The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:I definitely recall talk of "meta" back at LP, but not as much as it's occurred since TS's inception.

S~V~S wrote:Quiet living people make me sad

timmer wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not being forced by the hunger to promote an SVS lynch.

Is that a thing? I just picked a word that appealed to me.

That's a little bit of a stretch, homie. the instant I saw you emphasize the word starved I had to go check if we were on a hunger day, that's how much you didn't just pick a word. Whatchoo up to?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Open question about S~V~S for those who've played with her often:

Her tunnel vision on Golden was well-documented. Most people didn't seem perturbed by that, and my inclination as an observer without meta was to not be perturbed. However, it should be noted that her case against Golden seemed to be reduced entirely to a single post (in which Golden claimed to have baited the Epi kill).

Golden fought and fought to explain his maneuver and his perspective, but S~V~S never got over that post. Would you folks say that tunnel vision of such a focused sort is normal of S~V~S? Because that is a special sort of tunneling -- instead of hating everything Golden posted, she hated one thing he posted. Enough to drive him over 300 posts defending himself to no avail.

S~V~S wrote:I think that is 100% typical of me.

DharmaHelper wrote:In Recruitment Mafia's, it always pays to look for changes in tone and shifts in opinion. These are SVS's thoughts regarding Golden Day 1:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 61#p168261

The part where he said he wanted Epi dead or God help him felt fairly sincere to me, Golden being a lay preacher and all. As I said initially, Goldens original line of questioning to me did not feel that odd,

-------

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 59#p168459

Unless Golden started out on someones short list, or is a recruiter himself, I don't see him applying for baddie positions in the various contests that the host is likely to have, based on prior experience with their games. I also think that, based on odds, he is as unlikley to have started out as a baddie recruiter as anyone else,

So I think that the odds of Golden finishing the game as a civ or a neutral are somewhat higher than for most people.

==================

She spent all of Day 2 hounding Golden for "baiting" the Epi kill, ignoring that 24 hours previous, she made some good points about how unlikely he was to be bad. To me, this reads like SVS sees an easy lynch and is going for it. No skin off her back, if he flips neutral early.

I think SVS is the Ubzergan (sp) recruit from the role picture contest, or Ubzergan herself.

Canucklehead wrote:While I fully acknowledge being one of the coal-shovellers on this Bubbles Lynch Train, the more passengers we acquire the more squicky I feel about it..... like, I'm starting to feel like I'm on the damn Snowpiercer and eating children and doing really unsubtle allegory and stuff.

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:Hi everyone.

RIPIYWG MP... I'm glad you're going to have some time off, though.


I'm really at a loss... MP was my top suspect.

I'll help you. Evaluate... DharmaHelper!

aapje wrote:

LoRab wrote:And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

Riiight, I can totally follow this
The whole Rico - LR interaction has my head spinning and I have no idea what to make of it. It mostly feels like a pissing contest.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What does ISO stand for? I was afraid to ask earlier.

Isolation. It can be used to describe a player's isolated post history (my post history is my ISO) in a game. Or it can be the actual compiled analysis itself (this is the ISO I've compiled on JJJ). Or as a verb (I ISO'd JJJ and decided he seems good/bad/whatever).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I just think your language was extreme. I think you made no effort to be objective despite the fact that you said you had. You made it seem like I was kicking a cat. This is what I was anticipating in my "asshole" post.

I think if you compare the language I employed against you with the language I used in other suspicion I've expressed in this game and on this site, you won't find it so terribly different as you seem to think.

Also, you might be associating my ISOs with this case against you -- that would be one reason I could see you legitimately feeling I was being less objective than I usually am. There's a reason for that: when I ISO players, it's because I am generating a read -- not clarifying a read that exists already. With you I wasn't doing that; I had already developed suspicion based on your conduct in that exchange with MP and I explained exactly why in the form of a case.

One thing people have done constantly here since I joined is confuse my ISOs with my cases. They aren't the same thing and the language between them is likely to be different in severity.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I hope it's clear that when I say I've played with MP more than anyone on TS, I don't mean I have played with him more than other TSers have played with him. That's definitely not true.

to clarify, do you mean you have played with MP more than you have played with other players on TS?
I did not interpret that original statement as such.

