An Australian Country Murder Mystery (Day 4)

[Sloonei]

I talked about why I think Michelle’s progression on Tony was bogus here and I’d like to hear what others have to say about her.

Michelle responded here.

The only part of your gripes with her I really got was your point that scum are more likely to accuse people for focusing on mechanics rather than being the ones to bring up mechanics themselves. I think I still lean town on Michelle by default but it's not that strong so I'm hoping your dialogue with her will develop more today, I expect if she's town it'll shine through to me and if it doesn't I may join you.

The part that concerns me most is her suggestion that she believed Tony to have had a clear agenda of shading her at the end of Day 1. I get that we can all tend to feel like we're being unfairly persecuted if somebody accuses us of something that's not there, but I simply don't see anything that looks like what Michelle was alleging toward the end of Day 1.

Like I've said a couple of times, if Tony was scum there, his goal would have been to try to get civilians on his side, not to antagonize one of the only active civilians in the thread at that time. Michelle seemed to confidently assert her belief that Tony had a clear agenda. I don't believe that any level of confidence should have existed at all on that point.

You are talking about my confidence, this is a playstyle thing. I explained what I expected from him. This kind of things he did I noticed at scum. I am sorry he was villager, if you think my lynch will avenge him go ahead.

But why did you expect that from him? I understand what your suspicions, but I do not understand why you had them. What specifically made you feel like Tony had an agenda to frame you?

Complaining about how I am confident, your post below isn't TMI?

Jack is town.

How were you so confident?

No. That’s just me reading a player as town.

[Sloonei]

Not caught up yet, but here’s a thought: why did the Tony train develop?

Both Tony and Jack were civvie, leaving nutella as the only unknown from Day 1. Here are some scenarios:

1. Nutella is civvie. The baddies don’t need to offer a third option when the two lead trains are mislynches. Work smarter, not harder. The Tony train was a civvie concoction with one or two baddies following the civvies’ leads.

2. Nutella is a civvie. The baddies launch the Tony train because Jack v. nutella grew stale. Not necessary, but the Jack kill could steer us toward a Day 2 mislynch by focusing on nutella.

3. Nutella is a baddie. The Tony train was started by civvies, and one or two baddies were willing to pad the poll to avoid a randomized tie-breaker after momentum against Jack stalled.

4. Nutella is a baddie. Sensing the pressure on Jack lightening, the baddies launch the Tony train in the hopes of creating a late-phase mislynch at best, and a messy situation involving last-minute vote-hopping at worst.

Consider each scenario. Who are your three baddies in each one?

I still feel like crap but I will do my best.

1. sabie is bad. Maybe Michelle. Maybe LC.
2. sabie is bad. Sloonei is bad. I look not great here too. Neither does Epi or Michelle.
3. Sabie and Michelle are bad. Nutella is their partner.
4. Epi/Sloonei are nutella's partners.

Which scenario do you find most likely?

[G-Man]

Now back to your regularly-scheduled ISO's...

SABIE12:
-Here she cays she is suspicious of both Jack and nutella. Both had votes by this point I think, so saying you're suspicious of the leading trains isn't that original. Her suspicion of Jack isn't rooted in anything from this game, and her suspicion of nutella is soft at best.

-Player reads that don't reveal much. Mentions Tony's past behaviors but also that she could go either way on him. She also likes my effort but doesn't take a stance on it, just that I hadn't said anything sketchy yet.

-Possibly her worst looking post. She says she's suspicious of Jack, nutella, and Tony. This doubles down on the "I'm suspicious of everyone you all are voting for" cop-out and diminishes the amount of original thought she needs to add to the mix. She says she already stated her suspicion of Jack early, but it wasn't based on in-game content. Her suspicion of nutella seems to stem from nutella's responses not giving off civvie vibes. Just because someone isn't giving off civvie vibes doesn't mean they're giving off baddie vibes. Saying "I think she might be bad because I can't civ read her" isn't enough. What makes her feel bad about nutella? Finally, her Tony content in this post is wordy and over-explained a bit, as if she's hoping that writing a lot justifies her vote to people. She closes it out with saying others have raised good points, giving her an excuse in a mislynch.

-Here she defends her Tony vote some more. It doesn't read well to me in part because her logic is very different from my own on discussing game mechanics.

-A little too quick to trust the dead here.

-Defending her quick vote on nutella. She also mentions that others have some good points on Michelle and that she is another that she intends to look into.

Overall, she needs to be more proactive than reactive with voicing suspicions. Agreeing with other cases is participatory, but providing more original viewpoints in engaged behavior. This could go either way, but I'm not a fan of what I see so far.

[nutella]

Yeah I especially don't like the post Gman called the worst from sabie. Saying she was equally okay with lynching all three of the mislynch candidates on d1 doesn't look good at all in hindsight. And in her recent posts I still get the sense she is using the jack and tony flips to set me up as the next ML.

