The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:How the fuck after this is Banana the lynch leader. Holy shit that is such an obvious counterwagon. Town plz.

A counterwagon of what? You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom? Sounds like town still did well then.

What a strange strange post. How would I make the conclusion that a guy I thought was a good shot at being scum getting spared and a civ lynched in his place is good for the town? I don't give a flying fuck about breadcrumbs. The guy was there to be lynched and through reasons unbeknownst to me a guy who barely had a case made against him got lynched in his place. It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

Bolded is the only part relevant to the point I was trying to make. What do you mean when you say "obvious counterwagon"? What is the motive you see behind said counterwagon? What would make it an obvious counterwagon when one building on BUGLA would seem to be just as obvious (if not more so, considering the antipathy shown by you and others)?

@Matt- you might be reading some things into my timing. I couldn't stick around for the last 20 minutes of the vote, I had to get going and was feeling some time pressure. I saw the mention of Sorsha, and looked through her posts, and it really shouldn't surprise you that that took less than eight minutes, since she had so few. But even in those few minutes I saw some odd inconsistencies in her post history that were enough to merit a vote. I do remember there being a tie at the time but I didn't feel like I had any reason to vote for or against any of those people and decided to let it play out, see who would try to save whom. So then I voted for Sorsha right after posting that second post, and then *after* voting I saw the point on Bubbles, and I wanted to wait until I heard back from her and obviously wasn't going to switch my vote then and there, I just thought it was a point worth remarking on.

Hope that clears it up for you. It is quite odd that Sorsha never acknowledged my suspicion of her.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:The last time I went against the lynching of low posters, I was mafia.

To be fair I think there's an exception to make for day 1 lynches. Pursuing low posters (low-hanging fruit) for an entire game, yes, scummy as heck. Day 1 lynches, maybe, maybe not, when there are often no clear scum candidates it can be viable to remove them before they are used as fodder during more important days.

This is basically my stance on low-posters. No viable D1 candidate = > Low poster.
If someone continues not contributing and seems unwilling at all to contribute during the whole game, I will consider voting them later in the game as well.

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not suspicious of anyone with votes, but Buglabush seems not interested at all in playing the game, even less than people who haven't posted at all.
*votes*

Dom wasn't interested either until he got votes on him. If buglabush was scum I would imagine his team would be screaming at him to contribute, probably even post coaching.

Bug looks like an island to me.

Did you actually read what I said?

I found none of the people with votes suspicious = they were all on an equal level of suspicion to me.
So I looked at other criteria. Buglabush acts like the kind of guy who goes to school, sits in the back while listening to music and randomly says words from time to time without actually saying anything just to annoy other people. Dom atleast seems willing to contribute.

Scissors.

What, of course I did? You said you voted for him because he wasn't interested in playing the game. You didn't say any of what you then said in this post I am quoting. Fuck, ping! How am I supposed to deduce all of what you said there from the post I quoted initially?

I color coded it to make it clear for you. Yes, you were supposed to deduce "any of what I then said".

Zebra, did you make your voting analysis on the basis that someone was likely saved D1? Or did you just want a point to start to look at a bunch of people?

a2thezebra wrote:nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

I don't actually think we've ever played together....
I also can't fathom why in the world you'd think I needed my vote to be "excusable".

Odd post, this.

Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

@Mac - why do you think dom, specifically, was getting the save? Could it not have been buglabush? Even yesterday, you seemed to be quite firm on the idea of Dom being bad, but I'm not sure I've ever really caught the gist of why you suspected him (then). I agree with your points about Dom being opportunistic today, but I've been in heated arguments with Dom before where I've thought his reactions to my suspicion of him were opportunistic NO U approaches, and he has been civilian.

I feel like you've almost flipped a switch between earlier day one 'lets test epi's scumdar' and later day one putting a lot of pressure on for Dom to be the lynch. Is it all about the voting patterns and it feeling like a save came in? Or is there more to it I haven't quite understood.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:How the fuck after this is Banana the lynch leader. Holy shit that is such an obvious counterwagon. Town plz.

A counterwagon of what? You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom? Sounds like town still did well then.

What a strange strange post. How would I make the conclusion that a guy I thought was a good shot at being scum getting spared and a civ lynched in his place is good for the town? I don't give a flying fuck about breadcrumbs. The guy was there to be lynched and through reasons unbeknownst to me a guy who barely had a case made against him got lynched in his place. It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

Bolded is the only part relevant to the point I was trying to make. What do you mean when you say "obvious counterwagon"? What is the motive you see behind said counterwagon? What would make it an obvious counterwagon when one building on BUGLA would seem to be just as obvious (if not more so, considering the antipathy shown by you and others)?

