The Syndicate

By the way I'm still curious about why INH thought I was being coached or if he was just saying that because he wanted to get me lynched or something...

Epignosis wrote:That was intense. Triple agent.

I was a total dumbass by posting my Hypnotize Big Daddy PM in the chat room without even reading the damn thing first.

I told my team that I would return to their side once Jack got to Point Prometheus (something I pulled out of my ass). If it isn't clear, however, I feel rotten having to deceive my team like that, but I always play to win. I hope there's no hard feelings.

My last kill attempt was Matahari, and she stole me from Nev. This time I did not copy Nev on the info, but that betrayal wound up being moot anyway, since I was stuck at a fucking McDonald's in Wadesboro coming back from my trip and had only one opportunity to vote, and people wound up lynching me for the wrong reasons. I was not pleased by this when I got home.

If I may offer a bit of criticism:

I think recruited civs are fine, because they usually come sans info. But a recruited bad guy knows his entire team. By the middle of the game, I already knew the roles of Snow Dog, Bullzeye, Hedgeowl, DFaraday, Nevinera, Russtifinko, bea 2.0, DharmaHelper, DevintheOmniscient, spacedaisy, and indiglo, and that's not counting the players who were lynched. I think the main objective to Mafia is figuring out who people are, solving the mystery; with my getting recruited, it was over for my team- they had ZERO chance of winning by that point, and I think that's unfortunate, because we played a flawless game up until Night 5.

I was surprised my team had not started a separate chat room without me (although I see that they eventually did).

Again, I am loyal to the win, even if it did not work out for me. Congratulations to those for whom it did. It was a hell of a game, and I am thankful for this game getting me to play what inspired it: Bioshock is a masterpiece, and I believe MP did it justice here.

Don't feel bad about it, you did what you had to do and any of us would have done the same. Like I said in chat, it's only annoying when it happens to you. We did make a new chatroom though, and we had icecream and cakes and a big party but of course you weren't invited because it was a no murderers allowed party (All DF's kills were self defense).

Actually we just chatted about how much it sucked that Hedge was getting bandwagoned so hard and I didn't go back in after she got lynched but I assume it was all over then anyway.

Bea if we could've won with you and there was a way to signal who we were we'd have kept you around. We did really appreciate that you didn't throw Russti under the bus when it would have been really easy for you to do so though

Nevinera wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: What we should have done is had DF kill Epi straight away and then either got Nev lynched or NKed him the next time we could.

Probably. NK'd though, not lynched. If you'd backed me into a corner I'd have revealed who you were quickly enough :-)

If it were me, I would have told you guys everything immediately and started playing for time with my new master while my old team scrambled to get another big daddy plasmid to take me back. I was sort of assuming that was his plan the whole time, and that the 'accidentally' forwarded message was part of that plan.

linki bullz: Ryan wasn't dead yet at that point. We all thought she was on team ryan, because of her reaction during the early stages of the game when we started tossing DH's name around as a shared secret.

We weren't that smart, and most of our team couldn't use plasmids anyway. I actually died with a big daddy plasmid that I'd looted from DH (it's probably the one that eventually got used to take Epig from you. It went DH > me > Hedge > whoever looted her). I thought it was the most useless thing I could possibly have got, being a little sister, but apparently not. But if you'd revealed who we were you'd have been modkilled

Also what was up with that rezz poll? Lots of Mongoose voters seemed to have info, so I assumed they were splicers voting to bring back Ryan and voted with them thinking it'd get heat off me. Since she clearly wasn't Ryan what was actually going on there?

Well done Daisy and Devin Nev however, I was hoping would get lynched every day after we all died, preferably while Epi was still in so you'd both go out. I suppose you earned your victory and I give you credit for it but we'd totally have won this game if it weren't for you and Epi

Snow Dog wrote:

Nevinera wrote:I'm sorry I stole Epi from you, Snow :-\
But when he forwarded the team switch to you guys accidentally, I can't believe you believed his line :-)
He must be a fast talker :-P

We truly dropped the ball there. I think we wanted to believe Epi was still with us more than anything. We never really dwelt on that mistake. We didn't realise it was a mistake. We were foolish and paid a huge price in the night of the long knives.

What we should have done is had DF kill Epi straight away and then either got Nev lynched or NKed him the next time we could.

Mongoose wrote:Does anyone know roughly how many baddies/rogues we have circulating out there right now?

More than none, less than 150

Matahari wrote:For Bullzeye to pop in with that little bit of advice there, sounds like he might have a vested interest.

Would I post On Topic while dead? I was just being helpful.