Yes, that's what I mean. I have played with MP more than I have played with anyone else on TS (save for Sloonei, duh).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dom, you are literally asking why I don't use the same language when describing suspects as I do when describing people I don't suspect. Who in the history of Mafia has ever done that?

I am asking why you used language to create a bias. This is not something I have really observed you do. Maybe because it's against me, I'm noticing it more, but I just think your post was so ridiculously biased. You used only friendly, non threatening language about the guy who literally threw a tantrum and told other people to stop playing (that is new territory as far as I'm concerned). Meanwhile, you made no effort, in my opinion to remain objective.

I think you're misguided. I haven't seen this type of behavior as a pattern.

I might be misguided. It wouldn't be the first time.

I didn't use negative language about MP because I didn't think his behavior was indicative of him being a baddie. Alignment is my only concern here. I did see things in your posts during that exchange that I found suspicious, and that was reflected in my explanation of that suspicion. I think you'll find I am generally harder on people I suspect than I am on people I don't suspect.

Isn't everyone?

DharmaHelper wrote:I think spacedaisy has played with MP more than anyone. Congrats on the wedding again, by the way.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I hope it's clear that when I say I've played with MP more than anyone on TS, I don't mean I have played with him more than other TSers have played with him. That's definitely not true.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dom, you are literally asking why I don't use the same language when describing suspects as I do when describing people I don't suspect. Who in the history of Mafia has ever done that?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I have played Mafia with MP for years. You, JJJ, were extremely condescending in your wording of my history with MP. So I was condescending back. You now know how your words were-- manipulative. That post literally used the most vitriolic language when it came to descriptions of my actions, but benign tones when it came to MP's. It does not have the level-headedness I've come to expect from you.

I have come to expect tantrums from MP over the years; however, this is not a free pass for him.

Why do you expect to be treated the same way in the same post? I am suspicious of you and not suspicious of MP.

I didn't intend to be condescending at any point, so I apologize for coming across that way. I honestly don't know what you're referring to even, but I apologize regardless. Condescension is frustrating.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:But please, continue to conflate the issues.

WTF is this sentence? Why is it here? This kind of snark just serves to irritate.

When I accuse people of things I do my best to speak from a detached and objective perspective. I may not always succeed, but I try.

thellama73 wrote:I have been playing mafia with MP since before you guys were born.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Okay, a quick review of recent behavior by Dom that I view with suspicion:

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:JJJ, yes, MP reacts this way pretty much anytime anyone suspects him. Even historically speaking, I would say that's true.

Dom acknowledges that emotional outbursts are not uncommon for MP when he is faced with accusations. "Pretty much anytime".

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:MP, once again you conveniently freak out about someone not playing the way you like people to play only when it threatens you, then expand it to make it seem like you suspect people who do it.
And then wonder why people think that's suspicious.

Dom reveals his own understanding further of MP's tendencies when under pressure. He has shown recognition of MP's outburst as something typical of him, and even inserted himself into MP's head with the highlighted sentence. He knows what's happening here. So the logical read from Dom should be, I think, null at worst -- this is the norm for MP and doesn't necessarily indicate ill motives. So why does Dom allow this to develop into actual suspicion of MP in the ensuing discussion?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:Don't sidestep this issue by making it about how you are "bad at walking away". That is an issue, but not the issue that is relevant to this game.
The real issue here is that you just attacked MM only for suspecting you. Yet, you give TinyBubbles and Dharmahelper and DFaraday free passes on this. Why the attention on MM?

Volatile language being employed by Dom in the first sentence provides the appearance of a tough interrogation -- but I sense manipulation. The point Dom makes here is technically valid -- MP's criticism of MM could have applied to other players earlier but never did because MP wasn't accused by them.

That's the point.

MP hates being accused, as Dom himself has already granted. He knows that. Thus, shouldn't the obvious explanation for MP's inconsistency be that exact thing? DH has played a very neutral game on his own agenda but did not go after MP. MM has played a very neutral game on his own agenda and did go after MP. The variable here is whether the players in question attacked MP -- the very thing that MP hates and Dom agrees sets him off "pretty much anytime".

Why is it suspicious now?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:No no no no no.
You called him out and told him to play the game right. Because, according to you, there's a right way to play this game.
So when he played the game incorrectly for the past three day/night cycles, why did you sit quietly by?

