[ENDGAME] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia

[timmer]

This all got very interesting.

No it didn't. It's all Day 0 dicking around. Nothing has gotten interesting at all. "Interesting" is a stupid word. Stop using it Mafia.

I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.

According to LC, MP is getting people talking, and it's "good to see." Hold that in mind.

I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

If you "don't know what to think" about something, why in hell bring it up? Does anybody care that you don't know what to think about something? Why not keep quiet until you do know what you think?

And why characterize my exchange with MP as a "shoving match?" That can't be genuine. In this same post, LC said MP was "swinging the question hammer," which is "good to see." Now he's not sure what to think about the Epi/MP "shoving match?"

This doesn't smell right to me.

I'm voting Long Con, except I can't because Hedgeowl hasn't voted 18 yet.

I'm liking this analysis of Long Con. Vocabulary can say a lot. As far as I'm concerned, up to this point, both Epig and MP have put out some jokes, some fluff, some banter, but underneath it all you can see clearly that they are feeling out their opponents, they are trying to read what's not obvious to read. Long Con is similarly commenting, but from a more aloof position, not quite engaged. I'm too early in my read to say that this makes him worth a vote, but Epig's on point regarding his early output. Moving on.... to another Hoegaarden.

[timmer]

Gumshoe & I both used the word "Interesting" as well.

I can't speak for LC or Gumshoe, but I thought todays discussion WAS interesting. You did not find it so, Epi? Out of all that discussion the only thing that caught your eye was one word?

This feels somewhat distractionary to me. Either you don't want people to talk about the other discussion today, or maybe you're doing some rather fancy distancing with LC, since it is unlikely that he is going to get lynched over "interesting". Or maybe you are just doing some standard issue Epi mind games and intentionally enigmatic crap. Not sure which, maybe all, maybe none.

I disagree with this. ^ I'm a lover of finding minute little pings in posts. nothing wrong with Epig going after word choices, even on Day 0. Doesn't make SVS bad for saying what she did, but I disagree.

[timmer]

Epi, I disagree with your criticisms. True, "interesting" is kind of a vacuous term but I and others use it all the time. And I also say things like "I don't know what to think about [whatever interaction has been going on in the thread]" because I feel like such interactions merit acknowledgment/I feel like I have to comment on them regardless of my alignment.

Here I feel the need to point out that Epig's early case against Long Con was not simply that he had used the word "interesting" but also and more importantly (for me, anyway) the difference in descriptors between how he talked about MP, and how he talked about Epig. That both SVS and now you have omitted that part in favour of the simpler-to-pick-apart "interesting" is... interesting.

[DFaraday]

My pm mentioned Sondheim, Brown, Schwartz, and Hammerstein together. It also repeated "lyricist" and "3/4" over and over. I think it may be Schwartz's role and I don't think he's a threat to us but I obviously can't be certain.

Lyricist could apply to any of those names. And 3/4 is a time signature indicative of a waltz. Mine was something about "revived" and "most overrated". I hope that's not a shot at The King and I.

OK.
The overrated revival thing sounds like mine, but there's probably a major difference. Were there any other words that didn't repeat or otherwise looked like they didn't belong, @DFaraday? It could be King and I.

Upon closer inspection, mine also mentions "role" "check", and "memory." Check only came up once, so I missed it when I glanced at it the first time, but it looks like our PMs are definitely about the same thing then.

[timmer]

So the game begins.

I mean, I don't want to just jump on a bandwagon but I've been pinged my what Epignosis has started here. As potentially weak as of a suspicion as it is (which, I mean, it's not even Day 1 so the littlest things really do matter) I can see exactly what Epignosis is saying. Long Con's post reads somewhat like he wants us to think he's contributing without actually contributing. Playing devil's advocate on myself, there is little to nothing to contribute day 0 but it's the feeling that he wants us to think that he contributing that feels fishy. I see why LC saying MP is stirring things up is a good thing and then belittling it as a shoving match is weird. I concur.

That being said, SVS dragged that suspicion a little bit further down the hole and went with LC. 1) The idea of "buddying up" has come up today and SVS came off like LC's knight in shining armor coming to rescue him from Epignosis. 2) Saying that Epignosis is trying to distract us. Distract us from what? Discussing Reading Rainbow? 3) I'm not afraid to be honest of my selfish ways, the main reason this stood out to me is because I saw my name. Dragging themselves and myself into the "interesting" topic comes off very weird to me. I'm battling with my ego as whether I find it weird because subconsciously I just don't like my name coming up or if it truly is weird. I'm leaning toward the latter. I mean, my use of interesting was talking about MP's previous game. Much different than LC's usage of the word. My name being included just seems like a tactic to link up an innocent name to your own. It's like "See, everyone is doing it."

Here's the thing. Each of the following players - Epig, SVS, Long Con, MP, Devin - have all, to this point, sounded exactly like they always sound. Epig likes to stir the shit. Long Con likes to post and discuss things and be helpful. MP likes to get chatty and also stir the shit. SVS likes to go after something when she smells baddie. Devin likes to post like he has been.

All of them have, to this point in my reread, acted like their normal selves, but it is never okay, imo, to just ignore what is going on because "this is what they do". Epig could certainly be bad, but he also can agitate a thread into revealing connections, great for use later. Each of them, in fact, are great at this game, and they may all be trying to minimize what is going on here but each of them is contending for positioning, here, despite it not being even Day 1. None of these players will back down, believe me.

But the key is to get past their M.O., their history, their mafia relationships, and look at what is being said. I think Epig saw something worth mentioning. I wonder at how SVS and nutella only mention part of it in retort. the game is begun, even if it hasn't at this point begun...

[timmer]

I'm suspicious of Hedgeowl.

I trimmed out the post, but I agree with the sentiment. People who won't engage about suspicions but are fine posting about mechanics tend to ping me.

[timmer]

I'm going to look at the last two pages and see if there's anything I want to comment on. However, I wanted to post about the cryptic pm I received first.

I would like to preface this by saying that I showed Dom word for word what I planned to say about my PM and asked him if that was okay. I would recommend everyone else do the same before sharing information about their PMs out of respect to Dom but I'm not your mother. Also, your room is a pigsty. Clean it up or you're grounded.

My pm mentioned Sondheim, Brown, Schwartz, and Hammerstein together. It also repeated "lyricist" and "3/4" over and over. I think it may be Schwartz's role and I don't think he's a threat to us but I obviously can't be certain.

