Champions 2019 - Crisis on The Syndicate [Day 4]

[speedchuck]

I would, right now, vote sig, TH, Mac, and anyone who has appealed to emotion. I would murder the emotion right out of this game.

Has this salad been observed yet? This is salad. I observe it.

It's not salad if they're all bad.

Yes it is. How do you feel about each of us here? Who is your top non-sig suspect outside of this thread?

I fervently disagree. I had reasons for everyone I scumread there. The only one named who hasn't flipped yet is TH, who I still suspect. Call it piggy-backing on Dom if you will, but I'm on that. This not only does not fit the definition or template of player salad, it is accurate, provides reasons in previous posts, and caps it off by providing a direction I'm going in. Screw off with that.

Anyway.

This thread... It's easier to POE. I don't suspect G-Man or Juliets whatsoever. Michelle I hadn't hardly noticed before today, and her reaction to my posts feels like a read in bad faith. Like she's trying to look for the bad in posts that are batting a 50/50. I don't pretend to be able to read you or JJJ when I've read about 3.5% of your posts, but I'd suspect you over Jay just because I trust nutella more than you.

The above isn't going to satisfy you, because most aren't 'original thoughts.' Too bad. I've had original thoughts, accurate ones, and Michelle just finished crapping on them.

[juliets]

Regarding the votes, on Day 2 I made the decision to vote Radishes during EOD. I had a vote on G-Man but then I realized (because someone pointed out the connection) that voting for G-Man and voting for Radishes was the same thing. My vote was not doing any good on G-Man so I made the change to Radish.

On Day 3 I voted sig very soon after Dizzy's post that pointed out sig's slip/TMI. From my pov he couldn't have had a civ role that told him both that Mac was bad and Mac was targeted N1. I was convinced without a doubt that sig was bad and he never was able to explain it away other than to hint he was Lassie - except Lassie would not have known Mac was targeted. This evidence was to me hard evidence, which I didn't have for Mac even though Mac was suspicious.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@speedchuck tell me about your day 3 vote.

Day 3 was my vote for Mac, yes?

Sig's slip relied on Mac being scum. It made more sense to lynch Mac first, to be sure. I've pretty consistently agreed with Dom's passionate reads on the both of them, from D2 or even earlier.

I did scumread Sig earlier, but by Day 3 Mac was just as good a lynch.

Your final vote was sig.

[Sloonei]

I would, right now, vote sig, TH, Mac, and anyone who has appealed to emotion. I would murder the emotion right out of this game.

Has this salad been observed yet? This is salad. I observe it.

It's not salad if they're all bad.

Yes it is. How do you feel about each of us here? Who is your top non-sig suspect outside of this thread?

I fervently disagree. I had reasons for everyone I scumread there. The only one named who hasn't flipped yet is TH, who I still suspect. Call it piggy-backing on Dom if you will, but I'm on that. This not only does not fit the definition or template of player salad, it is accurate, provides reasons in previous posts, and caps it off by providing a direction I'm going in. Screw off with that.

Anyway.

This thread... It's easier to POE. I don't suspect G-Man or Juliets whatsoever. Michelle I hadn't hardly noticed before today, and her reaction to my posts feels like a read in bad faith. Like she's trying to look for the bad in posts that are batting a 50/50. I don't pretend to be able to read you or JJJ when I've read about 3.5% of your posts, but I'd suspect you over Jay just because I trust nutella more than you.

The above isn't going to satisfy you, because most aren't 'original thoughts.' Too bad. I've had original thoughts, accurate ones, and Michelle just finished crapping on them.

Why is michelle's read a bad faith argument? Gimme specifics.

[speedchuck]

@speedchuck tell me about your day 3 vote.

Day 3 was my vote for Mac, yes?

Sig's slip relied on Mac being scum. It made more sense to lynch Mac first, to be sure. I've pretty consistently agreed with Dom's passionate reads on the both of them, from D2 or even earlier.

I did scumread Sig earlier, but by Day 3 Mac was just as good a lynch.

Your final vote was sig.

Was it? I flip flopped a bit. I recall something about sig possibly having less votes because of a vote power, but I thought that was before the...


That's what you get when you try to make me remember things without thread access.

[speedchuck]

Juliets gives me homework to do but i didn't find her stance in this matter. I wonder why. Let's say she has good intentions but I dislike the question mixed in a post, when she usually pings to obtain answers.

Saitama is mafia? We might as well give up now.

this post, wether is from a player who knows the original role which is NAI, or is mafia from any team who thinks mentioning a scum member may look good.

Analysing a joke post from a NAI or scum perspective. Skews negative, from a nothingburger of a post.

I've not voted yet so I haven't seen the poll. Who is in the 4th slot on Nutella, Jack, and/or me?

Thar be scum. Bet me.

Yay! Someone else ascribes to the "fourth is scum" theory of vote trains!

The midmeld with Radishes is worrisome

Is it really though? Why? Does this seem like something a scummate would do? Am I bolstering a read? No. THis is apparently suspicious because Radish and I have similar vote analysis methods that go beyond this game.

Upon further reflection of ISOs both of these wagons are shiiiiiiiiiiiny turds.

Nutella I can see why people suspect her. The interactions starting when Mac wagoned on look pretty bad. But lynching nutella D1 after she gets defensive over some tunneling is wonky.

I have no idea why anyone would vote Master Radishes.

I take from this that he TRs Radishes ot they are buddies.

She's not too harsh here, I guess. But she doesn't say anything about it, there's no input. "Either they are scum together or he townreads MR." Yes, that is the two options. That's what the post said. Why bring it up if you're not going to do anything with it except say 'Speed could be town or scum'? Unless it's to try and get other, more present people to read the post again and associate me.

Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.

I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

Radishes talks relaxed about scumbuddies and Speed comes with a suspicion at Sig. This can be scum theatre, but it can be nothing as well. In the context comes at -1, i don't believe in coincidences.

I don't actually know what the second sentence means, but I feel like it's skewing me negative for having a correct read because coincidences don't exist.
ok.

Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.

I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

1. Reason wasnt crappy
2. Was laying out my thought process.

It would be imo so much worse to instantly switch off since Jack changed his mind, especially since I didnt base my vote solely off his read and two she wasn't a civ?

Not to mention I stated a few times she wasnt my top lynch which Is why I switched off once things evened our a bit.

Some of your reasons were crappy. And you had some perfectly good reasons. Overcompensating to justify staying on nutella. Meh. Minor sus.

This chain is suspicious and may very well be a scum team interaction, to not receive a further "they didn't interact itt". The only good thing is Speed voted for Sig but i don't remember when and the poll positions don't reflect the order of the votes iirc

I don't overthink playing as scum this much. And I don't bus my teammates for no reason. Using the fact that I replied to Sig at one point to say I'm trying to make sure interactions exist is just assuming the world.

Having read over the last two pages, Dys and Dom are my top townreads. Their votes are on people I would like to see lynched.

I got twenty minutes. Lets go.

Expand on this, mr chuck

I got weird vibes from Ted D1, and then he appeared reluctant to address Dizzy's 'scumslip' on him. It wasn't the slip itself that bothered me, but his forced nonchalance about it? Something like that. Lol at her flipping votes, though.

The Mac read is nothing special. I agree with what Jay said about his Dom post, and a few other sentiments expressed in the past two pages.

Dizzy and Dom both seemed like fairly stable, level heads in the thread D1. I like town dizzy and town dom.

Bonus: I don't care to lynch G-man.

Maybe is Speed speciality but this post is more a word salad, no offense.. Maybe is just me who don't understand it's meaning.

In context, this post makes sense. I don't have anything else to say about the response.

Having read over the last two pages, Dys and Dom are my top townreads. Their votes are on people I would like to see lynched.

I got twenty minutes. Lets go.

I actually wanna hear this

There's not much to hear, yo. You give me vibes. Even with this post you give me vibes.

"Someone suspects me!? I LAUGH! Tell me of this inconsequential suspicion, fellow townie, and we'll work it out over tea." It's, just, it doesn't feel genuine.

It comes more from a PoV of me having a civ role and transparently laying out my thoughts, which would make me believe I'm obvious town (I never filter my thoughts) and me never being mislynched in one year of mafia is also contributing towards this. I'd rarely been suspected as town so I have high expectation when such claims occur.

Ok, I got lynched once but that was when I was on a holiday at the sea and I didn't care enough to stress myself

Too calculated a response. Bad.

I mean, if you're seriously genuine here, then you have an ego the size of a train and self-analysis out the butt. It doesn't read like transparently laying out thoughts.

So hey, if you never get mislynched, and we lynch you today, then you must be scum, right? Otherwise you wouldn't get lynched.

voted Ted just after but after, asked by Nanook, he switched to voting Mac.
My understanding on Ted's play (playing with him since summer) is that he has strong beliefs and shares them itt. Sometimes he is wrong but as villager he is like a rock. His posts are not scummy for me. Scum would not be so relaxed i think. But Speed finds him wolfy, and is more like it's a whim to vote him because he dislikes the playstyle without trying to have a real read. Is convenient to vote a player with not known meta.

This is just assuming my motives based on nothing. I find it suspicious when people overreact to brush off suspicions.

I would, right now, vote sig, TH, Mac, and anyone who has appealed to emotion. I would murder the emotion right out of this game.

Rubs me the wrong way. Mafia is like 1/3 emotion. Villagers have an emotional force while wolves can have fear, anguish or delightful joy depending of the player's preferences. This post looks like NAI but doesn't help town.

Disagree. I've seen emotion ruin so many almost-won town games.

So we can start with him.

But I have a hit list, and I'm considering putting you on it.

[VOTE: Macdougall] aubergine

If Speed is mafia he is aligned with the Radishes team imo. A tinfoilable slot.

Overall, this post says a lot of nothing, while skewing a bunch of the posts I've made negative to be picked apart. Going over it, it's not egregious I guess. It's just fluffy and tosses shade in my direction while being very hands-off.

But michelle hasn't played with me much. If you made this post, [mention]Sloonei[/mention], it would be a lot worse.

[Sloonei]

I'd like to see [mention]Michelle[/mention] respond to that. I'd also like it if she could tell us why she specifically had all those speedchuck posts saved and ready to go.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Your final vote was sig.

Was it? I flip flopped a bit. I recall something about sig possibly having less votes because of a vote power, but I thought that was before the...


That's what you get when you try to make me remember things without thread access.

One reason I asked about your vote was that I thought it’d be the easiest thing to remember.

If I recall correctly (I acknowledge that memory alone comes with limitations), when I reviewed your handling of Mac I could not clearly discern why you viewed him as suspicious. On Day 3 you alternated votes between sig and Mac, twice each. You spoke a good amount about sig and the merits of the TMI case. When you talked Mac though it was purely mechanical — one or the other was “better” to lynch first.

Why did you suspect Mac, and why did you decide in the end that sig was the best choice?

[juliets]

[mention]Michelle[/mention] I'm going through these posts to give you my thoughts in blue.

<snip>

Saitama is mafia? We might as well give up now.

this post, wether is from a player who knows the original role which is NAI, or is mafia from any team who thinks mentioning a scum member may look good.

