Search found 959 matches
Return to “[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)”
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:33 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
motel room
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:35 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Yes. I graded it because Jay brought every single interaction with Bullzeye to the table, and explained them all as indicative as me being mafia. I'm not Bullzeye's teammate, my interactions with MacDougall speak the opposite, and I believe he pushed some points beyond reason.Diiny wrote:Were you scoring how J made you out to look vs how you think you objectively look in the thread with that grading system MM?
I didn't grade the SK case, no. Jay didn't like it, and it was a little silly of me.
I don't like that Jay offered me as the only lynch option today. I know this is hypocritical, because I haven't offered anyone, but I'm in a quandary because my top suspect was killed off and I'm defending from a thousand missiles.
My vote will likely go to Wilgy because I know I don' want to be lynched. I'm aslo on the road so won't be around much.
Linki: I would go Diiny. Motel room next. But i cant remember much more to them other than their not posting Night 5 atm.
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:57 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Strawhenge is wrong, for what it's worth.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Considering Metalmarsh89 as a Psycho Killer candidate:
MM pokes in on a SK-relevant conversation without saying anything.Spoiler: show
I thought Epignosis was the PSK at the time.
Contests Matt's Mac-as-SK theory by asking a question implying it could be someone else (without actually naming anyone who might have "performed their job better").Spoiler: show
If you're suggesting that I could have been the other challenger and won, check out my Day 4 posts (presumably when the contest happened). I won't win any contests with those.
And reading Matt's original post here, he implied that he was the Syndicate challenger and lost. Then again, I'm from RYM, so that doesn't say anything. Still, I have not been involved in any contests.
Matt states some uncertainties about his Mac-as-SK read but still pushes his lynch "to see if he's wrong". MM suggests he is "not opposed" despite his prior contesting of the theory.Spoiler: show
This statement was in response to lynching MacDougall. I was not opposed to doing that.
MM is incredulous about Mac's stated strategy for hunting the SK but still calls it a "good plan". As basic as it might seem -- "rogues love to talk about their role" really is a proven thing in my experience. For some reason many self-aligned players just can't resist the need to involve their own role in discussion even when it doesn't need to be there. I've seen it multiple times. Mac may have been mafia, but I think he was being serious here.Spoiler: show
That comment was tongue-in-cheek, in that I was calling out MacDougall for doing the thing he suspected other players of doing. He wanted to look for players who were talking about the PSK, and I pointed out that he was one of the primary players doing that.
I think this post might have temporarily sent Epi into hunting MM as a SK candidate, and it's one that makes me suspicious too. Epi made a frank statement with pretty obvious implications, and MM felt the need to butt in and say this. I don't understand what interest MM would have in making this post unless he felt personally affected by Epi's comment. I asked him what this post was about at the time and he responded as follows:Spoiler: show
Again, it was from the previous post that I suspected Epignosis as the PSK. I made this post because of what I thought that he was.
MM expanded on his post by stating the obvious in four separate bullets. He called Epi's claim "loaded" which is mildly accusatory, but the reasons given to describe it as "loaded" can be applied to nearly any role-relevant post in any game ever. MM's response to Epi smelled to me like someone dipping his toes into waters that he didn't need to be exploring and now the smell has become more potent with time and evidence. I think it might be self-revealing.Spoiler: show
You asked for the reasons, and I gave you the reasons. I didn't say it at the time, but I thought Epignosis was the PSK, and at times, I was poking him to see how he responded.
I don't understand your accusation. I was correct in calling it a loaded statement. Even if it can be applied to other similar comments, this is more crucial since we're talking about a Psyhco Serial Killer, so I think you're undervaluing the importance of that.
Orange: MM introduces a theory to associate Epignosis with the SK role -- suggests it was an "act of vengeance" against Golden to kill him based on what happened (or rather did not happen) in Recruitment IV. This seems like a dubious premise to me: that Epi would favor an emotional kill choice over a strategic kill choice. He strikes me as the opposite sort. Anyone else is welcome to contest that.
The main reason I suggested this theory is that in a game several months ago, Epignosis was a baddie, and Black Rock was his partner. In a couple games previous to that, I was mafia, and had twice killed Black Rock on Night 1. Epignosis asked her who she wanted to nightkill, she listed my name for that reason, and Epignosis went through with it.
This theory is kinda moot though, because the Recruitment thing turned out to be incorrect assumption on my part.
