The Syndicate

Well damn, that sucks. RIP AP!

I will not be contributing much else tonight. I had a 12-hour work day, work today just sucked all around, and I have to be back in 10 1/2 hours. I probably will not be around for this night phase either, but if I am it will be very brief. I will probably be back about halfway through the next day phase.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

timmer wrote:Yeah, I'm conflicted. On one hand, A Person isn't evidently trying, short of asking the baddies to kill high posters which is actually the opposite of trying. On the other, is that indicative of him being bad? Or just unengaged? i don't like putting votes on people for acting weird, until that weirdness outweighs the cases in front of me.

He's definitely not engaged. I think the better question is "why isn't he engaged?"

Three options that I can see:

1) He's a civilian who is accustomed to playing in a brand of Syndicate Mafia from the pre-Economics era where games tended to move a little more slowly and conversation was engaged with a little less intensity. He doesn't feel like adjusting to this newer scene and is content enough to express his laziness brazenly as a contest to the style of play he is averse to.

2) He's a baddie who is accustomed to playing in a brand of Syndicate Mafia from the pre-Economics era where games tended to move a little more slowly and conversation was engaged with a little less intensity. He doesn't feel like adjusting to this newer scene and is content enough to express his laziness brazenly as a contest to the style of play he is averse to.

3) He's a baddie who was overwhelmed by the early pace of the game and decided to keep a low profile -- and now as the game has progressed he has felt a need to maintain that profile for the sake of consistency and filling the lurkbait role he's fallen into.

I am hesitant to give him too much credit for the possibility of #1 is that it can apply similarly from the other side (#2). I'll grant though that #2 would represent a careless approach that is less common in baddie team contexts where allies are known. That'd be a let down. #3 is at least a strategically logical notion, though it requires more of what feels like reaching (and it'd be a bit of a let down in its own right).

Having typed all that out, #1 actually feels the most sensible. It's all muddy because the dude has single digit posts, but it's something. I welcome other thoughts on this.

I came up with similar ideas as well. But I voted for him already for 2 reasons:

1) I'm playing the Law of Averages here. Which would state there is a 66% chance AP is bad.

2) I want to see if it motivates him to come in here and give us some more substance.

Most of my reasoning is on #2 right now though. Because I do not have a super-definitive read on him yet. But re-reading Lorab actually made me feel better about placing a vote that way.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

I'm unclear on the difference you perceive between your Boomslang vote and MM's. Referencing the relevant material:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Marmot promoted a vote against Boomslang based upon the quotes I pulled, asserting the inconsistency of his handling of himself and timmer.

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for MM here if that is the case?

Not to mention I still don't get the case on timmer. Seems pretty civ to me including his logic.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

Your initial post here indicates a similar perceived inconsistency -- that Boomslang's words should lead to an MM vote instead of a timmer vote.

What did you feel Marmot's Boomslang vote lacked which your vote did not lack?

At the time, I felt that my vote for Boomslang came with an explanation and a reason for why I voted for him: his previous positive notions of timmer, and then to turn around blindly and vote for timmer over MM because he felt timmer's death would yield the most info. I stated the only way that could be the case was if timmer and MM were teammates, and I felt that was a very risky proposition to take given the context at the time.

Whereas I thought MM's vote move was given without much if any reason as to why he was doing so.

First post worth quoting:

LoRab wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm like 5 pages behind. Trying to catch up. Just wanted to let y'all know that I'm still here.

Hi, LoRab!

Curious to hear what thoughts you have when you get caught up.

Hi! For now at least, I'm skipping those 5 pages. I don't have the time or energy to go back--so if anything happened I need to know about, someone please let me know!!

I don't have much to say. The day 0/1 conversation has been interesting, but I'm not sure I have any conclusions from it. At least not strong ones. I think i'm still wrapping my brain around the game.

Day 0/1 doesn't give us much for where Lorab is. Other than she is behind, has given up trying to catch up, and will stick with more current events and going from there. But she doesn't have any reads yet of any kind.

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

And when asked by Sloonei about why she didn't like the case...

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

I am curious what kind of behavior is indicative of a "baddie" INH now though, Lorab.

Nevermind. She did state why.

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Because I didn't think he seemed bad and I nothing that was said about him made me think he was bad. I don't remember the particular points, but as I read through them, they didn't convince me that he was bad. I also read them with the eye of thinking that he was a player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched (see last game), so that probably colored my reading). But, basically, I didn't think he seemed bad, so I wouldn't have voted for him. What am I missing in your question?

She felt he behaved in such a way that it was easy for other players to manipulate him. Fair enough, given the hindsight of this case.

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

I can actually empathize with Lorab here to a certain degree. I think this post also paints her in a more positive light. The yellow part kind of makes me feel that way.

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

I think it's a bit odd she assumes Scotty's vote is forced. I mean, I know it's the first time he mentioned her. But I'm not sure how you confirm or deny that one on an evidence basis. Unless Lorab knows something.

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:I think that some low posters insanified Golden and JJJ

Like I said, sometimes oblivious. Now it's obvious.

