The Syndicate

Awesome game, Robert! Very unique. I agree it was very difficult for us to win this one, but I also agree we made some tactical errors for sure. I'm sorry to my team I wasn't more involved; I just wasn't feeling fully myself this game and the 24 hour days made it really difficult for me.

Congrats to the winners!!

thellama73 wrote:What game is next? The hosting thread says Roxy's Rolling Stones game, but Roxy is in sick land!

No worries, I'm on this.

I am starting to wonder if the players that are oft not discussed might be ones that the mafia have avoided drumming up suspicion on: BWT, Hedgeowl (except my lone Day 1 vote of her), Mongoose... etc. I don't have anything to back that up, but it's something to consider.

I think if we look at voting history and posts regarding those votes (attempting to be a chameleon, latching onto others' suspicions), the fact that I just alluded above, and overall tone/content of that person's posts who fits those criteria, that we would be likely to find a baddie that way. I think that's what I'll be doing for Day 6. I probably will be busy today, but I'll have some time (which I should spend studying and doing other things, but...), so I'll see what I can come up with doing that as well.

S~V~S wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Crap, I almost missed the vote - left it too late. I was persuaded by Russti et al. to rethink my previous kowtowing and examine others.

Got yoga now so I'll see you guys in a few hours.

Kowtowing?

You had good reason to think I was civ.

Like I said, I this game makes me sad, it is so obviously being run by baddies, but the mechanics are too complex for the 15 mins a day i allotted myself for a speed game. So this is my bad, no one elses, obv.

S~V~S, I would appreciate your thoughts; if you believe it's being run by baddies, who are you eyeballing?

Also, I am not necessarily crusading you are baddie or anything. My gut still says you've been playing a civvie game (which is what I said in my previous post). But I've read you wrong before many times, and I'll admit it, and obviously we've been on the long track for a while here.

I think it's a bit weird I even mentioned BWT as possibly being the most blendy player here and still no one seems to want to talk about him. My thoughts on him are completely 0; I have no idea about him. That's weird.

Mongoose wrote:I think this has taught us all that we need to examine everyone again. Trust no one. People you think are civ probably aren't and vice versa. As much as possible, I am going to try to start everyone with a clean slate and get fresh perceptions from there.

I think we need to trust our gut with who we suspect too. Cause just because SVS voted for Elo and Elo was civ doesn't auto make her bad. My gut instinct at the beginning was that you were civ, so I will be revisiting that.

I don't expect y'all to let me off the hook either.

Tomorrow I am going to re-read this entire thread (time permitting) with my perceptions of everyone set at zero. I don't want to get blinders on about people, but I also hate it when I am swayed to case I am not entirely buying into and then am wrong.

I have some lovely pinot right now so I am either making tons of sense or way less sense than I think (like normal).

And to all a good night.

You have to entirely consider that anyone could be lying about any claim they've made in thread, so I don't understand why certain players were/are so willing to make conclusions that are completely solid based off of those. Sure, there are conclusions to be made, but was it Hedge that said she trusted you and Vomps because you both said you had items? While that was logical, there are likely things in this game we don't even know about, so even while certain claims or observations may seem they should be trusted, the name of the game is skepticism.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I'd love to do the same thing myself, BUT, I am still hosting and I have a game on RM where I'm behind every single page.

I voted Dark World by the way.

Well, I thought I was onto something with Elo's inconsistencies. RIP Elo. Sorry I was wrong about you again.

I think what we need to do is look who keeps bandwagoning onto votes because I'm certain a baddie is hiding, constantly shifting among the suspicion. Who best fits this description? BWT and S~V~S first come to mind... which is strange given S~V~S's earlier game behavior... she now seems incredibly different. I realize she's hosting now, but maybe I was wrong about her. I don't know anymore. I still am tempted to think it's her civvie game based on her early behavior, but Russ's case is convincing. However, if Russ is bad, then it's possible the baddies are trying to set up another civvie lynch tomorrow.

I'm torn on the issue. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time as I'd like to analyze this game.

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
- More than a few were chiming in that Russ 'seemed civvie' without giving much reason at all, and he received the most votes of anyone during the night minigame to receive coins, even though we have no idea of knowing his alignment. The way that poll went down still bothers me for that reason. That's another strike against Elo as well, that some seemed so willing to give her coins -- especially since it's not even like with llama where his role seemed able to be deduced, even if there was possibly another option, occam's razor suggests an explanation for him. I don't see any such one for players giving trust to Elo or Russ. If it's because they seem 'helpful', they both always seem that way, IMO.

- There's no denying that Russ was perhaps trying to claim the Giant King role, and I do not believe that to be true based on how votes have gone down.

- His reasons for his votes seems off and is far from satisfactory to me, especially his bandwagon onto LT and ever since his initial voting for me on Day 1 and then backing off. Again, this is another item that applies to Elo. I still don't get how anyone could tell LT's alignment based on what she was saying and it baffles me that others found her arguments persuasive.

Dear God. Test is over and I'm not frozen anymore, so here goes. Hi again, everyone!

I'll start by addressing the "case" against me.

First off, thank you, MP, for summarizing so succinctly. I have no reply to your first bullet point. I don't know why people would think I was civ more than others, and I'm also not really sure why them thinking that makes me bad. I do try to be helpful, as you mentioned, but beyond that I'm as lost as you.

Once again, I was IN NO WAY, EVER trying to claim the Giant King role. I was simply trying to engage in in-game banter, something I thought I had been doing too little of. Again, I cannot be blamed for other people's perceptions. I never ever meant it to seem like I was the Giant King, but I don't think it's fair to blame me that people assumed that. I even stated a while back when Nev first brought this up that I am not him.

Can we please stop using jargony terms for my vote? Rox calling it a drive-by really pisses me off, to be honest. Bandwagon at least makes sense, even if it's wrong. I did arrive online 8 minutes before the poll closed, and used 5 of those minutes weighing cases. I decided that it was best to vote before posting because I have heard of people being caught in linkitis and missing polls. I think Rox has complained of this, ironically. I think it's craven and useless to throw a vote on a player who has no chance of being lynched if 2 candidates are leading the poll and it's last minute like that. I felt (and still feel) better about Elo than LT, so I voted for LT. I then IMMEDIATELY wrote a post explaining my vote for everyone to see. The only reason this farce of a case exists is because Roxy managed to type "Hey, Russti voted." before I finished writing my case. Roxy actually seems mad at me about the case on LT, which is based on her World Map vote from the day before that lynch. Personally, I can't think of any reason for Roxy to be going after me like this unless she was mad because I put her teammate in the lead for the vote. (You'll notice if you read the poll that she was very quick to tie it back up.)

Another post coming with my current suspicions.

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure how I feel though. You're logical here and I'd love to believe you, but I'm not sure you're a civvie this game.

I still don't understand how anyone thought the suspicions against LT were anything other than vague. However, given Elo's flip, it's possible we have an S~V~S/LT baddie pair (and two others as well, I would imagine), and that Elo just so happened to be correct in her assessment.

Russtifinko wrote:Ok, my current suspect list. Obviously, as mentioned, I think that LT and Roxy are likely bad. LT because of her strange, un-civ-friendly World Map vote, which I admitted at the time of my vote was a bit weak by itself (but better than the case on Elo). Roxy's strong defense of LT and subsequent attack on me makes me think it's more likely that LT is bad, and that those two are likely teammates.

I think the third piece of the puzzle is S~V~S. I was getting weird feelings from her as early as Day 2, when she repeatedly seemed to misunderstand Nev's stated reason for voting Gleam on Day 1 despite multiple explanations by him. This struck me as strange because LT has seemed highly intelligent to me in every game we've played, and Nev's point was very clear to me and a few others at the time. (Mongoose, maybe? I don't remember exactly.) For reference, http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=192&p=27531#p27531 is an excerpt from their back-and-forth, where S~V~S mentions how good she is at reading people. I hope that link works right.

She also voted only for Snow and Gleam in the Coin Poll on Day 2. Despite having a good gut and being great at reading people, she can't even pick 2 people who are somewhat likely to be civ and vote them? Sounds fishy to me. Not to mention, as others have previously pointed out, that it was beneficial to vote for 4 in that poll because the odds of choosing civs are higher than those of choosing baddies even if you randomize.

Then, the next day, she's suddenly reading people again. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=192&p=27531#p27531 (Please work!) she defends LT from a case brought up by Elo and 'Goose. She has an extremely civ read on LT, it seems, despite being unwilling to vote any coins to her in Day 2. Strong enough, in fact, that she's willing to vote LT's voters in her first post after this is brought up. She once again seems to misunderstand someone's logic, asking why going to a land with a dead King is bad and refusing to understand 'Goose's typo post (once again, a case where what the other person meant seemed obvious to me).

Here's a pair of interesting quotes:

S~V~S wrote:Mongoose, Elos case against LT feels contrived to me, it feels opportunistic. The fact that she is not acknowledging those of us who know LT better (and know LTs situation that may make her distracted) is worrisome to me. I also don't see LT playing the "poor me, my life sucks" card to get out of a baddie corner, tbh, it just isn't something I think she would do in her current situation.

I guess Elo could be right about LT, but not for the reasons she is saying, and I would be surprised if she was right. Those reasons are all kinds of not valid IMO.