Michelle earlier you said you didn't have any game related thoughts about this post, it just made you chuckle. My read of this post is that he is talking about the character Saitama in whatever anime/cartoon/other Saitama is in, just joking around like everyone was in the beginning. I don't get what the point would be of posting it as scum.

I've not voted yet so I haven't seen the poll. Who is in the 4th slot on Nutella, Jack, and/or me?

Thar be scum. Bet me.

Yay! Someone else ascribes to the "fourth is scum" theory of vote trains!

The midmeld with Radishes is worrisome

Maybe I don't use the word "mind-meld" the same way everyone else does but I think of it as several thoughts where two or more players see someone's posts the same way. This agreement on the positioning of voters didn't cause me any concern, though I disagree with what they are saying.

Upon further reflection of ISOs both of these wagons are shiiiiiiiiiiiny turds.

Nutella I can see why people suspect her. The interactions starting when Mac wagoned on look pretty bad. But lynching nutella D1 after she gets defensive over some tunneling is wonky.

I have no idea why anyone would vote Master Radishes.

I take from this that he TRs Radishes ot they are buddies.

I think he definitely town reads him at this point but several of us did. Does this mean they were on the same team? I guess it could but it could also just be a town read.

Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.

I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

Radishes talks relaxed about scumbuddies and Speed comes with a suspicion at Sig. This can be scum theatre, but it can be nothing as well. In the context comes at -1, i don't believe in coincidences.

Are you saying here that this could be speed throwing sig under the bus (he voted for him later)? I guess that's possible but I don't see it as strong evidence. What does the -1 mean?

Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.

I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

1. Reason wasnt crappy
2. Was laying out my thought process.

It would be imo so much worse to instantly switch off since Jack changed his mind, especially since I didnt base my vote solely off his read and two she wasn't a civ?

Not to mention I stated a few times she wasnt my top lynch which Is why I switched off once things evened our a bit.

Some of your reasons were crappy. And you had some perfectly good reasons. Overcompensating to justify staying on nutella. Meh. Minor sus.

This chain is suspicious and may very well be a scum team interaction, to not receive a further "they didn't interact itt". The only good thing is Speed voted for Sig but i don't remember when and the poll positions don't reflect the order of the votes iirc

Yes, it could be a scum team interaction but I don't have enough evidence to call it one. I don't know when this happened in relation to the major suspicion of sig. If it happened early on I wouldn't tend to see it as a scum interaction. sig was an almost universal town read early in the game so there would be no reason for a teammate to throw shade his way. If it happened later then maybe.

Having read over the last two pages, Dys and Dom are my top townreads. Their votes are on people I would like to see lynched.

I got twenty minutes. Lets go.

Expand on this, mr chuck

I got weird vibes from Ted D1, and then he appeared reluctant to address Dizzy's 'scumslip' on him. It wasn't the slip itself that bothered me, but his forced nonchalance about it? Something like that. Lol at her flipping votes, though.

The Mac read is nothing special. I agree with what Jay said about his Dom post, and a few other sentiments expressed in the past two pages.

Dizzy and Dom both seemed like fairly stable, level heads in the thread D1. I like town dizzy and town dom.

Bonus: I don't care to lynch G-man.

Maybe is Speed speciality but this post is more a word salad, no offense.. Maybe is just me who don't understand it's meaning.

For me it's hard to understand because I can't see the underlying posts he is talking about. I have no idea what ted said about Dizzy without looking back. Same with what Jay said about Mac's Dom post. So I don't have an understanding of what he's trying to say.

Having read over the last two pages, Dys and Dom are my top townreads. Their votes are on people I would like to see lynched.

I got twenty minutes. Lets go.

I actually wanna hear this

There's not much to hear, yo. You give me vibes. Even with this post you give me vibes.

"Someone suspects me!? I LAUGH! Tell me of this inconsequential suspicion, fellow townie, and we'll work it out over tea." It's, just, it doesn't feel genuine.

It comes more from a PoV of me having a civ role and transparently laying out my thoughts, which would make me believe I'm obvious town (I never filter my thoughts) and me never being mislynched in one year of mafia is also contributing towards this. I'd rarely been suspected as town so I have high expectation when such claims occur.

Ok, I got lynched once but that was when I was on a holiday at the sea and I didn't care enough to stress myself

Too calculated a response. Bad.

I mean, if you're seriously genuine here, then you have an ego the size of a train and self-analysis out the butt. It doesn't read like transparently laying out thoughts.

So hey, if you never get mislynched, and we lynch you today, then you must be scum, right? Otherwise you wouldn't get lynched.

voted Ted just after but after, asked by Nanook, he switched to voting Mac.
My understanding on Ted's play (playing with him since summer) is that he has strong beliefs and shares them itt. Sometimes he is wrong but as villager he is like a rock. His posts are not scummy for me. Scum would not be so relaxed i think. But Speed finds him wolfy, and is more like it's a whim to vote him because he dislikes the playstyle without trying to have a real read. Is convenient to vote a player with not known meta.

Michelle, how do you remember that he voted Ted just after that but then was asked by Nanook to change? I can't remember anything that detailed from the thread. I agree about ted having strong beliefs and sharing them. I think what your saying here is you disagree with his read on ted and think it was scummy of him to vote ted when ted has no known meta (to speed I guess). I don't know ted that well but I see your point that maybe he's reading him based on play style. I would want to look at anything else he had to say about ted though to make a determination that it's scummy.

I would, right now, vote sig, TH, Mac, and anyone who has appealed to emotion. I would murder the emotion right out of this game.

Rubs me the wrong way. Mafia is like 1/3 emotion. Villagers have an emotional force while wolves can have fear, anguish or delightful joy depending of the player's preferences. This post looks like NAI but doesn't help town.

