacy to what you're trying to put forward though, and your argument has zero value to anyone until you explain yourself. I don't see that happening, though.

I did explain myself. I can explain more if you like, but saying it has no validity does not make it invalid when it does. You fought hard against lynching Fuzz, staying online after you said you had to leave in order to discredit the idea.

You were trying to save him, I am totally sure of it. And your reaction to this accusation made you look worse, imo.

But I can pull quotes later if you reaaally want me to.

[Scotty]

There are four ideal choices for me right now. Part of why I asked you in the first place was because I wanted to know about what kind of links you could make between your lynch choices. I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but I supposed that's what I get for not making myself clearer.

I've had four people in my mind who would be great lynches. Each of these four have had connections with each other which, to me, came across as building an association with each other that might spare them scrutiny if the others were lynched. You could argue that the links I've made could apply to anybody, and you're not wrong. But I feel confident in these specific ones.

Scotty would be the first. I'm yet to see a side of him in this game I could get a good read from. I think other people are coming around to that realisation as well, which is good. Couple that with my original 'what if' in regards to Tranq, I think he's playing a clever, under the radar game.

If he flipped scum, you would be my next point of interest. I think a lot of your posts have been black and white, an interpretation that others also have commented on. You are also connected to my Tranq case, as you made up a shaky defence for Scotty by saying that the police probably knew Tranq can be a threat, but that didn't address my original point at all.

If you then flipped scum, I'd lynch Sloonei. He and you have had a very interesting relationship in this game. I am almost convinced that you have a BTSC link together. I take this interpretation since you are quite possibly the only player Sloonei has yet to question. (I just confirmed this, and in doing so, I learned that I can filter things!) From my understanding of Sloonei's personality, there's no other conclusion I can make. I don't have the same level of tangible evidence to argue for Sloonei's lynch, but I don't think I was seeing a civilian Sloonei throughout EoD2 to EoD3.

If I was correct yet again, at which point you should be revering me as your one true mafia god, I would lynch Nerolunar. There was a moment that really caught my attention very early, when Sloonei asked if there were any cases that would paint Nero as scum. At this point, I don't think any strong cases painting Nero as scum or civ were out there, so it just seemed a bit wild. This is admittedly the weakest link between the four of you, but no less significant in my eyes. Nero also jumped on the idea of lynching Epignosis for the sake of obtaining information. This is definitely ironic of me to scum read him for, since it was my idea, but Nero has been very 'passive' in this game. He also suggested lynching sig so people would stop talking about him. This is not GOOD town behaviour, in my eyes, so I can only hope is scum for suggesting that.

So no more "lynch SVS"? I am not supporting a Golden lynch, I will actively work hard against it.

My intention is to work to lynch you, tbh.

I expected this. I took your whatever it was you were trying to achieve personally, and I take it back. Still don't see any legitimacy to what you're trying to put forward though, and your argument has zero value to anyone until you explain yourself. I don't see that happening, though.

I would argue that she has explained herself on the Golden issue this game. As a matter of fact, she's so super confident he is good that it's hard for me to say no to it unless she is bad herself. And I'm not viewing her as bad right now. I'm just not.

And if you want to go with this (if A is bad, then B is bad) exercise, which is specifically what I was doing before, then i propose that you flipping scum would open so many doors. You are my campaign over the next day. And I promise to actually shove a case in your face this time.

[Scotty]

Hey all, just a heads up that Daisy has been ill since Monday evening (a fact I referenced in the most recent host post since I had to write it and typically she writes them). We should still probably be able to keep everything on time today, but my work is piling up pretty bad on me as well. So I wanted to tell you all this so that, if Daisy is your host, don't worry, she will be getting back to you ASAP if you have PMs or questions not yet addressed. In addition, we likely won't need to push back the start of Day 5 but there is an outside chance we might. Stay tuned. Apologies for any inconvenience!

Awww feel better, Daisy!!

[Scotty]

There are four ideal choices for me right now. Part of why I asked you in the first place was because I wanted to know about what kind of links you could make between your lynch choices. I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but I supposed that's what I get for not making myself clearer.