I'm going to bed now so I'll just make my point now. In this reply to me you seem to misinterpret me heavily; I wasn't saying that you made the conclusion the lynch was good for town. I did; if you were right that it was such an obvious counterwagon, it means we got two scum for the price of a day 1 newbie mislynch. Of course, I don't think you're right that scum would stick their necks out like that, would be really silly and something they'd have to fight for the rest of the game. The worst part of this reply is in bold. You are literally saying that you are not certain she formed a counterwagon, even though that is the bulk of your suspicion on her, and say it plain as day in the same post:

MacDougall wrote:Re: para four. Not defensive, just annoyed that such an obvious mislynch was being put together to protect Dom.

Additionally, I love how you're doing that

MacDougall wrote:Please don't paraphrase me. I was doing my absolute best to calmly explain why I was casting a vote based on someone else's read, because I am aware it would be an easy target for scum to use to discredit said vote. You did exactly this.

When in a recent game you flipped scum you just said

MacDougall wrote:HamburgerBoy I will note I never said that Choutas was all about meta read etc. I inferred that he might be playing tightly to his meta. It might be true but please don't use me as a crutch for your reads when it's not true.

The whole tone of brazenly accusing people of misconstruing your words when the level of disagreement is pedantic at best, as evidenced where you very nearly say exactly what she accused you of:

MacDougall wrote:My vote would be on SVS if she was on the poll.

I spent a lot of my day engaging people who aren't votable. We are at days end and the best votable case in the game is Epi's Dom case.

At least I have given a reason for my vote. Sometimes a civ should follow. Epi looks town and he has a good scumdar.

Voting Mac

Hey Luke I see you're online, any thoughts so far?

Metalmarsh, why did you vote for epi

Metalmarah didn't have a reason for voting epi and I'm wondering why

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Thats the point, I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs.

But I have decided i would prefer to return to how we used to do it. It worked well, and the thread policed itself.

So death to lurkers, and people who make 2 posts~ one that says "I vote for X who already has 2 votes just becasue" and the other that says "Get a sense of humor".

Linki, I thought your case on Dom was bullshit. To not lynch him I had to cote for one of two low posters, both of whom happened to also be nubs. I am not going to save a non posting nub to save someone that Mac is screaming in the corner must die for no freaking reason whatsoever.

Why was my case on Dom bullshit? Was it more substantial than your case on bananas?

S~V~S wrote:Dom>low posters when i am not sure he is bad. YOU > low posters when I am not sure you are bad. I did not think Nanana was going to start contributing at a higher level. I am sure he is a nice guy, but I don;t think he was committed to the game.

Civilian > Committed to the game

I got the win condition to lynch Mafia, not lynch people who I don't think are committed to the game. What you just said in this post is that you are not trying to lynch Mafia. You are down for lynching non-contributors.

I hope your role slips on a banana peel. Poetic justice.

OK, now this is a lot of word twisting.

I was not trying to lynch Dom, becasue I did not think he is bad based on your weak argument. So if I have someone I do not think is bad (Dom) and someone I do think may be bad (Nanana), I will vote for the one I do have a ping on, especially if he is not really even playing.

This was Nananas vote post for Matt:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

This is the VERY NEXT POST in the thread:

S~V~S wrote:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

You think it was him and not Mac that caused the arguments?

I know I also mentioned his opportunistic vote later. So it is not like I decided out of the blue to vote for Nanana. The fact that there was more chatter about Bug at the time of the lynch, would have actually made him a vote more similar to what you are saying I was doing.

I said this on Thursday Night, 6:01 my time, some 5 hours before the poll ended:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Why do you think Canuck is a better bet? Do you think her no-showiness (until just now, lol) is more suspicious than Timmers no-showiness (until just now too)?

And although I generally don't love voting for nubs on Day One, not a fan of Nanananas vote. It seems pretty opportunistic to me.

I was not (and still am not) convinced that Dom is bad based on your argument. I had reason to think Nanana was. So I voted for him. Becasue I did not want to lynch Dom based on a weak argument (and Mac screamiong in the corner "EPI SCUMDAR FTW!!!" was not helping, since I don't trust his AT ALL). I had a choice; vote for someone I don't particularly think is bad based on an argument I find to be specious at best, or vote for someone I personally have a weak ping on.