In this one, she thinks Elo's case against LT (which is that Desert vote and her tone, which Elo says is different from previous games in which they had civ BTSC) is "contrived", "opportunistic", and "not valid", and that Elo should listen to people who know LT better.

S~V~S wrote:I am voting Elo. I think I might have a feel for teammates, but first to get past this. I did not play MOTU, but followed closely being the Mod, and her post tone here is so different from that that along with her total lack of actual reasons for her suspicions is sending back down Elos way.

Here she again seems totally disregards any of Elo's points, and says that Elo is probably bad because her tone is different than in previous games-the SAME reason Elo wants to vote LT! This really blows my mind.

So in conclusion, I think that S~V~S is very likely bad. Her logic seems very situational, something she criticized Nev for. My thoery is that she and Roxy both jumped to a teammate (LT's) defense on Day 3 and currently seem very likely to succeed in getting Elo lynched over it. I'm most sure about S~V~S and LT of those 3.

I would like to see what S~V~S has to say to this.

Russtifinko wrote:Linki: Thanks, I think?? O.J. was almost definitely evil though, so maybe that was a backhanded compliment.

I also think Roxy bears watching in part for her willingness to accept Vomps thinking she's civ. In a game where Snowie has been lynched because he was "acting too civ" and Elo seems about to be lynched for the same thing, I would think players would be more hesitant about that. People are also blaming me for having gotten coins in the Day 2 poll (which, again, is not my fault), and it seems a bit hypocritical to do that and then, 3 days later, trade back rubs and say "Oh, aren't we all so happy to be in a big civ party together." If anyone cares to read back on her posts, she has suspected every single player who suspected her this game, and now thinks Vomps is civ because he thinks she is.

I'd personally like to vote one of those 3 tomorrow. I'm most sure of my S~V~S case, and I hope we can drum up the votes to make doing so worthwhile.

This is a very astute observation. Even though I still think you could be a baddie, I think this seems even more convincing than your thoughts on S~V~S.

Only here for a second, but I am very curious now to see Bullz's response to Hedge because I think there are a few good observations there. I could see justifying a vote in his direction.

Russ, I'll respond to you later when I can actually have time to address most of that which I haven't read yet.

Hedgeowl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Rox, could you elaborate on your feelings about Hedgeowl? I had some off feelings from her very early on, then they mostly faded, but I have to say her post where she singles out Vomps and Mongoose to help her re-read players was weird. Even though I am really looking forward to her input, it just read kind of strange to me, not even necessarily suspicious -- but I know you can have astute observations, so I'm curious what your thoughts are.

I will hopefully get back to Bullz this evening. We will see if I get time for Vomps and MP before noon.

To address the oddness of why I singled out Vomps and Mongoose. I thought i had obviously tried to establish for myself that they were likely civvie based on their use of items to remove themselves from the lynch vote. There are other reasons they could have been removed, but only civs can use items, so seemed the most logical thing at the time. It also occured to me that if one could organize supposed civs we could cover a lot more material. Granted this is not a fool proof plan, but I cant actually review 11 people myself. And none of us really has the time for that. Ideally, you'd have two people rereading one person to catch any inconsistencies in argument etc. However, I doubt we'd get many volunteers for that, since people seem pretty busy.

I will also be pretty busy myself this weekend, so have to do it while I have time.

True, but I'm not so quick to declare someone to be civvie just because they were removed from the poll, especially since there were three removed at once.

I get that, but why not just ask for people's opinions? I don't know, I understand your elaboration, and thank you for that, but it just strikes me as a bit odd to single two other players out as more knowlegeable than others just because you think they are civvie (you could be wrong, or even if you aren't, it doesn't mean they always are right because they are civvie).

I have to vote now, I guess, otherwise I will miss the damn vote again. I'm going to stick with my gut and vote Elo because she CLEARLY led the lynch against Snow Dog using that exact logic that he was trying to seem too civvie (which was silly to begin with) and then clearly exhibited that same behavior later on. While I appreciate her explanation, I think that inconsistency is just too much for me, AND in addition to other items (see: below bullets), so that's where I'm voting. There's nothing like that with Russ that really sticks out so strongly as Elo's inconsistency described above, so I suppose I'm waiting on him due to that and because Elo already has a vote (and I don't want to see either of them not lynched ANOTHER day now), but I definitely still feel solid willies in his direction due to several reasons. I think someone asked about that case, which I will try and summarize:

- More than a few were chiming in that Russ 'seemed civvie' without giving much reason at all, and he received the most votes of anyone during the night minigame to receive coins, even though we have no idea of knowing his alignment. The way that poll went down still bothers me for that reason. That's another strike against Elo as well, that some seemed so willing to give her coins -- especially since it's not even like with llama where his role seemed able to be deduced, even if there was possibly another option, occam's razor suggests an explanation for him. I don't see any such one for players giving trust to Elo or Russ. If it's because they seem 'helpful', they both always seem that way, IMO.

- There's no denying that Russ was perhaps trying to claim the Giant King role, and I do not believe that to be true based on how votes have gone down.

- His reasons for his votes seems off and is far from satisfactory to me, especially his bandwagon onto LT and ever since his initial voting for me on Day 1 and then backing off. Again, this is another item that applies to Elo. I still don't get how anyone could tell LT's alignment based on what she was saying and it baffles me that others found her arguments persuasive.

votes Elo.

But I'm fine with a Russ lynch as well for reasons stated above. I'd be surprised if neither of these players were baddie, but I suppose it's a possibility I still entertain. That being said, given I haven't had any other time to go back and search through the thread and I can't wait for any more analysis from other players out of fear for missing the vote again, this is the strongest thing I have.

Hedgeowl, I look forward to seeing more of your thoughts after re-read. I was supposed to have a concert tonight which would have made this vote impossible for me to be informed, but unfortunately it was cancelled. That being said, I should probably take this opportunity to study more GMAT (which I started this past weekend), because I really need to do well on it. I'll definitely have to vote tonight as apparently I don't have enough time in the mornings.

I could see an Elo or Russ vote today. I still think they are our best bets currently. I probably need to do a re-read myself but don't have the proper time -- maybe this weekend will allot such time.

Rox, could you elaborate on your feelings about Hedgeowl? I had some off feelings from her very early on, then they mostly faded, but I have to say her post where she singles out Vomps and Mongoose to help her re-read players was weird. Even though I am really looking forward to her input, it just read kind of strange to me, not even necessarily suspicious -- but I know you can have astute observations, so I'm curious what your thoughts are.

I do wonder about Vomps, Lizzy, Bullz, and/or Hedgeowl in the back of my mind. I really think at least one or two are baddie, and the odds would probably agree with me, but I have nothing more than mostly gut or anything I've previously outlined. I don't think it's as strong as the thoughts on Elo or Russ at the moment.

Mongoose, I have to say based on thread behavior and just my gut (which maybe isn't to be trusted, but it is what it is, and it has some credence), you, S~V~S, and Rox are most likely seeming to be civvie to me this game. What makes you say that you are seeing a civvie Russ (or even Rox or S~V~S, on which we agree)? I might have missed where you explained if you had specific reasons for that, so if I did, sorry.

Holy shit, what a day. I had a really busy morning and totally ran out of time to come in here and vote. Seems it didn't matter anyway as there was some sort of lynch switch shenanigan. I agree that the baddies likely switched it to Llama not to set anyone up but because who he probably was.

So I really skimmed most of those posts and I think I have been mentioned 4 times... which means I think I can post. Right? Not entirely clear on this game, to be honest.

Lizzy wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Lizzy wrote:Oh, I do have internetz now, but yesterday seemed dead, and today I'm busy packing. So, if I'm close to missing polls and unable to participate (and alive) I would like to let Matt (A Person) take over my role, or whoever is available.

Awwwwwwwww! I hope your packing operation shall be a success.

omg thanks it has been thus far k :O

I too think Roxy is a civ given her past 'go' at me, plus she's been ill, so I hope you get better, Roxy . Elo also strikes me as civ, for the simple fact that she was one of the three water voters. I don't see why a baddie would have jumped to vote for that especially after consulting their team mates. However, her defense does seem a tad extreme and fishy.

I'm still leaning towards Bullz and the Sock, SVS not so much as last time, but still on my radar. So between the two my lucky złoty chose MP.

And now for the grand finale: "votes water"

#yoloswag

I'm sorry, I might have missed this, but why am I on your radar?

Elohcin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Elo, here is the post:

Elohcin wrote:Thank you, Hedgeowl, birdwithteeth11, Bullzeye, and thellama73 for the votes/coins. It is nice to be civ and to be seen as civ .

Elohcin wrote:I understand it is always nice to be seen as civ. But, its crazy frustrating when you are civ but thought bad. It is so much more fun to play a game without that frustration.

Very suspicious, IMO. I think for this I am throwing a vote in her direction today. It's not enough alone for me to crusade that she is baddie, but it's something I found notable.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Oh, Elo, I also meant to say I thought your Day 3 arguments against LT were a bit strange. Could you clarify those for me? I do agree she has been quiet, but I haven't seen anything to sway me one way or the other on her yet.