MM contests Mac's most absurd Epi-as-SK assertion with a point that would actually seem to support it. Sending in a declined attempt is logistically the same thing as missing the attempt. Illogical application of SK hunting/defending.Spoiler: show
I wasn't contesting his theory though. I was just being pedantic about it. My point was that if you have a night action, and you choose not to use it, you would have to send a PM to the host saying such if you don't want your participation score to potentially get dinged. So I was saying that sending in a Pass is different than missing a PM.
And no, that is not illogical application of such a role. Imagine you can nightkill every night, but choose to skip Night 2, 4, and 6. The civilians would be lulled into a false sense of security, and BAM, you kill someone Night 8. You do sacrifice some nightkills in the process, but depending on how things are progressing, this can insight panic in the thread. I guess you could call it a high-risk, high-reward strategy.
But I still had another theory at the time about the PSK, which I thought was applicable. That theory has been proven incorrect though.
Important moment in which MM promotes a theory about the SK's lack of kill attempt on Night 5 alternative to Epi's theory about who did not post. He has since reverted to Epi's theory, which would seemingly exonerate MM.Spoiler: show
Yes, my theory was that the PSK could nightkill twice on one night, and forfeit his following nightkill clearly that was incorrect.
I have a new theory now that the PSK can nightkill twice on one night if he wants to, but the odds of his targets dying is reduced to 50%. On nights when the PsychoKiller nightkills twice, he is 4 for 6. On nights he nightkills one player, he is 3 for 4, the one unsuccessful attempt coming on Night 7 against the same player that mafia targeted.
Epi started pursuing MM as a SK propsect on Day 6 and one of MM's responses was this. He only complained about Epi's point of focus, not his actual read, and then OMGUSed. Weak.Spoiler: show
Again, I thought Epignosis was the PSK. This was not a sudden OMGUS, even if it looked like one. Also, like the case with Strawhenge, I can't address a read that doesn't have anything to back it up. Considering this whole interaction with Epignosis Jay, I think it's mighty inconsistent of you to bring up just a single point from that whole discussion, misrepresent my responses, and call it weak. My responses to Epignosis were spot-on, and Epignosis later retreated and acknowledged this. You also failed to address that Epignosis absolved his read of me being the PSK after the interaction for various reasons.
I looked at the point of focus, because I felt the Epignosis was trying to frame me for the role that he was. Epignosis clearly did not think I was mafia, and later backed off of the PSK read (as you may notice).
Epignosis's targeting of me was inconsistent with his strategy and his intelligence, as I continually pointed out. He knew this, and as we know now, his attempts were to see how other players responded to it.
Strawhenge (Psycho Killer victim) was getting into the heat of his anti-MM crusade here and MM discredited his entire attack merely because it came at the same time as Epignosis's (Psycho Killer victim) attack.Spoiler: show
Strawhenge mimicked Epignosis's case (which Epignosis later reversed). How is this behavior from Strawhenge a good look to you?
Then he asked a ridiculous question to Epi to promote himself as a non-SK candidate. The simple answer is: yes, MM, it seems perfectly logical for you to help lynch seaside on Day 7 and leave me as the odds-on favorite to be lynched right after him. Two for the price of one. I was able to regain my footing, but you didn't know that then.
This question is not ridiculous JaggedJimmyJay. Epignosis made the exact same response later on to being accused of being PSK (to which no beef was attributed). Anyway, you are the most vocal and active participant in this game, and you were on the chopping block on Day 7. I was the first one to move my vote from you to seaside after Epignosis did. The fact that I moved my vote, and the timing of my vote, should be a good look for me, but you're calling it ridiculous.
No, you weren't the odds-on favorite to get lynched next. Even if you put hindsight aside.
This is the point in the game where I think the MM-as-SK case starts to become truly compelling.
Here's MM's fullest rebuttal/OMGUS to Epi in the SK debate they were having. He gripes about Epi's responses getting "shorter and shorter" (this is Epi we're talking about here) and lacking in extensive explanation (this is Epi we're talking about here). Nothing in this post is inspiring or even sensible.Spoiler: show
How is this not sensible? Not only did his responses get shorter and shorter, but they were getting less-enthusiastic, and he was backpedaling. Again, Epignosis pointed out that it was a gambit later, so his sincerity is doubtful.
I realize that Epignosis has been NK'd by the PSK so he cannot be that role now, but I was pretty certain that he was at the time, and even before then. I've already pointed out above some of the previous instances of me suspecting Epignosis, even if I didn't pursue it until he made a move.