Known Participating player > non participating player in that tie situation. Had it not been tied, I was more likely to have voted for Mac, who I felt more strongly about than about nanana. Personally, I thought he was buddying up to you big time. I also thought his game play has diverged greatly from what I have seen of him in another thread.

But when push came to shove, I saved Dom since I think your argument is weak, and I though Nanana might have been bad.

Bottom line; hindsight is 20/20. I voted for the person I thought was more likely to be bad based on my own thoughts.

Matt F wrote:Okay Mac cover your eyes because...here...we...go...

At the time of nutella's vote, all three top contenders (Bug, Dom, Nana) had four votes a piece, yet she voted for Sorsha. The whole exchange between nutella and sorsha after nutella's vote was quite curious...because there was none.

[trimmed for brevity]

So...

At the time of nutella's vote, the top three contenders (Bug, Dom, Nana) are tied at 4-4-4. Nutella, after contributing throughout the day, within an 8 minute timespan, throws her vote on Sorsha and completely avoids being a tiebreaker. Same post she votes for Sorsha, she makes an ironic statement about waiting for a response from Bubbles before placing a vote on her.

Then, the two posts that Sorsha make following nutella's vote...do not address the vote on her, do not address nutella. I would think nutella's vote would merit a reaction, something, even to say "Seriously? Put your vote where it matters", but nothing.

Now this is what I call content.

Golden wrote:Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

@Mac - why do you think dom, specifically, was getting the save? Could it not have been buglabush? Even yesterday, you seemed to be quite firm on the idea of Dom being bad, but I'm not sure I've ever really caught the gist of why you suspected him (then). I agree with your points about Dom being opportunistic today, but I've been in heated arguments with Dom before where I've thought his reactions to my suspicion of him were opportunistic NO U approaches, and he has been civilian.

I feel like you've almost flipped a switch between earlier day one 'lets test epi's scumdar' and later day one putting a lot of pressure on for Dom to be the lynch. Is it all about the voting patterns and it feeling like a save came in? Or is there more to it I haven't quite understood.

Golden, can you explain what I've been opportunistic on?

I feel that Mac is inconsistent at best or a liar at worst.

Separate post for addressing Mac now.

First, Mac, I would like to say the following:
1) You do not know me nor do you know my game.
2) You are relying on a case of meta-play (that you don't reference anymore) to say I am bad when you have not an inkling of a clue of what my meta-play is.

On the front of your mix-up, I brought it up because it's pretty clear to me you don't actually think I'm bad. It's pretty clear to me you are looking for easy people to lynch. Why was I on the same list as Bea? Because you don't care who is actually on that list.

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Dom vote for me. Surely you must think I am scummier than Banana.

Do you have a vote manip on your team?

I'm not sure what roles the other townies have Dom.

Surely you know what I'm implying here. Why so concerned I was voting to make sure I didn't die? Why was that weird to you that I voting to ensure my survival?

Your team doubled down on me. There was no way for you and Sorsha to pull out. Now you have to make it a full blown case against me. You were hoping I'd die so I coudln't speak out against you later.
Wrong-o.

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MacDougall wrote:What a travesty.

No, it was kind of a Policy Lynch, wasn't it? Lynching a civview who WAS participating, now THAT would have been a travesty, Mr. Hyperbole Words.

He made two posts, one of them an incredibly opportunistic vote.

And feel free to not validate me~ I am self validating

Now, if Dom was town. Do you think he would have been lynched? I do. I think if Dom was town, the scum would have hit his wagon hard. Of the three opportunities there he was clearly the more experienced player. Considering there were various votes made late day for very skewiff reasons they could have easily just thrown a vote on there and been done with it.

No, I would not have. Your theory is wrong because I was not lynched, and yet, I am town.
Again, you have no idea how I play, what my history is, etc., but you try and act like you know how I play. You don't. You have no clue how I react to suspicion. You have no idea how often I am lynched-- and when I am, under which circumstances. You know nothing, yet act like you do.
I was surprised I was almost lynched. You are surprised I wasn't? That's nice, but kind of irrelevant for you to say when:
1)Your suspicion of me is based on Epig's meta-case of which you have no ability to test yourself
and
2)It's Day 1. Things change rapidly. It was a four-way tie. I am not an inanimate object. I can speak. I think you were hoping I wouldn't.

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Dom wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I would agree that the case against you is BS, Dom, but that might because I'm less familiar with your meta than some of the people that are on it. Could you give us some more of your reads, perhaps? Such as who you most likely will be voting for?

I'll likely be voting in self preservation.
I think Sorsha's vote on me was suspect AF.