Mine mirrored this but also had a bit at the end about doing something before someone somethings and the word "dies" is in there a bit as well. I think we overlap a bit, but it's hard to be sure of what this is saying.

[Scotty]

Upon closer inspection, mine also mentions "role" "check", and "memory." Check only came up once, so I missed it when I glanced at it the first time, but it looks like our PMs are definitely about the same thing then.

OK, now this is interesting to me. Why would we get the same message about a role? I was 2 and you were, what, 26? I see no correlation as of now with the numbers anyone picked and what our messages mean.
Maybe some roles aren't included in the PMs, which would explain why some people got similar PMs talking about "two" and "time."

[timmer]

Here are my thoughts on Cobalt.

I snipped the post for brevity, but Cobalt is need an interesting case. He's referenced LC a few times for sure, without any really true reasoning. It's attention-getting, but not knowing him, I don't know if that's his norm or not. i mean, if this was one of our big posters, would I think the LC comments were pingy? Maybe not. Cobalt's one to watch, for sure, as his early posts have been all confidence, little substance.

[Sloonei]

So the game begins.

I mean, I don't want to just jump on a bandwagon but I've been pinged my what Epignosis has started here. As potentially weak as of a suspicion as it is (which, I mean, it's not even Day 1 so the littlest things really do matter) I can see exactly what Epignosis is saying. Long Con's post reads somewhat like he wants us to think he's contributing without actually contributing. Playing devil's advocate on myself, there is little to nothing to contribute day 0 but it's the feeling that he wants us to think that he contributing that feels fishy. I see why LC saying MP is stirring things up is a good thing and then belittling it as a shoving match is weird. I concur.

That being said, SVS dragged that suspicion a little bit further down the hole and went with LC. 1) The idea of "buddying up" has come up today and SVS came off like LC's knight in shining armor coming to rescue him from Epignosis. 2) Saying that Epignosis is trying to distract us. Distract us from what? Discussing Reading Rainbow? 3) I'm not afraid to be honest of my selfish ways, the main reason this stood out to me is because I saw my name. Dragging themselves and myself into the "interesting" topic comes off very weird to me. I'm battling with my ego as whether I find it weird because subconsciously I just don't like my name coming up or if it truly is weird. I'm leaning toward the latter. I mean, my use of interesting was talking about MP's previous game. Much different than LC's usage of the word. My name being included just seems like a tactic to link up an innocent name to your own. It's like "See, everyone is doing it."

Here's the thing. Each of the following players - Epig, SVS, Long Con, MP, Devin - have all, to this point, sounded exactly like they always sound. Epig likes to stir the shit. Long Con likes to post and discuss things and be helpful. MP likes to get chatty and also stir the shit. SVS likes to go after something when she smells baddie. Devin likes to post like he has been.

All of them have, to this point in my reread, acted like their normal selves, but it is never okay, imo, to just ignore what is going on because "this is what they do". Epig could certainly be bad, but he also can agitate a thread into revealing connections, great for use later. Each of them, in fact, are great at this game, and they may all be trying to minimize what is going on here but each of them is contending for positioning, here, despite it not being even Day 1. None of these players will back down, believe me.

But the key is to get past their M.O., their history, their mafia relationships, and look at what is being said. I think Epig saw something worth mentioning. I wonder at how SVS and nutella only mention part of it in retort. the game is begun, even if it hasn't at this point begun...

I like where this post is going. I have been trying to catch up to speed on how to meta read all the familiar players around here and so far the common theme is that everyone's playing just as everyone should. But we all should know better than to think that means certain players are safe. Ordinary behavior is very alarming.

[Golden]

Upon closer inspection, mine also mentions "role" "check", and "memory." Check only came up once, so I missed it when I glanced at it the first time, but it looks like our PMs are definitely about the same thing then.

OK, now this is interesting to me. Why would we get the same message about a role? I was 2 and you were, what, 26? I see no correlation as of now with the numbers anyone picked and what our messages mean.
Maybe some roles aren't included in the PMs, which would explain why some people got similar PMs talking about "two" and "time."

Yeah, that's what I've been getting at. So far, we only seem to have evidence of three different PMs. Imagine there are 4... that would mean...

1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25
2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26
3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27
4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28

Each got the same one. That would explain why epi, sloonei and I are the same at 5, 17, 25... and you and DF at 2 and 26, so I'm guessing that is what it is. I wonder if there is one for each faction.

[Scotty]

Mine mirrored this but also had a bit at the end about doing something before someone somethings and the word "dies" is in there a bit as well. I think we overlap a bit, but it's hard to be sure of what this is saying.

It's a start. something something something. cool. lol

Any other key words? Mirrored Faraday's how? The lyricists? Very vague right now, but im assuming it might mean the role needs to kill (x) before (y) dies.

linki: Good work Golden. That could be something. The more info we learn from people the better so we can play matchups.

[Golden]

Sloonei - what do you find alarming about 'ordinary behaviour'?

In economics I remember a whole lot of civilians spent the day sniffing each other out while the baddies barely contributed... is that the kind of thing you are thinking? Or is it more that 'playing to meta' is the sign of someone playing carefully?

I find it hard to see ordinary behaviour as alarming. Or not alarming. I guess I have trouble seeing 'on-meta' as indicative either way, I guess, especially given recent games.

[Sloonei]

Sloonei - what do you find alarming about 'ordinary behaviour'?

In economics I remember a whole lot of civilians spent the day sniffing each other out while the baddies barely contributed... is that the kind of thing you are thinking? Or is it more that 'playing to meta' is the sign of someone playing carefully?

I find it hard to see ordinary behaviour as alarming. Or not alarming. I guess I have trouble seeing 'on-meta' as indicative either way, I guess, especially given recent games.

the latter. If a player is being too ordinary it's cause for concern.

[Scotty]

Not Faraday, sorry, meant Gumshoe. I'm bloody tired.

I'm gonna put out there before I go to bed that I don't have any great reads on many (mostly because I don't really know anyone here), but I think there is something between Cobalt and Gumshoe. I'm willing to gander, with Cobalt's veiled defense of Gumshoe, that one or both are bad. Cobalt did have some major pushes for a second early Day 1, and I feel like Gumshoe may be trying too hard to be res. That's the best I got before Day 2 rolls around. I'm working noon to midnight tomorrow- I'll literally have time enough to take a piss and vote, so my tentative vote right now is for one of them. I'll check again on my way to work if I sway my vote.

[timmer]

So I'm all caught up now.

I think Epig pulled up something notable in LC's posts for a Day 0. I think if he flips bad we've got some good ammunition to find his teamies. That said, it's not so great a case that it warrants all these early votes.