MM again insists that his move from a JJJ vote to a seaside vote on Day was not SK-compatible (absolutely false) and then pushes the agenda that a lynch of a mafia player is the higher priority because of the potential to skip a night phase. That is itself a fair perspective, but look at where he develops from that: "Epi is trying to get me lynched without calling me a mafia read. This means he's the SK."
I disagree about the Jay--->seaside vote, but I already explained this.
What?
Why doesn't this make sense for a mafia Epi who is just trying to generate a mislynch? Why doesn't it make sense for a town Epi who believes the SK is the eminent threat of the day and is trying to get his top SK read lynched? How can we make the immediate jump to "Epi is the SK" from this? The thought process makes no sense to me, and it just reads as total OMGUS.
I saw plenty of reason to exonerate Epignosis as mafia. Also, I know I'm not the PSK, so my actions were made with that in mind. Again, my suspicion of Epignosis came as early as Night 4. This was not an immediate jump to Epignosis being the PSK.
It is important to state that later Epi clarified his move against MM as a SK candidate was a gambit to expose people who'd latch on. That revelatory post follows:
The highighted portion reveals that Epi didn't think MM is the SK for a "reason obvious to him". He's likely referring to the Night 5 scenario in which there was no kill attempt and MM had numerous posts -- implying he didn't miss a PM. I think there's good reason to believe Epi's ploy was correctly placed, even if by accident, and I frankly think MM handled it poorly. If one has absolute trust in the Night 5 theory Epi proposed then there you go, but that's a dangerous proposition -- particularly when MM himself proposed an alternative.Spoiler: show
Actually, Epignosis' theory is very probable, as I believe anyone can admit. I was latching on to my theory because I proposed it.
Day 9 priorities are still mafia-centric emerging from the Floyd lynch.Spoiler: show
3 dead mafia in 3 days. I felt like that was the best time to get after it, even if I failed in that department.
Still suspects Epi heavily as the SK even in light of Epi revealing his ruse.Spoiler: show
Epignosis did a similar thing Long Con did on Day 1 and even admitted it. I think that was deserving of suspicion.
Fuzz associated MM with the SK role on Day 10 and MM responded with accusations of misinterpretation. I do think the point he made about Choutas looked fake though (that Choutas's self-meta was a good look but couldn't exonerate him).Spoiler: show
MM again pushes a perspective that is nonsense. A SK still has plenty of reasons to care who is lynched and to employ strategic votes.Spoiler: show
The way I explained sure looks that way. But still, I believe that move does not make sense for someone who is trying to keep under the radar. The vote makes sense from a civilian or mafia perspective, but not a PSK perspective.
MM now pushes Epi's theory of Night 5 non-posters as SK candidates. He seems to have discarded his own proposed alternative theory and is pursuing the one that doesn't feature him as a suspect.Spoiler: show
As I've said, my own theory has proven false, so why would I continue to stick by it? What do you think about that theory?
Okay, so...? What do you conclude given this correction?Spoiler: show
That Bullzeye is unlikely the PSK, as has been proven.
I dropped in early on Day 12 with a strongly-worded anti-MM statement. What was his primary concern?Spoiler: show
When I posted it.
Your timing is suspicious. If you are a civilian, and you fear that you might be nightkilled (maybe you didn't for some other reasons, but I'll not go there), why would you wait until just after the day starts and say "Hey, this guy is probably the PSK!"
Your timing looks reactionary to the results of the previous night, and that is why I find it suspicious.
~~~
Conclusion:
MM has made a concerted effort in this game to discuss the SK a lot more often than most players tend to, and in so doing he has maneuvered his suspicions in convenient manners while offering nonsense defenses for himself. If the SK really didn't send a PM on Night 5 then fine, but that theory doesn't have to define the entire nature of the SK hunt. That's a big pill to swallow frankly. I think there are plenty of reasons to associate MM with the SK role.
Let's return to #legacyofstrawhenge2015.
This came in Straw's first post after the simultaneous failed night kills of Night 7 on the same target.Strawhenge wrote:He's either Life During Wartime or Psycho Killer. Vote him immediately.
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:10 am
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I am being defiant, you're right.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I didn't say you can't, I asked why you did. It might make sense if it represented some attempt by you to get a grasp of my motivations and thus perhaps a better read on my alignment, but the progression of your behavior does not seem to support that notion.Metalmarsh89 wrote:3) You're a harsh bastard, aren't you. Why can't I grade your case?
I've explained some of my behavior in the response to the Bullzeye-study. It was difficult to keep up with all of your content in the thread before. Now it's 10 times as bad because all of your posts are directed at me, and you keep hollering at me.