[VOTE: sabie] aubergine

[Dom]

Not caught up yet, but here’s a thought: why did the Tony train develop?

Both Tony and Jack were civvie, leaving nutella as the only unknown from Day 1. Here are some scenarios:

1. Nutella is civvie. The baddies don’t need to offer a third option when the two lead trains are mislynches. Work smarter, not harder. The Tony train was a civvie concoction with one or two baddies following the civvies’ leads.

2. Nutella is a civvie. The baddies launch the Tony train because Jack v. nutella grew stale. Not necessary, but the Jack kill could steer us toward a Day 2 mislynch by focusing on nutella.

3. Nutella is a baddie. The Tony train was started by civvies, and one or two baddies were willing to pad the poll to avoid a randomized tie-breaker after momentum against Jack stalled.

4. Nutella is a baddie. Sensing the pressure on Jack lightening, the baddies launch the Tony train in the hopes of creating a late-phase mislynch at best, and a messy situation involving last-minute vote-hopping at worst.

Consider each scenario. Who are your three baddies in each one?

I still feel like crap but I will do my best.

1. sabie is bad. Maybe Michelle. Maybe LC.
2. sabie is bad. Sloonei is bad. I look not great here too. Neither does Epi or Michelle.
3. Sabie and Michelle are bad. Nutella is their partner.
4. Epi/Sloonei are nutella's partners.

Which scenario do you find most likely?

One or three. I'm feeling like 40% chance of either one.

[Dom]

Sabie and Michelle are the common threads there.

[G-Man]

Now for the last living player ISO-

SLOONEI:
-This is his first substantive post of the game, which troubles me. He was pretty chatty early but it was a lot of fluff. Maybe this is Sloonei hitting his stride not quite halfway through the day phase. It just seems like there was a lot of useless chatter before this. I don't disagree with his mindset on Jack at the time though.

-Here he questions nutella on why she thinks Jack's posts on DF are not a good look. He proceeds to vote for Long Con because he only has one post and it happens to be bland. Twelve hours later, Sloonei drops this with no explanation. When asked for an explanation, her replies with this. I'll have to see where this its into the larger narrative of Day 1, but it's a striking shift in perception. If adverbs are the devil, then Sloonei is possessed. He then votes for Epi for his vote on Jack. But Epi gives no justification for his vote on Jack and Slooeni doesn't prod him for one. The equation feels incomplete.

-Five hours later, he votes for Tony (which is where his vote stays) with no explanation. Jack asked Slooeni why he voted for Tony and gets no response. Sloonei asks sabie what she thinks of me and Tony. It isn't until hours later that he lays more details on Tony out. By then there's momentum building on Tony. He makes sure to mention that another player called Tony out on something and then goes into a wordy explanation. His Tony-Dom bit seems hollow to me as well.

-Here, Sloonei takes a stance against lynching Jack or nutella, leaving Tony as the most viable option of the people with votes at the time. After a soft positive plug for Michelle, he says he doesn't have strong feelings about anyone else. He intends to leave his vote on Tony and hopes that Tony and others can elaborate and elucidate everyone else to provide a sense of direction in the final hours.

-I think it's also the work of an opportunistic baddie to re-interpret the intent of a civvie that you spared from the lynch only to kill him at night to make yourself seem reasonable in hindsight. On my re-read I intend to determine if anyone thought Jack was pushing for a DF lynch. I just thought he was out of bounds for broadcasting to everyone that DF can't be trusted before DF even got into the game. That's also how I thought others viewed it.

-Interesting about-face on Michelle after giving her a soft plug earlier.

And I'm going to stop here because I want to get to that re-read. I don't think Sloonei is super-sleuthing like I think I remember him. With Jack out of the way, Sloonei is one to dominate the discussion. I was worried that Jack was trying to make the game run through him. I'm concerned that Sloonei may be looking to do the same thing.

[Dom]

[VOTE: Michelle] aubergine

for now.

[sabie12]

Hmmm the plot thickens. Jack and tony both felt pretty confidently that nutella was bad and now they both have flipped civ. I've been iffy on nutella from the beginning and am inclined to believe maybe tony and jack were right about her. Putting my vote there for now.[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

[sabie12]

Now back to your regularly-scheduled ISO's...

SABIE12:
-Here she cays she is suspicious of both Jack and nutella. Both had votes by this point I think, so saying you're suspicious of the leading trains isn't that original. Her suspicion of Jack isn't rooted in anything from this game, and her suspicion of nutella is soft at best.

-Player reads that don't reveal much. Mentions Tony's past behaviors but also that she could go either way on him. She also likes my effort but doesn't take a stance on it, just that I hadn't said anything sketchy yet.