Cobalt's vote in particular seems to be, by his own words, a revenge vote for a previous game? I struggle to know how to read that, but it seems AWFULLY convenient.

I'm null on the MP/Devin thing, but maybe more trusting of Alex than Devin.

I think SVS is wrong in her views on LC/Epig, but I disagree with those seeing a baddie SVS.

I think the point about Hedge is decent, but there are a handful of others who have spent a large proportion of their time on mechanics and the host PMs, so highlighting only Hedge seems wrong.

DF is a good example of someone spending more time on non-suspicion stuff.

Golden seems on point.

I'm a bit pinged by gamer guy's statement of only getting invested in the game at day 2 or so. If I'm remembering right, Gamer Guy was Mordecai, correct? The Mordecai I saw in our baddie btsc was invested heavily in the game from minute 1, there was no sense of waiting to get things going. That said, it's hard to say what that makes gamer guy, since if he was invested as a baddie, maybe waiting until day 2 is more a civvie thing? Meh.

As of this moment, I'm not feeling inclined to vote for anyone in particular more than anyone else. There are just lots of little mini-cases hanging there.

I will be around closer to deadline after work tomorrow and will have time to catch back up from this point onwards. Unless one of the above cases evolves into something stronger, I will likely vote for someone who has spent the game talking about mechanics and ignoring the suspicions completely, as there are a few of those. Suspicions, that is. Not talking about them is a big ping.

[Golden]

I've tried several things with my PM but I can't make sense of it.

I still tend to wonder if they are all subtly different, although Sloonei's responses to me suggest his numbers line up, so... lets hope we get more hints, I guess?

[Golden]

In case it helps, I've tried...

highlighting common three or four word 'phrases'
trying to rearrange partial sentences
Counting the instance of each word appearing to see if that helped (my top was 'will' with 9 appearances) - but putting the words in order of most appearances was still nonsense.

Not sure where to take it next.

[Golden]

I have rearranged each word that appears in my PM so that it appears only once and forms a meaningful sentence. This is what I come up with.

"Upon their death time can stop. A song cycle will follow second, be there. If they are lynched about day two, so what. Row much more than you’d think."

[Cobalt]

3) Responses to Cobalt

Spoiler: show

My eye is on Devin almost immediately because of that joking truce thing. Mafia Cobalt tries to jokingly buddy up to people to see if they'd be receptive to it or not.

Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.

Basically this

I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.

So because it is line with your mafia meta to do something, you extrapolate to mean that it is likely within someone else's meta, whom you've never met, as well?

Are you implying that we shouldn't vote for you because you have good instincts? What does that have to do with your alignment?

I actually missed this.

1. Meta is meta. If you really think every single person would have entirely different mafia strategies, note that it's likely impossible for there to be no overlap. Lots of different beginning of the game strategies that I've seen, people tend to overlap. ESPECIALLY people that I don't know, because it's a whole new field with all new players, but you're likely to see things you've seen before elsewhere.

2. I never said you shouldn't vote for me because I have good instincts, I was just trying to let you know I'm not a tentative newbie who's afraid to get their feet wet, in a few more words than that.

Spoiler: show

Thanks for putting up with my extended interrogation, Devin. This certainly won't be the end, but I wanted to take advantage of you being here at the same time as myself, early on, to try and pick your brain.

You won't be getting my vote on Day 1 unless something drastically changes. Neither will Epi.

I don't like this post for some reason. It gives me bad vibes.

Spoiler: show

It's only a very slight mafia read. I'll roll with it. Nothing to really come at you for.

Cobalt, I had to split up your post here into parts due to formatting reasons.

Response to first quote: Regarding 1., fair enough. What do you make of my opinion of him? Regarding 2., noted. However, can you see why the purpose of your statement can be seen as perhaps nefarious? So you're good, you didn't think that anyone else here is either? I could sit here and brag about my accomplishments, and so could many others, but none of us did so. So what was the real purpose of your statement? You say it was to say what you said in 2., but if that was the case, why not just say exactly what you said in 2.? I suppose I just don't understand your train of thought fully behind this.

Response to second quote: Can you elaborate in any way? Do you still feel this way after this post? If yes or no, why? Is there anything you want me to address?

Response to third quote: Noted. How do you think you would have reacted if it was a slight mafia read, moderate mafia read, or worse?

One last question: Can you fully elaborate your read on Long Con, please?

Thanks!

First quote: Regarding 1., I don't in particular see exactly why you find Devin civvy, in fact it was the scummy post made by you about thanking him for putting up with your interrogation or something like that which made me think he was even more scummy. It looked like scum trying to subtly clear fellow scum. Regarding 2, this post I made addresses it.

Spoiler: show

You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

The latter of the strategies listed is precisely why I made that post about my previous game. I wanted to see who reacted to it when and how. But I don't buy that you were doing it either.

This answers one of his questions though.

Long Con said, "Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about." I did this with myself. I wanted to see who reacted in what way to my discussion of my previous games. Those who fixated on it as a scummy statement were those I was going to be looking at.

I'm gonna be going back and formulating reads on everyone who actually addressed my original post and how it makes me feel about them. I posted it that way for a reason. The way I saw it, the best way to get reads on new people in a new forum was to toot my own horn and see who got their panties in a twist over it.

Second quote: Yes, I still don't like that post as I just discussed, I think it was scummy, your post didn't really change much for me, and I still want you to answer why you civ read Devin, someone who I found scummy because of a legitimate reason that you attempted to dismiss. Don't want me discrediting your potentially scum buddies, hmm?

Third quote: If it was a slight read instead of a very slight read I would have had the same reaction. If it was a moderate scum read or worse I would have questioned your reasons for having a strongly-oriented read on someone you've a. never played with before and b. barely said a word to.

Final question: I will elaborate on my Long Con reads after I catch up with the other posts about me and then make a few reads of people, including yourself. I'll get to it.

@Bass I was also a little weirded out by Cobalt implying that because he was super-civ important player in a previous game, then he is totally civ this game, but I forgot to mention it (I knew there was SOMETHING about SOME new person to me that I had seen). But for now I'd just like to keep my eye on him.

Do you believe he was trying to convince he was a civilian, or do you believe what he said about just wanting to let everyone know he's not a new player?

My vibe is that I think he's playing the civ card hard. A little too hard.