What exactly about my quotes about being civ are suspicious? When I wrote that, I was actually thinking of you:). How ironic that YOU are the only one that finds my post suspicious. I think it was twin peaks mafia where I was civ and you were crazy suspicious of me just because I was talkative and I could do NOTHING to prove to you I was not baddie. So, what exactly is suspicious about me talking about the frustration that comes with being civ but being thought baddie?

I have played with Little Tiger before. I have had BTSC with her in a previous game. She doesn't even seem like the same player at all in this game. That makes me suspicious.

Elo, it's not that you emphasized being civvie, it's that you led a lynch on Snow Dog given the reason that he seemed to be trying TOO hard to convince everyone was civvie, and then I ironically observed that you seemed to be doing the exact same thing.

I don't understand why you were thinking of me, was it because of the other game? Also, it was Minecraft, not Twin Peaks, and I'll admit to being a huge bowl of fail that game (and I specifically referenced it at least once earlier when talking to S~V~S -- I do NOT want to make mistakes like those again -- I have railroaded enough fellow civvies as civvies for my mafia career).

It's sometimes not that simple. I frankly can't tell LT one way or the other right now, but I do entertain she could be laying low. That being said, I've played games with her for years, and whether she posts a lot or a little... it doesn't exactly correlate to whether she's good or bad. Just because you've had BTSC with someone in one game and they were civvie and then they seem "different" in another it does not necessarily mean they are bad. It could, but there are many factors at play, including IRL, how many games the player is in, if they are hosting any games, etc. etc.

Oh, Elo, I also meant to say I thought your Day 3 arguments against LT were a bit strange. Could you clarify those for me? I do agree she has been quiet, but I haven't seen anything to sway me one way or the other on her yet.

I guess I'll wait until the morning because I have to go to bed soon and hardly anyone has been talking. Considering we haven't snagged a baddie yet and I feel that doing so would lead to much better information, I think it'd be better to have the feedback from others before I vote.

Elo, here is the post:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't have much time at all, sorry people, so I'm voting now.

First off, RIP Nevinera. Shame to see you go. I guess you were civvie after all.

I agree that Lizzy's lack of wanting to contribute anything is a bit grating, especially now that we're on Day 3. I won't be voting for her (considering Boo is in play, especially so), but I can understand why she is suspicious.

Bullz, thanks for your explanation. I can understand that; I have more than once (and am currently feeling) felt committed to more than one game and unfairly some get my attention more or less than they should. I am still eyeing you, but I realize an insincere interpretation of a Day 1 is far from conclusive evidence. Now that we know Nevinera was in fact being sincere, I'm more willing to go on thread/voting behavior patterns as they will begin to develop, rather than just my or anyone else's interpretation of something that only appears insincere without anything else to back it up.

That being said, I am definitely wary of how the last Night poll went down. I do think baddies obviously would have wanted to vote their teammates because even if they had there's the WIFOM factor arguing that it would be too risky for them to do that due to being able to tie connections -- but considering no baddies have yet been lynched and that fact, I do think at least some baddies likely voted for other baddies to get coins. Mongoose, Elo, and Russ all receives 4 or more votes.

I feel relatively good about Mongoose at the moment. Elohcin and Russ, on the other hand, I am not so sure. I think it's very ironic that Elo went after Snow Dog for trying to push he was too civvie, and then she says this type of stuff:

Elohcin wrote:Thank you, Hedgeowl, birdwithteeth11, Bullzeye, and thellama73 for the votes/coins. It is nice to be civ and to be seen as civ .

Elohcin wrote:I understand it is always nice to be seen as civ. But, its crazy frustrating when you are civ but thought bad. It is so much more fun to play a game without that frustration.

Very suspicious, IMO. I think for this I am throwing a vote in her direction today. It's not enough alone for me to crusade that she is baddie, but it's something I found notable.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:As to the coins... it appears I can't vote myself, and honestly, I don't really trust any of you (living) people.

It didn't say we needed to vote for four, so I am ONLY voting for Snow and gleam. It appears they are no longer tied, so I suppose that is OK.

It freaks me out a bit how willing a few people seem to throw coins at others, especially when the baddies really rely on them so greatly. I refuse to contribute to that cause.

MP: Who do you trust or quasi-trust at this point?

All: At this point it's pretty clear we are going to get Snowy or Gleam the bonus coins, who we both know to be good. It's not in the baddies' interest to vote for one another for a few measly coins when they are possibly outing one another. I'm not at all saying this is what MP is doing (a healthy skepticism is always good and I totally can understand his rationale about not bankrolling baddies), but I think we need to take a closer look at anyone else who doesn't use all his/her allotted votes.

I don't know. I think I can quasi-trust you and S~V~S, but that's about it... not sure about anyone else or even about that. I feel like one successful baddie lynch would put some things in perspective.

I also voted for you yesterday (in this post), so I find it weird you missed it completely. That said, here you go!

Also, voted Pipe.

Interesting that we have three people removed from the poll. I do agree there have to be a few factors going around here.

As to Birdo... that sucks. Here's hoping it's not a powerful secret.

So let's go with discussion, shall we? I have to say my eyes are squarely still on Elohcin for reasons I stated earlier, and for the fact that people seem to be ignoring what I pointed out to be a very huge inconsistency (she didn't even address it at all). That being said, Russ is probably my #1 candidate and Bullz is #3, both of which because of my gut interpretation of their intentions (and what I've noted previously), and I do think Russ's vote yesterday was very odd and bandwagony AND Russ's 'giant' claiming (which I believe to be false, and I think Nev was onto something). I do wonder if Lizzy and/or Vomps have been playing us; I also do still wonder about Hedge, but IDK.

I'll definitely be going for either Russ or Elo, just not sure which quite yet. Leaning Russ, but I really want some feedback before I vote. Unfortunately, it'll have to be tonight for me too, unless I wait until the morning.

Hedgeowl wrote:Mushroom walks into a bar and the bartender says, "We don't serve your kind here." The mushroom says, "What's a matter? I'm a fungi! (Badum-ch)

You are indeed Toad.

So this is the role with secrets? Well that is not helpful. Clearly they are good secrets if its the second role the baddies have paid to get. Although just the advantage of having secrets is good too I guess.

Also, I now remember what I kept trying to think of yesterday. PM my number guess to Epi.

What smiley did I really want to use there you ask MP? The banging my head into a brick wall one.

Sorry, I will get to adding more smileys ASAP. I've been way too swamped and haven't gotten to them even though I know I needed to.

thellama73 wrote:MP: I have been mildly suspect of you for a while, and your reactions to recent lynches/NKs has not convinced me that you are trustworthy. Due t my intermittent presence, I can't pull together quotes and make a case for you right now, nor do I want to. I was just alerting the thread that you're on my watch list for the time being.

Well, if you come up with anything for me to address, just let me know. I can't really say anything in response to your perception of my motives, but I can assure you they are genuine.

As to the World Map discussion, I'm not sure. I think I'd be up for either of those two though.

Oh! I almost forgot. I have to vote in the World Map poll. I voted for Ice because screw Pipe World.

Well, that's a weird result! Not sure what to think. I do look forward to Russ's thoughts because his vote is really, really strange.

Llama - why did you say you were not getting good feelings from me?

Lizzy - I do not have BTSC with S~V~S; we bicker like that in many games. It's all in good fun; it's mostly because we see things very differently.

I don't have much time at all, sorry people, so I'm voting now.

First off, RIP Nevinera. Shame to see you go. I guess you were civvie after all.

I agree that Lizzy's lack of wanting to contribute anything is a bit grating, especially now that we're on Day 3. I won't be voting for her (considering Boo is in play, especially so), but I can understand why she is suspicious.

Bullz, thanks for your explanation. I can understand that; I have more than once (and am currently feeling) felt committed to more than one game and unfairly some get my attention more or less than they should. I am still eyeing you, but I realize an insincere interpretation of a Day 1 is far from conclusive evidence. Now that we know Nevinera was in fact being sincere, I'm more willing to go on thread/voting behavior patterns as they will begin to develop, rather than just my or anyone else's interpretation of something that only appears insincere without anything else to back it up.

That being said, I am definitely wary of how the last Night poll went down. I do think baddies obviously would have wanted to vote their teammates because even if they had there's the WIFOM factor arguing that it would be too risky for them to do that due to being able to tie connections -- but considering no baddies have yet been lynched and that fact, I do think at least some baddies likely voted for other baddies to get coins. Mongoose, Elo, and Russ all receives 4 or more votes.

I feel relatively good about Mongoose at the moment. Elohcin and Russ, on the other hand, I am not so sure. I think it's very ironic that Elo went after Snow Dog for trying to push he was too civvie, and then she says this type of stuff:

Elohcin wrote:Thank you, Hedgeowl, birdwithteeth11, Bullzeye, and thellama73 for the votes/coins. It is nice to be civ and to be seen as civ .

Elohcin wrote:I understand it is always nice to be seen as civ. But, its crazy frustrating when you are civ but thought bad. It is so much more fun to play a game without that frustration.

Very suspicious, IMO. I think for this I am throwing a vote in her direction today. It's not enough alone for me to crusade that she is baddie, but it's something I found notable.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:As to the coins... it appears I can't vote myself, and honestly, I don't really trust any of you (living) people.

It didn't say we needed to vote for four, so I am ONLY voting for Snow and gleam. It appears they are no longer tied, so I suppose that is OK.