-Possibly her worst looking post. She says she's suspicious of Jack, nutella, and Tony. This doubles down on the "I'm suspicious of everyone you all are voting for" cop-out and diminishes the amount of original thought she needs to add to the mix. She says she already stated her suspicion of Jack early, but it wasn't based on in-game content. Her suspicion of nutella seems to stem from nutella's responses not giving off civvie vibes. Just because someone isn't giving off civvie vibes doesn't mean they're giving off baddie vibes. Saying "I think she might be bad because I can't civ read her" isn't enough. What makes her feel bad about nutella? Finally, her Tony content in this post is wordy and over-explained a bit, as if she's hoping that writing a lot justifies her vote to people. She closes it out with saying others have raised good points, giving her an excuse in a mislynch.

-Here she defends her Tony vote some more. It doesn't read well to me in part because her logic is very different from my own on discussing game mechanics.

-A little too quick to trust the dead here.

-Defending her quick vote on nutella. She also mentions that others have some good points on Michelle and that she is another that she intends to look into.

Overall, she needs to be more proactive than reactive with voicing suspicions. Agreeing with other cases is participatory, but providing more original viewpoints in engaged behavior. This could go either way, but I'm not a fan of what I see so far.

When I do voice my own suspicions everyone thinks my points make no sense and are not worth looking at and they think I'm scummy. So what's the point? I really try to participate but I don't have a computer so I really cant quote multiple posts are put together cool posts like this.

I really have no idea who is bad in this game and all I'm doing is attempting to figure that out. I just feel bad letting everyone down if I end up getting mislynched for trying.

[Sloonei]

[mention]sabie12[/mention] I asked earlier who you town read and you never gave me an answer (I understand why not. It was a small post at the end of an old page and you’ve had a lot to respond to here). I’d still like to hear who you think is good. If you’re struggling to identify bad guys, then maybe it’ll help to look for the opposite of that first.

[Sloonei]

[mention]G-Man[/mention] what has been your mindset while compiling these ISOs? What are you looking for or hoping to achieve?

[Sloonei]

Now for the last living player ISO-

SLOONEI:
-This is his first substantive post of the game, which troubles me. He was pretty chatty early but it was a lot of fluff. Maybe this is Sloonei hitting his stride not quite halfway through the day phase. It just seems like there was a lot of useless chatter before this. I don't disagree with his mindset on Jack at the time though.

Hold up, I just skimmed my own ISO and I have a major objection to this point. The post G-man highlights here is absolutely not my first substantive post. By my count, it was my 9th substantive post. Unless you define "substantive" as "declaration of a definitive read one way or the other." But I had approximately 8 posts prior to this one that were intended to advance the state of the game to a point where reads could be developed; there are no direct reads in those posts because the game was still getting off the ground. I was asking questions and poking people as they came into the thread. G-man's description suggests that my early ISO is loaded with fluff. There are some jokes, sure. But there are also posts like this one or this one which are definitely not fluff. So basically G-man started his ISO of me off with a false premise and I am now going to virtually expose my tongue at him in disapproval:

[sabie12]

Sorry all didnt mean to be all crazy about everything. I just get frustrated sometimes. Not anyone's fault. I'll come back to this a little later when I'm not all stressed from work stuff.
In response to sloonei I've been town reading him and gman for thier efforts in trying to get discussion going and make cases.

LC seems to be putting in little effort this game so I'm not sure about him. I thought he usually did more but maybe that's his usual? I recall his reasoning for tony suspicion being because sloonei said so. Michelle kind of just says a few things here and there without really saying anything. I think she definitely could be bad. And I thought nutella was sketchy initially but no one else seems to agree with that so.

I don't know if I've seen enough from quin or dom to think anything of. Definitley nothing on lady? She had like one post?
DF is trying to participate at the urging of jack so good on him for that.
Epi is just kinda throwing votes around wherever he feels like.

[Sloonei]

Continuing to read G-man's ISO and objecting strongly to his points against me.

Now for the last living player ISO-

SLOONEI:

-Here he questions nutella on why she thinks Jack's posts on DF are not a good look. He proceeds to vote for Long Con because he only has one post and it happens to be bland. Twelve hours later, Sloonei drops this with no explanation. When asked for an explanation, her replies with this. I'll have to see where this its into the larger narrative of Day 1, but it's a striking shift in perception. If adverbs are the devil, then Sloonei is possessed. He then votes for Epi for his vote on Jack. But Epi gives no justification for his vote on Jack and Slooeni doesn't prod him for one. The equation feels incomplete.