Nevinera wrote:Is outing dead players illegal MP?

I'm not MP but anybody at all could tell you it is. So is infodumping tbh.

indiglo wrote:All deadies (of which I see there are many) should seriously check out Mafia of the Absurd on HV. It's goofy, it's nerdy, it's smart, it's light-hearted, but you're still gonna need your best thinking cap. Go on, you know you want to! Only 3 spots left, too.

I fully agree with all of the contents of this post. Indi's game comes with the Bullzeye stamp of approval. Or it would do if such a thing existed.

Snow Dog wrote:

bea wrote:....starts prepping the bar.....

I'll have a vodka and tonic...a very very large one...make it a bottle

I'll have the bar. All of it.

...

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote: Uth, I lots my post.

Basically, what I wrote boiled down to you seem to think I'm suspicious of me whenever I think you could be bad or think you're a priority. But the second I don't, you seem to change your priorities as well. If I weren't confined to my personal hotspot, I'd do a nice reread of you.
Also, Kate, were you implying that some of those who were *sure* that Bea was bad were her teammates?

I didn't actually say I was suspicious of you this time though. When you thought I was a priority to lynch, I thought you were a priority to defend against. Then you stopped attacking so I stopped defending and didn't mention you really because I had no reason to. Then you mentioned me again so I pointed out that your opinion had changed again just to see your response and you confirmed why you'd laid off in the first place. There is a reason for my vote by the way, but it's not what you seem to think. I think it should be easy to work out though.

Did you not tell Bea I was someone to look at? Did you not just admit to doing that just a few posts ago? Did you not then drop me when I dropped you? Did you not then try and paint me in a negative light when I picked you back up?

Yes. Yes. No not really, you were never at the top of my suspicions and INH and Bea were more important and I didn't have much on you other than vibes and feelings. As I've said a few times, my 'changed your tune' comment was just to see what you'd say.

Dom wrote: Uth, I lots my post.

Basically, what I wrote boiled down to you seem to think I'm suspicious of me whenever I think you could be bad or think you're a priority. But the second I don't, you seem to change your priorities as well. If I weren't confined to my personal hotspot, I'd do a nice reread of you.
Also, Kate, were you implying that some of those who were *sure* that Bea was bad were her teammates?

I didn't actually say I was suspicious of you this time though. When you thought I was a priority to lynch, I thought you were a priority to defend against. Then you stopped attacking so I stopped defending and didn't mention you really because I had no reason to. Then you mentioned me again so I pointed out that your opinion had changed again just to see your response and you confirmed why you'd laid off in the first place. There is a reason for my vote by the way, but it's not what you seem to think. I think it should be easy to work out though.

In light of the recent discussion I'm gonna not vote INH and instead *Vote Bea*. INH will be next on my list though.

Hedgeowl wrote:

Kate wrote:

Flyin' High wrote:The way I'm reading bea's posts currently is that she's not claiming to be a civvie now, just that she's a threat to Team Adam.

Reading team Adam roles, it would seem the only role that would be a threat to them is Fontaine. Is that a role we want alive?

Ok this forum got interesting today. Fontaine has a 90% base rate for kills! So here's the question, do we make an alliance now to help nk ADAM and then wait to lynch? Basically Fontaine is the same as a rogue bot/splicer, last man standing role, but the most effective.

It's a tough call, but I'm not sure the risk is worth it.

There'd be no way to know that Fontaine was killing ADAM, he could just wipe out civvies. Even he doesn't know what the roles of his targets are, we'd essentially have to trust that a person would be using their best guess as to who baddies were and was right every time. It's a common tactic of these last man standing type roles to say "oh leave me for now I'll only kill baddies I promise".

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Kate wrote:

Flyin' High wrote:The way I'm reading bea's posts currently is that she's not claiming to be a civvie now, just that she's a threat to Team Adam.

Reading team Adam roles, it would seem the only role that would be a threat to them is Fontaine. Is that a role we want alive?

Another great point!

Query: If she is Fontaine, and Fontaine is the only one that can keep ADAM at bay, do we want to kill her now??

Lynches can keep ADAM at bay. Since whoever Fontaine is is unlikely to be perfect or know everything, I'd rather not put faith in them to only kill ADAM members. Even if that's what they claim they'll do.

Flyin' High wrote:The way I'm reading bea's posts currently is that she's not claiming to be a civvie now, just that she's a threat to Team Adam.

