The Syndicate

Russtifinko wrote:Wow, those secret roles are sweet. haha poor Elo....she was so OP! And Diiny got suer lucky with those ratios. He was a monster.

And Bullz, I gotta be honest, it agonizes me that you left the way you did, especially since we came so damn close even without you, and since I put everything I had into this game. I am working past it and will eventually forgive you, though.

I know. I'm sorry. The game was going so fast, I had no idea what was happening any more and no chance of getting back into things. Plus everyone seemed to have decided I was bad because of reasons I never properly understood and it was all stressing me out far more than it needed to.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:Well done JJ and MM. You guys did sooo well.

Thanks Golden! While you were here you were rock solid too -- your ploy certainly exposed Mac and Bullzeye.

Also I'd have reacted to Golden the way I did regardless of alignment. I really wasn't trying to discredit him, I really did just think he did a lame thing.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:All members of the mafia team:

Amazing game. You played incredibly well as a team and it appears likely you lost because of bad luck alone. I don't even know. All y'all rock, seriously.

I want to say I genuinely did just give up with this game, I was so lost and really struggling. I honestly tried and had every intention of following through with what you asked of me but I just couldn't cope with it and had no idea where I was. I feel like I really upset you and some others (including my own team) by giving up the way I did and I'm sorry. It was all genuine though.

I have to say my role here was probably one of the coolest and most creative I've ever seen. I only wish I'd been able to see it through to its full potential and hadn't been as shackled as I was with it.

That was infinitely closer than I ever thought it would be. Congratulations civs, and well done Russ. You all worked your ass off for this. Sorry I bailed.

a2thezebra wrote:Where's the host / dead / non-player option? WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE

VOTES FOR THE UNDEAD! ZOMBIE OPPRESSION IS WRONG!

Yes I'm aware the issue is already corrected but I needed to comment.

I deserve to die because I'm literally just a distraction at this point. Some of the stuff that has been said/implied about me I've taken kinda personally and don't want to be involved with it any more. I'm not being a lazy, selfish asshole who is deliberately trying to screw anyone over. I would never pretend to be struggling or try to coast on other people's hard work. I have tried my best at this game and it just hasn't worked out for me because I've had a lot going on and it takes me a long time to read things. I didn't ask to survive this long. In the event that for some reason you all decide not to lynch me again, I'll be voting because I hate missing votes and feel bad for MP that I've neglected his game so much. I'm going to cast my vote for someone that I doubt will get any more votes so that I'm unlikely to be saving myself. That person is gonna be Ricochet. I'm genuinely sorry that my being unable to play seems to be such a huge issue for some people. I hope the civs still have enough people left over to win with me safely out of the way.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also: "I'm not going to try because I'll probably get lynched" is a TERRIBLE mindset for a townie to have. Your posts and your presence both have value if you're town and to just quit is BULLSHIT.

I'm sorry I'm sick of this crap.

I haven't said I've quit. What I'm saying is I don't want to waste what little free time I actually have by going to a huge amount of effort for absolutely no personal gain. I think you are taking this too seriously and I'm sorry if my not treating the game like a matter of life and death is upsetting to you but I have better things to be doing with my time than trying to force myself to read a game I no longer understand for the benefit of people who largely won't care what I say.

I deserve to die etc.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'm under no obligation to be here.

There is no obligation, but there is a pledge. You've said you'll try. You're here again the moment someone criticizes you.

I think you're paying much more attention than you let on.

I literally just got back here. I have the thread open in one tab where I've been catching up, and the front page of the syndicate open which I refresh every so often to see if there are new posts here or in the other game I'm in. I don't see why anyone would think I'm pretending to be behind in order to avoid suspicion. That would be a stupid tactic. I'd definitely deserve to die if that was my goal. I guess part of me doesn't see the point in trying when I'm likely to get lynched regardless at this point.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'm going to catch up now and hopefully contribute soon!

Diiny, you recently called my projections of "lurker baddies playing the lurk card" or "high poster baddies playing the high post card" as whole lotta nothing. How do you feel about Bullzeye here? Genuine civ who truly can't catch up or baddie who won't?

Same question, anyone else.

I deserve to die yadayadayada.

I genuinely haven't been able to catch up. I don't see why I wouldn't try to if I was a baddie. I know I said I'd do it yesterday but I went out instead, my life doesn't revolve around mafia and I'm under no obligation to be here.