First of all, what is the "striking shift in perception" you speak of here? Is it that I came out with a town read of Jack after having previously voted for him? I voted for him extremely early on Day 1. It was a generic Day 1 prod. It wasn't based on a hard suspicion; my vote for Jack was a tactic to make him and others talk about things. I think it had some success. The "shift in perception" is just me developing a read on a player as the game begins to unfold: Mafia 101. Your dig about adverbs means nothing.
I'd also add that my votes for Long Con and Epi came from the same place as my vote for Jack earlier in the day. My early-phase votes seldom mean anything other than that I'd like to highlight certain topics of discussion. This is especially true on Day 1 of any game. It quickly became clear that Epi is playing a tight-lipped game. I am familiar enough with Epi to know that there's no use in grilling him when that is the case.

-Five hours later, he votes for Tony (which is where his vote stays) with no explanation. Jack asked Slooeni why he voted for Tony and gets no response. Sloonei asks sabie what she thinks of me and Tony. It isn't until hours later that he lays more details on Tony out. By then there's momentum building on Tony. He makes sure to mention that another player called Tony out on something and then goes into a wordy explanation. His Tony-Dom bit seems hollow to me as well.

Big time objection to this post is the suggestion that I voted Tony without explanation and the implication that I then ignored questions about it. If you look at the format and time stamps of my posts, you'll see that I was out of the thread for 3 hours after I voted for Tony, and that my posts around that time were short one-liners. This is because I was not home and only had my phone to post on. When I got home and had access to my laptop I provided a detailed explanation of my vote for Tony in my very next post, as soon as I was able to. The way you frame this, it is as if I was avoiding talking about Tony. That is absolutely no the case. (You'll remember in the signup thread that I mentioned I'd be a bit scarce for the first few days of this game.)

-Here, Sloonei takes a stance against lynching Jack or nutella, leaving Tony as the most viable option of the people with votes at the time. After a soft positive plug for Michelle, he says he doesn't have strong feelings about anyone else. He intends to leave his vote on Tony and hopes that Tony and others can elaborate and elucidate everyone else to provide a sense of direction in the final hours.

This is all accurately reported. Do you have an interpretation of my actions?

-I think it's also the work of an opportunistic baddie to re-interpret the intent of a civvie that you spared from the lynch only to kill him at night to make yourself seem reasonable in hindsight. On my re-read I intend to determine if anyone thought Jack was pushing for a DF lynch. I just thought he was out of bounds for broadcasting to everyone that DF can't be trusted before DF even got into the game. That's also how I thought others viewed it.

I do not follow this point. Are you suggesting that I conspired to defend Jack just so I could turn around and kill him and be praised for having town-read him?
My interpretation of the case against Jack on Day 1 was that his prod of DF was being read as an attempt to establish justification to vote for him (DF) later on. I thought that was silly. I'd already expressed a town read on Jack for the same reason earlier in the day, which you pointed out above.

-Interesting about-face on Michelle after giving her a soft plug earlier.

What is interesting about it? Is interesting good or bad? What is your interpretation of these actions, G-man?

These objections are why I asked what your intentions are. I noticed on first glance that this ISO was predominantly negatively slanted (check out those adverbs), but I don't object to that practice: I'll often try to read people negatively while ISOing them to see what I can find. But the interpretations you provide of my actions here are slanted in a way that seems to be stretching or ignoring the truth, and the points which you cannot argue against are given no qualitative analysis whatsoever. So that has me concerned.

[Dom]

G-Man-- do you have any current takes?

[Dom]

Hmmm the plot thickens. Jack and tony both felt pretty confidently that nutella was bad and now they both have flipped civ. I've been iffy on nutella from the beginning and am inclined to believe maybe tony and jack were right about her. Putting my vote there for now.[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I think you should try the wine in front of you.

[Sloonei]

Hmmm the plot thickens. Jack and tony both felt pretty confidently that nutella was bad and now they both have flipped civ. I've been iffy on nutella from the beginning and am inclined to believe maybe tony and jack were right about her. Putting my vote there for now.[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I think you should try the wine in front of you.

Do you believe Sabie killed Jack for the purpose of framing nutella?

[Long Con]

LC seems to be putting in little effort this game so I'm not sure about him. I thought he usually did more but maybe that's his usual?

If I am going to put effort in, it's usually mid-game. My early game is not that dense.

[Long Con]

Hmmm the plot thickens. Jack and tony both felt pretty confidently that nutella was bad and now they both have flipped civ. I've been iffy on nutella from the beginning and am inclined to believe maybe tony and jack were right about her. Putting my vote there for now.[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I would have also voted Jack. So nutella needed Jack dead, you think?

Maybe Jack killed himself to be able to keep saying he's unlynchable,

[Sloonei]

Theory: Jack was killed because he was suspected of being the cop.