Looking at the powers of the civvies and the powers of Team ADAM it doesn't look like any of the civvies could individually describe themselves as a threat to that team. So if she's seriously saying that then she's also a threat to us by default right?

bea wrote:I will have to vote unfortunately early - as I have to take my car to get it's emissions test tomorrow and I'm to be at work just as the poll is closing.


I will try to hold my vote as long as I can - so that I can give a "dead Bea walking post." I'm sure the thread will dismiss it - since the thread is now ADAM controlled. But I hope to give as much advice as I can to everyone else before I go, even if they have to publicly laugh at me to stay in the game.

If Team ADAM is as big a threat as you think, why not point out who you think is most likely to be on that team?

EBWOP: Apparently I messed up the quote tags there while I was snipping away, that's a response to Dom if anybody's unsure.

Bullzeye wrote:Wow. Hell of a night.

Boomslang wrote:Oh boy, things are about to get a lot deadlier up in here... RIP, DH.

People have mentioned INH as a possible target, but I'm not getting much of a bad read off of him. He was wrong about Dex, but so was I. His defense against Bullz feels legitimately frustrated as opposed to baddie posturing.

Interesting that his defense against me of all people would seem frustrated, don't you think? Maybe looking for sympathy after how annoyed I was at Dom/Nutella? The case on INH has nothing to do with Dex. In the first few days, he was demonstrably blendy and appeared to be trying to keep under the radar. Then he jumps onto the potential bandwagon against me claiming Bea made a solid case when she didn't even definitely think I was bad. He claimed I looked like I was being coached, which is an odd thing to say of someone who's been playing for as long as I have (or even a couple of months really, nobody needs coaching after their first few games). He never explained that comment despite me asking him to/implying he should do four times. Despite what he said on the matter, I also still think it's weird that he claimed to be following what Bea said and then used Dom's thoughts as the reason to vote for me.

Dom wrote:I think INH, Bullz, Snow Dog, and DFaraday are all good people to discuss today..

You've changed your tune. Again. I think there's more evidence on INH than any of the others you mentioned and will probably be voting for him.

Interesting that instead of questioning why I consider you a suspect again, you try to paint me a little black... NOT what you were doing before...

Like I said, I think that he could be in the new group of baddies/rogues.[/quote]

First off you're still wrong about me, I'm not bad or independent. I threw out my little observation about your second opinion change to see how you'd react, I did pretty much know why you'd laid off and why you started again but I wanted confirmation of that as well. I kinda have tried to 'paint you black' before as well. Your name was in the list of people I find suspicious that I gave to Bea, I'm sure you can remember the one I mean. I've never actually claimed to trust you and do think there's a possibility of you not being pro-civvie (especially now we've got a bunch of new indies) but I think others need to be dealt with first. I'm going to look back into this movement that's building against Bea but if I don't vote her I'll vote INH.

nutella wrote:Ugh ugh ugh I am not liking this INH appearing to be insanified thing. I really wanted to vote for him today but I have reservations about voting for a player who cannot defend himself. I'm curious about Beajira as well though.

I might still vote for him based on two things. One, he brought the curse on himself by not following his first punishment. It's not like most games where people are insanified by another player's choice, this is a punishment for something he did. Or technically didn't do, it's for not voting. The second reason is that he's already had a chance to defend himself. Not saying I'm definitely going for it and the curse does put me off a little but I still might go there unless something brilliant comes up to change my mind.

Mongoose wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Mongoose wrote:INH is either

a) insanified OR

b) pretending to be insanified

What do we all think?

I think MP said a while ago that INH should have been punished for not voting but didn't follow his punishment? Maybe this is the next one up if you don't vote for yourself when told to.

Oooh, good catch.

Let's marinate on why INH is so hesitant to vote for himself. Is it because he has something to hide?

Perhaps it is. The thing is, the day he refused his public penance is the day he came back to the game and voted for me. Before he did that I don't think anyone was really that suspicious of him so he could probably have gotten away with doing it. Maybe you're right and he's hiding something, maybe he didn't want the attention a self-vote would've drawn before it became obvious that that was what the public penance was. Sort of ironic if he was.

indiglo wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Although perhaps they know something I don't, a friend of mine got an email today because I put her down as a reference for some volunteer work I want, and they referred to me as female there as well. This one is even weirder because I'd actually met the person who wrote the email.

Wait for the 0:25 mark...

Mongoose wrote:INH is either

a) insanified OR

b) pretending to be insanified

What do we all think?

I think MP said a while ago that INH should have been punished for not voting but didn't follow his punishment? Maybe this is the next one up if you don't vote for yourself when told to.