Bullzeye wrote:I'm going to catch up now and hopefully contribute soon!

EBWOP: And I deserve to die for forgetting my punishment.

I also deserve to die for deserving to die.

I'm going to catch up now and hopefully contribute soon!

I deserve to die for a buttload of reasons, including but not limited to:
Missing the Day 10 vote
Being out most of yesterday and unable to get involved
Being far too attractive to be allowed to live
teh lulz

Oh and not to mention I still deserve to die for missing that bloody vote!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Just returning to the status quo, and taking the pressure of Bullzeye in the hopes that he respond to your request.

I deserve to die because I intend to respond. Not necessarily tonight, maybe tomorrow during the day since there's plenty of time. I'm still reading and don't know how long it will take. I deserve to die for being tired and slow at reading as well as not psychic. My many failures are a great source of shame.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I have no idea where my head is with this game any more and don't even know where to start.

How about you start right here? It isn't absolutely necessary to read every post. Maybe you can read the posts made so far on Day 11 and share your thoughts. If you don't understand something contextually speaking you can just raise your hand and ask.

I'll deserve to die from lack of sleep if I stay up too much longer but sure, I'll have a go.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bullzeye, let's have a man-to-man.

If you're town and get lynched, I'm going to be really bummed -- not just because of the very negative effect it would have on town's chances to win, but because it was at least in part motivated by you throwing in the towel. If you have struggled to keep up with this game, I understand. It has moved very fast in nearly every phase. That's no reason to give up though. You'd really be letting a lot of people down, not just those of us still alive but also a lot of people who've already died. The biggest reason this thread has gotten so big is that a lot of people have put an immense effort into this game for nearly an entire month.

That's a huge investment for all of us. If you're town and you just wait for us to lynch you so you can be free of the obligation, that's really unfair to everyone who has put so much work into this game. I'm not asking you to change the world -- just give us something substantial that we have a fair ability to read and work with. Heck you might still get lynched, but if you're town at least we'd be left with your legacy.

I genuinely mean no offense.

I deserve to die because I threw in the towel? My shame at having missed the vote will follow me to all my graves, in this game and all the games to come. In 100% honesty there were days where I voted without having read a single post and there are hundreds of posts in this game I still haven't read. I have no idea where my head is with this game any more and don't even know where to start.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Guys, I deserve to die for missing the vote yesterday. I'm so ashamed I never miss votes! I was just so tired I forgot.

Ok, Bullzeye. :P

Just because I deserve to die (and I do) doesn't mean you should kill me. That'd be too obvious.

I kind of think we should though.

I kinda think I deserve to die only in the sense that I deserve to not have to suffer the heartbreak, trauma, and inevitable loneliness of immortality. Also because I missed the vote. But we all make mistakes.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Guys, I deserve to die for missing the vote yesterday. I'm so ashamed I never miss votes! I was just so tired I forgot.

Ok, Bullzeye. :P

Just because I deserve to die (and I do) doesn't mean you should kill me. That'd be too obvious.

Guys, I deserve to die for missing the vote yesterday. I'm so ashamed I never miss votes! I was just so tired I forgot.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Which one of the laze-ers would you be leaning on, then?

The one who has generated nearly no original content in three game cycles. I still think Bullzeye is more suspicious than Choutas.

Just to point out - I've had no time to play, no time to get caught up, and no time to generate content.

You've had time to answer to criticism every time it has been directed at you, sometimes thoroughly.

Like twice. Maybe three times. Answering posts that directly relate to me and facts I know because I'm me is much easier than reading through hundreds of posts and forming in-depth views based on careful analysis. I'm not even trying to defend myself from being lynched here, I'm just defending against the idea that my having been quiet and uninvolved is in any way related to my alignment.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Which one of the laze-ers would you be leaning on, then?

The one who has generated nearly no original content in three game cycles. I still think Bullzeye is more suspicious than Choutas.

Just to point out - I've had no time to play, no time to get caught up, and no time to generate content. It has no bearing on my role. I've barely been able to play at all for almost a fortnight. So call me lazy if you like, but if producing original content is the only way to get people off my back then you may as well get MP to start the lynch post now because it's not going to happen. It's okay for you, you've been on top of things the whole game making 1000s of posts all the time. I have other priorities.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:To be honest I've completely given up on this game. I'm several days behind and have no chance of catching up since the pace has been so stupidly fast. Bandwagon me if you must but you're wrong to do so and I will be voting to save myself if I can.