[Dom]

Hmmm the plot thickens. Jack and tony both felt pretty confidently that nutella was bad and now they both have flipped civ. I've been iffy on nutella from the beginning and am inclined to believe maybe tony and jack were right about her. Putting my vote there for now.[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I think you should try the wine in front of you.

Do you believe Sabie killed Jack for the purpose of framing nutella?

Are you intentionally twisting my words or nah?

I didn't say that.

LC seems to be putting in little effort this game so I'm not sure about him. I thought he usually did more but maybe that's his usual?

If I am going to put effort in, it's usually mid-game. My early game is not that dense.

Lowkey--

Let's say we dont lynch a baddie today.
Then the baddies are lke 30% of the game.
And we don't the next day?
They're suddenly 50% of the game...

In a small game like this, when does the "middle" happen?

[Sloonei]

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I think you should try the wine in front of you.

Do you believe Sabie killed Jack for the purpose of framing nutella?

Are you intentionally twisting my words or nah?

I am doing nothing with your words. I am asking you a question. Why do you think Jack was killed? Do you think sabie is implicated in Jack's death? There, I split it up into two questions.

[Long Con]

Sounds like it was you. [VOTE: sabie] aubergine

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I think you should try the wine in front of you.

Do you believe Sabie killed Jack for the purpose of framing nutella?

Are you intentionally twisting my words or nah?

I didn't say that.

LC seems to be putting in little effort this game so I'm not sure about him. I thought he usually did more but maybe that's his usual?

If I am going to put effort in, it's usually mid-game. My early game is not that dense.

Lowkey--

Let's say we dont lynch a baddie today.
Then the baddies are lke 30% of the game.
And we don't the next day?
They're suddenly 50% of the game...

In a small game like this, when does the "middle" happen?

I guess we'll know when we see it.

[G-Man]

@G-Man what has been your mindset while compiling these ISOs? What are you looking for or hoping to achieve?

Nosing around to see what looks bad in isolation and then seeing if reading it all in context changes any of my perceptions.

G-Man-- do you have any current takes?

I think the 'sabie killed Jack to frame nutella' narrative is naive and too simple to be right. I think that anyone who has played a few games anywhere has matured beyond such a setup. That doesn't excuse her from suspicion, but sometimes Occam can stick his razor where the Sun doesn't shine.

Also, I am surprised that sabie and Sloonei are the only players so far to have anything close to a strong reaction to my ISO's.

[Sloonei]

@G-Man what has been your mindset while compiling these ISOs? What are you looking for or hoping to achieve?

Nosing around to see what looks bad in isolation and then seeing if reading it all in context changes any of my perceptions.

I object less strongly to your ISO of me then. I still think some things were mischaracterized, but I don't mind that you're looking for bad behavior.

[Sloonei]

I think [mention]Quin[/mention] hasn't been given enough attention in this game, both in terms of his own activity and our reads on him. A few people have voiced some vague suspicion of him. I'd like to know what's up with that. I'd also like to know what he thinks of anything at all. Imma take a quick glance at his stuff.

[Quin]

Michelle and Quin are teammates.

yeah nah, been on the goon have ya?

[Sloonei]

Tony's entrance is ehhhh

G's is good if a little heavy-handed but I respect that he wants some meta. @G-Man Michelle tends to ask people a lot of questions (kinda like juliets actually now that I think about it). LLD I've only played with once and the game is still going so I probably shouldn't talk about it. Tony and sabie I've played with a handful more times but couldn't really give you much specific description of their styles, I think they both vary a fair amount.

Quin is schooling the rest of us on the aussie slang. Idk if I'll even try. Uh, who's coming to my sausage sizzle?

mate i would but let's just grab a couple of bunnings snags and get shitfaced instead

that bloody drongo sloonei is voting for me, you reckon he's a crook or nah?

IDK quin, what do you reckon?

nah, jack is fair dinkum right now.

This is a search-engine verified town read of Jack. Why did it exist, Quin?

nah, jack is fair dinkum right now.

google said you think Jack is honest, is that correct?

nah yeah he's a good bloke i reckon

Why do you reckon that, esteemed Australian Quin? Who do you reckon ain’t such good blokes?

mate its hard to roleplay and make choc a bloc posts at the same time

i reckon i'd call the coppers on nutella for starting the DF beef against jazza, that whole thing was a pissup.

[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

I would never ever accuse a player of "hiding behind roleplay" unless they explicitly state that they are hiding behind roleplay like Quin does here. Quin is hiding behind roleplay. I'm taking this straight to the prime minister.
Also, I follow that he voted for nutella based on the way she handled the Jack/DF thing, but I do not see any explanation as to why Quin believed her to be had. That's the important part, and it's missing.

There's nothing else here. I award Quin no townie points. I am on the edge of my seat waiting for him to grace us with his gloriously australian presence asap.

