Return to “[ENDGAME] The Office Mafia”
DrumBeats wrote:Turnip Head wrote:Scotty to be honest I'm as lost as you are. I think I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and vote for espers because fuck it. Everyone seems so genuine to me at this point, I don't know who to not trust.
What has changed since:
Turnip Head wrote:If we're going down that road I'd rather lynch SpaceDaisy.DrumBeats wrote:Where do both of you stand on espers?
Turnip Head wrote:Everyone seems so genuine to me at this point, I don't know who to not trust.
Great Scott.Epignosis wrote:I'd advise against that. TH doesn't know what the hell he's doing. He's a complete fool. Like, he couldn't tell you if Christopher Lloyd is hot.Scotty wrote:Oooo what if I just went crazy and voted TH. How crazy would that be?
Am I crazy? I could be. Someone throw me a bone here.
Ask him.
Hey TH, is Chrisopher Lloyd hot? Not "Would you do him?" but is he hot?
I changed my mind.espers wrote:Voted timmer so i don't forget.
Here's one thing: DrumBeats and Turnip Head, what happened to your LoRab suspicions? I don't like how they sorta just dissipated.
I mean the road of lynching a nonparticipant. IMO espers has screwed us either way because we can't afford to mislynch him at this stage of the game, but he's given us no way to deduce his alignment and hasn't helped us solve the game. At this point he's a warm body that I'm just praying is on our side.DrumBeats wrote:Those are two completely different roads though. What's your case on Spacedaisy?Turnip Head wrote:If we're going down that road I'd rather lynch SpaceDaisy.DrumBeats wrote:Where do both of you stand on espers?
If we're going down that road I'd rather lynch SpaceDaisy.DrumBeats wrote:Where do both of you stand on espers?
I have a specific civilian role in mind for him. I think he's genuinely trying to figure you out.insertnamehere wrote:Where do you stand on Epignosis?Turnip Head wrote:The way I see it, this guy is either a civ or the most sociopathic mafioso that ever lived. No baddie argues their innocence like this.
The way I see it, this guy is either a civ or the most sociopathic mafioso that ever lived. No baddie argues their innocence like this.insertnamehere wrote:this is the part that really gets to me, okay? I feel like I've been trapped in these damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't scenarios where I and another person mutually suspect each other, but the other person starts screaming 'NO U,' even though they say that I'm bad after I say that I suspect them, and even though I have other legitimate reasons for suspecting them outside of me thinking everyone who suspects me must be bad, okay? it's like any case I make can be invalidated by the person that I make the case on putting together something weak against me, waiting for me to respond, then pulling a NO U, and waiting for me to get pissed off and over-defensive, therefore making me look like a crazy person who's taking the game way too personal and forcing people to ignore my original points and my original case, okay?Epignosis wrote:Do you think I should be lynched, INH?insertnamehere wrote:So what we have here is the driving force and initial vote behind a civilian lynch trying to shift the blame and suspicion from himself to someone who (contrary to what he claims) genuinely tried to stop it, does everyone see this? His only two points are: He was too late to stop me from lynching a civilian, and therefore it's his fault, and he thinks DF isn't bad, so, therefore they must be in cahoots, did I get it all right? This is an absolutely barmy case, alright?
it is, in my opinion, a shitty manipulative way to play the game, okay? and not the cool, deceptive manipulation that's why I enjoy mafia, but just intentionally pushing someone's buttons, and forcing them to stress out, okay? this entire fucking game I've been on blast for reasons that simply seem utterly irrelevant to me, and the only time I feel like people have listened to me in this game is Day 1, when I accidentally got a civilian lynched, okay? so this hasn't been the best game for me, okay?
the thing is, Epignosis knew all of this, okay? That's why he picked me as the ideal patsy, okay? He knew that he could just lob a few softballs at me, which would then infuriate me, and make my original points moot, okay? He also knew that people like timmer and Enrique have been wanting my blood ever since the whole goddamn Matt clusterfuck, (which thank you so fucking much for 3J, I hope you got the goddamn reaction you were hoping for) and my aggressive irreverence makes me an easy target, okay?
the whole thing just reeks of cynical opportunism and attempted gaslighting to me, okay? it feels calculated, disingenuine, and just really fucking scummy, okay?