Golden wrote:I hurt myself today
To see if I still feel
I focus on the pain
The only thing that's real

The needle tears a hole
The old familiar sting
Try to kill it all away
But I remember everything

I think that's a good guess as to who did it.

Of course, we now have the question of if they are a good insanifier or an evil insanifier. For the sake of balance, if there are 2, I'd venture a guess that there is one of each. Also possible that there's a mimicing role, that happened upon being able to mimic the insanifier.

Also, who hasn't posted yet?

First time she brings up A Person, her current vote for today.

LoRab wrote:

A Person wrote:

Scotty wrote:Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

Can't really disagree with this. I had forgotten just how negative this makes AP look. Not to mention he has had an opportunity to respond to it and ignored it.

LoRab wrote:For what it's worth, I think MP is civ.

I also think he should take a deep breath and come back to the game.

I'm voting A Person. At least for now. If they come back and give a reason for their post advocating for killing high posters, then I may reconsider.

Voted for AP on Day 2. Had forgotten about that as well. At least Lorab is consistent!

LoRab wrote:

Golden wrote:Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

The benefit being so that players say exactly what you're saying now.

I have seen baddies target teammates with insanification and silencing night 1 or 2, exactly for this reason--to make it seem like a teammate is not on that team. That said, I don't particularly suspect either you or JJJ at this moment.

I'm assuming for now that there are 2 different roles that insanified (we'll know that as time progresses) and that 1 is civ and 1 is not, because balance.

Suggests that of the 2 insanifiers, we have 1 that is good and 1 that is bad.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 32#p315932

Since it's a longer post, I'm just leaving the link. You can re-read it yourselves. But it's mostly Lorab responding to some questions directed at her from JJJ. I like a lot of her responses and they make me feel better about her. She expounds a lot on her feelings on Scotty's vote for her. As well as her brushing off the Sloonei vote against her. Sloonei definitely seems like he's been putting the screws to Lorab this game though.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 83#p315983

More responses. I am starting to get a bit more uncomfortable about Sloonei reading back on some of these though. Either Sloonei has blinders on or something else is going on.

LoRab wrote:I'll respond in greater length to JJJ later, but one quick point before I need to run. Yes, my strategy as a civ is different this game than it was in Mad Max--in that game, we were playing with a mafia team and no other baddies. In this game, there is a serial killer and an unknown player. So, the strategy is entirely different in terms of not helping baddies. In that game, the baddies knew that anyone not on their team was civ. That's not the case here. There's a difference in how I play in different set ups, that difference in particular.

I should point out that I disagree with Lorab's strategy, but I think it's just a difference in how we play the game. But I think this is the crux of Sloonei's argument on why Lorab is suspicious. Because she did not play this way in Mad Max as a civilian. But I think Lorab has given enough reason as to why she is playing this game differently.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 26#p316226

Another long one. But mostly explains her methodology and approach to the game. Again, I disagree with it, but that doesn't inherently make Lorab bad.

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:I'm still not caught up. 5 or so more pages to read.. I see JJJ has a little case breakdown that I skimmed. Eventually I'll get around to answering it.

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that. I have calmed my jets on a few people I had recently suspected. I'm actually feeling better about Golden, and Mp. I think BWT is still suspicious? Why? I forgot. But he said some stuff some some time ago that was phrased in a weird way that perked uo ym ears like Pluto. Sloon is on neutral ground. Slight mafia still on JJJ. I don't think he was faking his curse, I just think his curser was just unimaginative.

I'm way behind. Long day, may not get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. Blech my mafia time where did it go???

Indeed. But you haven't said anything about your vote one way or another. Are you able to say anything about your vote? I realize that yesterday you would likely not be able to say your vote was forced because of usual rules, but are you able to clarify today? Or do you have anything more to say about your vote?

If I had to vote now, it would be for A Person again.

Still asking Scotty for a response.

Also while I'm at it, Scotty, care to explain why you still find me suspicious? Because I'm still not entirely sure why you found me suspicious in the first place.

Her most recent post is her voting for AP again.

Well, that was actually a really insightful read. But I definitely feel a lot better about Lorab and would read her as town. The quantity might not be there, but the quality is there in spades. And I follow a lot of her trains of logic, even if I don't agree with all of them.

I do feel worse about one player in particular, and I am marking my vote there for the time being to try and get him to open up a bit more to us.

A Person

Lorab re-read incoming.

Alright I have to run out for a bit. I will be back later this evening.

A Person wrote:hello mafia players!

Anything to contribute to the group?

Sloonei wrote:So that we have a reference from Mad Max, I've pulled out a couple LoRab posts from that game that I think highlight the differences between here and there. Before I get into this, I want to reiterate that Mad Max and GY!BE have two totally different setups, so it's not unreasonable to think that Townie LoRab would behave differently in both games. That being said, her behavior is worth looking into, and I'm doing this just so others can judge it in their own light.

LoRab posts in Mad Max: Post 1, Post 2

Snippet from Post 1:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Do you have a take on the whole Rico/Mac affair?