On the subject of me and INH having played together before, because I'm weird like that I looked it up and we've played at least 6 games but curiously we've never been in the same game on RM unless he played the big Lost one where we all used sockpuppets. I'm not sure if that should be OT or not tbh, it's just a little thing I noticed.

Flyin' High wrote: I like Bullzeye's case against INH. The moderately contradictory statements coupled with calling Bullzeye a "her" and saying he thinks Bullz is being coached is strange to me considering that Bullzeye has been around for years and I'm sure they've played games together before this one (though I'd need to go back through old games to confirm this).

INH and I have played together before a ton of times, off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 games. I even won one of his mini-mafia games on LP. That's why it's weird he thinks I'm being coached, it's not even like this is the first time we've met, I still remember when he came onto LP and talked about wanting to start playing mafia right as Beatles (my first game) was finishing. I really want to know where and why I apparently seem like I'm being coached.

As far as not knowing my gender, it's either him or Zombies that have always thought I was female for some reason no matter how many times I correct them. Although perhaps they know something I don't, a friend of mine got an email today because I put her down as a reference for some volunteer work I want, and they referred to me as female there as well. This one is even weirder because I'd actually met the person who wrote the email.

bea wrote:I honestly agree with bullz re: INH. I found his logic post my lynch to be odd and I still don't understand his thinking about how using my reasoning made bullz bad when of the 4 people I mentioned, I was least concerned about him. I said that in my old role the whole way through. I don't feel the need to quote my 1.0 version, because I remember saying it. And in regards to INH - yea, I don't get it.

Bullz - it looks to me you are thinking INH is the best person to lynch - and I do agree I can't make heads or tails of his logic this game, but I can never make heads or tails of INH's logic. it's especially fun when he's your host! Are you saying Boomslang is defending him? And I'm really not sure what to make of Dom yet, you're implying he's changing his tune, but it seems to me he's been going after at least Snow Dog from the get go? How's he changing things now?

Boomslang: He could have been defending him, I wasn't trying to imply that though. He seemed to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting the case I'd made by saying it had something to do with Dex, so I wanted to clear up why I found INH suspicious and see what Boom thought of it.

Dom: He wanted to lynch me for like half the game, then he didn't, now he seemingly does again. That's what the change was, you're right he's been after Snow for a long time. I'm not even sure what the case is against DF, is it just that he's quiet?

Wow. Hell of a night.

Boomslang wrote:Oh boy, things are about to get a lot deadlier up in here... RIP, DH.

People have mentioned INH as a possible target, but I'm not getting much of a bad read off of him. He was wrong about Dex, but so was I. His defense against Bullz feels legitimately frustrated as opposed to baddie posturing.

Interesting that his defense against me of all people would seem frustrated, don't you think? Maybe looking for sympathy after how annoyed I was at Dom/Nutella? The case on INH has nothing to do with Dex. In the first few days, he was demonstrably blendy and appeared to be trying to keep under the radar. Then he jumps onto the potential bandwagon against me claiming Bea made a solid case when she didn't even definitely think I was bad. He claimed I looked like I was being coached, which is an odd thing to say of someone who's been playing for as long as I have (or even a couple of months really, nobody needs coaching after their first few games). He never explained that comment despite me asking him to/implying he should do four times. Despite what he said on the matter, I also still think it's weird that he claimed to be following what Bea said and then used Dom's thoughts as the reason to vote for me.

Dom wrote:I think INH, Bullz, Snow Dog, and DFaraday are all good people to discuss today..

You've changed your tune. Again. I think there's more evidence on INH than any of the others you mentioned and will probably be voting for him.

Epignosis wrote:Am I wrong about Bullzeye? Or do you people want to fart around some more?

You're wrong about me. Just like anyone else still insisting I'm bad. There has never been anything solid against me other than two votes and that alone means nothing.

insertnamehere wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:RIPIWG Bea, definitely looking at Bullzeye after this.

Randomly chose juliets to be rezzed.

INH, Could you please explain the part regarding Bullzeye?

Bea was bringing attention to Bullzeye, but wasn't the most obvious aggressor, them being me and Dom. Also the case on bea was BS.

I randomly picked because none of the names really stood out to me as someone I was sure was good. Plus I didn't have time to do a massive re-read on all of the candidates.

But do you not see the flaw in that? Random voting in a resurrection poll just doesn't seem like a good thing to do, it's far better to at least vote for someone you think might not be bad.

insertnamehere wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I'd have to look at Bea's voters again, I don't remember who they were exactly but my comment was more to do with INH seeming to act like it was my fault Bea got lynched when I didn't even vote for her. I agree INH's randomisation is odd, did you also notice when he voted for me he claimed to be following Bea's logic (though she hasn't said much about me) but used yours in his post?