This frankly reads to me like a concession. I feel better about my vote than I did before you said this.

Because a civ would never give up? I'm not John Cena.

I've said all I can in my own defence and can't offer anything else. I don't see much point in trying because I'm several thousand posts behind where I should be and barely know what's happening. What would you do in my situation? Why is giving up such a bad thing to do?

To be honest I've completely given up on this game. I'm several days behind and have no chance of catching up since the pace has been so stupidly fast. Bandwagon me if you must but you're wrong to do so and I will be voting to save myself if I can.

Ricochet wrote: What's going on here?

Something that Choutas remarked himself also came to my notice this time:

Bullzeye wrote: I have fairly bad vibes about BCornett myself tbh, but I feel like my reasoning will be immediately 'discredited' if I share it. It's a card I'm keeping close to my chest until I have more solid reasons to support it, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to voting for him.

Is this a hint? What can this mean?

What would it be a hint toward? I already explained why I first suspected Cornett. I thought he was trying to buddy up to Golden by mirroring all his suspicions. The 'discredited' was a nod towards that. I felt that if I'd have said that and had no other supporting arguments, Golden (and probably others) would have immediately used it against me. So I kept quiet for a bit.

Choutas wrote:Some of the most intriguing posts from Bullzeye

Bullzeye wrote:Haven't been able to catch up as much as I'd have liked to and it's way too late for me now, so as I said earlier I'm going to have to random this one. Hopefully the night phase will allow me to catch up properly and get into the game! Randomizer is telling me to *Vote for MM*. I only hope he can find it in his heart to forgive me.

I don't like when people say this. It might be only me though.

You liking or disliking it is largely irrelevant. I said it as a joke. Nothing I said on day 2 really means anything because I had no idea what was going on yet.

Choutas wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Sorsha wrote: 1. And if LC was a civ he would have been a great leader, it's true
2. I thought it was suspicious of bwt because he just seemed to be riding on LCs coat tails. Once LC "changed his mind" on bea, so did bwt. And I still stand by my bwt vote, I think he was suspicious.... See? I can't read bwt either.
3. Yes... It's called not being 100% sure because I wasn't. Like I just said, I've seen him do something like this, coming up with zany theories and day one plans, and get lynched as a civ.
4. Noncommittal on seaside because I've never played with him before, I don't know if this is how he always acts but I didn't see anything too suspicious in his behavior. I also didn't like the reasons some people were given for voting him. At the same time they knew him better than I did, but I still only think you should lynch someone if you really think they are bad.
5. And this would be the point, if I were his teammate, that I should have begun distancing.... not further defense. Or just kept my mouth shut. Or placed a vote on him. Pretty much anything but what I actually did.
6. Like I said, didn't think it would matter and figured it would just get torn apart anyway. I'm not the kind of player who goes head to head with others too much like golden and jjj and others have been doing the past day. i just roll over and die. In the past it hasn't worked well for me and hasn't been worth the effort

Posts like this make me feel better about you. This sort of reason and logic is what I would've expected to see in response to you gaining suspicion for your LC defense, rather than the immediate surrender. I know you've addressed the cause of that here though. The fact you've gained a ton of votes already is a bit off-putting as well. I will probably switch my vote, just not sure who to yet. That isn't to say my suspicion of you is completely alleviated. There is still a chance you were defending LC because you are a teammate of his and I'll be keeping that in mind for the future.

Linki - yeah a bit. Seems too fast, I'm not used to seeing bandwagons grow so early in the day. We still have over 24 hours and so many votes have already been cast.

Distancing from a townie lynch? Noted.

Not distancing from anything. She wasn't even lynched that day. Sorsha was suspicious to me mostly because of her lack of defense and immediate surrender upon a case being built against her. When she eventually defended herself, and came across as genuine, my suspicion of her was diminished.

Choutas wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:So Golden's big scheme that we should've all gone along with or be considered suspicious was... to kill a civvie? Good work!

Way too insistent on Golden despite him being a confirmed townie by then. Bullzeye continues it for a couple of posts and then ends the subject calling Golden a townie that is not beneficial to town(no ill intent though) and might get trusted in the future.