Pissing contest.

Do you read them as town/town?

I don't have a read on either, and this hasn't given me a read on either. They are both neutral at this point.
...

Sloonei wrote:I am pinged by LoRab's decision not to offer a read on anything.

I don't have any strong opinions. I think the pissing contest has drawn a neutral read. I think JJJ is vaguely pingy. I don't have other thoughts. And, seriously, I have just gotten through one of the most challenging weeks of my life. There are maybe 2 other times in my life that I've been as emotionally exhausted as I am right now. I don't particularly want to go into more detail, but I will if I need to. Those that are friends with me on fb can attest to the fact that I'm having a really, really crappy week. And those that have been playing with me for nearly a decade know that I don't play the emotion card except when I'm really in a bad place.

Processing mafia reads is using a really minimal level of brain wavelength because that's all I have to give right now. If that makes me suspicious, so be it.

She doesn't give much in the way of strong reads, but she does at least make direct and specific references to events in the thread and offers comments on them, even if they amount to nothing more than Neutral reads in her book. That is good, substantive posting which I appreciated. Same thing in Post 2:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Glad Epi is dead. I was gut feeling him as bad and this makes my life easier.

Someone tl;dr me for day/night 1.

So, a civ is very likely dead and you are glad about it? Hrm.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:You didn't explicitly accuse him, true. But you implied suspicion. And to say, yeah--i didn't really suspect him, and he was just frustrating, quite honestly, doesn't make you look all that good.

So you believe they spent Night 1 accusing Epignosis and then killed him? What's the objective?

Shits and giggles? So that we'll all wonder why Epi? WIFOM? Quite honestly, I brought it up as a question to see what their current thoughts were and how they had changed with Epi's death. INH's response seemed defensive, when I hadn't raised suspicion. And to say that Epi was just frustrating in life and in death didn't ring true.

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Curious to see what Zebra and INH have to say now that Epi was killed by mafia. And highly unlikely, in a speed game, that mafia would kill one of their own night 1. So....wanting responses there.

I am still curious what you have to say about all of the proceedings from Day 1. What's your take on things? You asked a few questions during the latter half of the day, but never gave any indication as to where you were leaning, then missed the vote. What were your thoughts as Day 1 was unfolding?

I still read the Rico/Mac thing as neutral on both sides. I neither suspect nor think eithe civ as a result. I did think Scotty was civ, but wasn't around to post about it. Quite honestly, I'm not sure where I would have voted. My brain was also in a fog at the time, so I need to reread day 1 in order to have more thoughts on it.

Sloonei wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:DrWilgy, do you have any other gut and/or vibe-based reads you would like to share?

The only other player that I have thought about is Sprityo, whom I gut read as bad.

I like your analysis of Rico. I'd like an answer from Rico as to why he thought to interject here. Not sure if this has been explained yet or not, but I'm not willing to go back and check.

Zebra, how would you respond to me voting Rico right now?

Sloonei, mind telling me the exchange that interested you most?

Elohcin's response to Neil Hartley early in the game is something I've been getting hung up on. Something about it strikes me as a feigned effort to appear confused for the sake of casting speculation. I am wary of people who latch onto roleplay as a basis for suspicion early on. LoRab did the same thing, if I remember correctly. I suppose those are the two that I'm thinking about most at the moment, but it's been a slow start for me and I'm still not out of the preliminary reads stage of the process.

Role playing in games always pings me. I wasn't latching onto it, merely mentioning it as a ping. I realize that it doesn't ping everyone, but it does me and always has. It's an easy thing to hide behind. We all read into posts differently and find different things suspicious. That's something that sets off my suspiciometer. Not sure how that makes me suspicious, but I'm not going to change my game because things I do make people suspect me. If that were my nature, I'd play entirely differently, lol (but it wouldn't be me and it wouldn't be fun). Would you rather I not mention things that I notice in the thread? And, for the record, I'm not suspecting JJJ at the moment, as his posts have demonstrated him to be more than a facade.

Again, while she does not manufacture any strong reads early in the game (these posts are from Days 1 & 2 of Mad Max, I believe), she is forthcoming and honest with her thoughts. She lets us know where her head is at and what she's working on. Notice too the first segment of the above post, where she questions INH from a post he had made. I've not seen any direct questioning like that out of LoRab in this game.

Now compare that forthcomingness to her responses to similar questions in this game:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

No, it was clear. But it was after you had poked me for a while, and I lost motivation. And, please, show me where I said I was uninformed about the game? I said at one point I skipped 5 pages, but that didn't have to do with that post. So, please, where did I say I was uninformed (other than those pages, which were not directly attached to the lynch or my post lynch post)?

I have been offering thoughts as the game has gone on. If those thoughts aren't good enough for you, that's not my problem. I'm not going to change the way I play to please you. No, I don't have a lot of suspicions--I'm not going to make them up for the sake of stating suspicions. That's not how I roll.