It freaks me out a bit how willing a few people seem to throw coins at others, especially when the baddies really rely on them so greatly. I refuse to contribute to that cause.

MP: Who do you trust or quasi-trust at this point?

All: At this point it's pretty clear we are going to get Snowy or Gleam the bonus coins, who we both know to be good. It's not in the baddies' interest to vote for one another for a few measly coins when they are possibly outing one another. I'm not at all saying this is what MP is doing (a healthy skepticism is always good and I totally can understand his rationale about not bankrolling baddies), but I think we need to take a closer look at anyone else who doesn't use all his/her allotted votes.

I don't know. I think I can quasi-trust you and S~V~S, but that's about it... not sure about anyone else or even about that. I feel like one successful baddie lynch would put some things in perspective.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I've decided that my other 2 votes will be going to Russ and Elohcin. They are the two that seem the most civvie to me so far.

Also, why? I'm not sure I agree.

Not sure when I'll be around again... Crap. I need to vote in that other poll, don't I? Voted Air.

As to the coins... it appears I can't vote myself, and honestly, I don't really trust any of you (living) people.

It didn't say we needed to vote for four, so I am ONLY voting for Snow and gleam. It appears they are no longer tied, so I suppose that is OK.

It freaks me out a bit how willing a few people seem to throw coins at others, especially when the baddies really rely on them so greatly. I refuse to contribute to that cause.

Okay, skimmed a lot of that. Sorry. Hopefully I got everything. I'll try to actually read everything intently soon, but I have a really busy weekend ahead of me.

RIP Snow Dog. Sad to see you go.

Rox: You are confused. I was arguing with llama on that point. I said there were likely goomba voters in the gleam voters on Day 1.

What's the deal with people saying Russ seems civvie? I haven't seen anything telling of his alignment. Though I did really enjoy his GIANT posts.

Nev: You said something about Russ. Care to elaborate, if you can? I was intrigued by that; I've read through all of this quickly so I didn't pick up on any role hints or anything like that (not that I likely would have even if I had actually read every post at my normal pace).

I can never read Lizzy or Vomps, but I have to say neither of them are being particularly helpful at all. Does that make them bad? Not sure.

People asked about the Bullz case... It wasn't even so much a case as my gut reaction and that he bandwagoned gleam on Day 1 and that it read to me as the most opportunistic of the bunch. I read it as insincere. That's about it. However, in reading through quickly I noticed this:

Bullzeye wrote:
There are still 5 people left to vote, so I am note sure how its going to go. I agree with what you're saying. Lizzy isnt coming across as bad the more she posts based on her other game. Snow is sounding more and more sincere in his defenses. I don't love SVS's case on Nev either though. However, she trusts her intuition on this one quite a bit, so I might be willing to give it a go, since i have a complete lack of intuition amd instead try to at least find some bit of logic.

I hadn't noticed the Nev case but SVS is one of the people I tend to trust the most when I think she's a civvie so I'll take a look at that and see how I feel.[/quote]

How the heck did anyone, let alone a player as astute as Bullz, miss the Nev case? SVS and I bantered about it and everything. Really weird.

Need to catch up on this, sorry, I haven't read anything since my last post. Hopefully will be able to later tonight, but it might have to wait until tomorrow.

Well, I don't feel that was particularly illuminating. I have pretty fuzzy reads on almost everyone currently... I honestly thought the Day 1 lynch was more telling at the time, and reading through it now, there are possible speculations to be made, but it's difficult to draw solid conclusions using only that information, especially considering how early it is.

That being said, I went with my gut the previous day with Hedgeowl, and I told myself whatever the first name I thought of that would most be worthy of my vote, after currently assessing everything that has happened and my reads on players, then I would go with that name. That name is Bullzeye.

And here's why.

Sure, I felt like Llama was subtly pushing the thread, perhaps in a nefarious way, but I only received that vibe from a few of his posts, and I have nothing concrete to back that up. My opinion of Hedgeowl has not changed at all since my previous vote... so, very slightly leaning in the baddie direction.

It comes down to either Nevinera and Bullz, and I think Bullz's bandwagon vote for Gleam was insincere and I think I am most currently feeling he is most sketchy, so I'm going with that. Nevinera could very well be acting insincerely, and I was originally getting somewhat of that vibe from his posts, but I am less convinced by that right now after his elaborations, despite S~V~S's certainty.

That being said, a Nevinera lynch might be telling, but it also might be completely worthless. I'm afraid it would be more the latter, so perhaps that is unfairly influencing my vote in the other direction. Don't know. But... there's my train of thought, I guess. I was hoping I'd have more time AND more "evidence" to go off of, but sadly, neither of those are close to numerous. Sucks to have to vote now, but I know I won't get home in time and that I won't have time during lunch.

Linki with Elo: Lol, yes, I did see that; I clearly defied him.

Snow Dog wrote:What are your points MP? Do I have to read through all that again. I saw nothing to comment on. You raised some names. I read it.

I apologize, I sort of went into overdrive mode last night while playing (what can I say, I love mafia) and I realize that reading paragraphs of text over and over isn't exactly easy reading. I hope you didn't feel I was calling you out specifically, but I just get frustrated (in-game) when I am trying to start discussion and I feel absolutely no one is listening to me.

You're right, most of what I presented was pretty gut-based, no substantial analytical cases or anything, but that's because I believe it's near impossible to drum up something like that at this point and have it actually be a worthwhile endeavor. Trust me, I've tried making massive cases on people on Days 1 and 2, and in retrospect, much of it is stabbing in the dark. But I suppose that's the point of mafia nonetheless. It's just what makes these early day periods so difficult.

Most of what I was referring to as my discussion points is here (though there were other points made, this was the main 'here's what I'm currently thinking' post).

I do think I'll be voting llama, Bullz, Nevinera, or Hedgeowl. Not sure. I need to think on this.

Give me a bit here and I'm going to mull over a few thoughts and attempt to make sense of what my gut has been telling me. I think I'll try to re-read a few players/posts in particular, hopefully I'll have enough time. These 24 hour days are incredibly NOT conducive to discussion and analysis.

But I'll do that in a separate post.

Snow Dog wrote:Sorry just read thw whole of your above post. I agree with you actually. SVS does seem single minded on Nev and is very sure. This is the way she plays maybe. I could never be so confident. But I am still going for the water voters. Although I suspect that Vomps maybe voted water for the next world to support Lizzy who voted it the first time. If he is civ he is the most unhelpful civ around.

This is definitely the way she plays. I get what you mean re: water voters, I'm just not sure I agree necessarily. I could easily see a scenario in which a baddie could have been ballsy and voted that option early on, but there's also the clear logic against it.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Also, you seriously think that NO Goomba sneaked in a vote in Gleam? If you recall, we had three baddies whose votes were worth 0 last lynch.

While I agree with your observation, you appear to be going from one extreme to the other. I disagree. I think there was one or two Goombas that voted for Gleam; the fact that you are not willing to even look at any of those voters strikes me as odd indeed, especially when he was lynched for what were really silly reasons.

Goombas votes are worth zero, so why would they bother going on record voting against someone they knew would flip civ? I know how carefully people analyze past votes and if I were bad, I would not want to be counted among those that lynched a civ if I could help it. Maybe one goomba did indeed vote for Gleam, but I think we have better odds in looking elsewhere.

I agree that SVS' pursuit of Nev is a bit much for it being so early, but I also know that that is her style, so I don't mak too much of it. I also think she makes some valid points about him, so he is someone I will have my eye on going forward.

Regarding the "excessive defensiveness" comment, I generally think it is a mistake to get one's hackles up over day one votes, when most people will collect at least one vote. It makes you stand out and look like you have been caught as a baddie. However, I know that you are an experienced enough baddie to be unlikely to respond in this way, so I am not looking at you with too much seriousness right now.

I'm happy to respond to any other concerns you have about me.

Sure, people analyze past votes, but how many baddies actually get lynched purely out of poor voting record? Honestly, I would have agreed with you entirely if I was the MP of a year or two ago... but I'm not so sure anymore. I feel pretty confident that at least one baddie would have found it most beneficial to squeak in and throw a vote on gleam; it was the perfect opportunistic bandwagon.

I understand that, and I do recognize I was in overdrive, but it seriously is old to be a major point of suspicion every game right off the bat -- and the way S~V~S linked me as possibly baddie without even saying it was because of my own actions just rubbed me the wrong way.

That, and, much of my pursuit was really just trying to prevent possible disaster. I know S~V~S can be an incredibly good civvie asset, but I've also seen her fail, just like anyone else, and I've also seen her as a devious baddie. Her relentless pursuit of Nevinera, even if she feels she is 99% right, does not accomplish ANYTHING if she is wrong. If she is right, then power to her, but even then, I felt like I could foresee a scenario where little discussion of anything or anyone else was had, and I really wanted to try to engage her (and others, but particularly her yesterday) in it.

I suppose I feel/felt more strongly about it because I feel bad about all the times I've railroaded fellow civvies as a civvie. I'm going to try not to ever do that again, but at the same time, it is good to listen to your gut -- it's all about continuous improvement.

What points against Nevinera do you think she has made that are strongest, out of curiosity? I may not even see your response before I vote, which is a pity, but I want your perspective here.