I agree, me using two different people's logic and combining them makes me bad.

Bea never made a case against me. My name came up in a post she made but she herself said she wasn't sure if she found me suspicious, she was in no way a driving force in the case on me.

insertnamehere wrote:

bea wrote:ebwop - and boats. :faceplam: this is what mafia is like for me before caffine.

Ok - so my thought today was to see who, if anyone, has consistently voted for a civ, while not voting for teefies on day 2. Here's what i've come up with:

Day 1: A Person voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Devin, Insertnamehere, Bullzeye, Snow Dog and Mata.
Day 3: Llama voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Insertnamehere, Bullzeye, Devin and Mata. (Snow Dog voted Lizzy)
Day 4: Boo voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Mata, Devin, Bullzeye and Snowdog
Day 5: Boats voters who did not vote for teefies and are still alive: Bullzeye, Devin, and Mata.

I looked through both Mata and Bullz's posts after this, but Bullzeye's posts seemed very off. I've already stated why.

I assume this is what you mean by Bea's "logic" for voting me. Not that nowhere in that post she says I'm bad. Look a couple of posts later for the one where she outright says she isn't sure either way about me. You've also still not explained/backed up the comment you made about me seeming coached. This is the fourth time I'll mention that.

insertnamehere wrote:

insertnamehere wrote: Snipped a bit, nothing really added by it

The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

Also "Based on the posts of other players"? Excuse me, but isn't that how the game of mafia works? You base your suspicions on your observations and other player's observations. Saying that because I use other peoples observations, I'm evil, is like saying that because I voted in the poll, I'm evil.

Part 2 up in a minute.

I must have missed the OT bit, sorry, sometimes I do skip right over green stuff if I've read it before. I wasn't really using your absence as a reason you're bad anyway, I took evidence from the posts you have made. While I agree that of course you should base your thoughts on other people's observations as well as your own, the point is that it's as well as your own thoughts. It's fine to quote someone, say oh look at these lovely well made points right here and add a little of your own thoughts to it but your early votes were literally:

*Vote A Person* - no further or prior discussion from you. Not even saying who/what in particular convinced you AP was a good lynch candidate.

*Vote Llama* - the only other thing you'd said about Llama was that you were suspicious of him because of things others have said. I think that just agreeing with people and not putting yourself out there at all is the very definition of blendiness - a common baddie tactic.

Okay I'm going to stick my vote on INH. I think my points against him are pretty good and worth following up on.

*Votes INH*

I'd kinda like to hear from INH at some point today before I vote for him but tbh I don't see any reason why I shouldn't, I'm mostly just holding off out of courtesy. If nothing changes in the next hour that's where my vote will be going.

indiglo wrote:Quote snipped for space...

Kate wrote: First it seems like Bea wants to join forces as "new replacements" and defends against people going after either of us. She seems to forget that she was suspicious of GOB for the exact reason that people were suspicious of Ajira.

Bea, in my quotes above, seems to be slinging mud and using the replacement card as a sword and a shield.

Yes, I noticed the same thing about the "replacement card" and grouping herself with you.


Bullz, whenever I've replaced into a game I've never been immune to anything my first day. Now, most times I will give a brand new replacement time to catch up and get their feet under them (and so will most players who have been playing the game since the beginning, ime)... but Bea doesn't fall into that category to me because she's been keeping up - plus she made that slip up and her reaction to the slip up... yada yada yada.

Oh, I'm not saying you shouldn't vote/lynch her, I was just wondering if it's even possible because every time I've been a replacement I couldn't be voted for in the day I came in.

indiglo wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: I do want to make a quick point about low posters, it's one I make a lot. Obviously with G.O.B and Ajira it's no longer relevant since they've been replaced, but I think low posting alone isn't a huge issue as long as their small number of posts shows they're actively trying to play and contribute to discussion. I know you've said you're not necessarily looking to eye anyone in particular but I feel like I say some variation of that every time low posters come up in discussion so it's basically a tradition. With that said I'll discuss them individually (and I do wish that those who've not yet been replaced would come in and play with us!).

I agree 100%. That's exactly what I was trying to say. I may not have made it clear enough. Anyway, for me it's a moot point, as I've voted Bea today already.

Can Bea even be lynched today? Aren't replacements usually safe for the day they join the game?

First off, welcome/welcome back to the replacements!

indiglo wrote:EBWOP: I mean "look to see" rather than look with an eye to being suspicious. However I will also look to see if I think there's a reason to be suspicious!