I've had four people in my mind who would be great lynches. Each of these four have had connections with each other which, to me, came across as building an association with each other that might spare them scrutiny if the others were lynched. You could argue that the links I've made could apply to anybody, and you're not wrong. But I feel confident in these specific ones.

Scotty would be the first. I'm yet to see a side of him in this game I could get a good read from. I think other people are coming around to that realisation as well, which is good. Couple that with my original 'what if' in regards to Tranq, I think he's playing a clever, under the radar game.

If he flipped scum, you would be my next point of interest. I think a lot of your posts have been black and white, an interpretation that others also have commented on. You are also connected to my Tranq case, as you made up a shaky defence for Scotty by saying that the police probably knew Tranq can be a threat, but that didn't address my original point at all.

If you then flipped scum, I'd lynch Sloonei. He and you have had a very interesting relationship in this game. I am almost convinced that you have a BTSC link together. I take this interpretation since you are quite possibly the only player Sloonei has yet to question. (I just confirmed this, and in doing so, I learned that I can filter things!) From my understanding of Sloonei's personality, there's no other conclusion I can make. I don't have the same level of tangible evidence to argue for Sloonei's lynch, but I don't think I was seeing a civilian Sloonei throughout EoD2 to EoD3.

If I was correct yet again, at which point you should be revering me as your one true mafia god, I would lynch Nerolunar. There was a moment that really caught my attention very early, when Sloonei asked if there were any cases that would paint Nero as scum. At this point, I don't think any strong cases painting Nero as scum or civ were out there, so it just seemed a bit wild. This is admittedly the weakest link between the four of you, but no less significant in my eyes. Nero also jumped on the idea of lynching Epignosis for the sake of obtaining information. This is definitely ironic of me to scum read him for, since it was my idea, but Nero has been very 'passive' in this game. He also suggested lynching sig so people would stop talking about him. This is not GOOD town behaviour, in my eyes, so I can only hope is scum for suggesting that.

What if you are incorrect on all 4 cases? Like let's say you get the support to lynch me, and realize that you weren't the prince that was promised. Do you just spit over your shoulder and continue lynching down your shoddy line of suspicion?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

@Golden

Okay I'm not gonna answer every paragraph becase it will take forever. I'll just focus on what seem like the main points and you tell me if I missed anytthing important.

lol where did I say i'm good at reading baddies? My track score in this site is complete turd. Maybe I'm above average at reading baddies at NF, where the average baddie thinks posting once a day and sheeping the nearest bandwagon is a viable strategy, but not here. It's one of the main reasons I keep coming back: this site challenges me to improve my scumhunting.

But I'm not the only one. Because if I were the only one, I would have seen at least one civ win in the 5 games I've played. Civilians don't win games in the Syndicate. I actually wonder if I should calculate the actual rate, it would be an interesting project, and I suspect it would be something like less than 20% of the games won by civs.

As for those people I'm playing, I don't care if they are good civ players or not. That's unrelated to the point I was making. Those are simply the people I've been listing since I joined the site, because they played a game where they looked very civ, except they were bad and kicked my ass in the game. I like to list people like that for posterity, so I don't ever trust them again. Those games looked very much like this one: a couple lynches of unusual players (G-Man and aether in Economics; Lorab and Metalmarsh in Watchmen; Sig, gleam and Scotty in Pikmin) while the "supatown" baddie coasted all game long, because they managed to place themselves about a "supatown line" that makes them unlynchable for Syndicate standards.

While I still don't know how bad the civilians are in this game, the scenario I'm seeing is very similar to what I usually see. Of course we all think we are lynching people for all the rational reasons. But for some reason that doesn't work. Maybe our rational reasons include certain tells that simply don't work, because they assume townies will play in a certain way they usually don't. Or maybe we inconsciently gravitate towards the people who piss us off the most. I'll admit I was much more willing to put a vote on gleam after he called me a hack, for that matter. And that Sig's continuous use of OMGUS is not doing him any favors. But what if it's just the way he thinks is good town play?