Hedgeowl wrote:


As to the explosion of posts between MP and SVS it's a bit like a posting contest. We are not required to play to stay alive (maybe nev is) and it seems stupid to stick our bear paw in that bee's nest.

MP - I think if you would like to get further discussion going from multiple players, highlighted questions are helpful. In long paragraphs, read late at night, specific questions get lost or forgotten by the time you finish reading.

1. How does everyone feel about SVS' focus on Nev?

I noted that when she asked about his initial vote reasons and I explained what I thought they might have been, she apparently never read or saw my post. Rather than engaging in discussion she continued to post 'why haven't you answered me nev?' Now nev then explained that really he had no better reason to vote gleam or MP. Which while upsetting to those who would like a darn good reason if we will be lynched, is perfectly logical to me in this point in the game. We can all pretend its great insight, but how many times have people lynched a baddie the first day? BWT can speak more to being lynched as a baddie over a typo I believe.

That said we are all suspects on each other's lists right now.

Linki - if that is SVS' style, then what is Nev's? Points? You mean point. She has one point, that he voted for no reason.

I think you are right about Goomba voting. It will be more useful later hopefully, but right now feels just as much of a shot in the dark.

Trust me, you would KNOW if I was in a posting contest. That was not it.

I understand, perhaps it wasn't the best way to stimulate discussion, but I wanted to throw out all of my thoughts. I always do that when I play; I work on the feedback and interactions of the thread. Because if you take that all away, what strategy do you have left?

As to S~V~S's focus on Nevinera, I'm very torn about it. I have no idea if Nevinera is a baddie, and I think he's reading a more likely baddie to me than S~V~S at the moment, but I'm not sure I'm completely convinced either.

Perhaps you're right about the Goomba voting. You probably are. I just think it's something to keep in mind.

Elohcin wrote:
It seems odd to me that you would come out and ask how you might defend yourself, Snowy, without being specifically asked. I have read over your posts and I am reading civ, but I am wondering if you may be trying TOO hard to act civ. What does anyone else think about this? Do you think Snowy is just playing his civvie part or trying too hard to appear civ even thought he is baddie?

Interesting point. I have a really hard time reading Snow Dog, so I have no idea. Am I the only one that just reads all of Snowie's posts the same regardless of his game? He has to be one of the hardest people to read ever, at least for me.

I appreciate the discussion point though. You could be onto something, I don't know.

Mongoose wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
A message from Toad:

"A concise post is better than a lengthy one. Bazinga!"

I think Epi thinks we are being rather verbose!

I'm sure that was entirely aimed at me.

I really hope Toad loves this post! Here's looking at you, kid!

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. Here's what I have gotten since I last posted.

I can understand MP's defense about civs lynching civs. I've definitely been on the receiving end of that a few too many times. I remember my first few games of mafia well. I was a civ in the first 3 or 4, and in each of them, MP went and got me lynched thinking I was a baddie. It can be easy for him to get blinders on sometimes. The doesn't necessarily make him bad or good however.

This post is sticking out to me quite a bit:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I considered a vote for you due to behavior of what i considered to be a potential teammate. Yes.

My main reason for suspecting him is his voting reason paired with the fact that he did NOT vote for the earliest voter (you). Should he come up bad, we can talk. Until then, it is academic.

I agree, but I still don't get this at all. How does someone else's behavior even incriminate me as a potential teammate when there is a reason for him to act in such a way in possibly any scenario (him being bad, me being bad; him being bad, me being civ; him being civ, me being civ)? Isn't that a clear logical fallacy and can you not understand how I feel that's unfair to me?

I can't decide what to make of your intentions, but if they are civvie-minded (and I have no reason to think you are civvie or a baddie at this point), I think it's a bit dangerous to be following that kind of lead.

I'm curious about other's opinions on it. Assuming I'm read that correctly, SVS thinks it is odd that, given Nev's logic, he did not vote for MP. But where did SVS make the logical jump from Nev to MP? I feel like I'm missing something here, so I wouldn't mind an explanation from someone else.

I also can understand why MP might be coming off as overly-defensive. I think it was odd that SVS refused to address any suspicions of other suspects that MP had brought up. But that also doesn't surprise me. SVS can be very focused and aggressive when she nails on a certain suspicion and decides to run with it. I think when you're a baddie in that situation (believe me, I've been there), it can be very frustrating and hard to get away from.

All that being said though, I'm still leaning toward both of them being civ. Thoughts?

Linki: Holy shit! Tons of linki!

I still don't get S~V~S's train of thought connecting me to Nevinera either, even after she elaborated on it. However, I am currently leaning slightly civvie on her for now. Obviously leaning civvie on myself.

What do you think of Nevinera? Or was he one of the ones you included in "both of them" (I read as me and S~V~S, but am not sure)?

Hedgeowl wrote:
Also, I am loving this game and the people playing.

Same here, can't emphasize that enough!!

S~V~S wrote:ebwop, @bwt~ also, re not addressing other suspicions. I am sure you have had suspicions that you believed in your heart, and others did not, or tried to dissuade you, for nefarious reasons or for good, civvie reasons, but you still, in your heart of hearts, thought you were right. I feel my OWN suspicions most. While I agree that other people are bad, I still think Nevin is bad. So that is my focus.

I have not heard anything to make me think otherwise about him.

I can respect this. I just am not near that confident. I hope you are right, assuming Nevinera does face death today.

Will try to get to analysis here shortly... because I have to vote. Sucks. Majorly. I feel way too rushed with this schedule... and if that's why it seemed like I was pushing for discussion so much during a Night period, that would be why. Lol.

So it turns out Boomslang went to get tickets for the opera and it was sold out. Bummer. I guess it's what happens when you make a last-minute decision (we were contemplating David Byrne and St. Vincent which was last night, but decided it was too expensive, something BWT and I also agreed on previously). Appears I will be around after all, but I literally just arrived home and do have things to take care of that I should probably do while I actually have the time.

I'll catch up at some point later tonight and I'll unfortunately have to vote tonight (or swiftly in the morning) as well. This timing is absolutely the worst possible timing for me.

How are any of my points "pointless speculation" and yet yours are all not? I see that you believe Nevinera is bad for those reasons, and I said I was keeping an eye on him myself, for similar reasons -- he struck me as very possibly insincere. However, his subsequent posts have led me to wonder, and I'm far from being sure about him. I'm not defending him at all; I just find it sort of weird you're railroading him SO hard when there's no way anyone can know that much for sure early on in a game (like I said, I believe people get lynched due to misunderstandings, regardless of their alignment). I've seen enough misunderstandings happen as a civvie that I'm wary of this movement against Nevinera that you're making, despite the fact that he is a person I would consider voting tomorrow. Not only will baddies jump on it if he is NOT bad, but civvies will be persuaded by your incredible confidence to the lack of anything else being discussed.

Hence, why I'm trying to discuss others. Yet llama, Snow Dog, etc. don't seem to want to talk about anything I've brought up either, so -- if everyone wants to ignore me, that's fine. But in a game like this I believe everyone should tread with caution; I've learned that I've sunk way too many civvies as a fellow civvie in the past so I'm trying to make a conscious effort not to do that.

However, I consider that maybe you are absolutely spot on. I don't know that. Since I don't know, I'm a bit hesitant to follow your lead, but it's definitely something I'll mull over. I just can't help but shake there might be a few other baddie candidates out there that will go completely undiscussed.

So you don't care if all the Goombas voted for Gleam, even though that would mean we have three baddies in the Gleam voters?

And lastly, S~V~S, the only reason I'm trying to engage you is because as I said previously, I heavily appreciate your input, so I was hoping you'd have something to contribute because I like bouncing my gut reads off of other players in the thread.

But if you don't want to discuss absolutely anything else until you get Nevinera lynched, that's your decision.

That said, I do await input from others, who seem to be going more quiet due to what llama termed by "excessive defensiveness", yet ignoring all of my discussion points.

Anyway, I really have to go to work now (running late for my earlyness because of this, lol), might not be back until late tonight (seeing a local opera perform Philip Glass with Boomslang) or tomorrow.

thellama73 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Sooooo. Who likes pizza?

I do! But only if it includes te objectively best pizza topping ever: anchovies.


MP seems excessively defensive for some one who got votes on Day 1, when no one really has any idea what they are doing.

I will also point out that almost every game I've been in, when a civ is lynched on Day 1, people come after those that voted for the civ, and this results in a second civ being lynched. Come on, people, baddies are smarter than that. If a bandwagon is forming against a civ, they will be sure not to add their vote, content to let others do their dirty work for them. As for me, I will be looking at people who did NOT vote for I Gleamed a Gleam of Days Gone By.

I'm not 'excessively defensive', I'm trying to prevent another civvie from being lynched, and I've been railroaded enough times lately. Not only that, but S~V~S is exercising incredible tunnel vision (and again, I mean this with no disrespect or anything), so I was trying to engage her in other discussion, to no avail.

Also, you seriously think that NO Goomba sneaked in a vote in Gleam? If you recall, we had three baddies whose votes were worth 0 last lynch.

While I agree with your observation, you appear to be going from one extreme to the other. I disagree. I think there was one or two Goombas that voted for Gleam; the fact that you are not willing to even look at any of those voters strikes me as odd indeed, especially when he was lynched for what were really silly reasons.