Yeah, but like, maybe other reads that you hadn't already mentioned? Oh dear.

Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

MacDougall wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm so sorry I missed the vote! Thursdays are utterly horrible for me.

I'm trying to catch up on all the wacky shenanigans so far, but this game's posts feel a lot more chaotic than usual. So far all I have is that I think Dom is reading civ, but the votes for Banana were kind of pingy. Also I do think it odd that Bubbles didn't say she's a civ, since it's her trademark at this point.

Pingy as fuck.

Do you suspect anyone who agrees with you on any issues?

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

This actually intrigues me.


MacDougall-- what is this a list of?

It's a list of scum reads I have that I mixed up between the games because it was late and I'd been trying hard to follow two games, so fucking sue me.

Your post is an opportunistic attempt to discredit me.

No.
My post illuminates how hypocritical you are. My post shows how you have an excuse for everything you suspect other people for doing.

First you said I was "disinterested" because I posted less than you'd like (but you have nothing to compare it to...so....). When that didn't work you switched tactics to calling me "low content", "silly", and "lurky". That is not how I think ANYONE would describe my play.

Why is your excuse of "I'm busy" less valid than mine? I work three jobs, take 6 classes, am in a play, and try and have a social life in my senior year at college. Why is that any less valid than "I'm on a roadtrip"?
Now, I'm not trying to imply that you couldn't be given any slack. You could. But you don't want to hand out the SAME slack to me because it's not politically expedient for you to do so.

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:If I voted right now, I would vote for MacDoughall or Sorsahl

And why aren't you?

Because I don't like voting early? Are you my mom?

I don't think your Mom would let Epignosis lynch you.

I guess my accusations of people not reading my posts aren't being acknowledged because there's a crucial distinction between reading and understanding that I as the accuser have failed to make. You can easily "read" a post but miss the entire point if you're being guided more by your own biases than by the will to remain objective, and perhaps that is what I should be accusing people of rather not reading my posts altogether. It's easy to skim through something and say that you've read it while at the same time misinterpreting everything that was said. Here's an example:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

Dom your defense overall isn't that bad in my opinion, but for this segment that I have singled out I would like for you to take a closer look at Mac's post that you clearly went to a lot of effort to respond to. Say has anyone here seen Cool Hand Luke?

I'll be back later with some more recent examples of this problem. For now let me just state the obvious: Baddies love it.

a2thezebra wrote:I guess my accusations of people not reading my posts aren't being acknowledged because there's a crucial distinction between reading and understanding that I as the accuser have failed to make. You can easily "read" a post but miss the entire point if you're being guided more by your own biases than by the will to remain objective, and perhaps that is what I should be accusing people of rather not reading my posts altogether. It's easy to skim through something and say that you've read it while at the same time misinterpreting everything that was said. Here's an example:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

Dom your defense overall isn't that bad in my opinion, but for this segment that I have singled out I would like for you to take a closer look at Mac's post that you clearly went to a lot of effort to respond to. Say has anyone here seen Cool Hand Luke?

You are absolutely right. That was my bad, and I recant it now that it's been pointed out to me.

Asking this again:
Zebra, did you make your voting analysis on the basis that someone was likely saved D1? Or did you just want a point to start to look at some people?

Oh joy HamburgerBoy.

Dom.

I don't have the energy to reply right now. I am so tired I can't even read them. I don't particularly care either. Since I am town and you won't succeed in lynching me no matter how hard you try.

I would just like one of SVS or Dom lynched. If that doesn't happen then meh. I am struggling to focus on two games so imma phone this one in for a bit k?

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.

So anyone who disagrees with you?


TBH, Epig, your suspicion of me boils down to the fact that you like to suspect people and you needed someone to latch onto-- and it hasn't been me for awhile. I'm not bad and you STILL haven't told me if you are or not.

I don't see Epi suspecting you because he disagrees with you. I don't see Epi suspecting SVS because he disagrees with her. I also don't think he's only suspecting you because he needs someone to latch onto - his case might not be the most solid one I've seen, but it feels genuine to me, and he's discussed players other than you.

I think you're trying to create a false narrative here.

MacDougall wrote:I would just like one of SVS or Dom lynched. If that doesn't happen then meh. I am struggling to focus on two games so imma phone this one in for a bit k?

*faces opposition*

*runs away to avoid the conflict and not be lynched because he realizes he bit off way more than he can chew*

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.

So anyone who disagrees with you?