What do you mean by insistent on Golden? I hope you aren't trying to insinuate that I was calling him suspicious after he outed himself. It's quite obvious I was never doing that. I criticised him and his actions, and have explained why. Most of me "continuing it" was in response to others who wouldn't drop the subject. I had already said all I wanted to say in that one post. Just because he was a civ doesn't mean I have to like or accept what he did.

Choutas wrote:I really love when scum talk about the SK. I tell you guys talking about the SK when you should be hunting scum is a serious scumtell. It has happened so many times on RYM. Those are five posts in a row talking about the SK. My scumdar is screeching.

Those posts didn't happen in a vacuum. I didn't just suddenly decide to start saying things about SKs for no reason. I was questioning Matt's perspective and discussing Zebra's attitude. Were they both bad as well for having been involved in the conversation?

Choutas wrote: Dat townie mindframe.

What's wrong with not wanting to be killed? I don't play to lose and I don't intend to die early. It's just a known fact that baddies are unlikely to kill players when there's a good chance that the person can be lynched.

Choutas wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Syndicate players, can I get some input on whether epi is playing differently in this game than usual?

He's usually a lot more aggressive. However he did just get killed night one in Recruitment (by accident as well) so he might have been deliberately trying to be more restrained just to avoid his sucky curse of always dying straight away for lame reasons.

Also, I was meaning to say earlier, I think there's good reason to believe that the SK targeted Golden's seductee and that that's why there were two kills shown. In this game there has been a lot of discussion as to whether or not SK's are actually just misunderstood, civ-friendly softies who love cuddles and would never harm a fly unless it was evil. Killing the basically outed civ removes any doubt that the SK is not civ-friendly. I don't think they'd choose to do that so early on. I think they killed someone else, and that someone was Golden's seduced friend. Then MP wrote the night post to reflect that the SK had both failed to kill one person and also killed Golden. I think that's a far more realistic option.

On hindsight replying to a scum player theorizing about the SK. My scumdar is overheating.

As indicated by the line break, only the bit about Epi was a response to Mac. The other bit is just a general thought that I added into the post rather than make a separate one.

Choutas wrote:There is another post about the SK and how he does things, a modkill/infodumping controversy with Matt F which is pretty null since the game has rules about modkills and what we say has no real effect. I don't know what to think about the infodumping. That exchange reflects worse on Bullzeye since as Matt F said Bullz had Matt in her NO LYNCH list. Here's the post

Bullzeye wrote:Who I don't have an interest in lynching? That's going to be a short list. Let's see:

Bullzeye
Elo
Splints maybe?
JJJ
Matt F but maybe not Matt F at all
MM
Fuzz
Rico
Roxy

I will not be voting for any of these people today, but someone's name not being here doesn't mean I am likely to vote for them. I have excluded both my suspects and people I feel neutral about. Names here are names of those I think are definitely/possibly/likely to be civs. This is why I don't make rainbow lists or whatever the cool kids are calling them nowadays. I suck at them.

Is it so hard to understand that right next to Matt's name it says maybe not Matt? At the time I had always had strong civ feelings about him up until he seemed to be trying to trick me into infodumping and getting myself modkilled. That made me question everything and I was still considering how it made me feel.

Matt F wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:It certainly isn't wild. Or crazy. Some of it is even reasonable. I dunno how I feel about it personally though, I like and dislike it. I would have to think on it more to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

You're killin' me smalls.

Well, I mean, I know Crazy Matt very well. Sane Matt I'm not as familiar with. The fact I think your case isn't Crazy must mean something right? I expected you'd be happy that I don't think you're insane for a change.

It certainly isn't wild. Or crazy. Some of it is even reasonable. I dunno how I feel about it personally though, I like and dislike it. I would have to think on it more to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Epignosis wrote:
There are a few other posts like this...

Bullzeye refuses to vote for Golden, because Bullzeye thinks Golden is a civilian. This is Day 3. Bullzeye replaced sanmateo Day 2 and had 27.5 pages to read. Why would Bullzeye think Golden is a civilian at this stage?

If you had read my posts you'd have seen the part where I abandoned catching up because it was pointless and would only make me further behind overall. I thought Golden was civ because I didn't think a baddie would be so pushy and coercive in trying to make people lynch him. That left me to think he had to be a civ. Therefore I didn't want him dead.

Epignosis wrote:How did Bullzeye go from suspecting Golden on the same Day so quickly?