I'm not playing the civ anything. I've said multiple times, if you go back through my posts, PLEASE read the entire things, that I'm not trying to make myself look anything, and that if you find my behavior scummy to lynch me. Until then, I'm going to continue to prod things until they speak up, that way when I eventually flip it'll be easier to read situations I'll have been in.

So, Sloonei, who are your Day 1 suspicions right now?

Gumshoe, perhaps Cobalt, neither of them felt particularly strong in their responses to me earlier. I continue to sense something odd in that Gumshoe post and I'm not dropping either suspicion until they are resolved.
I'm not quite finished with any pre-emptive read on Gamer, but he feels close enough to an early suspect, at least for now.
I feel as if I'm getting a better sense of how to read you, and right now I'm leaning town. Still early.

What would you have considered strong in my response to you earlier? I explained my thoughts just fine, why did you not feel that was a sufficient response?

This is the only real thing Cobalt said about LC.
In this same post he says he has a slight mafia read on MP.

So after all those post I'm getting a mafia read from Cobalt. He never really gives any real reason why he wants to vote LC but he has no problem voting LC. He also says he has a slight mafia read on MP but doesn't wait to see if that will become a stronger mafia read before the lynch ends.

If y'all would keep your heads off your desks and pay attention in class you would note that I said I would be getting into my read on LC when I got home from work, which I'm about to do.

I had not noticed that metalmarsh and Cobalt both already voted for Long Con. This behavior seems in line with mm's usual style and it says nothing of his alignment. Cobalt is an unfamiliar player to me, but it is the more suspicious of the two right now, due in large part to the reasons Bass laid out.

Also @ you, I said I would get to my LC read later. In my forum we tend to vote early in the phase and then switch it later as things develop. I normally don't vote early on day one, but I've never had that much day 0 discussion to work off of.

All in all, I find Cobalt hard to read. Even the behaviour Bass points out doesn't seem entirely inconsistent with the 'I'm aggressive and I don't give a shit what you think' approach Cobalt is taking to the game.

If I'm totally honest I'm playing a bit differently than usual due to being in a new environment, and I'm normally hard to read anyway. Usually things are much clearer once I flip later on in the game. I've still never been mislynched as a civilian, though.

ONCE AGAIN, for those of you who find it scummy that I've voted for LC without making a case against him I wanted to wait until a little later in the phase, and I'll be getting to my case against him in my next post.

I am also somewhat suspicious of Cobalt, with this post at the center of my suspicion:

Spoiler: show

He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

I tend not to wallflower when I'm being spoken about and I address the situation directly if I'm involved in it.

Interesting.

COBALT: (Dramatic eye roll, exit DSL)

What do you, Cobalt, think of Gumshoe right now? Do you feel he was defending you, even if it wasn't a delberate defense? Why/why not?

LIke I said, he wasn't so much defending me as pointing out to MP that my logic was actually solid considering I have no idea what the playerbase is like here, there's bound to be some overlap between my own scum strategies and those of players on here. Therefore, things I do when I'm scum can be seen as scummy when I look at them in other people.

MP was trying to say that was flimsy logic, that just because I did it doesn't mean everyone else will. Which is true, but he failed to consider the fact that I don't know the playing field and that there's only so many strategies one can apply as scum. I'm sure someone here will use something I've used at some point, and that's what I was pointing out in Devin.

So Gumshoe pointing that out was only serving to land my point. It wasn't exactly a defense, but call it what you want. Like I said, I appreciated the validation.

Doesn't mean he's clear in my book by any means.

Cobalt spends the whole time explaining why Gumshoe was not defending them by describing how Gumshoe was defending them. It smells like too much of an effort by a player to distance themselves from a read they perceived to be a threat.

Y'all are reading way too far in between the lines. Might need to even get you a stronger prescription on your glasses. Don't have any? That explains a lot.

Even if you want to extrapolate that I was defending Gumshoe "defending" me, two reasons: 1. If Gumshoe is civilian, then it's good that someone didn't allow MP to discredit my logic before I was able to accurately explain myself. 2. If Gumshoe is scum, he "defended" me to make me look bad - if he flips bad, I'll look worse for "defending" him. I hate that fucking word, explaining myself and disagreeing with your read on someone doesn't necessarily mean defense of anything or anyone.


@MP's post on why he slightly civ read Devin: Are you going to continue listing your only reads as "very slight" or are you actually going to commit to anything ever? Just wondering.

I'm gonna ask again straight-

IF YOU HAVEN'T COMMENTED ABOUT THE PM DOM SENT YOU, AND DON'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE SENSE OF IT, OR ARE STILL THINKING ON IT, POST DEM KEY WORDS so we can start making sense of it.

Also, I'm realizing I'm making myself easy bait for Night 1 lynch, but eh. I like puzzles and can't help myself.

I've already made my post about the PM I got, but why are you so concerned with every single person posting about it? And why are you bringing up that you might be a night one target so early in the day phase? It looks a lot like you're trying to make yourself look like you're trying to solve a puzzle, so bring results or I'm watching you.


To my thoughts on Long Con in just a sec.

[Sloonei]

@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

[Cobalt]

Long Con, I'm coming for your weave this game.

My... my weave?

Some fake concerned/scared shit that he's pulling here. I found it uppity/overconfident instead of a joking tone.

You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

I don't buy that he was doing that either, as I already said in a previous post. He was basically saying "I talked shit and called it a shoving match to see what you would say about it", but who lays bait that specific for just one player during day 0 of the game? My post in which I talked about my previous games was a general post to see who would really point it out or come for me with it, because I wanted to see who would pick up on it or call me out on it, if anyone, to get a feel for the field a little bit.

I don't find anything suspicious about Gumshoe contributing to the discussion. I'm more pinged by those, like Sloonei, whose "initial reaction" was that Gum was defending Cobalt. I don't think it's likely that a baddie teammate would "jump to the rescue" so early, and for so little. He's trying to drum up a suspicion between Cobalt and Gumshoe that I don't buy. Is it that easy to catch baddies?

He picked a person that I would be pinged by for trying to drum up suspicion on me this early, like Sloonei, and the tries to make me look better? Or does that make me look worse? What angle is he playing here?

Long Con is still my #1 suspect, however.

His manipulation is transparent to me.

I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

In case I haven't been clear, here is what I see is happening in this one line:

Long Con mischaracterizes and trivializes the exchange MP and I had Day 0. He quoted a bunch of posts from MP and me and called it a shoving match. He said he doesn't like the term "pissing match" (Glad he forewent "tug of war" ). Neither of those terms accurately describes what was going on there.