TBH, Epig, your suspicion of me boils down to the fact that you like to suspect people and you needed someone to latch onto-- and it hasn't been me for awhile. I'm not bad and you STILL haven't told me if you are or not.

I don't see Epi suspecting you because he disagrees with you. I don't see Epi suspecting SVS because he disagrees with her. I also don't think he's only suspecting you because he needs someone to latch onto - his case might not be the most solid one I've seen, but it feels genuine to me, and he's discussed players other than you.

I think you're trying to create a false narrative here.

I don't think Epig is necessarily bad. I've been saying that the whole time.
I just think he is instantly suspecting those who disagree with him.

Though, now I could get on board with a nutella suspicion.

What are you seeing with nutella?

Thinking about Timmer's death...and RIPIYWG Timmer of course...two things dawn on me. One is that the mafia team was going for a low poster. Two is that it would seem like good strategy for someone to separate themselves from killing a low poster by talking about how against lynching low posters they are. Just a thought.

Not sure about Dom--the tells of his youth have dissipated, and I haven't figured out how to read him yet. I don't think SVS would defend a teammate on day 1, so they may both be bad, but I doubt they're on the same team. Still suspect Mac, and not sure what to make of what seems to be something of a role claim. I do find it eyebrow raising that Tiny Bubbles didn't say "I'm civ," but I also have sympathy for someone being suspected for not saying something they usually say. That said, it does strike me as somewhat pingy. I need to reread LA.

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

MacDougall wrote:I would just like one of SVS or Dom lynched. If that doesn't happen then meh. I am struggling to focus on two games so imma phone this one in for a bit k?

Mac, I'm surprised at you. The hosts put together a great game and just because your pick doesnt get picked (if they don't) that's no reason to disrespect their game by just phoning it in. I probably should put this in green because its a more personal note than a game note.

Today my plan is to read back over all the Dom info starting with Epi's post which as i recall was a pretty good case for day 1. My overall thought though is Dom was behaving in line with his meta. I don't know any tells for him being bad though so I want to re-examine what others have been saying. Right now if i were to do a rainbow list he would be in the middle. Secondly, I need to look closely at nutella. I haven't quite grasped what the problem is with her posting but thats just because I have not been back to re-read her and her accusers. There hasn't been as much behavior from her as from Dom so i expect the case to be somewhat weaker. And finally, I need to re-read SVS and her accusers. I've re-read some things already and Mac I know you feel strongly about her but I'm not understanding what she has specifically done or said to cause your suspicions. If you have already detailed your suspicions and I glossed over them my apologies. If you want to point me to them or explain that would be much appreciated.

Also, RIPIYWG Timmer. I hate to see you go as a person and regret that you couldnt participate more.

Today is a 3-alarm day for me. The Halloween decorations aren't up, I have no candy, and i need to run a ton of errands. I may not be back on today until late to catch up. Tomorrow I should be able to dedicate the whole day to mafia.

Luke11646 wrote:Metalmarah didn't have a reason for voting epi and I'm wondering why

He asked who nightkilled timmer.

I answered his name, and voted.

He hasn't denied it yet.

You're a real gumshoe.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Hey Luke I see you're online, any thoughts so far?

3 minutes later...

Luke11646 wrote:Metalmarsh, why did you vote for epi

Luke11646 wrote:Metalmarah didn't have a reason for voting epi and I'm wondering why

It feels like Luke just picked the first thing he saw to comment on, and then got the hell out of Dodge

Thanks nutella, just woke up will respond in a bit.

Sorsha?

a2thezebra wrote:By the way, hi Elohcin.

Hi Zeebs!

You can think what you want. My vote was genuine. I thought Banananananana could be bad. I was wrong.

First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

I think it's also worth pointing out that baddie team kills have a range of 2, so the kill depends on who is in their range.

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Looks like we were cut entirely from it.

I knew i should've picked scissors.

Zebra's Banana connections post:

Agree on juliet. Don't know about sig. Canuckle's vote waaaas interesting.

Now to Elohcin. She could very well be bad, but I also believed Banana's vote to be "false, weird, and suspicious". In fact, I had an inkling that maybe Floyd had told Banana about the TH game because NOWHERE in this game had I started an argument yet. I even make a post referencing that I believe Banana has help...

Matt F wrote:Banana, which of your teammates told you to say that about me?

As for SVS, I find that in nearly every game I play with her, just like Bullz I think she's bad. I troll her hard. So I dunno. But I do agree with Epi that when I used to play back in the day, no way no how was SVS voting for a noob on day one. But let's remember, if she wanted to make a difference in the poll, it was between two noobs or Epi's "You're bad" case against Dom (I'll have to reread that entire interaction between them but at the time, I didn't really follow where Epi was going).