He was defending LC, which made me suspicious of him. Then he did his ridiculous self-outing thing and I decided I didn't think a baddie would act the way he was doing.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Yay, 2-ish pages is much easier to catch up on. Welcome to the game Fuzz, I don't envy your catchup at all. I will probably be changing my vote today, as I feel more reasonable about Sorsha. However I was going to move it to Epi until he came in being all genuine and making so much sense. He won't be getting my vote either. Nor will Golden. I don't know what game he's playing but it's ridiculous and disruptive and I don't see why a baddie would ever do such a thing so blatantly. I don't think he's bad and I won't take whatever bait he thinks he's thrown out there.

That is the only explanation offered. When bea gets lynched, Bullzeye mocks Golden:

Bullzeye wrote:So Golden's big scheme that we should've all gone along with or be considered suspicious was... to kill a civvie? Good work!

What does this mean?

What do you think it means? I have already explained why I said it: Golden, in my opinion, sacrificed a civ in order to gain status within the thread. I didn't find that to be something worthy of praise.

Epignosis wrote:Why did Bullzeye answer this? As far as I can tell, he's the only one who did.

A question was asked. I saw it and answered it.

Epignosis wrote:The Day MacDougall got lynched, Bullzeye was the sole voter for bcornett24.

Now this is something I want to emphasize: In my experience, when Bullzeye is called bad, his retorts can be caustic and nerve-wracking to the accuser. I went against him a few times and he breathed fire through the Internet.
Here, MacDougall has been calling Bullzeye bad, but Bullzeye just shrugged it off:

For the past few days I've barely been reading along because I haven't had time, I've been getting 2-3 hours a day of free time and I'd have to spend half of it catching up and the other half playing if I wanted to keep afloat in this game. I've been voting for my own suspects and often not even checking the poll before I do so.

I think everyone knows I'm easily frustrated. When I become frustrated, I have a tendency to snap at people. I'm sorry if this has traumatised anyone in the past. It is why I've tried to be more positive in the past two games. Breathing so much fire has done a real number on my throat. Generally you will note that I get annoyed when cases either make no sense or are incredibly flawed but people accept them anyway and ignore my defences, when someone has offended/upset me through their actions (Holy Grail), or when extenuating circumstances irl are adding to my stress (Flash - in which I was very ill and genuinely just wanted to be gone but a replacement couldn't be found. I dropped out of your Biblical game early due in part to the same illness). I don't just fly off the handle and start screaming and shouting at people for no reason.

I've not cared at all about Mac because all he was doing was flinging my name out with no substance. I basically ignored him. At one point I said I'd not seen a case on me worth taking seriously, he is one of the people I was referring to along with Golden and Cornett.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I reviewed your case on Bullzeye, Epi. I think you raise good points, particularly Bullzeye's awkward piggybacking of my Day 2 (?) beef with Golden. It's inconsistent with his prior stated civ read on Golden, and it also makes no sense for him to have the same mindset about Golden that I had when my mindset was completely based on my own interaction with Golden. Bullzeye can't exist inside my head.

Looking back I think I just meant the fact Golden had been defending LC. I was waffling a little perhaps. It also can't be inconsistent with something that hadn't happened yet. Opinions can change over time. I thought he looked bad and then he started trying to draw/force attention onto himself. As far as being tame towards Mac, I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that I just didn't think he was worth taking seriously.

Russtifinko wrote: I have played with Bullz a number of times, and mainly when he's been a baddie, I believe. The one thing I remember well is that he gets HYPER defensive over relatively little things, and generally over defends himself and convinces everyone he's bad. Iirc he's had some pretty spectacular flameouts as a baddie.

I very much disagree with this summary of my character.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:I have played with Bullz a number of times, and mainly when he's been a baddie, I believe. The one thing I remember well is that he gets HYPER defensive over relatively little things, and generally over defends himself and convinces everyone he's bad. Iirc he's had some pretty spectacular flameouts as a baddie.

Has he had any spectacular flameouts as a townie?

Harry Stephen Keeler rings a bell.

As you pointed out, I was bad in that game. Besides, I only got annoyed with Rabbit and that was for two reasons: He claimed I was lying about how busy I was and using uni as an excuse, and his entire case hinged on him making judgements of how I would act as if he knew me well when we'd played once together several years ago.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: What do you make of Bullzeye being pretty subdued in his treatment of Mac, who accused him often?

It seems like a scumtell, especially considering the history behind Bullzeye as mafia.

Maybe I just don't want a reputation as being emotional and dramatic and overreacting to everything. Apparently that's too late though.