What I'm saying is that we should stop and evaluate the players in the game again. Analyse the tells we have again. Ask ourselves why we suspect the people we do. Because the way this is going, I suspect another full cycle talking about Sig, then another "last 2 hours" change to a player everybody has been thinking is scummy for ages (Quin, Ika or Soneji, for example), an inevitable civ lynch, and we keep repeating that over and over until we eventually lynch Sig... and he flips civ too. Then the baddies eventually get majority and win. Another game, another banner for the baddie team, another one or two names I add to my "never trust again" list, and we move on.

I'm trying to stop that cycle. Whatever this site thinks are viable scumhunting methods, they don't work.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I am open to a Sig lynch but I want to think hard about it. No more foregone conclusions. We have 72 hours to work on this shit, let's use the most of them we can, not just the first and the last hour.

I mean, look at this...

Which lynch so far was a 'foregone conclusion'? In what way can the townie effort in this game possibly be described as an effort derailed by foregone conclusions?

The fact there seems to be an agreement Sig is going down at some point of the game.

That's a foregone conclusion.

And that idea sucks. Not only it makes it easier to lynch him, but also gives us an excuse NOT to lynch him now and yet keep him on a "checklist" so we can lynch him at lylo. If I were a baddie I'd love that.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Or maybe Sig IS bad, and this continous delaying of his lynch I keep seeing (and foolishly contributing to) is intentional. If you guys can make town take 3 or 4 days to lynch a single baddie, then reap the benefits of town cred when you do, it's a very successful play.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

And don't ask me what are viable scumhunting methods. I don't know. I've hit a point where I'm just hopeless about my (and this site's) ability to win games as civ.

[Scotty]

Ok I did a little Iso of DDL in relation to Quin, because it beats taxes.
This is from the perspective of Quin being bad. He's only talked about Quin ~15 times this game, and often can't make up his mind. But before I get too ahead of myself, here's some inconsistencies I found during the non-answer Quin gave to llama regarding if he was bad or not:

Spoiler: show

Why aren't people voting Quin when he basically admitted to being bad?

Because people don't do that. Mafia 101.

Blanket statement that Quin wouldn't just put himself like that.

In all seriousness, I see this all the time, and I regard it as a legitimate baddie catching technique. I ask someone if they are bad, and instead of saying "no" they make a joke out of it.

Why? I think there are still an awful lot of people who are subconsciously uncomfortable lying in the face of a very direct question, so they dodge instead. They don't mean to, but it is their instinct. I trust my methods, and it's why I'm voting Quin today.

Fair enough, didn't see that (still catching up).

I don't trust your methods though so I'm staying away.

Im not sure if DDL is conceding that there could be legitimacy to llama's foray into the abstract with his "fair enough" but he made sure to point out that he doesn't find it legitimate in the very next line.

I agree Quin looks worse every time he posts an OMGUS response.

He's not in my list of priorities right now.

Like I said, a Sig bad lynch would be a game changer. He is currently dividing the player in a "pro-Sig" and an "anti-Sig" camps.

This is DDL's first suspicion of Quin, soon after sig was almost lynched (with a Quin save).
But he's not notable on the priority ladder. A very offhand remark that actually brushes off the suspicion entirely. It's like he watched Quin push an old woman at the line in Starbucks but decided to do nothing because it doesn't affect him and he just wants that double-shot Venti Caramel Macchiatto.

Why aren't people voting Quin when he basically admitted to being bad?

Because people don't do that. Mafia 101.

Yeah they do. I've seen it.

I've seen it before where scum will admit it in the context of being sarcastic to try to get townread for it. I'm at the point where I feel there isn't much I can say scum would never do.

"Never" is a strong word, but most scum players won't intentionally admit they are scum. The tells are more subtle.

Of course llama's theory that people will unsconsciously joke about it falls in the "subtle" department, which I have no trouble believing in.

But wait, what? He has "no trouble believing in" the method that he previously said he "didn't trust?"
What changed? And this is not even really a condemnation of Quin anyway.

DDL has gone from defending Quin for his actions in the Fuzz lynch, to defending Quin for his comments leading up to the EoD, but makes a switch to both vote for sig and suspect Quin for OMGUS'ing in the same time. But the Quin suspicion is not wholly realized or thought out.