We have had some high emotion in this game and I have to agree I don't care for it. Some of it was downright uncomfortable. I think when we get too emotional we sometimes don't reason as well and facts are forgotten or misconstrued. I know I have been guilty of that.

So we can start with him.

But I have a hit list, and I'm considering putting you on it.

[VOTE: Macdougall] aubergine

If Speed is mafia he is aligned with the Radishes team imo. A tinfoilable slot.

Ok so this would mean he bussed sig which is possible.

I guess what makes me a little queasy about doing this analysis is speed had more posts in the game so we're taking a piece of what he said and trying to make a determination based on a piece. Maybe that's unavoidable given our circumstances. Michelle, what was the criteria you used to select these posts of his? Are they part of a full ISO of him and this was all you saved?

[speedchuck]

Your final vote was sig.

Was it? I flip flopped a bit. I recall something about sig possibly having less votes because of a vote power, but I thought that was before the...


That's what you get when you try to make me remember things without thread access.

One reason I asked about your vote was that I thought it’d be the easiest thing to remember.

If I recall correctly (I acknowledge that memory alone comes with limitations), when I reviewed your handling of Mac I could not clearly discern why you viewed him as suspicious. On Day 3 you alternated votes between sig and Mac, twice each. You spoke a good amount about sig and the merits of the TMI case. When you talked Mac though it was purely mechanical — one or the other was “better” to lynch first.

Why did you suspect Mac, and why did you decide in the end that sig was the best choice?

One of the times I was in the thread was when the Dom/Mac feud was in full-swing. I completely and utterly sided with Dom and all his arguments, about the self-serving way Mac was playing. I didn't bother restating them. In other words, it was a wagon vote.

My sig suspicion, on the other hand, was partly my own, and partly based on a Mac flip / dizzy slip thing.

I suspected both, and it was increasingly likely they were both scum, so I went by mechanical merit. Lynching Mac first to confirm sigslip was apparently not as important as removing a possible -2 vote scumman early. I didn't care all that much between the two, as their scumminess pointed to each other.

[juliets]

[mention]JaggedJimmyJay[/mention] you voted speedchuck early on but I didn't see your reasoning. Is it because of the back and forth voting between Mac and sig or is there more there?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@JaggedJimmyJay you voted speedchuck early on but I didn't see your reasoning. Is it because of the back and forth voting between Mac and sig or is there more there?

When I reviewed people's treatment of Mac in the original thread, I felt speedchuck was a decent teammate prospect. The primary driver of that interpretation was Day 3, which I have touched on a bit in this thread. speedchuck shuffled his vote between sig and Mac before ending the day on sig (I believe the order was Mac - sig - Mac - sig). Combining that motion with the bland mechanistic basis for chuck's explanations for his votes left a crummy product.

His answers to these points in this thread are leaving me feeling nothing.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

chuck's gripes with Michelle up there are valid enough and warrant a response.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

My sig suspicion, on the other hand, was partly my own, and partly based on a Mac flip / dizzy slip thing.

What was the suspicion you had of sig that was your own?

[Sloonei]

@JaggedJimmyJay you voted speedchuck early on but I didn't see your reasoning. Is it because of the back and forth voting between Mac and sig or is there more there?

When I reviewed people's treatment of Mac in the original thread, I felt speedchuck was a decent teammate prospect. The primary driver of that interpretation was Day 3, which I have touched on a bit in this thread. speedchuck shuffled his vote between sig and Mac before ending the day on sig (I believe the order was Mac - sig - Mac - sig). Combining that motion with the bland mechanistic basis for chuck's explanations for his votes left a crummy product.

His answers to these points in this thread are leaving me feeling nothing.

How did speedchuck look in relation to radishes/sabie/sig? My radishes research revealed absolutely nothing. I never looked at sabie.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@JaggedJimmyJay you voted speedchuck early on but I didn't see your reasoning. Is it because of the back and forth voting between Mac and sig or is there more there?

When I reviewed people's treatment of Mac in the original thread, I felt speedchuck was a decent teammate prospect. The primary driver of that interpretation was Day 3, which I have touched on a bit in this thread. speedchuck shuffled his vote between sig and Mac before ending the day on sig (I believe the order was Mac - sig - Mac - sig). Combining that motion with the bland mechanistic basis for chuck's explanations for his votes left a crummy product.

His answers to these points in this thread are leaving me feeling nothing.

How did speedchuck look in relation to radishes/sabie/sig? My radishes research revealed absolutely nothing. I never looked at sabie.

I can't remember precisely. I don't think it was positive. It wasn't red-horrible; that was just G-Man and sabie. So orange I think? I had only done thorough reviews for Radish connections however, so I don't know exactly how he'd have looked against sabie or sig. We do have at least one data point to work with in here, and that's his Day 3 sig vote. On balance given the closeness and controversy of the Mac/sig decision, that's not a bad look with respect to compatibility with that team.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

General thought regarding G-Man: the case against him is heavily Radish-focused. If he is on the Radish/sig/sabie team then he is the final puzzle piece. Even with the -2 vote advantage that role enjoys, I'm not sure I'd expect comfort or immediate effort from the player with that role upon entering a thread where sig has just been outed by the host. G-Man did a nice job in here of getting right to work, and I don't think it looks like it's for show.

This is perhaps a vague notion. We work with what we have though.

[juliets]

@JaggedJimmyJay you voted speedchuck early on but I didn't see your reasoning. Is it because of the back and forth voting between Mac and sig or is there more there?