ALSO: Ok, I cannot count. INH has 13 posts, which is more than double what I counted originally. Apparently, if you scroll properly while you count, you can actually count ALL the posts someone has made. Still, that isn't very many posts considering we're on Day 7. They also contain very little content, which imo is far more important than post count.

Others with extremely low number of posts:

G.O.B. with 6
Ajira with 7
Spag. Everywhere with 13
DFaraday with 15
Spacedaisy with 18

Then it gets higher. Now, I'm not saying I want to eye every one of those people. I am saying, however, that I think it may be wise to take into consideration if they're new to mafia, what their normal play style is (some players are generally quiet, and it may or may not indicate anything) and how much content their posts have had. I do think it's nice to take into account what someone's RL is doing to them too... but without being heartless it can be easy to hide behind RL stuff.

I may choose to take a look at some of the low posters' participation along with my rereads for this vote cycle. Any thoughts on this area or the players on this list?

I do want to make a quick point about low posters, it's one I make a lot. Obviously with G.O.B and Ajira it's no longer relevant since they've been replaced, but I think low posting alone isn't a huge issue as long as their small number of posts shows they're actively trying to play and contribute to discussion. I know you've said you're not necessarily looking to eye anyone in particular but I feel like I say some variation of that every time low posters come up in discussion so it's basically a tradition. With that said I'll discuss them individually (and I do wish that those who've not yet been replaced would come in and play with us!).

If people for some reason missed what I think of INH it's in the last post I made, go back and look. TL;DR version is that I'll probably vote for him today.

I think Spaghetti has actually made more posts in this game than he did in Video Game Mafia, which lasted 14 Days and he won, so my general opinion there is that he might just always be quiet. That said, he was a baddie in VGM but whether that's indicative of his alignment here or not I couldn't say.

Isn't Faraday usually quiet as well? The only game I remember playing with him recently is, again, VGM where he was fairly quiet as a baddie and then a civvie. I know I did rule him out as a BWT teammate due to his vote, but there are still other baddies he could be with so that isn't worth much.

Daisy I dunno, I remember her being really busy last time we played together and that might still be the case now. I don't really have a particular opinion of any of the low posters other than INH who has drawn my suspicions in a major way. Maybe I'll read through the rest to see what the actual content of their posts is like.

I think INH might be worth looking at today for a number of reasons. First, I think he's been a little blendy. Before Friday, he hadn't posted since day 3 when he laid out his suspicions based on the posts of other players.

insertnamehere wrote:People who I'm going to be looking at today.

thellama73: Based on Epig's post.
Lizzy/Vomps/Dex: All three seem to be intentionally drawing attention to themselves, and I'm certain that one of them is Sander Cohen.
Snow Dog: Based on Dom's posts.

While he doesn't admit to this being the case with Lizzy, Vomp, and Dex, he's by no means the first to call any of them out. He ended up voting Llama on day 3 offering no more elaboration for his reasons than the quoted post does.

On day 2 his only post was a self-vote, which couldn't have been in punishment given he voted on day one for A Person. Speaking of Day One, his only post there was his vote as well, again offering nothing to the discussion. I don't know why he disappeared for a few days but I do think that his initial tactic in this game was to play blendy and go unnoticed based on his posts from early on.

His more recent posts have a different (but still suspicious) feel to them:

insertnamehere wrote:The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

After reading up, the case that makes the most sense is Bea's case on Bullzeye. Not only has she voted civ four weeks out of five, her posts seem very suspicious to me. Her posts seen very frantic and eager to shift the blame onto someone else. I can sense almost a little bit of coaching too.

Dex is acting weird yes, but Bullzeye in my opinion is acting as weird.

Here he votes me claiming to be following Bea's case against me. She made no such case, I even went back to double check but no, my name came up in her analysis of voters but she said she was undecided on me. The bolded rationale for INH's vote here belongs to Dom, and the coaching comment makes no sense for me. I've actually asked twice for an explanation and he's yet to give one.

insertnamehere wrote:RIPIWG Bea, definitely looking at Bullzeye after this.

Randomly chose juliets to be rezzed.

Finally he seems to blame Bea's lynch on me when I didn't even vote for her. I said a few times I thought she might be worth a vote, but none of her voters claimed they were voting for her because of my solid logic against her (note: I admitted the case against her wasn't too great at one point). He also randomised his rezz vote, or at least claimed to, and that is something I really don't get when there's a risk your vote could go to the rezzing of a baddie. I realise JC was killed by a Big Daddy so that would probably rule out one team but there's still other non-civvie roles she could have held. I dunno, it just doesn't seem right to me that any civvie would do that.