I don't post things for the purpose of people being able to read me. If they can read me, that's fine. If they can't, then they can't. My primary purpose is figuring out the game. Not getting killed is also a goal, but honestly, it's not generally my primary focus. My primary focus is getting baddies figured out and getting them killed, and in order to do so, figuring out some of the game mechanics in order to figure out how to best make the game work.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).

It's all good. I mean, when someone is being suspected, someone saying their thoughts is appreciated. And I don't fault people for saying I'm awesome. I mean civ. Saying I'm civ.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?

Fair enough. I can see where you got that--but it's not like he said that when he took a step back he thought I was suspicious--just that he would vote for me. But, yeah--an answer would be nice.

Thoughts, anyone?

I agree that Lorab seems a lot more open about her thoughts based on the quotes you pulled in comparison to her openness in this game so far. But I usually don't like referencing past mafia games to try to read someone. I feel like it is too easy to adapt and change one's playstyle from game to game. And while not a lot of people do, there are those of us who can often make radical changes in that regard.

I mean, I guess it makes me feel different about her based on these quotes? But I need to read her in-thread to have a more solid opinion.

Dom wrote: I think BWT explained himself somewhat adequately, but I want to know who he would advocate a lynch of besides himself

Lol nice one there.

Right now GTH, I would say A Person and MM (although not as much now). But neither of those is very strong. That's why I want to re-read Lorab and possibly focus elsewhere today. Because I'm not as confident about any strong or weak mafia suspects I had from Day 2.

Alright. I have errands to run and stuff to do. I will be back late afternoon/early evening to do a re-read of Lorab.

timmer wrote:@BWT, thanks for explaining your posts from yesterday, I guess I can see how that makes sense. It's possible to simultaneously agree with a case, and suspect someone for being on the very same case, it just tends to look weird, especially when the two posts were one minute apart!

Well, as I've said before (and you pointed out in one of your posts), I tend to catch up by just commenting chronologically on stuff as I go along. I refer to it as "stream-of-consciousness posting" for that reason. Hence why I can sometimes have posts that are back-to-back like that that don't make a whole lot of sense without more context being provided. So hopefully that cleared my feelings up for you!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oops, it was Dom and Jay, not Golden who convinced me.

Okay, so there was in fact a timing thing that perked your ears up at timmer.

I guess I didn't see that and was just going by his content. But then again, I'm more of a content guy than a timing guy.

Do you still feel the same way about timmer or not?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:You have me confused BWT.

On Day 1, I voted Boomslang, then switched to timmer.

On Day 2, I voted timmer, then switched to Boomslang.



On Day 1, I voted Boomslang for the timing thing I pointed out between him and timmer, and Golden pointed out it makes more sense to vote for timmer (so I did).

On Day 2, I voted timmer, but Boomslang placed a vote for timmer that didn't make a lot of sense, so I switched my vote to him.



Which of these vote switches are you asking about?

Linki: Nope, you voted after myself and trice.

The bolded one. I mean, I agree that his vote didn't make a lot of sense, which is why I voted for Boomslang at the time. I don't remember you stating specifically at the time why you were voting for Boomslang though.

Okay then I was confused about the timeline of events then. But I still thought your lack of explanation was odd. If I did miss it during Day 2, then feel free to point it out.

Linki: To be honest, Lorab is someone I need to go back and re-read. Am not reading her at all currently.

I may use today to read up on people I don't feel strongly about either way yet. Because I feel like I need new perspective right now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

Why'd you follow my vote then?

I didn't. I voted for Boomslang before you I thought.

Regardless, I stated my reason multiple times now why I voted for Boomslang. And why I had an issue with the way you voted for him. I'm starting to feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

timmer wrote:Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

You're absolutely right! I would do that.

But that's the thing, I can and will do almost anything in a mafia game, and additionally will admit to the possibility of doing anything. Sooo, I don't see how this helps your argument.



Anyway, I've changed my mind on Boomslang for now. A vote forcer is a possibility, but that wouldn't impact my read on Boomslang.

I don't disagree with your notion here. But do you see how your vote for timmer makes you look scummy?

What would you say your read is on Boomslang now?

No I don't. And I didn't change my vote with scuminess in mind, I changed it because I liked Golden's logic.

I was reading timmer as civ because of the content of his posts up to that point and I agreed with his logic. So I guess we have to agree to disagree on our logical paths.

So Golden's logic was the reason you switched your vote.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

My Sweetest Friend

Was it this post that was why? Or did I miss it?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

Good. Because you probably are. :P

Idk. You posted a list awhile back. Is that list still relatively intact in terms of how you'd rank people or not? And would you add/move anyone else not mentioned before around?

timmer wrote:Reading BWT, I found some weirdness.

MM posts this at 12:12 my time:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

just under 2 hours later, MM reiterates the thought with an added comment at the bottom:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Then BWT gets into the thread and, from what I can tell, catches up from where he left off, as he's commenting on events in chronological order. He then gets to where Boomslang voted for me. He ALSO cuts and pastes the same groups of posts that JJJ had posted, just like MM, and agrees with MM in voting for Boomslang:

(This is at 2:53 my time)

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

But then... here is our WTF moment. One lone minute later, at 2:54 he then links to MM's own cut and paste of the same quotes, and questions him on it...