When I reviewed people's treatment of Mac in the original thread, I felt speedchuck was a decent teammate prospect. The primary driver of that interpretation was Day 3, which I have touched on a bit in this thread. speedchuck shuffled his vote between sig and Mac before ending the day on sig (I believe the order was Mac - sig - Mac - sig). Combining that motion with the bland mechanistic basis for chuck's explanations for his votes left a crummy product.

His answers to these points in this thread are leaving me feeling nothing.

I see, I didn't realize he went back and forth twice. I'll look at his explanation again with that in mind. Thanks for the explanation.

linki, yes I agree with your observation about G-Man.

[juliets]

[mention]JaggedJimmyJay[/mention] I do see as I look back where you said he went back and forth twice, I just missed that in my read-through.

[Sloonei]

I was ready to hammer away at G-man after his Day 2 vote, but that suspicion has been dissolving since then. I don’t have an explicit reason to remove him from the pool of suspects, but I also don’t really believe in that initial suspicion like I once did. I feel like the thing that I was suspicious of (refusal to vote in the same wagon as me) was just his mafia instincts kicking in. That would be a careless slip if he was bad and partnered with Radishes.

[juliets]

<snip>

I suspected both, and it was increasingly likely they were both scum, so I went by mechanical merit. Lynching Mac first to confirm sigslip was apparently not as important as removing a possible -2 vote scumman early. I didn't care all that much between the two, as their scumminess pointed to each other.

speed, what does the last sentence mean, "their scumminess pointed to each other"?

[Michelle]

morning at 4 :40 am, I will try to answer at pings

I'd like to see @Michelle respond to that. I'd also like it if she could tell us why she specifically had all those speedchuck posts saved and ready to go.

I said I wanted to Iso him and I had them saved in a notebook app on phone . I wanted to reread day 1 interactions after the first wolf flips and that joke post rang a bell. and made me Iso Speee.I didn't finish the Iso but I posted them here as a piece of the thread we can't see now. My view can be wrong because I don't know him but who played with him can see what I can't.

I didn't have the Iso ready to go. I had just these posts. I know Speed posted a lot after.

[juliets]

morning at 4 :40 am, I will try to answer at pings

I'd like to see @Michelle respond to that. I'd also like it if she could tell us why she specifically had all those speedchuck posts saved and ready to go.

I said I wanted to Iso him and I had them saved in a notebook app on phone . I wanted to reread day 1 interactions after the first wolf flips and that joke post rang a bell. and made me Iso Speee.I didn't finish the Iso but I posted them here as a piece of the thread we can't see now. My view can be wrong because I don't know him but who played with him can see what I can't.

I didn't have the Iso ready to go. I had just these posts. I know Speed posted a lot after.

Michelle this also answered my questions regarding whether you had collected these posts as part of an ISO that you didn't finish. Thanks -

[juliets]

[mention]G-Man[/mention], sorry if you answered this in the main thread, I just don't remember it. What made you change your vote toward the end of EOD from sig to Mac?

[Michelle]

some yellow thoughts

@Michelle I'm going through these posts to give you my thoughts in blue.

Spoiler: show

<snip>

Saitama is mafia? We might as well give up now.

this post, wether is from a player who knows the original role which is NAI, or is mafia from any team who thinks mentioning a scum member may look good.

Michelle earlier you said you didn't have any game related thoughts about this post, it just made you chuckle. My read of this post is that he is talking about the character Saitama in whatever anime/cartoon/other Saitama is in, just joking around like everyone was in the beginning. I don't get what the point would be of posting it as scum.

I've not voted yet so I haven't seen the poll. Who is in the 4th slot on Nutella, Jack, and/or me?

Thar be scum. Bet me.

Yay! Someone else ascribes to the "fourth is scum" theory of vote trains!

The midmeld with Radishes is worrisome

Maybe I don't use the word "mind-meld" the same way everyone else does but I think of it as several thoughts where two or more players see someone's posts the same way. This agreement on the positioning of voters didn't cause me any concern, though I disagree with what they are saying.

Upon further reflection of ISOs both of these wagons are shiiiiiiiiiiiny turds.

Nutella I can see why people suspect her. The interactions starting when Mac wagoned on look pretty bad. But lynching nutella D1 after she gets defensive over some tunneling is wonky.

I have no idea why anyone would vote Master Radishes.

I take from this that he TRs Radishes ot they are buddies.

I think he definitely town reads him at this point but several of us did. Does this mean they were on the same team? I guess it could but it could also just be a town read.

Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.

I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

Radishes talks relaxed about scumbuddies and Speed comes with a suspicion at Sig. This can be scum theatre, but it can be nothing as well. In the context comes at -1, i don't believe in coincidences.

Are you saying here that this could be speed throwing sig under the bus (he voted for him later)? I guess that's possible but I don't see it as strong evidence. What does the -1 mean?

Of those names, I’m not sure one in particular stands out. I think Sig’s vote was the most egregious, but his macro play of all those names has been the greenest. At the moment I’m not entirely sure where I’d place a vote (and obviously can’t anyway), but GTH I’d say Sabie. Also not a fan of Mac’s play on this – inconsistent and never landed on the wagon or, conversely, showed progression away from it. Just blew on the sparks a bit.

I dunno, I was suspicious of Sig for a reason I think. Let me look back.

Ah, yes, it was his crappity crap reasons for still wanting to lynch nutella after Jack recanted. He overcompenisated for his position by throwing a bunch of bad reasons in with the good.

1. Reason wasnt crappy
2. Was laying out my thought process.

It would be imo so much worse to instantly switch off since Jack changed his mind, especially since I didnt base my vote solely off his read and two she wasn't a civ?

Not to mention I stated a few times she wasnt my top lynch which Is why I switched off once things evened our a bit.