Anyway, I want to say sorry to everyone for domineering the thread. Lol. I will be gone tomorrow night after work, possibly even Friday night (not sure if I'll be busy with an engagement that night yet or not), and then I am going out of town Saturday, so I will be more sparse, and wanted to post while I had the chance. This will be my last... so, go ahead, start cheering now. I know you want to.

I do think the Day 1 lynch could be illuminating... the question remains in what possibility presents the correct lead. Determining that is NOT easy. I very much await what you all have to contribute.

S~V~S wrote:i think i am being very, very clear. sorry if you are having issues seeing my points, but like i said, i think i am being crystal clear

You're not, sorry. I don't see how ignoring my question asking you about Llama and others is crystal clear. I brought up what I believe to be several points of discussion yet you are only responding regarding Nevinera and repeating how defensive I seem and that you get my point. Maybe I missed where you addressed something else and if so, I apologize, but I don't think I missed it. I realize you strongly believe Nev to baddie. He could be, as he is someone I'm keeping my eye on, but I'm not near as convinced. Wouldn't you be willing to consider anything else?

Respectfully, as was one of my major points earlier (even more so than defending myself, honestly, and I'm repeating this because you seem to have missed it), you seem to be very much suffering some tunnel vision. I do the same thing, so I understand completely, and I'm not debating your instinct nor your right to do it, but I'd appreciate to get discussion going all around. If you don't want to contribute or have no thoughts, that's fine, but you haven't even explicitly said that.

S~V~S wrote:

Nevinera wrote:
It's *day one*. I picked gleam almost out of a hat.
I voted him because he voted early, but I could have voted snow for being quiet, or llama for 'squashing discussion'.
The core of the matter is that you don't get to have a good reason for voting on day 1. Often on day 2 either.
So I'm sorry that I don't have a solid reason for voting for gleam.
I didn't have time to make one up like you guys do.

The real reason that I *didn't* vote for MP is not because he had a reason for voting early, it's because I didn't want to attract his fire.
You and he both do this thing where you come out swinging hard - you don't have any more of a clue than the rest of us do on day 1,
but you choose to pretend that you do, so you make up *reams* of complete crap to throw around,
piles of pseudo-logic in a full-court press.
The reason you're going to vote for me, the reason you're going to swing at me constantly until you get me lynched?
It's because I'm *not you*, and you don't want to get lynched early.

Actually, usually i do have a reason, and sometimes i am quite effective. i have a good gut that way. I don't make up any of this, it is how i see it. I think i am pretty good at this, sometimes I am horribly wrong, as are we all, but sometimes I am spot on, and it is usually over a little thing. It has nothing to do with you being "Not Me", and everything to do with you saying you voted for one reason, and that was not why you actually voted.

Where did you hear about how i play my game? I don't think you have ever seen my Day One full court press.

Linki @ MP, and you are not hearing me. I said lets see how Nevin comes up.

I get that. It's why I wanted to be done with the discussion, but I realize I got a bit tied up in it even after the fact.

So I'm assuming you had no thoughts regarding literally anything else I said (Bullz, llama, etc.).

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:MP, calm down, I did not vote for you.

I am not upset.

But you are getting incredibly defensive over this.

Don't I have a right to defend myself? And you'll have to excuse me for feeling buttsore because pretty much every mafia game I play anymore I come right out of the gate on Day 1 having to defend myself for some sort of reason. This is the first Day 1 in a long time I've only received one vote and I still had a few people mentioning me for either no reason (Nevinera) or for reasons of pure association (yourself). You can't possibly understand why I'd be feeling overdefensive?

You have absolutely nothing to say in response to literally anything else I've said?

S~V~S wrote:MP, calm down, I did not vote for you.

I am not upset.

S~V~S, just one last thing to say on the subject, and then I greatly await seeing what you have to say regarding anything else.

Remember in Minecraft when I came in the thread after being rezzed and how I was all 99% certain you and Eloh were Epig's teammates and how you felt after reading that? Surely you can understand how dangerous it was for me to read so incredibly much into things that could have been interpreted any way, and yet I gunned (wrongly) after both of you. I realize how that tunnel vision really led to my playing a terrible game and I felt upset a bit when you posted that one post demonstrating that you were considering voting for me for something I didn't even do and when I wouldn't even be around to defend myself.

Nevinera wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:What, why would you have been fine with voting me? You never explain this unless I missed it. If so, sorry.

Because it's day 1, and we're all basically voting randomly.

S~V~S wrote:But....that isn't what you said when you voted, you said:

Nevinera wrote:Bah. I forgot it's a speed game again.

I have plans for the afternoon and evening, so I'm going to toss my vote out now after all.
I agree that voting early smells a bit, and I think that baddies are more likely to have read the bad roles thoroughly
(though that's hardly a solid logical leap), so I'm going to vote for gleam now.

No mention of MP having a good reason for his vote, just stating that early voting smells a bit. You don't say it smells unless you give a reason for it, or that drive by votes smell a bit.

Don't you think that someone who has read the bad roles thoroughly could potentially make up a reason for a vote? So not sure how having a reason for early voting excludes someone from smelling due to making an early vote.

It's *day one*. I picked gleam almost out of a hat.
I voted him because he voted early, but I could have voted snow for being quiet, or llama for 'squashing discussion'.
The core of the matter is that you don't get to have a good reason for voting on day 1. Often on day 2 either.
So I'm sorry that I don't have a solid reason for voting for gleam.
I didn't have time to make one up like you guys do.

The real reason that I *didn't* vote for MP is not because he had a reason for voting early, it's because I didn't want to attract his fire.
You and he both do this thing where you come out swinging hard - you don't have any more of a clue than the rest of us do on day 1,
but you choose to pretend that you do, so you make up *reams* of complete crap to throw around,
piles of pseudo-logic in a full-court press.
The reason you're going to vote for me, the reason you're going to swing at me constantly until you get me lynched?
It's because I'm *not you*, and you don't want to get lynched early.
You've discovered that a good offense is the best defense at this stage.

But you know what? Vote for me.

Henceforth you can have my vote on Day 1.
I'll give my reason as:

SVS will declare me a baddie today, as is traditional. Have a pre-emptive vote.

So no reason for me whatsoever? At all?

I can speak only for myself, but I didn't "make up" a reason for voting, and your blanket accusation reads ridiculous to me.

I realize entirely how I do that and it's why I'm trying to be much more conscious of it. I often err way too much doing that and cause a fellow civvie death (when I am civvie) and then a prompt baddie bandwagoning onto me, yet another civvie death, when I do this.

I resent your remarks (in-game, not outside of game, I'm not offended by them), assuming you are lumping me in them. I never once said I was sure of anything regarding Hedgeowl. I honestly have no clue as to her alliance, I'm just making what I hope is an educated guess based on what I either reason or instinctively believe to be true, but I am no more wrong or right than anyone else by nature.

S~V~S wrote:Also, ebwop~ teammates actions can implicate people ALL THE TIME. So not sure why you are trying to say that the whole potential BTS tells line of suspicion is without merit because it involves the actions of other people.

Yes, I understand that. But I know that I'm not bad, so it's clearly not the case here, and you fail to remember that supposed "teammate's" actions end up implicating wrong parties ALL THE TIME as well. I'm just warning you to jumping to conclusions that I know to be false because it really feels like you're jumping the gun.

If I had a nickel for every time someone voted for someone else based off of what was perceived to be a "linking" action via teammates and was wrong, I'd certainly be rich.

In my opinion, it would be just as much a worthwhile strategy for Nevinera to subtly defend someone that is NOT his teammate just as much as it would be for someone to defend his teammate. That's my take on the matter. Obviously you disagree and I respect that. I'm just trying to discuss my thoughts, encourage others (and I appreciate your contributions), and sift out baddies, like anyone else, so I realize you could be doing the same. But that's why it's so important for me to feel as though I can express my opinion regarding what you are supposing, and I think you're thinking WAY too far ahead here. I just want to prevent laser-focus that can often cloud both mine and your judgments (and I mean this as respectfully as possible) because you and I both know that we can both be heavily guilty of getting too focused and caught up on one thing at times as a civvie. Occasionally it leads somewhere, but I've done that way too many times incorrectly personally by now that I'm trying to be much more conscious of my behavior. If you want to, though, feel free, I don't want to dictate your or anyone else's actions -- but am merely having a discussion.

As such, can I not defend myself against something that someone is suspecting me for that isn't even of my own accord? I can't control Nevinera's actions as much as I can anyone else's, so naturally I felt unfairly singled out, and still do a bit TBH. Maybe it's because I get so much attention every game I play now from the very start and it's sort of grating to have it happen literally every time.

That being said, I get your point, but I know you're wrong, so hence my point to really drive it through. I still can't figure out your intentions, but after all of this, I'm actually more inclined to believe you might be a civvie, because having learned a lot about your playstyle in recent games, you don't strike me as insincere. But I don't know at all.

Now, do you have thoughts regarding anything I pointed out in my previous post, or no? Hedgeowl, Bullzeye, llama, or anybody else?

S~V~S wrote:I felt that he potentially did not vote for you as you were baddie teammates. I thought that was abundantly clear.

No logical fallacy whatsoever.