Epignosis wrote:Flash was unconventional, but Bullzeye and I had a good back and forth (I was "bad", but I don't consider Flash a true Mafia game).

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 2&sr=posts

Last Man Standing was another unconventional one (again, not a true Mafia game), but:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 5&sr=posts

My point in all this is that Bullzeye seemed perfectly fine with MacDougall calling him bad.

That's unlike him if he's a civilian, from my experience.

LMS isn't a relevant example. It was last man standing. You were the biggest threat to me, since you'd decided to try to push my lynch. So I decided to try to get you killed. Cost both of us the game in the end.

If I'd have gone crazy at Mac for accusing me I'd have been accused of overreacting and being bad for caring about it. Because I didn't I'm being called bad for not doing it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Flash was unconventional, but Bullzeye and I had a good back and forth (I was "bad", but I don't consider Flash a true Mafia game).

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 2&sr=posts

Last Man Standing was another unconventional one (again, not a true Mafia game), but:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 5&sr=posts

My point in all this is that Bullzeye seemed perfectly fine with MacDougall calling him bad.

That's unlike him if he's a civilian, from my experience.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 041#p87041

Monty Python. Here's a normal mafia game (closed setup). Bullzeye is mafia, and Long Con is his teammate. Long Con says Bullzeye is info-dumping, but Bullzeye "shrugs it off", even while he is heatedly calling Boogs a liar for his accusations.

Boogs is probably one of my closest mafia friends. He knows how much I hate infodumps and how they've ruined so many games for me. He still chose to pretty much out me as bad despite all that. At the time I also genuinely believed he was responsible for silencing me the same day he decided to come out with info. So I was very upset with him. Water under the bridge now but at the time I was hurt by his actions. The infodump LC suggested had happened was a genuine misunderstanding. As you'll probably remember, roles were revealed as they died in MP. I had been told the name of the role that silenced me one night. Bea(?) was later lynched and revealed as that role but the post must have taken a while to be updated with her abilities, I assumed it already had been since I didn't check because I knew already.

I'm not sure why I've even bothered with all this. I'm not bad, but my death probably wouldn't mean anything at all at this point. I'm going to be incredibly busy all week, I would be spending half of my free time just catching up if I tried to keep properly into this game. I don't want to die and I do want to play, but it's only going to get more difficult.

This weekend as in the weekend that follows this coming Friday. Would have thought that was pretty obvious, I don't think the game is going to end yesterday.

I voted Russti again because I haven't had much time to catch up and he's still one of my top suspects. If I'm still alive/the game is still going after this weekend I will hopefully be more active but until then I can't really play, unfortunately.

Matt F wrote:Swear, last time, just wanted to repost...

Ricochet wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Matt F wrote:HOSTS - If a civilian is recruited to the Mafia or with the SK, if lynched, will the town be told they have been recruited or will the role just be revealed?

Any recruits will be revealed upon role reveal.

Interesting. MP said "will", not "would". A "Will be revealed" scenario, not a "would be revealed" one.

Is this basically confirmation of recruiting happening?

It's not necessarily confirmation. If recruits exist, their status will be revealed. That's what he's saying. Then again I don't understand where the sudden recruitment paranoia has come from, I still need to catch up.

sig wrote: Quick look at Bulls
Voting
Day 1 None (hadn't subbed in yet)
Day 2 Metalmarsh89 (random vote)
Day 3 Russtifinko
Day 4 Devin the Omniscient
Day 5 FingerSplint
Day 6 bcornett24
Day 7 TheFloyd73
Day 8 Russtifinko

I never voted for Splints...

Awesome result, the baddies don't stand a chance! I should have some time to play today so I will try to be around as much as I can. Into the coming week I don't know how much time I'll have at all.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:*Voted Russti* since he's my oldest suspicion in the game and I think there are decent reasons to believe he's bad. I also wouldn't mind seeing a Floyd or Bcornett lynch today - one of those is a lot more likely than the other of course.

Which one?

Well given that one of those suspects has four votes today while the other has none and I've seen very few other people call him suspicious, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Yeah I misread that. I thought you said one was more likely to be mafia, not to be lynched.

Oh, I see. I think all three are pretty much equally likely to be bad.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:*Voted Russti* since he's my oldest suspicion in the game and I think there are decent reasons to believe he's bad. I also wouldn't mind seeing a Floyd or Bcornett lynch today - one of those is a lot more likely than the other of course.