Some of your reasons were crappy. And you had some perfectly good reasons. Overcompensating to justify staying on nutella. Meh. Minor sus.

This chain is suspicious and may very well be a scum team interaction, to not receive a further "they didn't interact itt". The only good thing is Speed voted for Sig but i don't remember when and the poll positions don't reflect the order of the votes iirc

Yes, it could be a scum team interaction but I don't have enough evidence to call it one. I don't know when this happened in relation to the major suspicion of sig. If it happened early on I wouldn't tend to see it as a scum interaction. sig was an almost universal town read early in the game so there would be no reason for a teammate to throw shade his way. If it happened later then maybe.

Having read over the last two pages, Dys and Dom are my top townreads. Their votes are on people I would like to see lynched.

I got twenty minutes. Lets go.

Expand on this, mr chuck

I got weird vibes from Ted D1, and then he appeared reluctant to address Dizzy's 'scumslip' on him. It wasn't the slip itself that bothered me, but his forced nonchalance about it? Something like that. Lol at her flipping votes, though.

The Mac read is nothing special. I agree with what Jay said about his Dom post, and a few other sentiments expressed in the past two pages.

Dizzy and Dom both seemed like fairly stable, level heads in the thread D1. I like town dizzy and town dom.

Bonus: I don't care to lynch G-man.

Maybe is Speed speciality but this post is more a word salad, no offense.. Maybe is just me who don't understand it's meaning.

For me it's hard to understand because I can't see the underlying posts he is talking about. I have no idea what ted said about Dizzy without looking back. Same with what Jay said about Mac's Dom post. So I don't have an understanding of what he's trying to say.

Having read over the last two pages, Dys and Dom are my top townreads. Their votes are on people I would like to see lynched.

I got twenty minutes. Lets go.

I actually wanna hear this

There's not much to hear, yo. You give me vibes. Even with this post you give me vibes.

"Someone suspects me!? I LAUGH! Tell me of this inconsequential suspicion, fellow townie, and we'll work it out over tea." It's, just, it doesn't feel genuine.

It comes more from a PoV of me having a civ role and transparently laying out my thoughts, which would make me believe I'm obvious town (I never filter my thoughts) and me never being mislynched in one year of mafia is also contributing towards this. I'd rarely been suspected as town so I have high expectation when such claims occur.

Ok, I got lynched once but that was when I was on a holiday at the sea and I didn't care enough to stress myself

Too calculated a response. Bad.

I mean, if you're seriously genuine here, then you have an ego the size of a train and self-analysis out the butt. It doesn't read like transparently laying out thoughts.

So hey, if you never get mislynched, and we lynch you today, then you must be scum, right? Otherwise you wouldn't get lynched.

voted Ted just after but after, asked by Nanook, he switched to voting Mac.
My understanding on Ted's play (playing with him since summer) is that he has strong beliefs and shares them itt. Sometimes he is wrong but as villager he is like a rock. His posts are not scummy for me. Scum would not be so relaxed i think. But Speed finds him wolfy, and is more like it's a whim to vote him because he dislikes the playstyle without trying to have a real read. Is convenient to vote a player with not known meta.

Michelle, how do you remember that he voted Ted just after that but then was asked by Nanook to change? I can't remember anything that detailed from the thread. I agree about ted having strong beliefs and sharing them. I think what your saying here is you disagree with his read on ted and think it was scummy of him to vote ted when ted has no known meta (to speed I guess). I don't know ted that well but I see your point that maybe he's reading him based on play style. I would want to look at anything else he had to say about ted though to make a determination that it's scummy.
I's not that I remember, i made a note on this because for me early votes matters

I would, right now, vote sig, TH, Mac, and anyone who has appealed to emotion. I would murder the emotion right out of this game.

Rubs me the wrong way. Mafia is like 1/3 emotion. Villagers have an emotional force while wolves can have fear, anguish or delightful joy depending of the player's preferences. This post looks like NAI but doesn't help town.

We have had some high emotion in this game and I have to agree I don't care for it. Some of it was downright uncomfortable. I think when we get too emotional we sometimes don't reason as well and facts are forgotten or misconstrued. I know I have been guilty of that.

So we can start with him.

But I have a hit list, and I'm considering putting you on it.

[VOTE: Macdougall] aubergine

If Speed is mafia he is aligned with the Radishes team imo. A tinfoilable slot.

Ok so this would mean he bussed sig which is possible.

I guess what makes me a little queasy about doing this analysis is speed had more posts in the game so we're taking a piece of what he said and trying to make a determination based on a piece. Maybe that's unavoidable given our circumstances. Michelle, what was the criteria you used to select these posts of his? Are they part of a full ISO of him and this was all you saved?

Yes he had a lot more posts and all these were pretty early in the game. Unfortunately the time is not shown and this may be an improvement if a possibility to show on forum when the quote was posted exists

[G-Man]

G-Man, sorry if you answered this in the main thread, I just don't remember it. What made you change your vote toward the end of EOD from sig to Mac?

On Day 3, everyone piled on Mac right away. That led Mac to amplify his griping. He made a lot of hot noise (which, in retrospect, helped provide cover for his teammates) but then the sig thing dropped. I went with Dyslexicon’s from-the-grave case against sig because I had a sharp turnaround on Dys early Day 2.

In the end, I switched back to Mac to keep things spicy at EoD and because I really didn’t want to hear Mac rant against the world for another day.

[juliets]

Thanks [mention]Michelle[/mention] -

Oh [mention]G-Man[/mention] now that you say that I do remember you saying in the thread you didn't want to listen to him rant for another day. Thanks for your response.