[Quin]

I think @Quin hasn't been given enough attention in this game, both in terms of his own activity and our reads on him. A few people have voiced some vague suspicion of him. I'd like to know what's up with that. I'd also like to know what he thinks of anything at all. Imma take a quick glance at his stuff.

on ya mate. i still reckon nutella's a bloody crook but i'm flat out and not about to start putting in the kind of effort you're gonna expect from me.

[Sloonei]

Michelle and Quin are teammates.

yeah nah, been on the goon have ya?

Oh hello. Talk about why this theory is incorrect, if you could.

[Sloonei]

I think @Quin hasn't been given enough attention in this game, both in terms of his own activity and our reads on him. A few people have voiced some vague suspicion of him. I'd like to know what's up with that. I'd also like to know what he thinks of anything at all. Imma take a quick glance at his stuff.

on ya mate. i still reckon nutella's a bloody crook but i'm flat out and not about to start putting in the kind of effort you're gonna expect from me.

Gimme a few quick reasons why you think that.

[Quin]

Michelle and Quin are teammates.

yeah nah, been on the goon have ya?

Oh hello. Talk about why this theory is incorrect, if you could.

no. it's shit.

[Quin]

1. put a bloody gun to my head and you're a crook too, mate

2. i wasn't deadset on him being town with that post, i just thought the post itself was legit. youse misinterpreted that and i wasn't gonna crack the shits over it since i wound up thinking he was fair dinkum anyway.

3. mate, that's it right there. she's a crook because what she did was disingenuous.

[Dom]

Sounds like what was me? You also had thought jack and tony were potentially bad. I was saying tony and Jack both suspected nutella maybe we should consider they could have been right about her.

You killed Jack in order to frame nutella.

Kind of insulting that you think I'm that dumb. Maybe Im wrong on my read of nutella but if I killed jack why would I be that stupid obvious about it? And what motivation would I have to do so when I probably would have ended up voting jack because I thought he was bad. The only thing I'm bad at this game is reads so far which I'm not the only one.

I think you should try the wine in front of you.

Do you believe Sabie killed Jack for the purpose of framing nutella?

Are you intentionally twisting my words or nah?

I am doing nothing with your words. I am asking you a question. Why do you think Jack was killed? Do you think sabie is implicated in Jack's death? There, I split it up into two questions.

I think it's a circular argument.
That was my original point.
Was that not clear?

I'm not sure how we can discern much of anything from it yet.

@G-Man what has been your mindset while compiling these ISOs? What are you looking for or hoping to achieve?

Nosing around to see what looks bad in isolation and then seeing if reading it all in context changes any of my perceptions.

G-Man-- do you have any current takes?

I think the 'sabie killed Jack to frame nutella' narrative is naive and too simple to be right. I think that anyone who has played a few games anywhere has matured beyond such a setup. That doesn't excuse her from suspicion, but sometimes Occam can stick his razor where the Sun doesn't shine.

Also, I am surprised that sabie and Sloonei are the only players so far to have anything close to a strong reaction to my ISO's.

I'd like to know what you think your ISOs mean.

[Dom]

Sloonei-- my meaning was clear.

Why are you trying to assign it meaning it clearly did not have?

[Quin]

also yes i am using a list of slang in this game because contrary to popular belief people below the above of 73 do not fucking talk like this

[Dom]

also yes i am using a list of slang in this game because contrary to popular belief people below the above of 73 do not fucking talk like this

I read this three times and still don't know what it means

[Quin]

also yes i am using a list of slang in this game because contrary to popular belief people below the above of 73 do not fucking talk like this

I read this three times and still don't know what it means

crikey

[Sloonei]

Sloonei-- my meaning was clear.

Why are you trying to assign it meaning it clearly did not have?

I literally just asked you a question. I'm not trying to assign meaning to anything. I am looking for you to provide your own meaning. I did not understand what you were saying to sabie. Your initial post seemed accusatory towards her, so I wanted to follow up on that.

What is your read on sabie?

[Sloonei]

3. mate, that's it right there. she's a crook because what she did was disingenuous.

What is disingenuous about it?

[Quin]

the worst of them call their friends cunt and cunts mate

the more you know ~+~

[Dom]

Sloonei-- my meaning was clear.

Why are you trying to assign it meaning it clearly did not have?

I literally just asked you a question. I'm not trying to assign meaning to anything. I am looking for you to provide your own meaning. I did not understand what you were saying to sabie. Your initial post seemed accusatory towards her, so I wanted to follow up on that.

What is your read on sabie?

Maybe I'm not being clear-- I'm looking at nutella, sabie, and Michelle today.


I have voted Michelle for the time being.

[Sloonei]

Sloonei-- my meaning was clear.

Why are you trying to assign it meaning it clearly did not have?