Which one?

Well given that one of those suspects has four votes today while the other has none and I've seen very few other people call him suspicious, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

*Voted Russti* since he's my oldest suspicion in the game and I think there are decent reasons to believe he's bad. I also wouldn't mind seeing a Floyd or Bcornett lynch today - one of those is a lot more likely than the other of course.

Ugh, sorry I really don't have time for this game any more Will vote in a moment.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I am putting a vote onto Russ, based on what MacDougall said. I really don't have the time to catch up fully and form a solid opinion right now. Voting for Russ is the best I can do.

Black Rock replaced AceofSpaces. This was one of AceofSpaces' only two posts of the game before he subbed out, in which he followed a known teammate's suspicion to vote Russti, being the second vote on him and about an hour before the deadline.

I asked Mac if he wanted to lynch Russti, who had quickly gained four votes, and was looking like a decent lynch candidate (trailing birdwithteeth 4-7). Instead, Mac left his vote on the less popular reywas (now RadicalFuzz).

These things considered, I think Russtifinko is mafia.

Finally someone agrees!

Matt F wrote:Bullzy, why do you suppose bcornett G2H'd you as good, then rainbow read you as bad?

I think people know how I feel about him already. He put me down as one of the three most suspicious players in the game at one point and never explained why - leading me to assume it was because of Golden since this was around the time of that whole debacle. Perhaps the rainbow read was an attempt at remaining consistent with his prior labelling but then I dunno.

I see today looks like it's coming down to JJJ or Floyd, judging off the current votes. I've had quite good feelings about JJJ all game and could see Floyd being bad. His responses to some of Matt's questions I saw during my catchup were pretty lacking. *Votes Floyd* for now at least.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bullzeye and MacDougall:

Spoiler: show

Bullzeye wrote:So the other person I remembered bcornett turning on at the same time as Golden did was Mac, who went from a mid-neutral/strong civ read for the pair of them to bad in Golden's eyes and second from bottom of Cornett's rainbow list within minutes. However, on closer inspection Bcor did call Mac out with a proper post just before dropping him down the list, so I'm no longer as sure. It's still a hell of a coincidence.

DrWilgy wrote:I would like to point out that bcornett has continued to ignore me for the past 2 days, even though I'm fully analyzed and somewhat scummy according to his list. He all he is doing is, looking at who is the topic of discussion is, clicking view in topic posts, "analyzing then" and ignoring everything else.

Yes. Looking at his posts this is a very fair judgement. Bcornett seems to make accusations based on the direction the wind is blowing and seldom follows up on them or explains his own perspective. Devin on day five looks like the only real exception to this. I think he looks very blendy and very suspicious.

Pseudo-linking of bcornett and Golden due to their mutual treatment of Mac in their rainbow lists (dropping him from town/neutral reads to scum reads). This was posted on Day 6, so I'm not sure what the significance of this observation was supposed to be.

You should know. You've read and responded to some of my points against bcornett already: I 'linked' them there because of the argument I've made that BC was trying to buddy up to Golden by echoing his views in order to look good.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Bullzeye's voting record:

Dusk 0 (as sanmeto): none
Day 1 (as sanmeto): none
Day 2: Metalmarsh89 (20)
Day 3: Russtifinko (19)
Day 4: Devin the Omniscient (23)
Day 5: Devin the Omniscient (27)
Day 6: bcornett24 (20)

The worst thing here is that both of his votes on the days of a scum lynch were inconsequential -- he was alone in both cases.

I hardly think it's worth bringing up my day 2 vote: I'd been in the game a few hours and had very little idea what was going on. I had PMed MP to ask if I'd be ok to miss the vote and he said no, so I did the only thing I could realistically think to do in the time I had left. As for the other day, I didn't have time to read and catch up so I just stuck with my initial suspicion. I hadn't even looked at who had votes until I cast my own. I've been working 8-10 hours a day this week and might be doing so next week too.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: The most noteworthy takeaway for me is that Bullzeye had very little say on the matter of MacDougall in this game. This is surprising because Mac clearly put some effort into calling Bullzeye a baddie -- both gun to head and in the form of actual accusations. Mac never built a real case or truly pursued this lynch, and Bullzeye did not seem to have much to say at all about the guy repeatedly calling him scum. Curious.