When he was heated, MP used regrettable language (which he has apologized for) in his treatment of MM. He asserted MM "playing the game right". This was contained within the very same series of emotional posts by MP which Dom has seemed to capitalize on. I interpret this as Dom riding the wave of MP's behavioral difficulty into a very easy perspective of suspicion -- suspicion that doesn't make sense in accordance with Dom's own admission that MP always does this.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.

This addresses nothing I said and only admits guilt.

Dom spat this post at MP in a way that I think was just blatantly unfair. MP had been posting a stream of thoughts, and his quoted post in this spoiler came about one minute after Dom's accusation -- that's linki-caliber.

Dom should know that. Instead of considering the likelihood that MP was still getting to his point in a separate post, he condemned MP with strong manipulative language. "only admits guilt"

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Naw.

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:Why aren't you addressing my actual thoughts? You keep apologizing for being emotional, but have yet to really address the meat of my criticism.

And what were you implying by "just want to give rid of me" if not that I am just going after you for little to no reason?

But now you want out so I guess I'm an asshole for suspecting you.

The highlighted portion is a complete misrepresentation of anything MP has said in this exchange and I view it with suspicion.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Roxy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MP hates being accused more than everyone ever. This isn't news.

Yah I know but this reaction is waaaaayyyyyy over the top imo,

Do you think it's over-the-top in a way that evidences his stress external to the game, or in a way that evidences his baddie alignment in the game?

Because I think it's definitely the former.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If you think my play makes me mafia or even neutral and you all just want to get rid of me, then whatever, I can't stop you from placing your votes however you like. But I can try my best.

WOAH WOAH WOAH
AGAIN WITH THE NO U

Dom, I just wanted to say that this was not a NO U. I'm not sure how you read it. But I was saying if you all want to vote me off that's fine, since I can't technically stop you, but I can try my best to convince you I shouldn't die (i.e., I'm not mafia).

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:MP literally just baselessly accused both Llama and myself of "Wanting him out of the game" which would imply nefarious intent.

His only basis for this implication is that I am putting pressure on him.


Second time in two hours.

Well, Dom, I would defend against that accusation, but I don't see how I can since it's based on emotion and nothing tangible.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote: Why did MM's play style matter little until the attention came to you?

It hasn't mattered little. I haven't said much, if really anything about it, sure. I haven't had a strong reason to pursue him.

I called him out for his reasoning on me because he was accusing me.

I'm really lost; what are you trying to discern exactly?

The point Dom is making is that you claim to be upset at people not playing the game, but that only manifested itself when YOU were accused, not at any other point during the game. His point is that you don't really have a problem with people not playing, you just have a problem with people coming after you. I don't want to put words in Dom's mouth, but I'm going to put two in anyway, and those two are "hypocrisy" and "opportunism".

I'll say them louder for the people in the back.


Alex, your play is hypocritical. You are only suspicious of MM and brought this much attention to him because he suspects you. You don't give a damn about how he's playing the game, because if you did, you would have suspected him long ago. You are being an opportunist on an easy-to-lynch person.

Additionally, I'll just spring that question I laid up there while I'm posting, since I'm playing for the balcony here.
You voted for Position 4. It benefits your role. Your words.
However, it CERTAINLY does not benefit the civilian cause to vote Position 4. It's almost like you are hiding under the guise of neutrality to keep yourself from being suspected. . .
which is something you just said is suspicious.

Okay, I get it. Fine, I'm hypocritical, I'll admit it. Opportunistic? I know I'm not being opportunistic, so no, but I suppose I can see why you see the situation that way.

Believe what you want, but I do give a damn about how everyone plays the game, and that should be evident in the fact that I'm playing this game as hard as I am.

I won't admit to even being remotely good at this game. I try my best. I realize everything I say isn't always logically sound or devoid of logical fallacy or even hypocrisy, so I'm glad you pointed this out. I apologize to MM for getting upset. I'm just not cut out to play this game and be a completely rational robot that makes the best arguments and never fails to react more heavily to suspicion against me than against others.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.

This addresses nothing I said and only admits guilt.

I hadn't addressed your post yet.