.....Okay. You're clearly not getting my point. But it doesn't matter. You and I obviously approach things very differently, so I am done with the matter.

S~V~S wrote:I considered a vote for you due to behavior of what i considered to be a potential teammate. Yes.

My main reason for suspecting him is his voting reason paired with the fact that he did NOT vote for the earliest voter (you). Should he come up bad, we can talk. Until then, it is academic.

I agree, but I still don't get this at all. How does someone else's behavior even incriminate me as a potential teammate when there is a reason for him to act in such a way in possibly any scenario (him being bad, me being bad; him being bad, me being civ; him being civ, me being civ)? Isn't that a clear logical fallacy and can you not understand how I feel that's unfair to me?

I can't decide what to make of your intentions, but if they are civvie-minded (and I have no reason to think you are civvie or a baddie at this point), I think it's a bit dangerous to be following that kind of lead.

I haven't even caught up on Bioshock since last night, but I had a bit more I wanted to say.

I am currently eyeing Llama, Bullzeye, and Nevinera just a bit, and will continue to do so with Hedgeowl. I may not even vote any of these players tomorrow; I am still attempting to develop reads on them and everyone else for that matter. But I wanted to point out some observations I had reading all of that over just now.

A few of llama's posts struck me as a bit odd. Not sure what to make of them. I highlighted one in the post previously. Call it mostly vibe, but the way he seems to be subtly pushing throughout the last day period seems to be a bit different than the llama I usually observe on Day 1. Am I crazy or did anyone else sense this as well?

Bullzeye's vote on Gleam felt most opportunistic to me, out of recollection, so I have an eye on him for that reason. I also want to look at the other Gleam voters. I think it would assist us to remember that three players' votes counted as 0 this past day period due to there being three Goombas, so if there is any way we can discern baddies through repeated voting behavior/patterns using this knowledge, I think it would be helpful. I certainly believe it's possible one Goomba hid among the Gleam voters, but I doubt it was all three. Just something to keep in the back of our minds as we go forward.

Nevinera's posts seem a bit shifty to me similar to how my gut is reading Bullzeye the past period; a little bit struck me as insincere. There's really nothing for him to defend though, and it's minor, but I am keeping on eye on him, naturally, and I await his clarification of some posts that have been questioned by myself and others.

All of these are very minor things, and I don't think any of them are particularly worthwhile leads, but they are further discussion points. Want to see what feedback others have as well (positive, negative, whatever), as well as any other reads/thoughts.

Oh, and I also want to say that I agree with whoever it was (sorry, can't recall) that Desert now seems like a silly option to vote, since Gleam is gone. Which is a bummer because I was enjoying traveling in the correct order. Desert makes the second least sense to vote now, IMO, after Water.

I am currently casting my vote for Giant land for this reason since it is the only option even near Desert.

Linkitis with S~V~S: Yes, I noted how you actually voted. I just find it strange you would even say that and I wanted to have clarification because to me it read as though you were remotely considering a vote for me out of no result of my behavior whatsoever, which just read as unfair to me, and I just wanted to try to understand your train of thought. I understand that better now, thank you. But aren't you jumping the shark? You don't even know what alignment Nevinera is. And even if he is baddie, which I'll entertain but I am far from being convinced, couldn't he just as likely acted the same way, setting me up, as I am clearly a relatively easy target for baddies to manipulate to get lynched? The amount of games I get lynched over people misunderstanding my intentions or reading baddie intentions into them (which, I can sort of get, due to my huge gambits and oft appearance as a baddie throughout certain periods, but it doesn't change the laws of probability which reset after every game) lends that to a possibility as well. So... can you explain to me how that logically does not reflect well on me? I realize you're not voting me nor considering it now, but like I said, I am trying to understand yours (and other players' for that matter) train of thought as well as possible, because, as I said in a previous post, if I've learned ANYTHING from my immense amount of mafia games I've played, it's that often times players are lynched due to misunderstandings, or the very nature that all humans inevitably have a different train of thought and communication style in attempting to convey such an understanding, especially early on in games.

Christ. What a terrible slew of posts to read. Really sorry to see you go, Gleam, RIP, and I hope you play with us again in the future. I was really looking forward to playing this game with you.

Don't take it personally, someone always has to go, and I find that when other players often are trying to develop a baseline for a new player, it often leads to early game lynchings. Trust me, it'll pass. I personally thought what you had to say was quite insightful, and I think we will find at least one mafia member who bandwagoned in your lynch.

thellama73 wrote:This is interesting. Hedgeowl did get defensive awfully fast for Day 1. Then again, she has yet to win a game and less experienced players do often resent the possibility of being voted out so early.

I could also see this as a ploy by MP. He put out some feelers, got a reaction and pounced on it. Does he really have to vote this early, or is he trying to get a bandwagon going? A lot of people who are unsure of what to do on Day 1 will follow the first vote. It is also easy to handwave a civ lynch on Day 1 since it almost always happens, so MP might feel that he could get out of any accountability if he succeeds.

I don't know how I'm voting yet today, but I will be watching this situation very carefully. If Hedgeowl is lynched and flips civ, MP will be in the spotlight, for sure.

Yes, I really have to vote this early. I didn't get home until 6:30PM EST and I am incredibly busy now that I'm finished with training at CPA firm. Most of the time I even take lunch, it's quick, or I go out with co-workers. So it's either I vote early every day period (which I hate, for the record, I prefer to hold my vote to the last minute as well for a similar reason as you expressed previously) or I run a serious risk of missing the vote (which I hate even more).

And why would I be in the spotlight if Hedgeowl had been lynched and flipped civ? Can't civvies be wrong and lynch civvies? Anyone who thinks that just because I gun after a civvie hard means I'm baddie needs to remember my previous outings as a civvie (yes, these exist) and my often not so amazing track record.

Roxy wrote:so Hedgeowl and MP please explain how being curious over water voters makes me suspicious? I never said i ws voting for any of them just that I wondered about their votes. Is it b/c I pointed out that if we are in a water land or level that some baddies votes would or can be worth 4?
it is a powerful ability for a baddie tbs they kill at night AND have a chance at controlling lynches.

I totes do not understand how pointing out the obv makes me suspicious? so explain it to me. Especially you MP you really need to explain it to me. b/c you flip flopped in your own posts.

Rox, I think you misunderstand. I do not find you personally suspicious one bit; as you may recall, I said it told us nothing whatsoever of your alignment, or so I believe, because I've played with you for years and I know this is typical Rox behavior regardless of alignment.

However, I did at some point say that, if taken alone, your action was suspicious. If someone else had done what you did, it might have drawn my eye more so. Seemed like a real easy way to incriminate a set of voters that could have voted Water for any number of reasons -- and especially considering all the baddies turned up Goombas and not anything water-related, it's pointless to try and analyze whether any of those people could have possibly been sinister in it or not. A worthwhile baddie strategy could have been to vote Water in that first poll just as much as it would have been to not to, because they surely would deduce that it could likely bring attention from at least someone.

Russtifinko wrote:I have to vote now; reading back I'm finding MP's discussion with Hedgeowl mildly pingy. As I said, I thought she seemed sincere, so I think it's a bit strange MP couldn't see her side of it at all.

votes MP

I'm sorry, what?

Where did I say Hedgeowl was bad? I had literally four hours after the end of Day 0 to re-read the thread, analyze, and try to make a vote (the first one at that) to condemning someone, and I believe I was more than fair in my assessments. I hadn't even intended on voting Hedgeowl at all; I honestly didn't know how I was going to vote, and then she responded. Her responses after I brought up what I had made me re-consider, and even still NOW I am far from certain regarding her alignment one way or another. I had to go off of something, so I made a best guess, and followed what my gut was telling me, even if it was slight.

S~V~S wrote:

Nevinera wrote:Bah. I forgot it's a speed game again.

I have plans for the afternoon and evening, so I'm going to toss my vote out now after all.
I agree that voting early smells a bit, and I think that baddies are more likely to have read the bad roles thoroughly
(though that's hardly a solid logical leap), so I'm going to vote for gleam now.

So why gleam and not MP who voted first?

This post raises my brow a bit. It makes me want to vote for you, or maybe even MP.

Why would that make you want to vote for me? Don't you think that's awfully unfair to me considering I and Nev don't speak for each other at all?

Why does early voting smell a bit? I had to. You've played enough games with me over the years to know that I hold my vote if I can, and I am seriously busy this week.

Nevinera wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Nevinera wrote:Bah. I forgot it's a speed game again.

I have plans for the afternoon and evening, so I'm going to toss my vote out now after all.
I agree that voting early smells a bit, and I think that baddies are more likely to have read the bad roles thoroughly
(though that's hardly a solid logical leap), so I'm going to vote for gleam now.

So why gleam and not MP who voted first?

This post raises my brow a bit. It makes me want to vote for you, or maybe even MP.

Because mp gave a reason for voting early and gleam didn't, or at least that's what I recall.
I'd have been fine with voting for mp too.
I had to vote and run, and I only had a couple of minutes to look over the state of the game.
It's day 1 anyway, I might as well have randomized.

What, why would you have been fine with voting me? You never explain this unless I missed it. If so, sorry.

I have to vote now, especially as I've ignored other things I have to attend to this evening for too long, so I'm going with Hedgeowl.