Now if you call the Bullzeye thing a case it's a weak case. My understanding was that it was a collection of interactions, independent of a specific alignment read. However, you looked at every post in the light of how it could view me as a Bullzeye teammate. So I graded each post on how far you had reached in some points.
I know my interactions with Bullzeye look bad. After the Day 5 lynch, I developed a civvie read on him based on his attitude. Then I got lazy, and never got around to changing it. I did look at the Epignosis case when he posted it. I felt that with the exception of the MacDougall interaction, the looks were weak, so I passed on it.
The total is not arbitrary. I added up all of the points you scored. I gave you a 0/10 when you misinterpreted my intentions with my posts.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Does this mean something to you? You've asserted that my case was bad enough to warrant a poor grade and presented this arbitrary total to discredit it. This is the issue I'm having with you right now: everything you're doing seems to be aimed at building a pile of doubt over everything I say.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay got a score of 37/130 on my. That's a 28.5%, or a D on a large curve.
But this is mafia where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
If a point I make warrants a "0/10" grade, then it should be a simple matter to destroy it and leave yourself looking better. Your responses do not achieve that. I'll why I feel that way shortly.
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:33 am
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Oh, and I'll get to the SK case you made as well Jay.
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:31 am
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
There was only one roleblocker though, and two kills survived. So it is more likely that one player was protected (by his own power or another).Russtifinko wrote:Ok, trying to keep this brief because I am dead tired.
So based on this, if we have any idea at all when Choutas might have flipped, then we can figure out whether the SK is Syndicate or RYM, right? And if we do that and cross-reference it with who didn't post on N5, we might be able to narrow down the SK to a very very few players? I would do it myself, but I am unable to figure out whether the above means the SK would be Synd or RYM. I'd be grateful to wiser people who were able to get on it.Metalmarsh89 wrote:False.
Night 5: Nobody was removed from the poll on Day 6, so nobody could have been roleblocked. One of his powers wouldn't have gone through without the other one.
Night 7: Choutas was removed from the poll Day 8, meaning that somebody from the Syndicate was roleblocked. Remember that I am from RYM in this game.
Those were the two nights that Life during Wartime attempted and failed to perform a nightkill. The Night 7 one is more relevant because Strawhenge made his comment on Day 8, and Psycho Killer made a kill attempt that night (that also failed).
My point is that Strawhenge could not have targeted me on Night 7, as his roleblock would have had to gone to a Syndicate member.
I honestly think this might be the most important issue today. I think getting baddies > getting the SK under normal circumstances, but the reality at this point is that this guy could potentially kill twice tonight, and getting him now could save us from that.
Also, Post #8,000 ftw.
- Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:16 am
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
1&2) Alright, I'll drop the CEO thing. But if your posts that I linked to Diiny aren't related to the CEO thing, then I expect an explanation for the obscure comments in them.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:1.) At no point did I suggest people should trust me more because of my ACEO position. That's MM talking, not me. I have my reasons for thinking he's bad, and I put up two big cases to express the suspicion in terms everyone can understand.
2.) Anything related to my ACEO role is not going into this thread, and any demands to the contrary will be ignored.
3.) Marsh, why are you grading the case? Your mindset is very difficult to reconcile with that of a townie right now regardless of how hard you think I'm trying. You're being defiant, not earnest.
3) You're a harsh bastard, aren't you. Why can't I grade your case?
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:56 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
There is no Straw case though.Diiny wrote:I've been phone bound today, but I'm reading this mm Jay thing with interest at the moment. What a surprise to have heard noting from wilgy. I'll post tomorrow w/ all thoughts and questions and questions.
Can you show me an example of the CEO trust thing from J, MM? I think he's just trying to get you to engage with the straw case itself. Please, show me he's doing what you're claiming because that sounds questionable
But yeah, there's this post. And there's this one
What do you think?
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:33 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Jay got a score of 37/130 on my. That's a 28.5%, or a D on a large curve.
But this is mafia where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
But this is mafia where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:13 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Metalmarsh89's content about Bullzeye:
*NOTE* -- I have deliberately avoided thoroughly reviewed Rico's own work on this interaction before producing this.