MovingPictures07 wrote:If you think my play makes me mafia or even neutral and you all just want to get rid of me, then whatever, I can't stop you from placing your votes however you like. But I can try my best.

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote: Why did MM's play style matter little until the attention came to you?

It hasn't mattered little. I haven't said much, if really anything about it, sure. I haven't had a strong reason to pursue him.

I called him out for his reasoning on me because he was accusing me.

I'm really lost; what are you trying to discern exactly?

The point Dom is making is that you claim to be upset at people not playing the game, but that only manifested itself when YOU were accused, not at any other point during the game. His point is that you don't really have a problem with people not playing, you just have a problem with people coming after you. I don't want to put words in Dom's mouth, but I'm going to put two in anyway, and those two are "hypocrisy" and "opportunism".

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote: Why did MM's play style matter little until the attention came to you?

It hasn't mattered little. I haven't said much, if really anything about it, sure. I haven't had a strong reason to pursue him.

I called him out for his reasoning on me because he was accusing me.

I'm really lost; what are you trying to discern exactly?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Look guys, I'm sorry, but I think it's completely unfair to throw out a baseless accusation at this stage of the game. Why even bother playing the game? If some players are just going to sit back and not even play it, then it ruins the game for the players who actually do play. Mafia is a game where you either are a civilian and try to baddie hunt, or you're mafia and try to act like a civilian. If I invest hours upon hours of my free time, of which I barely have any (it practically almost all goes to this game), and then some of the players don't even play the game by not posting or by posting a bunch of fluff and not issuing any opinions, then I won't play. It's clear I need a break from mafia, because I'm stressed out enough RL with the PhD as it is, and I've become testier in games over the past year as a result. I apologize for that. But you can understand why I'd get upset investing time into ISOing Devin's posts only to have it immediately denounced by two players as if I have underhanded intentions, with accusations that are impossible for me to defend against at that.

At least you've given me a reason now, MM, and I will next post a response to that post and the other two Roxy posts I wanted to respond to.

Then lynch DharmaHelper, TinyBubbles, DFaraday....
You're only mad because MM named you.

Sure, I'll admit, I was mad. I've cooled off a bit. I take the game probably way too seriously sometimes, and post without walking away when I should. I've been trying to improve it, but apparently I still suck at it. For that, I apologize. I can take suspicion. I just get pissed off when someone comes in and accuses me of deception with incredibly weak/unsubstantiated reasoning after I've spent a lot of time posting/analyzing/whatever. I obviously need to take a step away and realize that it's just part of the game and not to get so worked up.

Don't sidestep this issue by making it about how you are "bad at walking away". That is an issue, but not the issue that is relevant to this game.
The real issue here is that you just attacked MM only for suspecting you. Yet, you give TinyBubbles and Dharmahelper and DFaraday free passes on this. Why the attention on MM?

What are you talking about? TinyBubbles, DH, and DFaraday haven't accused me for no reason whatsoever.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Look guys, I'm sorry, but I think it's completely unfair to throw out a baseless accusation at this stage of the game. Why even bother playing the game? If some players are just going to sit back and not even play it, then it ruins the game for the players who actually do play. Mafia is a game where you either are a civilian and try to baddie hunt, or you're mafia and try to act like a civilian. If I invest hours upon hours of my free time, of which I barely have any (it practically almost all goes to this game), and then some of the players don't even play the game by not posting or by posting a bunch of fluff and not issuing any opinions, then I won't play. It's clear I need a break from mafia, because I'm stressed out enough RL with the PhD as it is, and I've become testier in games over the past year as a result. I apologize for that. But you can understand why I'd get upset investing time into ISOing Devin's posts only to have it immediately denounced by two players as if I have underhanded intentions, with accusations that are impossible for me to defend against at that.

At least you've given me a reason now, MM, and I will next post a response to that post and the other two Roxy posts I wanted to respond to.

Then lynch DharmaHelper, TinyBubbles, DFaraday....
You're only mad because MM named you.