However, this serves the neater purpose of giving LC a place to vote if either an Epignosis or MP lynch gains momentum. He comments on it without saying anything meaningful about it (except for making it sound uglier than it is), which shows his audience that he is aware something is going on there, all the while leaving himself free to vote for either of us if the opportunity presents itself.

The "manipulation" you're seeing is only your own paranoia. I wasn't manipulating anything, I was just offering my point of view on the current goings-on.

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP. I saw it more as you each confronting the other with questions that demanded answers, while the other deflects it away with a different question. It's pretty much up to any reader to decide if the "shoving match" metaphor is accurate, or way off. It describes how I read the exchange, so it's the metaphor I used.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

He totally goes OMGUS on Epi here and says that he's paranoid when really Epi makes a great point about how he can now commit to a MP or Epi train later on when or if the opportunity presents itself, which I also got a vibe like that from his shoving match post. Why point it out if you don't have something to think about it? (I think someone already said something to the effect of that question. Why not wait until you DO have something to think about it before posting about it? Unless you would use it to pass yourself off later?)

Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

The S~V~S suspicion is based on her possible buddying behaviour to me. I have seen her do this kind of thing in the past, so it stands out to me. It also seems a bit like she was choosing that "issue" to comment and offer opinion about, because it's not a direct player opinion or accusation, but it does show up as contribution. Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

If LC flips bad, I'm inclined to think S~V~S a little bit clearer. She's the other person people have expressed scum leans on, so why throw shade on one of the only other talked about scum reads in the game? As far as I know, some people are willing to lynch Long Con and some people are willing to lynch SVS. Seems like a convenient opportunity to make her look bad if people would be persuaded to vote for her.

So in conclusion, I think a lot of what Long Con says is scummy. Just on gut I got a bad vibe from him, and me saying that I was coming for his weave early in the game was a joke that turned into reality when I found he looked worse with every post he made. Yes, I still want to lynch him as some form of salty revenge for the last game when he successfully fooled me as scum, but much of my vote lies with the above-outlined analysis.

[Cobalt]

@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I wasn't trying to distance myself from anything. I was addressing what was addressed about something that involved myself. Read it however you want, I respect your opinion, but that's not what I was doing.

[Scotty]

I'm gonna ask again straight-

IF YOU HAVEN'T COMMENTED ABOUT THE PM DOM SENT YOU, AND DON'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE SENSE OF IT, OR ARE STILL THINKING ON IT, POST DEM KEY WORDS so we can start making sense of it.

Also, I'm realizing I'm making myself easy bait for Night 1 lynch, but eh. I like puzzles and can't help myself.

I've already made my post about the PM I got, but why are you so concerned with every single person posting about it? And why are you bringing up that you might be a night one target so early in the day phase? It looks a lot like you're trying to make yourself look like you're trying to solve a puzzle, so bring results or I'm watching you.

Why are you not concerned? I feel like I shouldn't have to validate this, but here we are. Dom's given us an interesting variable in the game, which may very well be helpful when we start deducing people's capabilities. Let's say Person x and y get lynched in Day 1/Night 1, and it's revealed that they were [role1] and [role2]. Now tell me-what we know about them, besides their allegiance? Nothing. Role1/2 may have been a pretty major role, but how would we know?

So I'm doing my best to solve this puzzle, but I can't solve a puzzle when I'm missing 17 pieces.

[Sloonei]

I do not buy the argument against LC that he in some way lied about posting for reactions and the whole "shoving match"' series of posts. More than that, I don't like it. Here is the post in which he explains himself:

You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

There is no claim in here that he was searching for any particular reaction to any particular thing. These words are in response to Epi calling him out for not having fully formed opinions before posting. What LC meant with this post, I think, was simply to refute Epi's suggested strategy with his own: post things even when you're not sure why you think them, see what happens, and react.
For the record, I also thought "shoving match" was a perfectly suitable way to describe the echange between MP and Epi.
I don't want to seem like I am defending LC, it's just that there are so many facets to the case against him that I actively dislike.

[Sloonei]

@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I wasn't trying to distance myself from anything. I was addressing what was addressed about something that involved myself. Read it however you want, I respect your opinion, but that's not what I was doing.

In your big post there you suggested I might be pinging you for "drumming up suspicion". It pinged me. Do you think I am trying to drum up suspicion against you? Does this make me bad?

[Sloonei]

I promise I go to sleep eventually.

[Cobalt]

@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I wasn't trying to distance myself from anything. I was addressing what was addressed about something that involved myself. Read it however you want, I respect your opinion, but that's not what I was doing.

In your big post there you suggested I might be pinging you for "drumming up suspicion". It pinged me. Do you think I am trying to drum up suspicion against you? Does this make me bad?

You're certainly reading pretty far into the situation involving Gumshoe and I which would have been nothing to talk about if you didn't insist on tunneling on it. Sure does make me wonder why you seem so eager to keep certain people in the spotlight.

[Long Con]

Hey, just catching up, still a few pages behind. I have a few posts in other tabs to respond to... I'll fully respond tomorrow, but it's 3:48 am here and I have to go to bed.

[Neverwhere]

Disclaimer -- I'm usually a relatively quiet player, but I might be a very quiet player over teh next week or so. For this I apologise. It's coming up on the last week of school for my kid and it's got intense. I'm also up in court tomorrow and under a lot of stress for that. My daughter also has her autism assessment next Friday, so I'm snowed under with paper work and and note taking (read: essay writing). I'm reading as fast as i can, but everytime i log in theres another 4 pages of text I'll post my thoughs briefly now and hopefully later have time to talk in more detail!

For the time being SVS, Cobalt and hedge are on my radar. Hedge could be civvie -- but I'm seeign a lot of generic, time buying speak from her. It could be legit, butin the games I've played I've seen mafia use this tactic frequently. I'm tempted to vote for her as a result.

I'm really sorry I still have four pages to sift through, I'll try and give you some of my lovin' tonight.

[S~V~S]

I am still catching up as well, I am a tad demoralized I guess. But it is what it is. I have never been afraid of saying what was on my mind, and i don't much worry about how I sound when I am a civ. After taking a day off, I can look at all of this with clearer eyes I think. Apologies to Dom.

Cobalt, other than saying I am not a fan of people being aggressive on freaking day zero over trivia like word choice, what exactly pings you? Someone said earlier that I was buddying up top LC, and I assuredly was not. Long experience with LC tells me that that makes him intensely suspicious of ones motives. Buddying up to LC would be a weak manoeuver, but the person who said it was new to us, iirc. So they might not know that about LC.