So, I'm voting for Epignosis, okay? I know that no one will listen to me, because obviously this whole entire thing is just a shallow scummy no u on my part, but this is how I genuinely feel, okay? vote for me if you find it scummy, okay?
I feel okay about Lorab, I keep going back and forth on INH.DrumBeats wrote:I'm asking you again tomorrow now. (Except you know, two days later cause I forgot) How do you feel about INH and LoRab?Turnip Head wrote:DrumBeats wrote:Humor them INH.
GTH
espers - who knows
insertnamehere - ask me again tomorrow
LoRab - same
@ linki Epi - I find your timing for the FS focus to be equally odd with INH's defense timing. I find a lot more things about INH odd though, I'm just trying to figure out what of it is alignment indicative. NO U'ing just about everyone seems like a surefire way to get yourself lynched imo, which is why I'm skeptical that a mafia member would do it, but at the same time, I don't see any reason a civ would either.
Talk to me about today's lynch.DFaraday wrote:Epi, correct me if I'm wrong, but your only case on me seemed to be the notion that Splints and I were baddie teammates. Now that's been disproved, do you have anything for me to work with beyond the notion that INH and I are baddie teammates?
You don't see it, or you don't agree with it? Because I posted a long ass case, and it would be nice to know what you thought of it other than "not seeing it", because that makes me feel like you didn't even read it.timmer wrote: and I don't see a case on df
insertnamehere wrote:Timmer, I've come around on, and began to view as genuine, although I'd like to see some more non-INH opinions.
Explain yo self.insertnamehere wrote:Because I'm a NO U'ing scumlord, I've decided to vote for timmer.
You're bad.insertnamehere wrote:
Epignosis wrote:This is the deadest thread I have ever witnessed in the history of Mafia.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not sure how I can "fall back" on my DF case when I only presented it today and am trying to get opinions on it. And it couldn't have been clearer to me that DB's vote was forced, the way he phrased it.insertnamehere wrote:I don't like how TH and DB are both falling back to their respective pet cases with DF and Scotty, both of whom I actually trust more than I do TH and DB.
Maybe we should just ask him who his teammates arefingersplints wrote:It's more of a problem with I can't connect him to anyone else in the same way. I'm no dfaraday expert but he mentioned his teammates a lot in that game. Lots of early distancing. I feel like most of the people he is talking about this game are people who have been civs. It's little, but to me it just feels differentTurnip Head wrote:What are the differences between DF's game here and the one where you were teammates?fingersplints wrote:One of the last games I played I was teammates with him. I'm not seeing the same game here.
What are the differences between DF's game here and the one where you were teammates?fingersplints wrote:One of the last games I played I was teammates with him. I'm not seeing the same game here.
I don't know, but I'd like to know what they and others think of my case on DF, and/or where they and others plan on voting today.Scotty wrote:Do you think that the fact that these people have been basically inactive this phase is a bad look for them? Do you think there's at least a couple baddies hiding in the thickets there like I do?Turnip Head wrote:bea, DrumBeats, espers, insertnamehere, Serge, and Spacedaisy have all not posted yet this phase. Almost half the player list.
I get that idea because baddies have to lie and sometimes abandon their civvie principles to win. You already admitted that what you wrote went against your normal thought process, and you already admitted that you did it so it would seem like you had more to say about your vote... so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with that information.DFaraday wrote:TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.