Sure, I'll admit, I was mad. I've cooled off a bit. I take the game probably way too seriously sometimes, and post without walking away when I should. I've been trying to improve it, but apparently I still suck at it. For that, I apologize. I can take suspicion. I just get pissed off when someone comes in and accuses me of deception with incredibly weak/unsubstantiated reasoning after I've spent a lot of time posting/analyzing/whatever. I obviously need to take a step away and realize that it's just part of the game and not to get so worked up.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Considering how you've been able to keep up a vast post count and player analysis, why did my play not matter until you became a victim of it?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Look guys, I'm sorry, but I think it's completely unfair to throw out a baseless accusation at this stage of the game. Why even bother playing the game? If some players are just going to sit back and not even play it, then it ruins the game for the players who actually do play. Mafia is a game where you either are a civilian and try to baddie hunt, or you're mafia and try to act like a civilian. If I invest hours upon hours of my free time, of which I barely have any (it practically almost all goes to this game), and then some of the players don't even play the game by not posting or by posting a bunch of fluff and not issuing any opinions, then I won't play. It's clear I need a break from mafia, because I'm stressed out enough RL with the PhD as it is, and I've become testier in games over the past year as a result. I apologize for that. But you can understand why I'd get upset investing time into ISOing Devin's posts only to have it immediately denounced by two players as if I have underhanded intentions, with accusations that are impossible for me to defend against at that.

At least you've given me a reason now, MM, and I will next post a response to that post and the other two Roxy posts I wanted to respond to.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:JJJ, yes, MP reacts this way pretty much anytime anyone suspects him. Even historically speaking, I would say that's true.

I alsow ant to respond to your Boomslang case-- can you explain why these things make him bad-- specifically a recruiter? I see you pointing some things out as behavior, but it lacks a clear link to a theory.

That's going to have to wait until later, I'm going to sleep after this day ends. What I'll say now is that I think Boomslang could be recruiter OR recruitee -- and I think behavioral analysis is the whole point.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:MM, seriously, drop the fucking shit. Either play this game right or ask to be replaced or modkilled. Straight shoot me a reason you don't trust me. Right now.

Play this game right? What does that mean?

I've tried playing the game your way. I can't do it. Even if I could do it succesfully, I'd get lynched for not being myself. Recall the "it's just MP being crazy, so that's normal" excuse Devin gave for defending you? It's kinda like that.

Why don't you convince mafia to nightkill me or something instead?

It means actually play the game of mafia. It's Day 4 and you say you have no suspects. Get out of here.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I voted for you. I don't trust you.

What are you doing?

Last I checked, people actually gave reasons for their fucking opinions. You need to be lynched if you're going to conduct the rest of the game in this manner.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I will not stand and just sit here while people try to pull bullsuit accusations and votes on me again. I will address points if points are made. I cannot address "I don't trust you".

MovingPictures07 wrote:MM, seriously, drop the fucking shit. Either play this game right or ask to be replaced or modkilled. Straight shoot me a reason you don't trust me. Right now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I hope people read my Devin ISO. I'd be much more comfortable lynching him today than Sorsha or even Bubbles, despite suspecting both of them (though I suspect Bubbles more heavily at the moment). I'm feeling a bit wary of both trains myself.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bullzeye, I feel like you're the only person that understands the case I was trying to make against Boomslang. I just wanna say thanks bro and raise the brofist. Whether you meet it with a brofist of your own is up to you, but know that I am pouring emotion into this fist right now.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm surprised Devin doesn't have more votes. Dude feels like bad news with his "placeholder" vote on himself followed by hopping on the bandwagon of the day. I think he's afraid of ruffling any feathers.

The fact that only one person (Llama) commented on my post re: BWT makes me think I was on the right track there.

Don't really see the cases on either Sorsha or Bubbles.

Bullzeye wrote:

nutella wrote:

Roxy wrote: 2.) I hope BR and LC do not take offense to this as I hope other players don't as well but do I really think BR would put Boomslang as a recruiter? No I don't. Even if they random'ed the roles I believe there was more than one or two tweaks. I do it in games I host.