See my previous post re: not having seen any suspicion of me worth taking seriously yet. Mac wasn't giving any substance to his mentions of me. Nothing to say to him really.

I don't really have time for mafia this week. Going to try to catch up now.

Glad we got a baddie! Things are looking good. I still need to get properly caught up, gonna consider what's next as well.

I'm wiped out today. This week is gonna be super busy for me by the look of things I am gonna cast my vote for *BCornett* because I think he's running the blendy baddie routine and trying to fly super low. Now going to bed!

Matt F wrote:I don't think you tried to kill anyone Night 4, Bullz.

So what do you think I did? If you're asking about who I targeted, I assume it's because you have a role in mind for me? You still haven't exactly answered what you hoped to get out of me or if you thought I'd answer honestly. I find it borderline offensive that someone who knows me well would ask me to infodump knowing how strongly opposed I am to the whole idea.

Matt F wrote:I will stop telling you how to think, but I will say, if I personally believe that someone is intentionally trying to get players mod-killed, then yes, I absolutely think that person is bad. Tell me what your thoughts are on someone who tries to deliberately get someone mod-killed. Do you think that person is good or bad? If you think they are bad, then why is that person still "maybe but not maybe but totally I don't know Matt F" on your no lynch list?

I thought you were good up until the question. Now I'm questioning it. There are two reasons I haven't jumped to "Matt F is literally Hitler and we need to lynch him yesterday":

1. I'd be accused of NO Uing/overreacting/you'd twist it to make me the bad guy.

2. If it was anyone but you, I might. I know you think and act differently to most other players. Dex est MOM, trying to exorcise players in Supernatural, the RM game where you randomly insisted I was bad and I got bandwagoned right after your lynch. Only one of those 3 came from a baddie Mr F even though they were all crazy. You do crazy shit as a civ and as a baddie and after four years of knowing you I'm still trying to figure you out. Perhaps I'll make unravelling your mind the focus of my eventual psychology PhD.

Matt F wrote: Bullzeye - I targeted someone Night 4 and I wanted to correlate that with who you targeted. Then I PMed MovingPictures asking him if I'm even allowed to ask you who you targeted (I PMd him after the third time I asked you). He told me I could ask, but if you answered you'd be breaking the rules. Hence, the very next post I made was "Nevermind bullz haha". BUT THEN...you came in here saying I was deliberately trying to get you mod-killed, and if you think that, then you MUST think I'm bad. And yet, I AM STILL ON YOUR NO LYNCH LIST.

Did you seriously think I was going to answer your question? It's just so ridiculous. Why would anyone, good or bad, admit to who they'd targeted at any point? You surely would've known I'd have been punished if I'd given you an honest answer.

You'll notice it says "but maybe not" right by your name in my no lynch list, but don't tell me what I should or shouldn't think. It's not like I'm saying having asked the question makes you civ. I did think you were good and I'm now questioning your intentions because I don't see a civ explanation for why you would have asked that. Even if you knew I wasn't going to answer it's still weird you would ask. Do you suspect me? Do you think I killed or tried to kill someone on night 4? What makes you think I was even able to target someone? Who says my role is one that gives me the power to choose targets? The line of questioning you chose to pursue makes no sense.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't think anybody is that out of touch. Here is the observational error scenario, with cornett as a baddie, as I imagine it.

"Oh no LC has been lynched and we're a baddie down, let's turn this around to kill some civs"

"Who do I remember defending LC that wasn't on our team? That's a good pool of people to accuse! Well lets see, there was... JJJ... and Golden maybe? *Doesn't double check* Yeah Golden definitely, I'm gonna say as much in this post I'm now making"

Oops not Golden oh well.

Maybe it's not so much an observational error in this scenario as a memory error/accidental fact-fudging, but that's what I was getting at.

There's the rub. bcornett did not accuse Golden of defending LC (that would have been a correct assertion). He accused Golden and me of bussing LC (implying that both Golden and I were aggressive against LC and contributed to his lynch -- incorrect because Golden did not do that).

So if he's bad and made an error, that means he didn't know Golden defended LC while I attacked LC -- which was the entire focus of the battle between Golden and I at that stage of the game which bcornett was commenting on in the first place. I don't think this makes sense.

See my very next post, I had a brainfart while typing. Still makes sense IMO if you replace defending with going after and add in the idea that he wanted to accuse two unconnected civs of throwing LC under the bus but got confused about Golden's actions.