The one person I have seen buddying seems to have been Golden, who spent a lot of time gazing at Epi with adoring eyes. That may have changed, I am not totally caught up.

I will look for the case on LC before I go to work~ I hope it's more than word choice, lol. My read on him was shaken by Flash, so i am more likely to rely on the cases of others for him, rather than my own gut. I will probably hold my vote till later n case I need to save, since telling Epi he is full of shit seems to make people think I am bad (and he IS full of shit, people, he is, lol~ even if he is a civ, which is possible). If I did not have to save, I would be considering a vote for Golden, but as I said, I am not 100% caught up since my last post. This was my impression as of Monday.

[S~V~S]

Gumshoe & I both used the word "Interesting" as well.

I can't speak for LC or Gumshoe, but I thought todays discussion WAS interesting. You did not find it so, Epi? Out of all that discussion the only thing that caught your eye was one word?

This feels somewhat distractionary to me. Either you don't want people to talk about the other discussion today, or maybe you're doing some rather fancy distancing with LC, since it is unlikely that he is going to get lynched over "interesting". Or maybe you are just doing some standard issue Epi mind games and intentionally enigmatic crap. Not sure which, maybe all, maybe none.

I disagree with this. ^ I'm a lover of finding minute little pings in posts. nothing wrong with Epig going after word choices, even on Day 0. Doesn't make SVS bad for saying what she did, but I disagree.

No, you're right. But he makes it sound so...horrible. When you do it it feels reasonable, when he does it it seems demagogue-ish. Huey Long like, I guess. And he knows (I hope) that this is said in a gameplay sense, not a real person sense. More than anyone I know, his game face and his real face are the most diverse. Sometimes it is hard to take that into account on my part, which is a failure of mine, not his. I need to learn to laugh him off, roll my eyes and move on. But for some reason I find it hard to do that. I am thinking I need to take a long break, or maybe even quit Mafia, tbh. I have always had that kind of reaction to that sort of aggression, maybe it's a "protect the Underdog complex. But lashing out at people for it has gotten me into trouble for years.

[S~V~S]

I did think it was strange when Hedgeowl was talking about bandwagon votes before voting even started. I thought it was a good sentiment for me personally to have out there, since Epig and Cobalt seem to wish for a bandwagon to happen on me, but it's an odd thing to say nonetheless.

S~V~S may be trying to pocket me with her defense of the word "interesting" and attack on Epig. My lynch would end up making her look better, and my survival with her in my "good books" would be advantageous as well.

If I were making a rainbow list at this point, I'd have Sloonei, Hedgeowl, S~V~S, and Epig as slight Mafia reads, and Golden and MP as slight Civ. I guess I don't need to invoke the rainbow to just say that. I want to read back over the Gumshoe stuff to see who else seemed to be trying to cast it in a worse light than I think it is, I don't think Sloonei was the only one, just the one that stuck out to me.

Linki: Thanks, MM, good to know I can always count on your support. If you did vote, could you let us know if votes are changeable in this game?

Why do you read that as buddying you, as opposed to attacking Epignosis, which is what i was doing?

[Golden]

I don't think it's fair to say I'm buddying because I say I think Epi sounds civ and because I agree with one of his two suspicions. I can understand, though, why it might look that way to you because you are the suspicion in question.

I do disagree that epi sounded 'horrible' going after LC. It did not remind me of him going after bf in keeler or going after MP in economics. It seemed gentler than normal epi to me. Perhaps that's why I read it as more civ.

But what really interests me, and what I hope you do return to, are the reasons I feel like you are bad, which are not actually really connected to epi at all - if you are not bad, I'd like to have something I feel like is a defence to my suspicion (not epi's suspicion) to dissuade me.

And SVS - we all need a break sometimes, but I hope you do not quit mafia forever if you do take a break, because I enjoy playing with you too much. And I can vouch for your 'protect the underdog' complex, which is one thing I really like about your game.

[XthAtGAm3RGuYX]

I seen that Bass asked me if I think SVS is acting any different. As far as I can see, I don't think so. But she was the second Mafia to die in bible Mafia so my memory on her playstyle is a little fuzzy. Plus I've only played one game here, so I don't know the differences between Mafia SVS and civ SVS, so my take on her in regards to that is unreliable. I've only seen her one light previously.

[Long Con]

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP.

I should hope not. It was a crude joke.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

You think I'm feeling threatened and getting defensive? About a suspicion I initiated against you?

Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

Yes, that it what I'm accusing you of. Nail on the head. You had two posts prior (this one and this one, putting an eye on DFaraday and Scotty, respectively. I could (maybe) see how these are attempts to gauge reactions, but don't you think those two attempts lack subtlety? They're so blatant that you had to know no one would take them seriously enough for you to learn anything.

But those two posts are very different from you saying this:

I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

I don't know what kind of reactions you thought this post might generate. Rather, this is the kind of thing you say in order to AVOID a reaction, not get one. So I don't believe in this particular instance, you were gauging reactions, which is what you implied you were doing.

If I wanted to AVOID a reaction, I would have said nothing about it at all. Those first two attempts do lack subtlety, and I don't think that the shoving match comment was an exercise in subtlety either. You can claim you don't think I was gauging reactions as much as you like, but it still doesn't make sense. So, I was saying it to... NOT gauge reactions? I put it out there intending there to be no reaction? Civvie or baddie, your accusation makes no sense. Your interaction with MP07 was the most noteworthy thing that had happened up to that point in the game, my commenting on it wasn't to avoid it, it was to question it, get people thinking about it, and, yes, to gauge reactions.

Long Con, you say this is a shoving match or pissing contest. Can you elaborate? Why do you characterize my posts, which were trying to garner discussion, as both a shoving match and "good to see"? I'm not sure how to reconcile those two separate thoughts.

I was commenting on two different sets of posts, though one leads in to the other. You were firing questions at everyone who was in the thread at the time to get them talking, to get some discussion going. That is what I liked, that's what was "good to see". Soon enough, your questions turned to Epi, and instead of answering, he questioned back at you, and you basically did the same back at him. Like, whoever answers the question straight first loses the upper hand in the conversation, or loses control. Asking the questions gives you the power; answering the questions makes you acquiescent to the asker. Neither of you wanted to not be the asker. I hope this way of explaining it helps you understand "shoving match" better, because I don't plan on explaining the metaphor further. It's pretty obvious what it means, and it really should have been so without me explaining it a number of ways.