As for Dom, I don't know how you can call him a civvie, but I do agree that his vote was self preservation so no reason to look at him for that.

a2thezebra wrote:nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

Per the underline, i find it interesting you say that because...

a2thezebra wrote:I believe that a self-vote is a mortal sin in any mafia game.

Explain?

I have more to catch up on, I'll be back in a bit.

TheFloyd73 wrote:I agree with Zebra's observations on the voters on Banana. Canuckle and Elo's reasons are extremely poor and unexplanitory. If those two could give a more in depth reason behind their vote, it would be greatly appreciated.

This has got to be the most input I've ever seen Floyd put into the game of Mafia. So obviously he's being coached. Just kidding, Floyd!

However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?

MacDougall wrote:It's a list of scum reads I have that I mixed up between the games because it was late and I'd been trying hard to follow two games, so fucking sue me.

You may have already done this in the other game, haven't checked yet, but could you clarify who you think is bad in this game from that list you gave? I'm guessing Dom and SVS still. Also Floyd?

nutella wrote:@Matt- you might be reading some things into my timing. I couldn't stick around for the last 20 minutes of the vote, I had to get going and was feeling some time pressure. I saw the mention of Sorsha, and looked through her posts, and it really shouldn't surprise you that that took less than eight minutes, since she had so few. But even in those few minutes I saw some odd inconsistencies in her post history that were enough to merit a vote. I do remember there being a tie at the time but I didn't feel like I had any reason to vote for or against any of those people and decided to let it play out, see who would try to save whom. So then I voted for Sorsha right after posting that second post, and then *after* voting I saw the point on Bubbles, and I wanted to wait until I heard back from her and obviously wasn't going to switch my vote then and there, I just thought it was a point worth remarking on.

Hope that clears it up for you. It is quite odd that Sorsha never acknowledged my suspicion of her.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't just your vote for her. It was Sorsha's complete disregard to said vote that got me pinged on this whole thing. I find it curious that some players have looked at you for my case here, but nothing to say about Sorsha. And yes that is odd.

MacDougall wrote:Since I am town and you won't succeed in lynching me no matter how hard you try.

Interesting that you go with this. You realize, if you're being truthful, the mafia will kill you now the first chance they get.

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

What about Sorsha? I found Sorsha's ignoring of said vote to be very interesting.

Bullzeye wrote:

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

That's interesting, Bullz.

Well my wonderful husband took care of candy and decorations so I have a little time on my hands. Nutella, I am currently looking at Matt's case on you and your response plus your posting history.

Please see the underlined in the passage below. What were those odd inconsistencies that you saw in her posts?

nutella wrote:@Matt- you might be reading some things into my timing. I couldn't stick around for the last 20 minutes of the vote, I had to get going and was feeling some time pressure. I saw the mention of Sorsha, and looked through her posts, and it really shouldn't surprise you that that took less than eight minutes, since she had so few. But even in those few minutes I saw some odd inconsistencies in her post history that were enough to merit a vote. I do remember there being a tie at the time but I didn't feel like I had any reason to vote for or against any of those people and decided to let it play out, see who would try to save whom. So then I voted for Sorsha right after posting that second post, and then *after* voting I saw the point on Bubbles, and I wanted to wait until I heard back from her and obviously wasn't going to switch my vote then and there, I just thought it was a point worth remarking on.

Hope that clears it up for you. It is quite odd that Sorsha never acknowledged my suspicion of her.

Floyd, I don't want you to think I have forgotten that you still haven't responded to me about Matt and Mac from yesterday. I still think the question is relevant and so I'm asking I believe for the third time for you to give me an answer.

@bullz: I had the same thought about the phrasing of that post.

@matt: claiming a role says nothing about what team he is on, and as there is more than one role he could be referring to, it says nothing about if he is civ or not. He could be threatening us with wasting a lynch to get focus away from him.

LoRab wrote:@matt: claiming a role says nothing about what team he is on, and as there is more than one role he could be referring to, it says nothing about if he is civ or not. He could be threatening us with wasting a lynch to get focus away from him.

That was my immediate thought.

In TH, 3J Jimmy Jay (who btw has broken the posting record for a single game in TH, I believe) said at one point that Mafia at RYM (RateYourMusic website) probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for MacD, which leads me to believe that Mac is an expert, at the very least experienced player.

Taking that in consideration, I don't know why he would post what he did since he should know that saying such a thing can get you killed in a split second.