Spoiler: show

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Boomslang wrote:Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

Boomslang wrote:RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

Ummmm...why?

So BWT comes in, catches up, finds Boomslang scummy enough to vote for him. but then one minute later calls MM out for doing the same thing??? This makes no sense.

I gave justification and a reason as to why I voted for Boomslang (he had done nothing but suggest he thought you were good, and then turns around and votes for you). MM just moved his vote to Boomslang (and off of you subsequently) with no justification why and in a very out-of-the-blue way.

I'm still convinced MM was trying to discredit with his vote.

Sloonei wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I probably would have been on the Wilgy train, but I am also compelled by what I've seen said about Boomslang. I do not get his thought process RE: timmer, and I've still seen nothing from timmer that merits serious suspicion.

Yeah, I really want to hear more from Boomslang. Because I'm starting to wonder if we didn't see a Boom save with this lynch. Plus I would like to give him a chance to respond to what has actually happened.

RIP Wilgy.

I'd like to hear more about this, BWT.

I entertained that thought because I thought Boom was bad at the time. But he has since come back and offered up a much more reasonable explanation as to what happened with his Day 2 vote. So I no longer believe this was a possible outcome from the previous lynch.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fine.

The only player on the roster I think would fail to send a kill is A Person, and I'm not even sure he would. I think it's more likely something else happened.

I agree. There's not enough low posters in this game to make me entertain the possibility of the mafia failing to send their kill in.

Boomslang wrote:RIP Wilgy, and what a crazy Day 2.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am more inclined to agree with Epignosis on the matter of Boomslang. I think there's a logical problem with his timmer vote that he should talk about, but there's the rub. When I look at the Boomslang controversy, my judgment veers toward that matter of logic -- is it truly damning for a player to make a logical misstep, and which alignment is more proned to making those? I don't know that there's a reliable correlation between being bad and being illogical. If anything there may be a negative correlation.

Boomslang, at your earliest convenience please discuss your current reads on timmer and MM, and describe where your head was at when you made your last post on Day 2.

Honestly, my vote was a logical misstep. "Where my head was at" was a place of sheer panic/preoccupation; I'd just come off a five-hour internship block, was about to head on an hour drive to an hour-plus-long job interview (that I'd just landed the day before and stayed up late preparing for), and at the time was changing into a suit. I didn't have the time or mental capacity to think clearly about my post or vote. I voted timmer out of some fuzzy train of thought relating him, MM, and me and wanting to see what happened after that vote. I seriously doubted that timmer would actually get lynched in the phase. You can believe me or not for this explanation; unlike Hillary Clinton, I can post time-stamped emails if you want them.

That being said, I think we can still gain some info from the debacle. MM immediately abandoning his timmer vote to vote me looks bad. If he truly believed in the timmer case, why would he abandon it instead of trying to recruit more people to the vote? Timmer seemed suitably confused/angry about a vote that was, as I've said, mostly illogical; he then tried to rationalize the vote after the emotional energy subsided. That reads very authentic to me. So I'll stop beating that horse for now.

For the first part, okay, a lot of that is completely understandable. In a vacuum, your timmer vote made no sense. But I do remember you supporting him earlier on, so I can buy this for now.

I do agree that we can gain some info from your vote decision too. I think it makes MM look scummier given he jumped his vote again right after your timmer vote.

MM, remind me again of your reasoning for moving this vote off timmer.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think A Person has a greater-than-average chance of being an insanifier role given his obvious disdain for people posting at a high rate. I'll give him some credit for brazenly voicing his disdain, but I'll also state that I agree with an inference made by LoRab: that if there are two insanifying roles, they're likely to be split somehow among the alignments. That is an issue for A Person, and so is a tiny contributory clip in a fast-paced and challenging game thread environment.

That a high poster wasn't killed means very little to me in regard to A Person because I wouldn't expect him to have the loudest voice of influence in a baddie BTSC anyway. To borrow Golden's language for a different purpose: I don't think he's a slam dunk scum, but I'm not giving him any credit for that. The best I can say is that he was willing to gripe openly about the high posters and didn't appear to care.

I agree with this. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an insanifer role, but I feel like we need more than him just griping about high posters to be able to tell if he is a good vs. bad/neutral insanifer.

Sloonei wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

timmer wrote:Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

Not necessarily. A lot of forced votes require the person being forced to not divulge in any way that their vote is forced. I once saw someone slip up on that and they were modkilled, so it's a pretty serious thing in terms of the mafia culture I'm used to.

That being said, I am still reserving my final judgement on Boomslang until I see what his response is.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

timmer wrote:Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

You're absolutely right! I would do that.

But that's the thing, I can and will do almost anything in a mafia game, and additionally will admit to the possibility of doing anything. Sooo, I don't see how this helps your argument.



Anyway, I've changed my mind on Boomslang for now. A vote forcer is a possibility, but that wouldn't impact my read on Boomslang.