Dom wrote: I'm saying I don't think you're being single minded, I think you're throwing everything out there hoping for something to stick...

But I'm not so sure I'm interested in lynching you right now anymore.


Who among Bea voters do you think deserves attention?


And, INH, really... you randomized on a rez??????

I've brought up four people as suspicious, two of whom had been discussed at length already. I'd hardly call that throwing everything out there. My confusion was because single-mindedness was an accusation directed at you and your response seemed like you were also talking about yourself, if you wondered.

I'd have to look at Bea's voters again, I don't remember who they were exactly but my comment was more to do with INH seeming to act like it was my fault Bea got lynched when I didn't even vote for her. I agree INH's randomisation is odd, did you also notice when he voted for me he claimed to be following Bea's logic (though she hasn't said much about me) but used yours in his post?

insertnamehere wrote:RIPIWG Bea, definitely looking at Bullzeye after this.

Randomly chose juliets to be rezzed.

What about all those people who voted for Bea? None of them are suspicious, just me who considered voting her and ended up voting Dex?

I'm voting for Mongoose.

Dom wrote: It's not about being single minded. It's about throwing the entire pot of spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Wait... Are you saying you're doing this or someone else? Because you've been very single minded tbh, first with Snow Dog then me.

Voting Dex. I've explained why already and I'd urge all civvies to do the same. Lynching me will only disappoint people.

insertnamehere wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

After reading up, the case that makes the most sense is Bea's case on Bullzeye. Not only has she voted civ four weeks out of five, her posts seem very suspicious to me. Her posts seen very frantic and eager to shift the blame onto someone else. I can sense almost a little bit of coaching too.

Dex is acting weird yes, but Bullzeye in my opinion is acting as weird.

First off, She? That's news to me...

Second, I've been playing mafia for nearly three years now, I haven't needed coaching in a long time. If you're going to parrot Dom's thoughts I'll ask you as well what should I be doing if stating my own suspicions apparently makes me bad?

Instead of just saying "I just have bad instincts, stop focusing on me, look at these people." you could give an actual defense.

I defended myself initially but the original case against me is only based on my votes for Ace (instead of BWT) and Llama. All I can say in my defense there is I wasn't that into the case on BWT so I didn't vote for him. I wasn't trying to save a teammate by voting Ace instead. When I voted Llama I voted for someone who had defended a revealed baddie. When Bea brought up my voting record I said I obviously just haven't had great instincts this game but then neither have a lot of people or we'd have lynched more baddies.

Bea directly asked me who other than her I found suspicious (a fact which my chief accusers seem to conveniently ignore when trying to paint me as evasive) so I told her. I made a case against Dex based on the lack of content his posts have had leading me to believe he's not working in the interests of the civvies. I've never once told anybody to not focus on me, and have many times said I don't mind people being suspicious of me. This is another fact certain players seem to ignore.

I'd like you to point out this so-called coaching I've had as well. I've never before heard anyone accuse someone of being coached when it wasn't one of their first games. I don't claim to be a brilliant player but I'd hope I'm good enough by now to be able to play without someone holding my hand.

insertnamehere wrote:The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

After reading up, the case that makes the most sense is Bea's case on Bullzeye. Not only has she voted civ four weeks out of five, her posts seem very suspicious to me. Her posts seen very frantic and eager to shift the blame onto someone else. I can sense almost a little bit of coaching too.

Dex is acting weird yes, but Bullzeye in my opinion is acting as weird.

First off, She? That's news to me...

Second, I've been playing mafia for nearly three years now, I haven't needed coaching in a long time. If you're going to parrot Dom's thoughts I'll ask you as well what should I be doing if stating my own suspicions apparently makes me bad?

Zany Dex wrote:Voting you is my contribution

Your welcome everyone

Nobody will thank you for voting a civ.

Russtifinko wrote:Very glad to hear you and your family are ok, Epi. I would've been shaking the rest of the drive.

Personally, Bullz's posts are reading desperate civ to me. I kind of get his frustration with lack of good options for defending oneself in mafia.

I'm likely to vote Dex today. I could probably also be convinced to vote G.O.B.

Can we hear some more from DH? He made a few great points during the post contest, and then promptly dropped off the map after walking away with his prize. A bit selfish, if it's not for rl reasons.