Also, for everyone I am struggling to keep my eyes open so this is probably my last post tonight. Tomorrow I have to be at work early so not sure if I'll be on in the morning or not. I will try to be. I have to work most of the day and should be back by late afternoon.

[G-Man]

Oddball thought process time- if lynching someone kicks them up a level, should we really try to keep our baddie suspect trapped here in dream land? Maybe the Inception hosts can speak to that. The hamster in my brain is running wild about this structure right now.

[Michelle]

Overall, this post says a lot of nothing, while skewing a bunch of the posts I've made negative to be picked apart. Going over it, it's not egregious I guess. It's just fluffy and tosses shade in my direction while being very hands-off.

You say I am wrong and shady. If I would be shady I wouldn't post all the naked Iso without my oppinion first, I would go directly with comments.
Juliets asked and I put my ideas, and you as hater of emotions should react more cool at it and explain why am I wrong
But you made it a tennis mafia and the ball is in your court again.
[mention]speedchuck[/mention]

[Michelle]

good night Juliets ^^

me too back to sleep

[Sloonei]

G-Man, sorry if you answered this in the main thread, I just don't remember it. What made you change your vote toward the end of EOD from sig to Mac?

On Day 3, everyone piled on Mac right away. That led Mac to amplify his griping. He made a lot of hot noise (which, in retrospect, helped provide cover for his teammates) but then the sig thing dropped. I went with Dyslexicon’s from-the-grave case against sig because I had a sharp turnaround on Dys early Day 2.

In the end, I switched back to Mac to keep things spicy at EoD and because I really didn’t want to hear Mac rant against the world for another day.

Could you elaborate on the highlighted bit?

[Sloonei]

Oddball thought process time- if lynching someone kicks them up a level, should we really try to keep our baddie suspect trapped here in dream land? Maybe the Inception hosts can speak to that. The hamster in my brain is running wild about this structure right now.

I'm not sure I understand the question. But in Inception, kicking people back to the top level exposed them to the chance of being kill off for real in the main thread, and prevented them from submerging into deeper dream levels. The mafia team wanted needed to submerge all the way to limbo and survive there to claim their reward, so a successful lynch by the civilians on the lower levels would lessen their chances of achieving that.

[Sloonei]

[mention]Michelle[/mention] were there other people you were ISOing during the night, or was speed your only target?

[speedchuck]

<snip>

I suspected both, and it was increasingly likely they were both scum, so I went by mechanical merit. Lynching Mac first to confirm sigslip was apparently not as important as removing a possible -2 vote scumman early. I didn't care all that much between the two, as their scumminess pointed to each other.

speed, what does the last sentence mean, "their scumminess pointed to each other"?

If one was scum, the other was likely scum.

[speedchuck]

My sig suspicion, on the other hand, was partly my own, and partly based on a Mac flip / dizzy slip thing.

What was the suspicion you had of sig that was your own?

Sig seemed like he was trying really hard to justify placing his vote or keeping his vote in places.

He would toss like four mediocre reasons out there in addition to the one good reason that was needed. Overcompensating because he was worried about how it looked.

Michelle quoted some of my arguments.

[speedchuck]

Overall, this post says a lot of nothing, while skewing a bunch of the posts I've made negative to be picked apart. Going over it, it's not egregious I guess. It's just fluffy and tosses shade in my direction while being very hands-off.

You say I am wrong and shady. If I would be shady I wouldn't post all the naked Iso without my oppinion first, I would go directly with comments.
Juliets asked and I put my ideas, and you as hater of emotions should react more cool at it and explain why am I wrong
But you made it a tennis mafia and the ball is in your court again.
speedchuck

Did you sense any anger in my post? I'm cool.

I didn't say you were wrong. You haven't stated an opinion or a read that CAN really be wrong. That's the problem. You've posted a bunch of might posts and said 'This could be bad, right? Heh? Heeeeh?'

[speedchuck]

Oddball thought process time- if lynching someone kicks them up a level, should we really try to keep our baddie suspect trapped here in dream land? Maybe the Inception hosts can speak to that. The hamster in my brain is running wild about this structure right now.

I'm not sure I understand the question. But in Inception, kicking people back to the top level exposed them to the chance of being kill off for real in the main thread, and prevented them from submerging into deeper dream levels. The mafia team wanted needed to submerge all the way to limbo and survive there to claim their reward, so a successful lynch by the civilians on the lower levels would lessen their chances of achieving that.

I'm pretty sure we've just been split into threads for the day. Anything more than that would derail the game, giving undue weight to Inception over most themes.

[speedchuck]

Overall, this post says a lot of nothing, while skewing a bunch of the posts I've made negative to be picked apart. Going over it, it's not egregious I guess. It's just fluffy and tosses shade in my direction while being very hands-off.

You say I am wrong and shady. If I would be shady I wouldn't post all the naked Iso without my oppinion first, I would go directly with comments.
Juliets asked and I put my ideas, and you as hater of emotions should react more cool at it and explain why am I wrong
But you made it a tennis mafia and the ball is in your court again.
speedchuck

I'm going to [VOTE: michelle] aubergine. This response does not address my grievances.

If I understand it correctly, it says "Why u mad? Let's play NO U tennis."

(again, this isn't me being emotional, I'm just sarcastic. It helps make my points.)

[Sloonei]

Oddball thought process time- if lynching someone kicks them up a level, should we really try to keep our baddie suspect trapped here in dream land? Maybe the Inception hosts can speak to that. The hamster in my brain is running wild about this structure right now.