I literally just asked you a question. I'm not trying to assign meaning to anything. I am looking for you to provide your own meaning. I did not understand what you were saying to sabie. Your initial post seemed accusatory towards her, so I wanted to follow up on that.

What is your read on sabie?

Maybe I'm not being clear-- I'm looking at nutella, sabie, and Michelle today.


I have voted Michelle for the time being.

Yes, but why? What are the main points against each of them? Is there anything you see in any of them that makes you think they could be town?

[Dom]

G--
I guess my concern is that a lot of your isos are out of date.
Like.. I get you're trying to iso everyone, but you're not really doing much when you're just posting about old posts and not really engaging in current ones.

[Dom]

Sloonei-- my meaning was clear.

Why are you trying to assign it meaning it clearly did not have?

I literally just asked you a question. I'm not trying to assign meaning to anything. I am looking for you to provide your own meaning. I did not understand what you were saying to sabie. Your initial post seemed accusatory towards her, so I wanted to follow up on that.

What is your read on sabie?

Maybe I'm not being clear-- I'm looking at nutella, sabie, and Michelle today.


I have voted Michelle for the time being.

Yes, but why? What are the main points against each of them? Is there anything you see in any of them that makes you think they could be town?

I feel like I went through this with four scenarios earlier today. Didn't you prompt that?

[Dom]

Nah-- G did.

That puts G higher in my read list in a good way.

[Sloonei]

Sloonei-- my meaning was clear.

Why are you trying to assign it meaning it clearly did not have?

I literally just asked you a question. I'm not trying to assign meaning to anything. I am looking for you to provide your own meaning. I did not understand what you were saying to sabie. Your initial post seemed accusatory towards her, so I wanted to follow up on that.

What is your read on sabie?

Maybe I'm not being clear-- I'm looking at nutella, sabie, and Michelle today.


I have voted Michelle for the time being.

Yes, but why? What are the main points against each of them? Is there anything you see in any of them that makes you think they could be town?

I feel like I went through this with four scenarios earlier today. Didn't you prompt that?

I did not, but I asked a follow up. I'm just trying to advance the discussion beyond what has already been stated.

[Sloonei]

Fine, I'll do my own ISOs. With blackjack. And hookers.

Cheers, dingoes ate my baby, didgeridoo!

I can’t read anyone so I’m not going to pretend to try.

what're you gonna do instead?

Hopefully play the way I used to: Look at inconsistencies in players' statements, observe voting patterns (if I live that long), and examine how effects of role abilities could be linked to specific players.

My initial comment meant "I can't read anyone's meta." I've never been any good at differentiating a player's town game from their scum game, so I mostly just approach every player on a game by game basis.

This is DF's position statement for the game. Okay. Let's see how things go from here. Has he been looking for inconsistencies and such?

@DFaraday

You have a history of missing day phases and ending games with under 10 posts. I understand that irl stuff happens but It has become a pattern.

I would absolutely love to play a mafia game with you but that’s going to require you to play a mafia game with me as well.

Please post.

You're mafia.

No you.

If I was mafia, I wouldn’t start the game with a push on a guy who tends to get himself lynched all on his own.

Why wouldn't you? In a game with so few players, nearly all of which are vanilla, every town vote is significant. The usual approach of leaving me for late game won't fly here, since in a few phases I could conceivably pop back in after a hiatus and cast a deciding vote. It might be a better approach for the Mafia to go for a softball right out of the gate to get a jump on the numbers without really putting themselves on the line in the way they might in trying to fabricate a case on a more prominent player.

This post looks fine. DF's not gonna let himself get pushed around. If anyone should have reacted this way to Jack's prod, it's DF himself. I don't object to this as a Day 1 prod.

After catching up, I don't feel super strong about most of the field so far, but Nutella is a standout as seeming towny to me. She's offering thoughts on a lot of players, asking questions, not being waffly.

Why would I fucking buddy DF even if I was a wolf? There’s only about a 25% chance he even votes today.

I don’t believe you believe the things you are saying.

Gonna go ahead and vote [VOTE: Jack] aubergine for now.

This vote looks to be at least partially motivated by spite. I also appreciate the somewhat substantiated town read on nutella.

After their most recent exchange I'm feeling like TSP and Nutella are both town. At the very least, I doubt they're teammates because their lengthy misunderstanding discussion felt too meandering and inconsequential to be a planned interaction.

I like this post as well. The point he raises about Tony and nutella being unlikely partners is a good observation that doesn't need to be made if he's scum, and is nuanced enough to suggest it is a genuine thought.

I gave Michelle a town read because the energy in her posts seemed to be trending in a constructive direction, but I haven’t seen many other opinions on her besides Tony’s failing her for her response to his mechanic chatter. How do we read her?