I'm not sure about LC I'm not seeing damning evidence against him, but I don't see him as clean yet either.LC what do you think of Cobalt going after you so much? LC second post about Scotty Independence claiming is interesting, not sure if it is a joke or if he was trying to put attention on Scotty.

Cobalt is fixated on me because he feels I burned him bad in the last game we played together. I was bad, he was Civ, he trusted me. He plans to not make the same mistake this game, or at least to punish me for the last one. His ego won't rest easy until he's sure that he can get a handle on the Long Con situation that's always out there for him now. It's pretty lame how he decided to go after me, and then just rode Epi's case down bandwagon trail to justify it, but it doesn't look particularly suspicious to me. I've dealt with plenty of egos in my time, and though I am thankfully free of such a burden, I think I know how to handle them.

The Scotty thing was half serious, half reaction-looking. When I read his post about a private dressing room, it felt like he might be trying to drop a subtle hint. Or maybe it's just a joke based on the fact that this is a Broadway-themed game. But I read it and wanted to say something about it right away, because if it is a hint, then I think it's a fake hint and that he's bad. I don't think and real Indy would feel the need to hint right away, but a baddie likes to plan ahead how he'll look not-bad. As for his reaction, he backed off it right away, but didn't send up any red flags to me. Not surprising, it was a shallow jab at a tiny comment, I didn't expect it to solve the game then and there.

LC, your thoughts on Cobalt's 'jokey' suspicion of you, and whether or not his transition meshes with your experience of him, would be good too.

Looks like I got this answer above already.

Oh, and I'm looking forward to this show, y'all! I'm still getting changed in my private dressing room.

Claiming Independent? That's getting started early. Is that a plan you had or a spontaneous thing you just "went with"?

I'm rereading from the start, as I've only sporadically kept up until Day 1. Long Con, what did you mean by this? I'm not a musical theatre fan, really (though I did co-star in South Pacific and Babes in Arms years ago) so I don't get how Scotty's comment would have led you to ponder the indy roles. Explain?

Private dressing room. If you take that to mean his place in the game, then it's not on a baddie team, because they "share a dressing room" in that they have BTSC. And an Indy role isn't part of the general ensemble of Civvies, instead they have their own win condition and goals, usually. So the comment led me to think it would fit an Indy claim.

[Sloonei]

@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I wasn't trying to distance myself from anything. I was addressing what was addressed about something that involved myself. Read it however you want, I respect your opinion, but that's not what I was doing.

In your big post there you suggested I might be pinging you for "drumming up suspicion". It pinged me. Do you think I am trying to drum up suspicion against you? Does this make me bad?

You're certainly reading pretty far into the situation involving Gumshoe and I which would have been nothing to talk about if you didn't insist on tunneling on it. Sure does make me wonder why you seem so eager to keep certain people in the spotlight.

I do not wish to keep or put anyone in the spotlight. My strategy is to get rid of the spotlight altogether and discuss everyone. Does it really seem like I'm tunneling my case against you if you look at my entire post history?

[Sloonei]

S~V~S's responses on this page did not inspire me to believe in her towniness.

[Canucklehead]

Thursday, June 18, 2015
9:23 AM

So I 100% lied lastnight and didn't read a damn thing or make a comment, but I'm doing so now. The wait is over, friends. Canuck is here, all is well, let your great fat bellies be soothed.
Here are my observations after reading (let's be honest, I barely read. Saying I skimmed would even be generous) Day 0/1. These are stream of consciousness notes that I'm taking as I browse, so apologies when I say shit that’s already been resolved/dealt with. Just look at it as a little extra dramatic irony in the narrative of my unfolding submersion in the game
- Lots of people I don’t recognize or know. Hi new friends! If you are at all serious about mafia, you are going to hate me. Yaaaaayyyy! *kermit arms*
- Lots of new jargon and acronyms being thrown around (gth? Iso? Yaaawwn) Looks like some of you spent too much time watching the big boys play during the Champions tournament and have become infected with their slang. Ick.
- For some reason, people are talking about the Reading Rainbow Kickstarter, and I am currently gulping coffee from my RR backer mug. I AM SOOOOO FUCKING COOOOOOOOL
- My thoughts on the perennial voting for newbs discussion: I hate and fear new people because they may be more clever than me and will steal away from me my very dear and much beloved mafia friends, so I advocate for shooting them in the face the minute they walk through the door. But that’s just me.
- Cobalt pops in with a not-so-humble brag about being MVP and having awesome instincts so we should fear her enormous mafia balls. Cool.
- Golden jumps in immediately after with a more subtle but no less eye-rolly brag about how he was sooooooo smart his first mafia game that everyone got naked and did a dance in his honour. Did everyone take an extra dose of Chest Puffing pills this morning?
- I'm in love with Gumshoe. Hi, sailor.
- Epi thinks "interesting" is a stupid word. I agree. The next time an undergrad hands me a paper telling me how "interesting" Measure for Measure is, I am going to set it alight and force them to watch their minutes of half-hearted effort burn to ashes in front of their eyes. HAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. Take that, undergrad!
- Epi's analysis of LC is poorly received by SVS who is too savvy to be impressed by "enigmatic crap"
- People are now saying "interesting" a lot. I imagine this is a baddie plot to get Epi's face to explode. I wonder if it will work!
- Bwt shows up and Golden drops in an OT comment about bwt bussing a teamie that, were I being especially paranoid, I might think is laying the very first teeny seed in case bwt should need to be set-up for a lynching later…
- Epi is ON FIRE this game. His response to SVS is astute and on point
- Golden attempts to buddy up to Epi, but his buddying up to Epi is not as good as my buddying up to Epi
- I've just noticed that there is a player who has Paprika from Blue's Clues as their avatar. I will never vote for this person.
- OMG I'm only on page 5. This is super tedious and boring tbqh.
- Golden attempts to make a portmanteau about a colourless rainbow. Fails. Instead, makes a portmanteau evoking the plethora of wheat varieties available in this great nation.
- Gumshoe likes Golden's word. I no longer like Gumshoe.
- DDL (aka old me) pops in with a banal post. Yawn. Former me is boring.
- People are trying to gang up on Gumshoe, my beautiful love (I lied before, when I said it was over between us. I can't pretend anymore. Even if you do like Golden's horrible word, I LOVE YOU GUMSHOE! TAKEMENOW!), and should be prepared to face my wrath for impugning his spotless character.
- TH, our knight errant, comes pricking onto the plain with his sword directed at Hedgeowl's heart. I had no recollection of Hedgie's posts, and I just read them within the last hour, so I can definitely buy some sort of blendiness accusation there….I could also, however, buy an attempt by TH to redirect discussion away from Epi's attention suck and onto other things….
- MM votes for LC and runs.…
- Ooooh! I just replaced in! AND I CANNOT BE LYNCHED, BITCHES! HAHHAHAHAHHAHHA
- Epi strokes my ego by bringing up Roger Rabbit. I do very much like having my ego stroked, but I guarantee I will not play that well in this game. That might have been a once in a lifetime blaze of glory for me and it was fucking exhausting. For this game, I'm back to my usual MO of relying on snark and latching on to other people's suspicions to get me through this game.
- Scotty provides some nice cover for me by "speculating" that I'm neither mafia nor a civ power role. Thanks, Scotty!
- DDL comes back in to ruin my ill-gotten trust. Bastard.
- Dfaraday pops in with a post that makes it clear he hasn't really read the thread, and instead has only read a few people's impressions of the thread
- Paprika asks a lot of questions that she wants to seem important/probing….but I don't think she's hitting the analytical home runs she thinks she is
- MP WOT INCOMING!!!!! Hi, MP. Missed you.
- I basically skimmed the last couple of pages cuz I got bored.