In summary, I am voting her for suggestion for all of us to vote Water, and then her subsequent backing off of it; her interpretation of Vompatti's "civvie vibes"; and mostly gut based reasons that honestly aren't worth a whole lot, but considering what we have to go off of... I guess it's all I can do.

Sorry if you are a civvie, and while it's a possibility I still definitely entertain, I have to vote somewhere.

agleaminranks wrote:I vote we go to the desert world next. Would be the next area we would play chronologically in Mario Bros 3.

I'm cool with this. But since we have more time, I'll wait on this for now, just in case.

Hedgeowl wrote:Clipped for space:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

There were only two things that caught my eye particularly. First: Vomps said he was getting civvie vibes from Lizzy. How could anyone be getting such vibes at this point in the game? That being said, I realize it's Vomps, for one, and that Vomps can have a blind spot with Lizzy, for two, or perhaps just believes (maybe rightfully so or not) that he can read her really well.

Second: Hedgeowl's suggestion to vote for Water. While I can see the point, I've expressed my disagreement, and for some reason I can't get past my gut that screams that a baddie would try such a move to get people to try such an exact move. You would say such a move would be too risky... but it isn't really, given the WIFOM argument. Why would a baddie member come out and so blatantly try to fish for people (pun intended) to vote for the Water option, when we would all see the following day that baddies have acquired Water-based roles? That's certainly very risky, so it's one of those risky baddie moves that lends itself well to defending.

However, I am not sold that is the case. I've hardly played any games side by side with Hedgeowl, mostly watched her as a Mod or host, one of which is a game under progress that I can't obviously discuss. I could just as easily see a civvie Hedgeowl saying the same thing.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Are you playing the noob card? Also, did I say you were suspicious?

As someone who has been often cast as suspicious for being vocal and posting similar such ideas, I feel your pain. But I'm not sure what to make of your post here.

The more I've played mafia games, the more I've realized players are often lynched due to logical fallacies or personality quirks/misunderstandings, regardless of whether they are civvie or baddie, especially early on. Later on is somewhat a different story.

There are noob cards?? I didn't get one, but when I do I will be certain to play it.

You did not actually use the word suspicious, but in your post above you are throwing out suspicions about my behavior, so I think it's correct to interpret it as such. Isn't that what we are doing right now? Looking for pings and suspicious behavior? If you didn't think it was suspicious why even bring it up?
You note also that you expressed disagreement with my water suggestion, but not the fact that I had already agreed with you.

Regarding Vomps/Lizzy I dont think he has any vibes on her yet at all. I think they will each defend each other until it becomes more obvious whether they share alignment. So I am not pinged by it at all. I'd be more surprised if they started gunning for each other frankly.

Why are you playing on your lack of experience? Just asking.

Correct. Where did I say in that previous post that you WEREN'T suspicious? I'm merely trying to start a discussion based on my interpretation of things in the thread. I do find some of your behavior suspicious, but whether I'm correct in that evaluation is an entirely different story.

Correct, your water suggestion is not the sole reason I find you suspicious; in fact, I do find it a bit weird that you backpedaled so quickly. Not sure what to make of that.

If you don't think he has any vibes on her yet at all, what does it mean when he says "civvie vibes"?

thellama73 wrote:MP is always a baddie, Hedgeowl. It's a given.

Are you one as well? Or are you the Water King? Not throwing out suspicions, just asking.

I am not always a baddie; I am one often, it seems, but I am not one here.

thellama73 wrote:Re: your Hedgeowl point, MP. YOu could be onto something. On the other hand, there is the possibility that she is the Water King and just wants to go there to get her special power. I'm really not sure at this point.

This is true.

Hedgeowl wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Re: your Hedgeowl point, MP. YOu could be onto something. On the other hand, there is the possibility that she is the Water King and just wants to go there to get her special power. I'm really not sure at this point.

Or there's the possibility that with 2 short games, which I have lost both times, that I am still learning the ropes. Clearly posting strategy ideas is suspicious in the beginning. Also, once MP made a good point about just avoiding water altogether I agreed this was a smarter strategy and will not vote for water. Thank you for the player rundown MP. I, for example, find Roxy's quick accusation of water voters the most suspicious, but I dont know her style enough to say. Would love to hear from others on this too, becuase you say this is pretty typical roxy behavior?

Are you playing the noob card? Also, did I say you were suspicious?

As someone who has been often cast as suspicious for being vocal and posting similar such ideas, I feel your pain. But I'm not sure what to make of your post here.

I would find Rox's behavior suspicious because in theory it is (in my eyes anyway), but I've played with Rox for a few years now and she tends to do this a lot, and I've suspected her (genuinely and not so sincerely) in games for such behavior; it makes her an easy lynch target. Honestly, I'm torn on her completely, but there's no way I'd vote for her based on just her comment; it's not telling to her alignment one way or the other at all.

The more I've played mafia games, the more I've realized players are often lynched due to logical fallacies or personality quirks/misunderstandings, regardless of whether they are civvie or baddie, especially early on. Later on is somewhat a different story.

Any thoughts regarding what I posted, Russ, or anything else? Who would you vote for if you had to right now? (This question goes for anyone)

Russtifinko wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote: One of the best, but under appreciated disney films. Grumpy Archimedes is my favorite. Italian sword and the stone? I bet that was better than the swiss Shrek I saw. Eddie Murphy's Donkey just can't be replicated.

Based on the baddie role switching I don't think voting water would be a good bad move. They would wait to visit water till they could afford to buy the right role then yes? If this logic is correct I think we should visit water posthaste!

I agree with this. Sword in the Stone is definitely the most underrated Disney movie. And nice new avatars, 'Goose and Owl!I'm having trouble placing yours though, 'Goose, is it from Rikki Tikki Tavi?

Personally, I think avoiding Water Land for now is a good idea. Those roles only cost 20 coins or so, and everyone voted in the last poll, so it seems like they could afford 1 or 2 already anyway.

It does seem like mafia will mirror the game in that Water World will be inordinately difficult and frustrating.

Good observation, I failed to realize that. You are right, the baddies must have 40 coins then because of Epig's post, assuming they started with 0. If they started with anything more than that, that would add to their total.

I especially want an opinion of those who know Vomps well (gleam, BWT) on what I said regarding him and likewise with anyone knowing Hedgeowl well (llama) as to that observation.

I also hope others have any other observations to bring to the table... because I still need to most likely vote tonight. I'll try to wait as long as possible.

Well, here's the thing. Everyone seems to be acting pretty 'normal' based on what I know of everyone.

- Snow Dog regretted his Day 0 vote decision after seeing the logic for grass; he often can be seen overanalyzing similar decisions (I would know, he shares that quality with yours truly).
- Rox posted that she wondered why three players posted water, almost as if it was a sweeping accusation -- I wouldn't expect anything different from Rox.
- Lizzy has proven once again she absolutely loves the WIFOM, unsurprisingly.
- Llama is either squashing discussion or starting it up with a weird point (like how he said we should all vote a low poster on D1 of MOTU).
etc.

There were only two things that caught my eye particularly. First: Vomps said he was getting civvie vibes from Lizzy. How could anyone be getting such vibes at this point in the game? That being said, I realize it's Vomps, for one, and that Vomps can have a blind spot with Lizzy, for two, or perhaps just believes (maybe rightfully so or not) that he can read her really well.

Second: Hedgeowl's suggestion to vote for Water. While I can see the point, I've expressed my disagreement, and for some reason I can't get past my gut that screams that a baddie would try such a move to get people to try such an exact move. You would say such a move would be too risky... but it isn't really, given the WIFOM argument. Why would a baddie member come out and so blatantly try to fish for people (pun intended) to vote for the Water option, when we would all see the following day that baddies have acquired Water-based roles? That's certainly very risky, so it's one of those risky baddie moves that lends itself well to defending.

However, I am not sold that is the case. I've hardly played any games side by side with Hedgeowl, mostly watched her as a Mod or host, one of which is a game under progress that I can't obviously discuss. I could just as easily see a civvie Hedgeowl saying the same thing.

I still don't feel any closer to putting a vote anywhere in particular, but these are at least points of discussion.

Despite my feelings on randomizing that I have often expressed in the past and do still believe, I am starting to understand why at least someone would make such a decision (assuming one is civvie and genuine) because it's insane to try and find a baddie using what has already been posted. As such, I may try something unconventional as I have most recently tried in boo's VGM game on RM and the Shining game here (hopefully to better success than both of those).

Not sure.

Llama, I must respectfully disagree. I read the roles twice myself and was able to gleam (pun intended) just as much out of the roles. If I had been around to post before gleam posted that, I would have posted something similar. I think that's really stretching.

That being said, I applaud your attempts to start discussion, and I don't necessarily believe you are suspicion mongering. I'm going back through a re-read of the thread now as we speak, so I'll let you know if I find anything to discuss.

Elohcin wrote: linki SVS - I voted water because I actually liked the water world in Mario.

How the hell?

I didn't think this was possible. Lol.

S~V~S wrote:OK, so then not so sure I am looking all that hard at Water voters at this early stage. That said, I know someone was wondering about voting orders, does anyone have one? I was at work when the poll ended. I think knowing who voted what could come in handy.

Epig is actually tracking them for us. The thread is in this sub-forum.