I just went through her posts, and noticed a lot of questions and very little in the way of offering her own views. I've never played with her that I can recall; is this normal behaviour for her?

(I spelt "behaviour" the Australian way for the game. Also "spelt.")

This is a comment on michelle that seems to be colored slightly against her, but it's not clear as DF doesn't offer a definitive stance. I'd like a more definitive stance. But it is fair to note that he's never played with Michelle before.

That sudden late surge of Tony votes wasn't suspicious at all.

Tell me more.

Hmmm the plot thickens. Jack and tony both felt pretty confidently that nutella was bad and now they both have flipped civ. I've been iffy on nutella from the beginning and am inclined to believe maybe tony and jack were right about her. Putting my vote there for now.[VOTE: nutella] aubergine

I do not follow. Nutella did not vote for Tony, and I find it a bit of a stretch to assume that Jack was killed for the purpose of silencing his criticism of nutella. Plus, we now know that Jack would have been a perfectly viable counterwagon yesterday if nutella was bad and the mafia team wanted to save her. There wouldn’t have been a need for any of them to push to Tony (and no reason not to. My point is that I don’t see how this pair of deaths reflects poorly on nutella specifically). Is there more to this suspicion?

So you don't think the kill was a frame of me? That was my first thought, and that sabie either bought it or is promoting the narrative that I'm scum.

I think it's the second option. I actually began thinking there might be a Sabie/Michelle connection yesterday, but didn't want to say anything explicit during the night. My theory is that Michelle forced suspicion on Tony, then had to double down on it as their interaction continued, and Sabie just parroted her teammate's suspicion. Sabie's post today makes me feel even less warm towards her, since it's basically shouting, "WOW HOW SUSPICIOUS DOES THIS KILL MAKE NUTELLA LOOK, RIGHT GUYS?"

This read on Michelle reflects my own: that she expressed some suspicion on Tony and then doubled down on it later in the day to justify leaving her vote there. It's the reason my vote has been on her since the start of the day. I am hesitant to lump sabie in with michelle, but that's not out of the question.

Also, here are all of Sabie's posts regarding suspicions of Jack, Nutella, and Tony:

...

Her first two posts cast suspicion almost entirely on Jack and Nutella, while saying that Tony has been defensive of Jack and she could "go either way" on him. However, her next relevant post sees her apparently much more suspicious of Tony for discussing an alleged teammate (Jack), when this didn't seem so damning in her earlier assessment. Also note that this development and her subsequent vote follow shortly after Michelle's vote for Tony.

I'm going to [VOTE: Sabie] aubergine for now, but I don't discourage Michelle voters either.

This is not an unreasonable argument against sabie. It can definitely be argued that the timing of her tony vote was convenient.

Town read on DF. I like most of this content. But at the same time I should note that I'm not sure I've ever seen DF as mafia. It's possible we're seeing a different level of engagement of him because of his alignment. That is the only argument I can honestly put forth against him right now, and I don't have a direct reason to believe in it at this stage.

[Sloonei]

Dom:

Long multi-quote post #1. Highlights include:
Soft support of Michelle
Inquisitive response to Jack's vote and 's his DF prod

Grills Jack x2

Long multi-quote post #2:
Continued Jack grilling
Clarification RE: stance on Jack; attempting to develop a read. Good look, backed up by content.
Disagrees with DF's nutella vote
Prods nutella
Good sequence of interactions in this post, A+ for Dom.

Long multi-quote post #3:
Supports Jack and his vote for Long Con
Engages with Jack on a discussion about nutella
Continued commentary on nutella/LC with Jack.
Dom looks to be genuinely trying to interact with Jack and to develop reads alongside him. I like the optics of this post as well.

I think both LC and Jack don’t look great here.

After a series of posts where Dom tries to engage Jack in discussion of the above reads, something has happened which turns Dom's view of Jack into a definitively bad one. He had not gone so far as to express a town read on Jack earlier, but the tone of his posts was conversational, suggesting that he was giving him the benefit of doubt. This marks the first clear indication of read on Jack in a while. The read appears to be very fluid, which is a good thing again.

Here I am interpreting "now your posts don't reek" as an affirmative town read on Jack towards the end of Day 1. He accompanies this with a vote for Tony after responding to my case on him. I commented during the night that this vote didn't feel like it carried the weight of a final vote, but it stayed. The odd deadline time may have had something to do with it. I maintain a little bit of skepticism here, but as this is the most prominent negative position I have been able to take towards Dom so far, I'm not assigning it much weight. I don't object to the vote itself, I just wish there was more to it. He would later own the vote.

And now we're back at today and the present reads which we've just been talking about. I would still like to hear more about how they developed, not because I doubt their authenticity, but because I trust [mention]Dom[/mention]'s voice right now and the more he can tell us about his thoughts the better off we'll be.