MM brought this out in Night 4 after the Sorsha lynch. He was half-contesting the notion that Devin was saved by Sorsha voters and noted that Bullzeye was the only person to really be pushing that agenda. I've highlighted a portion here that I think promotes an illogical thought process. While we know now that Devin was not "saved", we didn't know that then and that means a townie must approach the scenario from that mindset of uncertainty. MM portrays that mindset here, but arrives at a distinct conclusion (against the notion of a save) via a line of thinking that doesn't make sense. He's acknowledged that the Sorhsa/Devin wagons were at one point tied 7-7 and still discards the notion of a save because "Devin never had the lead" -- this is erroneous to the point of being dubious. A tied tally between a townie and a potential mafioso is literally a perfect scenario for a save to be possible.Spoiler: show
Why do I care? Because this line of thinking was his setup for throwing a little shade on Bullzeye. If a line of thinking appears so wrong that it's sincerity can be doubted, and it is applied to a soft criticism of a confirmed mafioso, then the potential for a team mate relationship is perfectly believable. Moreover, MM hardly followed up on this. The following post is essentially the extent of that effort:
I saw talk of the lynch being a savejob, so I asked players who thought this way to explain why it would be a save. Then after rereading the posts again, I realized that Bullzeye was the only player who called it a save.
0/10 points
He again names Bullzeye but it's barely accusatory and even invites the discussion to expand well beyond just Bullzeye.Spoiler: show
It was directed at Bullzeye because he was the only player who declared that the Sorsha lynch was a civ. There is nothing wrong with opening up the discussion to other players.
0/10 points
On Day 5 Bullzeye throws a pretty meaningless theory into the thread and MM asks a rather neutral question about it.Spoiler: show
I agree that his theory was meaningless, which is why I responded with a question that was intended to point out it doesn't help us.
0/10 points
MM chats with Bullzeye about Matt's SK theory for Mac (suggesting the theory was both logical and had a hole rendering it impossible --Spoiler: show).
I'm of the opinion that even though Matt's theory here was impossible, he came to a logical conclusion with the information that he had observed. This is different than many of Matt's other theories, which lacked logical approaches.
0/10 points
After I'd started to doubt the Devin lynch as a good option, MM dropped this question on me. I didn't really consider it a significant moment before, but it could be now. I'm not sure why the sincerity of Devin's vote is being checked against his "voting for Bullzeye for meta". I don't understand the logic being drawn here, and I don't understand why Bullzeye's name is present in this post.Spoiler: show
I included Bullzeye's name because Devin and Bullzeye had a back-and-forth where Devin ended up voting Bullzeye, and then later self-voted. That's how things unfolded after you claimed to read Devin's intentions as pure.
2/10 points
Day 6 "don't lynch" includes Bullzeye. I'm not automatically perturbed that a confirmed mafioso is on this list, because mistakes happen to everyone. What troubles me is that I have no idea why Marsh came to this perspective by this point in the game. His only content relevant to Bullzeye before this point had largely read-independent questions and to contest Bullzeye's Devin-was-saved agenda. Honestly considering the way Bullzeye played this game from the word "Go" it's hard to understand how anyone would include him on this list, and I don't see content in MM's history to support this.Spoiler: show
Things like this are exactly why I ask people these silly questions and for GTH reads. This is a distinct and important point in which MM took a significant stance on a player and it can allow us to judge him more conclusively.
I don't know if I have a good explanation for this. Even though I had mentioned him a few times before, nothing jumped out at me that made me want to consider putting my vote on him, so I included him on my Don't Lynch list.
8/10 points
- He GTH reads Bullzeye as good on Day 7.
- Bullzeye is the towniest shade of blue in a Day 9 rainbow.
I asked him what made him feel good about Bullzeye. He gave me "vibes".Spoiler: show
It's Day 9 and we're talking about "vibes".
Yeah. And I realized that when you asked me that question, though I admitted that I had not bothered to consider a change by paying attention to him.
10/10 points
MM tells Epi he's reading his case against Bullzeye on Day 9. I don't see any post in which he shares his thoughts on that case though.Spoiler: show
In case you couldn't tell, I can be all over the place. I never did respond to your BR ISO (though I still have half of a response in a draft). I've not finished my ISO on you. When I become this invested in analyzing a game, this is just what happens. See Flash Mafia, and forigve me for not being as responsbile as some players.