I wouldn't say desperate so much as very very very frustrated. As it's only really Dom and LA even discussing me I wouldn't care that much if I weren't the only thing they're discussing and if they weren't so obsessed with finding new ways to accuse me. I'm just tired of their incessant tunnel vision really. I think DH said he was going away on holiday or something though? Not totally sure.

Just in case they can convince more people to jump on the Bullzeye bandwagon I'm going to hold on to my vote for now but if I don't have to save myself I want to vote Dex. He's not really made a single contribution to the game, and usually he at least bothers to say something that's in some way relevant but not here. We should probably have lynched him a long time ago.

bea wrote:Bullz - for what it's worth - I'm pretty undecided on you. I think it's just as likely that you are as civ as I know I am and as everyone knows boo was. I don't find you pointing out other suspensions as suspicious in and of themselves. And I think you raise a pretty decent point on Dex. To be honest, I wasn't even that weirded out by the fact that you kept bringing up my name for the same weak case because I saw the point you were trying to make, the case was weak regardless of who it was against. (Though at the time, it did feel like you were deflecting to me as well...it was me you were bringing up.)

That said, Dom has a point on you that's about as solid as your point on Dex. I'm not quite sure what to make of it yet. I'm glad for more time.

I have no problem with people finding me suspicious as long as they actually let me try to defend myself rather than making up more and more reasons why I'm bad every time I post. I admit there isn't a massive case against you but I only had two suspects coming into today and with so many people seemingly inactive or at least quiet it's hard to have anything to say about them. I'm just tired of LA and more recently Dom as well being so incredibly determined to make me bad.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

nutella wrote:...Dom's right about you, Bullz. "HEY GUYS LOOK AT DEX NOT ME!"

So what, am I not supposed to have suspicions of my own because people want to vote for me? Should I go and make a case against myself? Or am I just meant to sit quietly while you all decide whether or not to lynch me and not defend myself in any way against accusations that aren't true? Seriously, I'm not even being sarcastic. You and Dom and even Boo have all been constantly using the fact I'm not doing any of those things against me. Every time I voice a suspicion or try to defend myself I'm told that doing so makes me look bad for some vague reasons. It's getting quite frustrating tbh.

No, what you're doing is taking every name that comes up and asking why no one is looking at them and not at you.

Except I'm not. You're just determined to see me as bad and I'm sick to death of it. I've had an eye on Dex from practically the beginning of the game just like a lot of others have. My suspicion of Bea came from discussing DH's theory about BWT's team, and my thoughts about DH are my own. I fail to see how mentioning four people as suspicious WHEN I WAS ASKED WHO I FIND SUSPICIOUS, and discussing one in particular WHO IS BLATANTLY NOT ACTING IN THE INTERESTS OF CIVVIES is in any way like what you've said. Apparently I'm not allowed to have suspicions or try to share them, what am I permitted to do in this game? Again, should I just roll over and let you all lynch me knowing full well you're wrong?

And really, if he'd put his throwaway unexplained vote on anyone but me people would be all over him but because I'm the designated bandwagon of the day it's no problem?

nutella wrote:...Dom's right about you, Bullz. "HEY GUYS LOOK AT DEX NOT ME!"

So what, am I not supposed to have suspicions of my own because people want to vote for me? Should I go and make a case against myself? Or am I just meant to sit quietly while you all decide whether or not to lynch me and not defend myself in any way against accusations that aren't true? Seriously, I'm not even being sarcastic. You and Dom and even Boo have all been constantly using the fact I'm not doing any of those things against me. Every time I voice a suspicion or try to defend myself I'm told that doing so makes me look bad for some vague reasons. It's getting quite frustrating tbh.

Zany Dex wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I just looked at Dex's post history because I've been going through my main suspicions to build some cases and what I notice is not one of his posts actually contributes anything to the game - it's all just NO U's, subtle threats, and general craziness. I could quote examples but they're all the same and you can just go see for yourself.

Now there's a no u

Remember how I nearly voted for you on day 2? I didn't just stop being suspicious of you because I voted for someone else

Yeah yeah

You can't really deny you've not actually said anything worth saying in this game, you've never once said you're suspicious of anyone unless you count listing every single player minus yourself (I don't, FWIW). Probably half your votes are for people who'd voted or said they might vote for you. Why is this?

Zany Dex wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I just looked at Dex's post history because I've been going through my main suspicions to build some cases and what I notice is not one of his posts actually contributes anything to the game - it's all just NO U's, subtle threats, and general craziness. I could quote examples but they're all the same and you can just go see for yourself.

Now there's a no u

Remember how I nearly voted for you on day 2? I didn't just stop being suspicious of you because I voted for someone else