I like that you owned up to doing this, but it doesn't make it any less sketchy :P A civvie DF would have no need to go against his principles in order to seem like he had more to say. A baddie DF - regardless of what you try to argue here ("it's me in general", implying this isn't alignment indicative) - a baddie DF simply doesn't care as much about those principles.DFaraday wrote:Weak voting logic isn't necessarily bad, no, but Wilgy's line of reasoning felt less genuine to me than INH's did. And it's not civvie DF who's generally against meta-gaming, it's me in general. I probably just tacked that on to seem like I had more to say about Wilgy.Turnip Head wrote:Voting for someone because their voting logic is weak isn't really a reason to vote for someone because weak logic isn't a baddie trait. DF's last sentence here is just groupthink. "People said something about Wilgy, it must be true." I can't be arsed to find links from other games, but I feel like civvie-DF is against this type of metagaming, especially when he's just parroting other people's conclusions about it and not explicitly agreeing with those findings, simply bringing it up as part of his vote.DFaraday wrote:I will be *voting Wilgy* because his voting logic was weak and the follow-up with INH has left me feeling that INH was more genuine. Also, it's been brought up that this is apparently reminiscent of baddie Wilgy in earlier games.
I still don't think that makes much sense... baddies don't huddle together and say "If only we can shine the spotlight on our teammate and have her dominate discussion, the rest of us can hide!"... because that's just never a baddie's Plan A... but I'll leave this point alone.DFaraday wrote:What I was getting at is that, as we saw in the Eternal Night, there were more people supporting SVS than not. So what I thought might happen is we'd have a day spent debating SVS, but then she doesn't get lynched, so then the next day phase we keep debating about her. It would keep the focus away from actually looking for other baddies and provide the baddies with yet another night for an NK.
That's not what you did though. You thought SVS was bad before she died, and then after she died you still seemed to lean that way, only framing it differently. After you made a thing about not indulging in the more convoluted scenario, you twisted yourself into the more convoluted scenario to keep your opinion on SVS's alignment the same.DFaraday wrote:Weren't you just saying it's not suspicious for someone to change their mind suddenly and without reason?Turnip Head wrote:Earlier DF took a hard stance on SVS, saying the case for her being civ was more convoluted than the case for her to be bad, and now that she's dead, he's not ruling out that her own team killed her. Again this doesn't fit the premise of DF's earlier post about the benefits of SVS's move if she's bad, so it feels like more bullsuit.
Voting for someone because their voting logic is weak isn't really a reason to vote for someone because weak logic isn't a baddie trait. DF's last sentence here is just groupthink. "People said something about Wilgy, it must be true." I can't be arsed to find links from other games, but I feel like civvie-DF is against this type of metagaming, especially when he's just parroting other people's conclusions about it and not explicitly agreeing with those findings, simply bringing it up as part of his vote.DFaraday wrote:Finally caught up.
I don't necessarily find Quin's statements/actions suspicious, since I get what he was trying to say. It can be beneficial to the town to do things besides directly lynching baddies. In this particular case I don't think Quin's fixation on Pam is particularly helpful, but I don't find him overtly suspicious because of it.
I will be *voting Wilgy* because his voting logic was weak and the follow-up with INH has left me feeling that INH was more genuine. Also, it's been brought up that this is apparently reminiscent of baddie Wilgy in earlier games.
Why is "His posts made me feel better about him" not enough reason for DF? He seems oddly attentive to this issue, as if he was paying attention to who suspected Quin and now he's bummed that they've changed their minds. What exactly did DF think was at play here when he made this point? Did he think Quin's accusers were his teammates? Not likely, because DF had defended Quin himself until this point. This is a contrived reason to look at these three players, IMO.DFaraday wrote:Both the Epi voters and the leetic voters are pinging me a bit, as I haven't seen any reason to suspect either of them. Although it's possible that Bea and Splints could be forced by Meredith.