Also, he claimed to be town in that same post, re: "claiming a role says nothing about what team he is on"

Matt F wrote:In TH, 3J Jimmy Jay (who btw has broken the posting record for a single game in TH, I believe)

Holy fucking shit

Sidebar, seeing people refer to the Talking Heads game as "TH" is strangely unsettling for me.

It's important to note that RYM not only allows roleclaiming, but often encourages it as part of strategy, and a well-timed claim or fakeclaim can easy influence the entire game. LoRab's point about "claiming a role says nothing about what team he is on" is just to say that the roleclaim itself is separate from his townclaim; even if he is unlynchable, it doesn't not say anything about his alignment. I think Mac is scum, but knowing RYMafia, his claim of lynch immunity doesn't affect that (an apparent lack of truly unlynchable roles notwithstanding).

Matt F wrote:Okay Mac cover your eyes because...here...we...go...

At the time of nutella's vote, all three top contenders (Bug, Dom, Nana) had four votes a piece, yet she voted for Sorsha. The whole exchange between nutella and sorsha after nutella's vote was quite curious...because there was none.

6:29 PM

nutella wrote:Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

6:37 PM

nutella wrote:Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

After contributing throughout the Day phase with her thoughts, it takes a span of eight minutes for nutella to suddenly throw a vote on Sorsha, avoiding completely the 4-4-4 tie between Bug, Dom, and Nana.

Her next post, a minute later, says this

nutella wrote:Voted for Sorsha.

The Bubbles catch is interesting indeed. I don't feel like it merits a vote yet -- I'd like to see her response first.

In the same post saying she'd like a response from Bubbles first, she votes Sorsha. I think it's weird because during that eight minute window, nutella never asked or gave Sorsha a chance to respond.

But THAT'S okay, because there's still 22 minutes left in the poll. So Sorsha can still respond and maybe get nutella to put her vote where it matters! Right?

Here are Sorsha's posts after nutella votes her literally out of nowhere

6:40 PM (3 Minutes after nutella's vote on Sorsha)

Sorsha wrote:I could also go for a BUG lynch, wasn't fond of his comment to zebra mostly. Also if he's getting tips from Floyd or some bad btsc partner he could just be playing the noob card, it worked for quite a while when Floyd did it and was bad. If Dom is going to be around and contribute like he is now I would likely think better of him. I'm also reminded of his play in the gentlemans guide game when he was a low laying baddie who ended up winning.

6:48 PM (11 Minutes after nutella's vote on Sorsha)

Sorsha wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I could also go for a BUG lynch, wasn't fond of his comment to zebra mostly. Also if he's getting tips from Floyd or some bad btsc partner he could just be playing the noob card, it worked for quite a while when Floyd did it and was bad. If Dom is going to be around and contribute like he is now I would likely think better of him. I'm also reminded of his play in the gentlemans guide game when he was a low laying baddie who ended up winning.

Can this opinion become unanimous please? I don't see how it isn't obvious that that's what's going on.

I guess I still just feel bad voting a new player out on the first day....

So...

At the time of nutella's vote, the top three contenders (Bug, Dom, Nana) are tied at 4-4-4. Nutella, after contributing throughout the day, within an 8 minute timespan, throws her vote on Sorsha and completely avoids being a tiebreaker. Same post she votes for Sorsha, she makes an ironic statement about waiting for a response from Bubbles before placing a vote on her.

Then, the two posts that Sorsha make following nutella's vote...do not address the vote on her, do not address nutella. I would think nutella's vote would merit a reaction, something, even to say "Seriously? Put your vote where it matters", but nothing.

The times that you posted on here are helpful in explaining so thanks for that Matt. I work 3rd shift and start at 8 pm, judging by the times that you have on this post it looks like that is 6 pm YOUR time. Posting for me at work has to be very quick so I don't get to sit here and reply to every post that I'd really like to, plus I'm reading/posting from a phone. That post I made at 6:40 was caught up in linkitis, I don't even know how long... I wrote the post, hit submit, I got linkitis, I hit submit again and put the phone back in my pocket. I don't usually get more linki than that so I figured it would be fine... when I pulled my phone out a couple minutes later it was still caught up in linki. My post before that one was at 8:22 (6:22 to you) so sometime between those two is all I know. Go back and look at how many posts were made at the exact same time then, SVS even makes a comment in one of her posts about getting caught in linki at around the 8:37-38-ish time.