I'm not sure I understand the question. But in Inception, kicking people back to the top level exposed them to the chance of being kill off for real in the main thread, and prevented them from submerging into deeper dream levels. The mafia team wanted needed to submerge all the way to limbo and survive there to claim their reward, so a successful lynch by the civilians on the lower levels would lessen their chances of achieving that.

I'm pretty sure we've just been split into threads for the day. Anything more than that would derail the game, giving undue weight to Inception over most themes.

Yeah I'd be surprised if this is a long-term thing. And if we are indeed in three threads right now, it's tough to imagine things being stretched out more than two day phases at most.

[Sloonei]

speedchuck hit 10k posts but it was all a dream

[speedchuck]

speedchuck hit 10k posts but it was all a dream

I missed it.

[Michelle]

Overall, this post says a lot of nothing, while skewing a bunch of the posts I've made negative to be picked apart. Going over it, it's not egregious I guess. It's just fluffy and tosses shade in my direction while being very hands-off.

You say I am wrong and shady. If I would be shady I wouldn't post all the naked Iso without my oppinion first, I would go directly with comments.
Juliets asked and I put my ideas, and you as hater of emotions should react more cool at it and explain why am I wrong
But you made it a tennis mafia and the ball is in your court again.
speedchuck

I'm going to [VOTE: michelle] aubergine. This response does not address my grievances.

If I understand it correctly, it says "Why u mad? Let's play NO U tennis."

(again, this isn't me being emotional, I'm just sarcastic. It helps make my points.)

you don't answer good here because you didn't understand me. This is you being emotional you should hang yourself

In short my answer explained you (this was my intention anyway) that my post wasn't a shade.
Your answer isn't enough to convince me you are the good boy here, your ball is out from the court.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I am and will be unable to do much in this game the rest of this phase. I'm out wif me mates in Cincy tomorrow. I will ~ponder~ the game state and try to pop in on my phone a few times.

[Michelle]

@Michelle were there other people you were ISOing during the night, or was speed your only target?

i didn't have time to Iso anyone, like I didn't have time to finish Speed's Iso.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

In short my answer explained you (this was my intention anyway) that my post wasn't a shade.

I want to visit this assertion, that your post "wasn't a shade". I reviewed each of the comments you made about speedchuck's posts and reduced them to quick phrases or blurbs, with color coding to indicate the feelings you conveyed as I interpret them:

- NAI or mafia
- "worrisome" -- seems negative
- NAI "town read" from speed or mafia
- NAI "nothing" or mafia, "-1 in context"
- "suspicious chain" -- clearly negative
- "word salad" -- not positive at best
- speed's vote is "convenient" -- seems negative
- "rubs me the wrong way" / NAI
- if mafia, aligned with Radish -- I won't color this one since it's conditional

How is this not shade?

[Michelle]

Overall, this post says a lot of nothing, while skewing a bunch of the posts I've made negative to be picked apart. Going over it, it's not egregious I guess. It's just fluffy and tosses shade in my direction while being very hands-off.

You say I am wrong and shady. If I would be shady I wouldn't post all the naked Iso without my oppinion first, I would go directly with comments.
Juliets asked and I put my ideas, and you as hater of emotions should react more cool at it and explain why am I wrong
But you made it a tennis mafia and the ball is in your court again.
speedchuck

Did you sense any anger in my post? I'm cool.

I didn't say you were wrong. You haven't stated an opinion or a read that CAN really be wrong. That's the problem. You've posted a bunch of might posts and said 'This could be bad, right? Heh? Heeeeh?'

I could swear you are angry, the thing is you took the opportunity to vote me even if from town pov my idea is not wrong per se and if my wording is lacking is because this is my language limitation.
You are not taking it in a villagery way.

[Michelle]

In short my answer explained you (this was my intention anyway) that my post wasn't a shade.

I want to visit this assertion, that your post "wasn't a shade". I reviewed each of the comments you made about speedchuck's posts and reduced them to quick phrases or blurbs, with color coding to indicate the feelings you conveyed as I interpret them:

- NAI or mafia
- "worrisome" -- seems negative
- NAI "town read" from speed or mafia
- NAI "nothing" or mafia, "-1 in context"
- "suspicious chain" -- clearly negative
- "word salad" -- not positive at best
- speed's vote is "convenient" -- seems negative
- "rubs me the wrong way" / NAI
- if mafia, aligned with Radish -- I won't color this one since it's conditional

How is this not shade?

What if is a suspicion?

[Michelle]

I don't have content. In Inception we had suddenly only ourselves to look at each other and talk about memories. Our luck was Epi who worked on Isos and provided us a lot of posts and comments.
Some jumped on him but i locked him town for that.

Here we have nothing. Stirring the pot is the only way.
To just talk plesantries is deadly.

[Michelle]

Am I the only european? look like it.
*sigh

[juliets]

In short my answer explained you (this was my intention anyway) that my post wasn't a shade.

I want to visit this assertion, that your post "wasn't a shade". I reviewed each of the comments you made about speedchuck's posts and reduced them to quick phrases or blurbs, with color coding to indicate the feelings you conveyed as I interpret them:

- NAI or mafia
- "worrisome" -- seems negative
- NAI "town read" from speed or mafia
- NAI "nothing" or mafia, "-1 in context"
- "suspicious chain" -- clearly negative
- "word salad" -- not positive at best
- speed's vote is "convenient" -- seems negative
- "rubs me the wrong way" / NAI
- if mafia, aligned with Radish -- I won't color this one since it's conditional

How is this not shade?

What if is a suspicion?

Shade to me is when you imply someone is bad without coming out and stating your belief that they are bad. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference or I am not giving a good definition of "shade". At any rate what I took away from the post is that you are suspicious of speed so maybe it doesn't matter whether it's called "shade" or not.