What's more noticeable to me is the shift in attitude of the Day 1 Quin voters:
S~V~S wrote: I was out all weekend and had to read Quin in ISO; would it surprise you to hear that his output during the night period made me feel much better about him? Would it surprise you to hear that his vote made me feel even better?DrumBeats wrote: Also would not surprise me to hear that the night made you feel better about Quin, I feel a bit better about him myself. The vote making you feel better surprises me a bit, but whatever floats your boat3 of the 4 Quin voters now feel good about him (DB even listed Quin as civ) with basically no reasoning for this shift beyond, "His posts made me feel better about him." BWT's especially strikes me as an easy way to springboard off of what the others said without offering any new thoughts on Quin. I'll be looking at these three for the remainder of the phase to see if anything else stands out to me.birdwithteeth11 wrote: I know I definitely am not. We're less than 24 hours away from Day 2 ending, Quin's posts since after the Day 1 lynch have started to make me feel better about him, and I'm currently catching up and have zero suspicions on anyone. Although part of that may be because this is a very large game and most large games take me a bit longer to start to sink in and get more concrete ideas.
Here's the biggest piece of evidence for me. It's clear that in this post, DF's premise is that SVS is bad and took out Quin to get the neverending night. But I want to call attention to one sentence in particular:DFaraday wrote:I agree with DB that this scenario presents a huge benefit for the Mafia. Since the day phase was so short, we're essentially in three straight night phases, where the baddies can keep killing unchecked. Add in Quin's death, and the Mafia basically get 4 kills in a row while we're sitting ducks. Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer. It absolutely seems worth it for a Mafia member to risk themselves for what amounts to an extended period of thread domination and kills free of reprisal.
Besides, the reasons for SVS being civ are all more convoluted than her being bad. The whole "No baddie would risk themselves like that!" angle is pure WIFOM, and the scenario in which SVS just happened to vote super early, and the baddies just happened to know she would vote super early, and just happened to be around to send in a PM fast enough that no other players had even left a placeholder vote all strains credulity more than the notion that SVS is complicit.
If SVS is bad as DF presumes, then "a divisive argument over whether she should be lynched" does not "stall things in the baddies' favor"; on the contrary, it keeps the spotlight focused on one of their own and forces the rest of the team to take a stance on her. That doesn't work in the baddies' favor. DF's argument in this sentence doesn't fit the premise of the rest of his post, which makes me think he's just bullshitting to justify a contrived opinion. Read this sentence over again. I argue that what he says here makes no sense and shows that DF doesn't actually believe SVS is bad.DFaraday wrote:Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer.
Earlier DF took a hard stance on SVS, saying the case for her being civ was more convoluted than the case for her to be bad, and now that she's dead, he's not ruling out that her own team killed her. Again this doesn't fit the premise of DF's earlier post about the benefits of SVS's move if she's bad, so it feels like more bullsuit.DFaraday wrote:I was inclined to think bad before the NK, and I'm rather unsure at this point. I'm not ruling out that she was killed by her team, since that's more plausible than you seem to think.Enrique wrote:What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?
Matt's lack of defense is not a reason to vote for him, it's an excuse to vote for him. His only other mention of Matt before this vote on Day 4 was back on Day 0, where he hedged his bets:DFaraday wrote:I think DB makes a good point about Matt wanting to know about the Night phases, and as Matt doesn't seem interested in defending himself, I'll go ahead and *vote Matt*
That was on Day 0 and it's hardly damning, and there's no mention of Matt again until he votes for him on Day 4. DF was looking for an easy vote here and he found it.DFaraday wrote:The only one who looks at all shady here is Matt, but every game I think Matt is suspicious for his weird gameplay, so I don't want to read too much into that just yet.
I just thought this was funny because 20% of DF's posts are participating in the GTH exerciseDFaraday wrote:I actually agree with INH. I don't see much value in GTH, and I certainly wouldn't base suspicion off of what anyone put in their GTH.