I don't disagree with your notion here. But do you see how your vote for timmer makes you look scummy?

What would you say your read is on Boomslang now?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Three players were on the wagons for each of the players lynched thus far. These same three players have the highest post counts: MovingPictures, Golden, and JaggedJimmyJay.

Discuss.

Well, the first and third I've read as civ so far. The second I do not have a read on yet.

At the same time, I would also think if any of these 3 were bad, they would avoid latching onto the first 2 civ lynch wagons.

And I don't feel that great about you, so I'm considering the source as well.

I'll think about it.

Well yay no death! At least we have that going for us!

I will catch up more fully tomorrow. I got home from work 20 minutes ago and am super tired right now.

Sloonei wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:*sexy wiggle*

am i supposed to bounce something off this?

I wouldn't mind bouncing something off that if you know what I mean.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:Must have been that one. It might have been that you wanted to kill yourself to clear yourself

I wouldn't put it past me. I'm still the only person I know who has intentionally nightkilled a mafia teammate.

I'd beg to differ. In Electronic Mafia, our team ended up both targeting DP for a nightkill while protecting him. Plus the baddie team ALSO targeted him for a nightkill, and MP allowed the block to go through for both kill attempts. It's why my team ultimately won that game.

I was doing that same maneuver before you were in mafia diapers. :P

Golden wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:What if, e.g., Sunshine + Gasoline's secret is that night powers targeting one will affect both of them?

Or if something in Mladic role (I believe he is probably the mafia insanifier) says "if you target one of a btsc pair it affects both of them" or something along those lines?

Maybe. I feel like we need more time and evidence to confirm or deny this though.

I really don't think we do.

I spent half the first day suspecting Jay. That is not something I do with a btsc partner (at least, a civ btsc partner I guess).

But also

1) my curse was incredibly specific in its detail, and looked nothing like Jay's - therefore, whoever used their ability would have to know that two of us would be affected and come up with two completely different sets of curse terms.
2) It would be a de facto 'btsc hunter' role, which doesn't seem likely.

Fair enough. I think if you had a civ BTSC partner, you'd probably ignore them for the most part.

1) Okay. Jay's looked completely-ass-random with no discerning way to interpret it. Yours was just a posting style. But it lends credence to the fact that we probably have a civ insanifier and either the indy or a baddie also has the ability. The question becomes which is which.

2) So under that theory, it would mean that Jay is affected by something that targets his partner, but he doesn't know who his partner is yet? Because if so, then yeah, that doesn't seem like a strong possibility to me.

Dom wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:DrWilgy

Can you quote a reason why?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Fuck this game. Seriously. I don't even care if you other townies win anymore.

MovingPictures07

HETHZBEMADWDGFLMCECRSALOKYHNENMTEKTXEJSYVQOPXMHNCKBJRIBNJHBDITEUMGUBXUMD

This curse sucks.

Indeed. Anyone have an idea what the code for it is?

What made you say this?

Curiosity. Because it's not an insanifier I recognize.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote: MP - several people changed votes off both A Person and Boomslang at Epi's prompting, as far as I could tell

to add a point, epi posts in a manner that suggests certainty, I'm just pointing out that what he says deserves as much scrutiny as anybody else. It wasn't even a main point of my post

Not to mention he chastised as many people as he did, was very certain, and then went and voted for a civ.

I could see a baddie Epig attempting such a maneuver.

Linki: Gotcha. Well we have a night and possibly another day phase to try and figure that one out at least!

Golden wrote:Sig looks scummy as all fuck therefore sig is good.

I mean, given how this game has gone so far, this could very well be true.

I was so sure of my Day 1 vote and was totally and completely 100% wrong. My Day 2 vote was not for the lynchee. But I have 2 people in my sights right now and I'm trying to take the blinders off to give them some more time to mentally stew.

Golden wrote:Thank goodness I can talk normally again.

1) Epi just played PoE very well. I don't know why people (eg Dom) would say he is showing its flaws. It also paints his comment about MP from day one in another light. He is giving legitimate reasons for people to be town, and they are legitimately good reasons, they aren't just crap, and epi was suspicious of MP saying he was playing a PoE strategy but not taking his 'reason why inh is town' on board. I voted for epi briefly because I didn't like what felt like a complete lack of effort to try to engage with me or understand me (that continued throughout). But, epi is now probably my strongest town read when all is said and done. He warded me off voting AP and boomslang because, he was right, they didn't belong in a "PoE" because there were legitimately good reasons why their behaviour didn't mesh with what is bad.

Sorry for not responding. I felt like I had enough coals to the fire that I wasn't able to adequately see and/or address what was going on there during this phase. I will work harder on that going forward though.

I will say that I do agree that Epig did not make an effort to engage or put any ideas forth. Just to criticize decisions that were being discussed and made, and even openly refused to share a certain thought he had. Does not look good for him right now to me.

2) I think Epi is wrong about MP, though. But also a little disappointed MP made no real effort to understand or engage me. The only person who did was scotty. He gave me an in to be a little understood, and yet still people essentially ignored and chose not to engage with me. I think that looks real good on scotty.