Right now, I'd be willing to vote for Golden, SVS, Cobalt, Slooni, and maybe LC or TH.

Glancing at the poll, it seems like there are lots of people who haven't chimed in on anything (but maybe I just glossed over them in my "read through")…..Dreams? Tiny Bubbles? Who else?

[Canucklehead]

Lol at the timestamp on my post (fuck you, Microsoft OneNote). Lol even harder at the fact that I wasted TWO HOURS of my life reading and writing that. WHY CANT I BE THAT FOCUSED AND PRODUCTIVE ABOUT MY GODDAMN DISSERTATION???

[Sloonei]

Measure for Measure is an interesting play and Paprika is a dude.
Why would you be willing to vote for me?

[Canucklehead]

For the drummed up suspicions on Gumshoe, and for the incessant one-line questions

[Canucklehead]

The Blue's Clues thing is really working in your favor, though. I have a permanent lady boner for Steve, and appreciate anything that reminds me of him.

[Sloonei]

For the drummed up suspicions on Gumshoe, and for the incessant one-line questions

This is just how I play. when was the last time i even hinter at a suspicion againdt gumshoe? do you not think there's any validity to any of the suspicions i've stated? especially bearing in mind that it's still Day 1.

[Sloonei]

and i cannot stress this enough:

my laptop's last leg is on its last leg, so i'll be relying heavily on phone posts in this game. please bear with me and my one million typos.

[Canucklehead]

For the drummed up suspicions on Gumshoe, and for the incessant one-line questions

This is just how I play. when was the last time i even hinter at a suspicion againdt gumshoe? do you not think there's any validity to any of the suspicions i've stated? especially bearing in mind that it's still Day 1.

I don't know when the last time was. I just read 11 pages in one fell swoop, and it was somewhere in there.
No, I do not think there is validity to the suspicions you stated/implied.... not sure why it being Day 1 is relevant.

[Sloonei]

For the drummed up suspicions on Gumshoe, and for the incessant one-line questions

This is just how I play. when was the last time i even hinter at a suspicion againdt gumshoe? do you not think there's any validity to any of the suspicions i've stated? especially bearing in mind that it's still Day 1.

I don't know when the last time was. I just read 11 pages in one fell swoop, and it was somewhere in there.
No, I do not think there is validity to the suspicions you stated/implied.... not sure why it being Day 1 is relevant.

It's been a while since I mentioned Gumshoe. I really only talked about her at the bery beginning of Day 1. Why do you not think there is validity to my suspicions? It being Day 1 is relevant because all of my reads at this stage are preliminary, especially in a game where I am only familiar with about 5 other players. I do not think or expect myself to be right on all accounts. Would you be able to comment on anything specific in my posts?

[Draconus]

My pm mentioned Sondheim, Brown, Schwartz, and Hammerstein together. It also repeated "lyricist" and "3/4" over and over. I think it may be Schwartz's role and I don't think he's a threat to us but I obviously can't be certain.

Lyricist could apply to any of those names. And 3/4 is a time signature indicative of a waltz. Mine was something about "revived" and "most overrated". I hope that's not a shot at The King and I.

I do think it was odd that Hedge brought up bandwagons for no particular reason. I think it could be to preemptively establish herself as looking better if one player does take a lot of votes, while also not really committing to anything herself.

Epi is reading as standard throw-everything-at-the-wall Epi to me, and LC hasn't done anything to ping me either. I don't agree with Epi that LC was using inflammatory language or trying to avoid offering his thoughts. He's done quite a lot of offering that I can see.

SVS is also on my radar for how strongly she reacted to the "interesting" thing. I doubt anyone will get lynched because they used an empty term like "interesting" or such, so her reaction towards Epi seemed misplaced.

Because I'm so far behind (Sorry guys. Still super busy at work. Not looking for a pass, though ) I'm going to put my parroting skills to use. I agree with several things DF says here.
First, my pm had similar repeating words. No specific names were mentioned, however, Broadway and music-theatre-canon were repeated several times. Also, "role-check" was mentioned once and "revived" was mentioned several times. Just noticed that "was own memory" is said twice, too.

Hedgey could be a good place to look today. But I'll scan through the rest of the posts to see if she has responded to this yet.

For Epi I would replace "standard throw-everthing-at-the-wall" with "standard hunting" Epi. As he pointed out, he's only gone after a very few people for (I believe) valid reasons that deserve questioning. I feel okay about him so far.

SVS's reaction to the "interesting" thing reminded me of several of MP's reactions to similar view points. He was not a baddie in those situations. Yes they have somewhat different play styles. But I will give her the botd for now. Doesn't mean I'm letting her completely off the hook for now. No one is at this point in the game.

An added note from me: I was just LC's teammate in the Flash mafia and watched him play a stellar manipulation game. I can definitely see where Epi and others are coming from with their arguments here. If LC survives today, I will keeping my eye on him for the rest of his in-game life (even if I die first). No offense, Buddy

[Draconus]

Just quoted this from page 9 of 14, btw

[Epignosis]

Epi thinks "interesting" is a stupid word. I agree. The next time an undergrad hands me a paper telling me how "interesting" Measure for Measure is, I am going to set it alight and force them to watch their minutes of half-hearted effort burn to ashes in front of their eyes. HAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. Take that, undergrad!

Epi is ON FIRE this game.

Is this because an undergrad said I was interesting?