He disregards llama's exercise, but goes back on it sorta by saying baddies can make subtle slips.


@DDL this isn't exactly an indictment, but I'm seeing a doubling back of what you previously said.
do you actually suspect Quin, and to what extent?

[Scotty]

Ugh that looks fugly. One day I'll figure out how to navigate the spoiler tag.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I've been having a gut feeling Quin looks bad lately, but I haven't bothered to ISO him or rationalize why I think that. Im not voting for him without doing that though, don't worry about it.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

As for the llama thing, it makes more sense if you read the posts from llama I'm quoting. The first post was stupid, but in the next post he revealed he was just joking.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Ok, that was probably a half-assed explanation. let me elaborate.

I think llama's methods have some validity. But I don't trust llama's ability to use them (whoever guesses why wins an internet cookie) so I'm approaching them with a 10 feet pole.

[Scotty]

I've been having a gut feeling Quin looks bad lately, but I haven't bothered to ISO him or rationalize why I think that. Im not voting for him without doing that though, don't worry about it.

Do you think Quin slipped in llama's sarcasm exercise?
And I know you're not gonna vote him yet. You haven't looked like you were. He either hasn't been on your "priority list" or just looks a little shady. He's been that smudge on the corner of your glasses that you refuse to clean because it's not worth the time. That's what it feels like anyway

Linki: see above

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I've been having a gut feeling Quin looks bad lately, but I haven't bothered to ISO him or rationalize why I think that. Im not voting for him without doing that though, don't worry about it.

Do you think Quin slipped in llama's sarcasm exercise?
And I know you're not gonna vote him yet. You haven't looked like you were. He either hasn't been on your "priority list" or just looks a little shady. He's been that smudge on the corner of your glasses that you refuse to clean because it's not worth the time. That's what it feels like anyway

Linki: see above

I think it's possible he slipped, but I'm trying not to use that as evidence because I mistrust llama (not really his alignment, but his ability to find baddies in this game).

I'll well aware of the smudge in my glasses, I'm just too lazy to clean it.

[Scotty]

I've been having a gut feeling Quin looks bad lately, but I haven't bothered to ISO him or rationalize why I think that. Im not voting for him without doing that though, don't worry about it.

Do you think Quin slipped in llama's sarcasm exercise?
And I know you're not gonna vote him yet. You haven't looked like you were. He either hasn't been on your "priority list" or just looks a little shady. He's been that smudge on the corner of your glasses that you refuse to clean because it's not worth the time. That's what it feels like anyway

Linki: see above

I think it's possible he slipped, but I'm trying not to use that as evidence because I mistrust llama (not really his alignment, but his ability to find baddies in this game).

I'll well aware of the smudge in my glasses, I'm just too lazy to clean it.

Aight. Im not one to talk regarding lazy play, but whenever you could inform yourself more of your position on Quin, it would be appreciated.

[a2thezebra]

Can we stop lynching those on our side for the love of fuck?

Catching up more thoroughly at the moment.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

EBWOP:

As for those people I'm playing

I meant "those people I mentioned"

[Epignosis]

Hey all, just a heads up that Daisy has been ill since Monday evening (a fact I referenced in the most recent host post since I had to write it and typically she writes them). We should still probably be able to keep everything on time today, but my work is piling up pretty bad on me as well. So I wanted to tell you all this so that, if Daisy is your host, don't worry, she will be getting back to you ASAP if you have PMs or questions not yet addressed. In addition, we likely won't need to push back the start of Day 5 but there is an outside chance we might. Stay tuned. Apologies for any inconvenience!

You poisoned her, didn't you?

But I'm not the only one. Because if I were the only one, I would have seen at least one civ win in the 5 games I've played. Civilians don't win games in the Syndicate. I actually wonder if I should calculate the actual rate, it would be an interesting project, and I suspect it would be something like less than 20% of the games won by civs.

I've done this before a long time ago, so I did it again:

In full games to date, civilians have won 19% of the time to mafia's 46%. Independents are 54%.