I still have a slightly bad read on Scotty. But I feel like I can't address this properly yet because I do not have a read on you at all in this game yet.

3) I also think that epi's reasoning for AP is ok, but not a slam dunk. Trice said it well. There are three baddies, and the idea that APs voice would decide who was killed doesn't mesh for me. In fact, killing vomps and then moaning about load players is a good way to 'clear yourself'.

True. Killing a low poster and then bemoaning people posting so much would definitely be a way to not be tagged as being bad.

4) I don't believe Jay was faking. But I don't know for sure. I would never 'fake a curse', and I don't believe Jay would either. FAR too restrictive for such high posters. MP isn't a good barometer for what high posters would bring on themselves, because he's a suicidal moron. I always screw up curses, and so have to suffer the consequences. If I was bad and had the ability to curse someone within the time, I might consider REALLY cursing myself or someone in my team though. And I think town cursers are entirely possible. I don't assume that Jay is good just because he was cursed. But I very much doubt the curse was fake.

Agree fully with this. But that also begs the question: Do we think a baddie cursed a teammate in this last phase? Because right now I'm leaning no on that one. Unless we have a baddie team that is really brazen and willing to take huge chances early on.

5) @boom - I do not feel like I've taken any heat (the rants weren't people trying to vote for me, just bitching about me generally), but thanks for explaining what you meant - it checks out for me.

Can't agree on Boom yet. I need to hear what he says in his defense before I judge him any further.

Linki: Why do you say he is always like this when good? Not sure what you mean here.

I'm trying to give him a chance as well given that he did not appear until close to the end of the phase. But it feels different from Boomslang for me. For me, Boomslang essentially jumped his vote because he thought MM was bad, but claimed we would get more info from a timmer lynch. Which is incredibly risky unless he had a good reason to think they were teammates. Sig had much more time to post in this phase, but didn't show up until the last minute, jumped on a wagon, and then did not offer any of his own suspicions when asked multiple times until the phase had ended.

Basically, Boom was not around to defend himself. Sig was. And sig chose to ignore any questions directed at him. That's why I currently lean more bad on sig than on Boom.

MovingPictures07 wrote:It's clear that I need to keep my emotions out of this game as much as possible. I'll be ISOing folks late tonight.

I mean, you're the most logically emotional mafia player I've ever seen, so take that for what that's worth!

Looking forward to your ISO's.

Sloonei wrote:I probably would have been on the Wilgy train, but I am also compelled by what I've seen said about Boomslang. I do not get his thought process RE: timmer, and I've still seen nothing from timmer that merits serious suspicion.

Yeah, I really want to hear more from Boomslang. Because I'm starting to wonder if we didn't see a Boom save with this lynch. Plus I would like to give him a chance to respond to what has actually happened.

RIP Wilgy.

sig wrote:So quick thing before the phase ends, MP trying to turn it over to Scotty is odd, I don't know if this was an attempt at anything or not, but I disliked it.

linki: Ah okay so off the top of my head I suspect and plan to look into MM, Dom, and Scotty. I also kind off suspect you and Epi, but that is mainly tinfoiling I think.

I don't see the case on Boom, but I think the case on Boom is better then voting wilgy since Sloonie was silenced and since he voted for Epi?

See? Not difficult. Especially now that the poll ended. :P

I look forward to seeing what you come up with on those players, even though I think your last-second move back to Boom makes you look pretty scummy.

sig wrote:Also moving over to boom I don't like the case on Wilgy or Mp's last minute switch

Crown of shit[/quote]
Yeah, this. I would be shocked if sig wasn't bad at this point.

sig wrote:What I'm talking about is simple? I can ISO people in this amount of time and do a quick skim sure, but it isn't like I'm going to have the time to build a proper case. Therefore at this stage it makes more sense for me to review the preexisting cases and if I feel one is very wrong vote against it. Besides I generally strongly dislike CFDs and I'd be trying to make one if I built a case at this point.

This is my fault I thought I had another 24 hours left in this phase, so I did goof here.

Okay, I get that. But I would still like to know if there is someone else you are suspicious of before the phase ends. That's all.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Wow, I missed a lot in a mere 1-2 hours.

What's the scoop?

I've killed Rainbow Raider MP.

So this is you?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:What if, e.g., Sunshine + Gasoline's secret is that night powers targeting one will affect both of them?

Or if something in Mladic role (I believe he is probably the mafia insanifier) says "if you target one of a btsc pair it affects both of them" or something along those lines?

Possible.

Here's why I bring it up, before anybody asks:

-JJJ and golden both seem good to me

-that means if there is a civ insanifier role they maybe used their power irresponsibly last night, BUT the alternate possibility exists that there is no civ who can insanify

-I believe if Mladic's role was simply "can insanify 1 player each night" then it would be listed visibly like Storm's silence, so it must be more complicated than that

Makes sense. But again, I feel like I'd need to see more to know for sure.

sig wrote:I have a few I'd look at but with less then 13 minutes until the poll closes there isn't a huge point in pursing them to much is there?