That's bullshit and you know it. They randomized the roles. If that's the way you've done it you should feel bad, it's cliquey and disrespectful to assume that certain players can't handle certain roles. And you called ME cliquey. :\

Have to agree with this. That's the cliqueyest (cliquiest? Made-up English is hard) thing I've read all game. Shall we lynch all the most popular people because they're most likely to have been 'tweaked' into recruiter roles then?

nutella wrote:Dom -- maybe you don't quite have the same idea as what I mean by stream of consciousness post. I obviously don't expect everyone to come in here and ramble endlessly on everything, but I am firmly of the belief that you should say what is on your mind regarding what's going on in the thread/at least in response to a few things. When I catch up I grab posts along the way that I want to quote and respond to (btw this site REALLY needs a multiquote button I am tired of opening tabs and pasting) and make mental notes of whatever else I want to add my thoughts on, and when I write my post I just write off the top of my head and often my ideas evolve within a paragraph. That is what I consider a stream of consciousness style of posting -- posting openly what is on your mind and not being afraid to share your initial thoughts and reactions to stuff. And when something significant like a lynch reveal happens, I always at least acknowledge it. Both you and Rey refused to even comment on Golden's flip, and I am curious why you both were so hesitant to share your kneejerk reactions. If you're not guilty you should not be afraid to speak your mind and openly discuss your honest opinions.

thellama73 wrote:Can someone explain the case on Boomslang for me? I don't get it.

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Rico, I agree that sideline Azura + voting others to vote for Golden are compatible. Which players come to mind with "wanting him gone from a distance" and playing on the sidelines? For me, I'd say unfurl, TinyBubbles, and aapje.

What do all of you players think?

Seriously MP,wow,
Golden was among the players, that was ok with how Im playing, he did thought I was just being me
why on earth I would want him gone? ask yourself that
you are clearly think Im some mastefull evil mind, or you want others to think that

nutella wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

nutella wrote:DH, you seem to refuse to take ANYTHING seriously. Why won't you respond to the people bringing up your name, and why have you not contributed a single original thought or any kind of substantial discussion for the entire game?

Who has brought me up that I haven't responded to?

Me, llama, certainly others, your name came up a few times during the last day I believe. Nice No U on Scotty btw. Who do you really suspect and why?

I see your behavior in this game as similar to (though maybe not quite to same extreme as) MM's. Speaking of which, MM owes me a few explanations. He's refused to contribute AT ALL to any thread discussions. MM, please give us something to work with here.

nutella wrote:You did not give any reason to think Scotty was suspicious. You only criticized him for suspecting you. That is a no u.

DrWilgy wrote:*Wilgy walks into the room of chattering. His cloths are dirty and he smells of alcohol, but there is confidence in his step. He approaches everyone and points a finger to Sorsha.*

Sorsha wrote:First of all I'm of the mind that golden is not on the team that killed epi night one. I know golden still claims responsibility like that team is going to do his bidding for him but I'd think their motive was more to frame him. Anyone in particular come to mind as one who would do that?

My thoughts on the matter is whoever is really hounding golden in the thread did it. But is it a silly question to ask who would set golden up?

Sorsha, the reason why I asked you a question so soon after you posted was due to your tone. You state, confidently, that Golden is being framed. Here's the kicker though, you didn't save him. You could've taken your vote off of tiny to save a person being framed, but you didnt. Why?

Also, what gave you the confidence in your tone? I don't believe you answered that question when I asked earlier?

What puzzle piece am I missing in Golden's case? And should I place my bets on you? Or against you?

Scotty wrote:OK. Looking at Dom, who was a big proponent of lynching Golden, even though he didn't vote in Day 3.

SNIPPED FOR BREVITY

Dom had a few more posts then dropped off the face of the earth for the remainder of the day. I can't recall if he voted for anyone.

Hey @Dom, you said you had to think. What have you thought of in the past 48 hours since you posted anything responsive?

I take away from Dom that he is really attempting to catch a baddie, which is good, and his arguments against Golden, while wrong, were at least mostly solid. There are a couple times that makes me wonder if he were attempting to lead the discussion back to Golden early on in Day 2, and back into Day 3 before disappearing.

nutella wrote:I find myself roughly concurring with the majority of MP's rainbow reads (biggest discrepancy is unfurl, and the strength of the baddie reads is a bit different). I like your thoughts on Sorsha, but I could also easily see her as an unrecruited.

I don't really know what to think of Dom. I don't like that his only reaction to the lynch + lack of night was "I need to think more" and then he disappeared. What kind of remark is that, anyway? Afraid to go for a stream-of-consciousness post? And you too Rey, why were you so hesitant to publicly react to Golden's flip?