Civilians have fared better in speed setups, with a 30% win rate to mafia's 48%. Independents are 39%.

EBWOP:

As for those people I'm playing

I meant "those people I mentioned"

Whoops.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Inb4 Matt or llama points out the "slip".

[indiglo]

Know why you're really bitching, epi?

Because you didn't agree, and wanted sig gone. It's as simple as that really. You don't like that sig survived another day.

It's not because the gleam votes weren't well reasoned.

We lynched gleam because he is bad at the game. By bad I mean, he plays in a way that seems not optimal most of the time. It is possible he may not actually be that bad.

We lynch Sig every time for the same reason. We have also lynched people like Metalmarsh, Scotty, Vompatti and many others.

We look for a standard in towniness and lynch anyone who doesn't follow them. Then after we lynch the same player as a civ over ane over, we finally learn they work that way and move on to the next new player with a weird playstyle that shows up. So we can lynch them over and over.

Meanwhile, scum players who are skilled at following the standard and looking town, like Golden, Ricochet and FZ, own this site and contribute for it to have what might be the highest scum/town win rate of the internet.

That has to stop. We need to stop lynching weird players for being weird, anf learn to read them more. I am guilty of that toi, but I am not the only one.

No, you know what has to stop in this game?

People assuming the lynches aren't coming from reading people.

People painting others motives as uninformed when they are anything but.

I get told I'm arrogant by you, but then this? Come on!

If you think you know how to catch baddies, then catch them. Get on with it! You must be the great baddie catcher!

I don't think any of the four people who have been lynched have been lynched for the same reasons. Nor have any of the reasons been lazy or uninformed. That includes the two people who were lynched that I didn't agree with. All of them were lynched for proper, well-reasoned thought processes. No-one is phoning it in.

Trying to make it look like we are 'doing something wrong' and there is some objective baddie-finding standard we are all, as a community, failing to meet has just one word to it, in my opinion...

Manipulative.

VERY VERY manipulative.

If people weren't really thinking and trying to solve the game, sig would have been lynched unanimously two days ago.

My win rate as town is pretty good. I don't contribute to a 'high scum win rate'. Since I arrived at this site, I've contributed just as crucially to civilian wins.

I don't look for weird play styles. I never wanted to lynch sig because he 'plays weird'. I wanted to lynch him because, in a period of what would have been stress to the baddie team, he came out looking worst in that short period of time. LC wasn't lynched for playing weird. Fuzz wasn't lynched for playing weird. Diiny wasn't lynched for playing weird.

You speak for yourself as to why you voted gleam. I didn't vote HIM because he 'played weird' either.

In truth, if we had caught two out of four cops in the first four lynches, town would be well ahead in this game. We'd be feeling like we were doing really well. Criticising the entire town for playing the game wrong when they've only managed one out of four is, to me, just.... I don't even have a word for it.

I don't like the narrative you and epi are both trying to push. It's really false.

This is really where I'm at. I walked away from it last night because I was getting frustrated and getting nowhere stating my point/thoughts. But, I do think coming on here and criticizing is disingenuous. I have not once voted for anyone that wasn't genuine, or a throw away vote, or for "weird play style". That is just a flat out misrepresentation.

I refuse to be called foolish, asinine, irresponsible, uninformed or lazy. If you hadn't noticed, I've been working my ass off in this thread, along with quite a few other people. Those of you who think you know so well how to play, get your asses in the thread and get the work done. Seriously.

But don't come in the the thread lecturing like you're someone's dad. It's disingenuous and manipulative. (Not to mention insulting.) I haven't seen any of the active players I'm reading as civ "steer the thread". There has been much open minded discussion, and lots of people willing to see both sides of a situation.

Mafia games in general tend to lose a lot of civs via lynches. It's just the way it works when you're the uninformed majority - you simply don't know who is town or scum, and there is just more town than scum. I resent being told I'm not playing right or I'm phoning it in. That is misinterpreting things at best and manipulative and untruthful at worst.

I will apologize again to Gleam, and to everyone for being wrong. While I refuse to be told I'm stupid or playing the game wrong.



Multi-linki~