Epignosis wrote:You are musically ignorant. You win a prize:Scotty wrote:[snip]
Awww, well it's the thought that counts! But maybe Dom will be a nice guy and let it count count, too!juliets wrote:What happened?? It gave others the chance to vote twice but would only let me vote once. Poo. I don't understand.
Oh okay you're right, I wasn't suspicious of Lorab. My badScotty wrote:Ok I would hardly call those suspicions.
Thats like giving a high school crush a dandelion, witnessing her smile, never seeing her again and 10 years later showing up on her doorstep with divorce papers signaling that our marriage isn't working out any more.
I'm saying that's a jump to consider starting a CFD on someone in the last 10 minutes of day.
Wut. How is that "a huge gamble"? I was trying to find someone to lynch. When I rejoined the discussion at the end of the lynch I wasn't feeling the top candidates.Scotty wrote:TH on the other hand...
-Has one mention a few days ago where he lists 5 people he suspects in order, LoRab being #4. No reasoning or prior talking.
-Agrees to place a vote on timmer (I assume because he agreed with my case)
-Says he will vote where Enrique votes,
-Then attempts to start a CFD on LoRab. Because...This is a huge gamble if TH is civ. Could be just testing waters to muss up the Mafia groove and see if they scramble, but on someone who he only just now mentions as not around? I ain't buyin it. This stinks like a setup to me. His ghost vote for Sorsha at the end also does nothing for me, even if it did catch what I would assume is a serial killer type.LoRab hasn't posted at all this phase, so that's unsettling. Whatchyu thinking, LoRab?
I don't blame DB for making the jump to LoRab, as I said before. It's pulling a name out of a hat for someone who [claims] to be silenced. It seemed random and unjustified for the timeline, and if TH is civ, I strongly disagree with the playstyle.
Dom told us to pick a civilian. It'd be pretty evil for him to set us up for failure like that.Scotty wrote:To y'all that have votes in the non-changeable poll already:
You realize that by voting yourself you could be setting yourself up for the opposite of a benefit?
I'm just saying, in Office Space, that stapler dude got his own office. In the basement. In isolation.
Golden wrote:gth reads for golden. Go! - coward
DrumBeats wrote:GTH:
Spacedaisy - mafia
timmer - town
Juliets - town
DrumBeats wrote:GTH:
Scotty - town
Serge - town
Turnip Head - mayor of townville
DrumBeats wrote:Humor them INH.
GTH
espers - who knows
insertnamehere - ask me again tomorrow
LoRab - same
DrumBeats wrote:GTH:
enrique - town
Epignosis - town
fingersplints - mafia
I think so. Why, do you think I missed something?Enrique wrote:Is that it?Turnip Head wrote:My answer is "Because this is a game of mafia".Scotty wrote:I'll read your ISO on her in a bit, but why in gods green earth is that a justifiable reason to vote for someone in the last 10 minutes?DrumBeats wrote:LoRab has been lurking a lot though. I keep seeing her online browsing this. Plus the sketchy Quin push and weird stance on SVS that felt forced.Enrique wrote:... no sorry. been busy.DrumBeats wrote:Did you read my LoRab ISO?
Either way, CFDs are lame. Especially on players who haven't been around at all.
This question is for TH also.
No but really I already explained why my vote was in flux. Sadly I wasn't around enough this phase to discuss it much.
Linki: Oh snap
DrumBeats wrote:Gun to Head:
bea - town
DFaraday - mafia
Drumbeats - town
My answer is "Because this is a game of mafia".Scotty wrote:I'll read your ISO on her in a bit, but why in gods green earth is that a justifiable reason to vote for someone in the last 10 minutes?DrumBeats wrote:LoRab has been lurking a lot though. I keep seeing her online browsing this. Plus the sketchy Quin push and weird stance on SVS that felt forced.Enrique wrote:... no sorry. been busy.DrumBeats wrote:Did you read my LoRab ISO?
Either way, CFDs are lame. Especially on players who haven't been around at all.
This question is for TH also.