I was more worried about getting my OWN vote in at the time than to defend/respond to much else. I responded to zebra because I noticed that she actually quoted me and that caught my eye. I didn't think that one vote was really going to kill me so I didn't respond and most of the time I don't do much game related talk during the night so I didn't address it then either, and also like I said... I was at work where we are technically not even supposed to have our phones out, much less texting/playing games on them.

Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?

Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.

Ugh… .. I had a post and I lost it.

These are my basic points on nutellas vote for me:

nutella wrote:

Epignosis wrote:"Pushing the Dom thing."

I have to pick someone to vote for. I have to have a reason for voting that person. I have to try to get that person lynched. Otherwise I'm just coming in and voting and not giving a toss.

nutella, what WOULD give you a clue as to my alignment? I'm curious.

I don't really have an answer to that. Different behaviors can make me suspect or trust players and it depends on the context of the game. I just usually don't have such reads/much material to base them on when it's still day 1.


Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

In this^ post it sounds to me like she’s already decided to vote for me based on Dom having a suspicion of me, despite saying THIS about Dom just one post earlier:

nutella wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

Is this to imply that you suspect me second to Bullz?

Why couldn't you be convinced to vote for Dom? Does he never draw Mafia roles?

I am absolutely not discounting the possibility that Dom is bad. I just don't see any particular reason to vote for him at this stage. I'm not really leaning in either direction in my read of Dom yet.

And largely the same goes for you, but you stand out a little bit more to me for pushing the Dom thing. Then again, I always seem to find your early-game reads & behavior to be off-putting, so as with Dom it's more of a consistent reaction to your style that doesn't really clue me in on your alignment.

nutella wrote:Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

I’m pretty sure I never said I would vote for Mac and I did clear up earlier here that I was NOT going to be voting for Matt so I wasn’t looking for an excuse out of anything.

And I didn't hedge on anything….

Sorsha wrote:@Dom- I don't see what's wrong with stating who I'm not voting for... It's day one and I don't have a huge feel on anyone yet. It's easier to spot civ behavior for me that bad sometimes is what I was trying to get at there. Im feeling civ vibes from Mac so far and while I'm not good at pinning down Epis alliance in most games I do agree with him on the points he's made on you. And you no u me?

I always seem to think Epi is bad and I lately (last three games we have played together) I have been wrong. I did say that I agreed with his points on Dom and I did say that I was getting civ vibes from Mac and felt ok voting along with them so I don’t know how that is considered hedging.

Nutella is obviously reading my posts... I’m not sure if she’s just twisting it to fit her motive or if its just so weak that it doesn’t come together fully.

Nutella- In one of the posts above you said you’d vote for me or Bug. Why were you considering him? Did you even look over his posts before making the decision on which of the two of us to vote for, or just mine?

Epignosis wrote:You're a real gumshoe.

Bearglove!

Bullzeye wrote:

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

That's a very good point. Especially since, as Typh pointed out, the baddies have a limited range of kill options on any given night. And even if they didn't, Timmer is a very skilled and adept player even when posting low, so killing him for being a lurker is not the first explanation that would come to mind for me. Have Sig and Timmer ever played together before?

Also, I do have my eye on Canuck; I think Zebra made a good point about her pseudo-random vote on someone who already has two votes. The others caught my eye too, but of the Banana voters she definitely looks the worst.

I don't suspect Nutella for voting Sorsha or for not breaking the tie; if you don't feel any of the top suspects are worthy of the vote then you shouldn't vote them. If anything I'm more pinged that she's made two posts defending Canuck.

Mac, what did you find pingy about my post?

I'll go ahead and place my vote on Sig for now.

RIP Banana and RIPIYWG Timmer. Sorry for missing the vote and general absence. Will try to be more around from here on out.

I like the points about sig, and am interested to hear his response. Lorab's post remarking about Timmer's low posting also bothers me.

LoRab wrote:Thinking about Timmer's death...and RIPIYWG Timmer of course...two things dawn on me. One is that the mafia team was going for a low poster. Two is that it would seem like good strategy for someone to separate themselves from killing a low poster by talking about how against lynching low posters they are. Just a thought.

Partially because the idea is similar to that of sig's (something discussed in btsc maybe) and this really just feels like trying to set up someone talking about lynching a low poster.

"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

I think Bullz catch of sig was a meaty catch. I know this was just said but I too am interested in what sig has to say about it. One point does not make a trend line with which to infer that the mafia are behaving in any certain way.

The big difference I see between that and Lorab's comment is she was just talking about the one point and did not try to extrapolate from data that was not there. I know you said similar splints I just wanted to point out that one difference.