A quick skim, I find MM's votes to be eyebrow raising he goes from Timmer to Boom to Epi to Boom. This is odd, he also provides no reason for his Epi vote.

Also the Vomp kill was very odd? It makes very little sense why he was killed.

I mean, I agree that MM's votes were odd. But you can't give some of your thoughts on it beyond this? Or on anyone else? Even just a name?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:What if, e.g., Sunshine + Gasoline's secret is that night powers targeting one will affect both of them?

Or if something in Mladic role (I believe he is probably the mafia insanifier) says "if you target one of a btsc pair it affects both of them" or something along those lines?

Maybe. I feel like we need more time and evidence to confirm or deny this though.

sig wrote:hey here i am to save the day, or at least make a post and vote. :P


So I don't see a good case for Boomslang or Wilgy or A person. However, out of the three the Wilgy thing seemed to have come out of nowhere? His vote for Epi seems to be the only thing agaisnt him. For now I'm voting for Boom when I go back and read if anyone can tell me what exactly the case on Wilgy is that would be great.

You don't like the case on Boom, but you put a vote there anyway?

Stinks to high heaven to me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:MP, you never answered my question directed at you earlier.

I'm sorry bud, must have missed it. I'm trying to quickly catch up here while playing Lost Again. Lol. Can you quote it for me?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, I find your two statements contradictory. How can he be pretty much impossible to read and yet you lean town on him?

Did you read my post? I said I leaned town on Epi because I didn't think his gimmick was doing any damage to the town effort. Beyond obfuscating his own alignment, of course.

Sloonei wrote:Why do you like Scotty avoiding the INH vote?

He had a correct read on INH and promoted that read in the thread. Had we followed that advice, it would've been profitable to the town effort. That's more town evidence than we have for most people at this point.

Also, voted the mini-market because food.

I did read it; I just don't understand how you interpret Epi's behavior as obfuscating.

I find your highlighted conclusion dubious. Accuracy does not make alignment.

Epi's posts have gotten much less obtuse as the game has gone on, I'll give you that much. So I'm stepping back from the idea of obfuscation for now. And I agree that accuracy does not make alignment. But he actively pursued other targets (Epi, BWT, JJJ) in thread instead of just saying he disagreed with the inh lynch. He could've done more late in the day, but he did offer some potential alternatives if others would've taken them.

Linki w/Golden: I don't necessarily think both are fake. But I think odds are high one is, given what we know about the roles.
Linki w/MP: Spinning my wheels here, but I'd say a mafia J could be pretending to help temper his high post count from yesterday. He came out swinging, establishing himself as a strong inquisitive force (see Scotty calling him the Spanish Inquisition, for crying out loud), and playing insanified lets him fade back a bit while retaining that impression.

Second linki: Ahh Blooper I want to post tooooo

That's all fair. Thanks for the response. I'll see whether I agree with that claim when ISO Scotty tomorrow (that's what I'm hoping to do anyway).

That's a logical conclusion. I'm not sure what I think of it. I think mafia members faking curses almost never happens, but it's possible. I've done it once before.

No, no, NO. Don't do this to me, man! This is the first notable thing you've said so far that I've disagreed with.

If you wouldn't put it past a mafia member, and you yourself have faked a curse, then why do you think it's a stretch for mafia members to do it?

Because it's unnecessarily risky. Most people don't play like I do.

You answered it actually lol.

Dom wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dom wrote:i think he's purposefully exposing how flawed poe is

MP stated earlier that he isn't using PoE anymore. So what makes you think he is still doing it?

i'm talking about epi

birdwithteeth11 wrote:MP, you never answered my question directed at you earlier.

and you never answered mine

jay-- i'll bite.
*votes wilgy*

Oh okay. My bad.

What was your question? I don't remember seeing one for some reason.

I'm going to go work out now. I'll be back after day ends. Happy with my choice for today though.

MP, you never answered my question directed at you earlier.

Dom wrote:i think he's purposefully exposing how flawed poe is

MP stated earlier that he isn't using PoE anymore. So what makes you think he is still doing it?

I need to break away to go work out soon (having a 9-hour meeting today in a room that was closed and extremely hot after lunch has me itching for some physical activity), so Epig, if you have a reason for why timmer might be bad, the sooner the better. Because if I don't hear something good soon, I'm leaving my vote as is.

Linki: You aren't willing to give a reason why? Then it makes me think your reasoning is weak here.

I feel fine with where my vote is. I'll be back after EoD.

Linki2: The train of thought there is puzzling, inconsistent, and dangerous if he is wrong about either timmer or MM.

Linki3: I agree. Ask me about being lynched for not playing perfectly. But even still, I don't think you can ignore the way boomslang has jumped around the way he has.

Linki4: What benefit is there to keep it to yourself?

Linki5: Epig, you are driving me bonkers. Either explain yourself and try to change our minds, or give an alternate to today's potential candidates. Otherwise you're just chiding us with no better opinions or options.