5/10 points
Epi expanded on his meta read of Bullzeye which led to an extended discussion on the matter. He explores the meta question a little bit with past game examples and ends up granting that Bullzeye's subdued handling of Mac's accusation "seems like a scumtell" before pledging to double-check further.Spoiler: show
MM draws out a specific example of a game in which Bullzeye, as mafia, behaved similarly to what he did in response to Mac in this game. Seems like a pretty significant find, we'll see what effect it has on MM's read. There's evidence of a shift here in MM's perspective of Bullzeye, but there hasn't been a distinct accusation yet.Spoiler: show
MM talks to Choutas about Bullzeye and the flavor of this post is mostly soft-defensive. Choutas asserted a single statement Bullzeye made was pingy and MM dissuaded that read. He then qualified that he felt Bullzeye as a townie has the tendency to react abrasively to info-dumping as opposed to cases -- a step back from the prior progression MM was making away from the town read on Bullzeye.
One obvious question I'd ask is: why would Bullzeye abrasively combat info-dumping about him if he's town? The rule-breaking might not be savory, but it wouldn't threaten his position in the game like it might if he is mafia. In any event the important thing here is that MM's momentary straying from the town read seems to be ending here.
I assumed that Bullzeye would act abrasively if info was dumped even as civilian. He is very anti-infodumping and rule-breaking (especially when it involves him), so I assumed that would be his behaviour.
2/10 points
Compare the language MM employs here to talk about Bullzeye with the language he uses about every other read in this post. Only with Diiny does he offer up a waffle of a sentence like "I had thoughts before, which have been replaced by other players I've looked at since". He still gives a distinct read on Diiny though -- that his contributions have been poor and him being "go-along". These are criticisms, even if the post does not commit to moving against him. With everyone else he comes to a clear read.Spoiler: show
In retrospect this all looks awful. This was a product of me doing the Bullzeye vote-count at night (and Choutas and I think Diiny as well), doing the rest the next morning, and compiling my thoughts afterward. My thoughts on the first three players were less coherent and fresh than the other player because of the belated compiling.
But yes this looks awful. I don't have a defense for this, other than I just felt surer about reads on other players, and cared more to pursue them.
10/10 points
With Bullzeye, he is the Great Emperor Waffle of Eggopolis. He acknowledges that the MacDougall interaction Epi and I mentioned exists, but he doesn't actually say anything about it. He doesn't say anything about anything with regards to Bullzeye.
"Nothing stood out as super-civ, but nothing bad either. I don't know I'll have to revisit him again I think."
This sentence can be found the Mafia Encyclopedia of Non-committal Reads.
He did give us a rainbow immediately after this post though.
Dead center.Spoiler: show
Yer damn right.Spoiler: show
Vote compilation -- the effort here is appreciated regardless of your alignment MM. I must say though that you put up a lot of posts within this framework and I'm not sure you did very much to take anything from it. In RYM #82 I put up a complete vote compilation as a mafioso because it was the easiest way to Look The Part without actually doing anything. I think it's a good possibility this is the same thing.
I'll be honest. After I did all of this vote-compiling (and going through half of your posts), I felt very... uneasy (I think that's the word I want). I felt a little burnout. I felt like everyone had a reason to be bad. Everything I was reading was easy to accept and acknowledge, I just completely lost the drive to properly analyze things and instead accepted them at face-value.
So I took a long weekend to recharge, dunno if that will be enough.
null points
I explained to MM why I felt Bullzeye's late game behavior (Day 10 at this point) was so suspicious to me that I said he was conceding as a mafioso by drawing a comparison to bcornett (a townie who had a lot of trouble keeping up with the game but still did his best to stay relevant when he could).Spoiler: show
Marsh thought I made a "very good point". What about the point did he like? "The whole salami".
He prodded me for a read on Choutas in the meanwhile.
This is possible the worst vote of the entire game by any player in it. If you look back in Marsh's posts for justifications for his Choutas vote, they exist, but not in any confidence-inspiring clear manner. He mostly criticized Choutas for voting early consistently (this is not a strong accusation frankly) and making one bad vote when he wasn't early. When your entire analytic focus is voting records, it's pretty easy to find someone who looks like a dope and fling poop at them. Even still though, the progression of MM's posts seems tailored to the survival of Bullzeye at the expense of Choutas until the day expires -- without inspiring confidence like I said.Spoiler: show
Yes it looks bad. No other way to put it.
Moreover, when he explained his Choutas vote -- it wasn't even about his voting record. It was this:
motel room specifically asked him why he preferred Choutas over Bullzeye. Instead of referencing his prior voting record compilations (which would have been dubious enough), he cited Choutas's EOD behavior. He acknowledged that I made a "very good point" about Bullzeye's behavior (indeed, "the whole salami" of the point), but moved against Choutas instead without saying why.Spoiler: show
If this mindset existed when the Choutas vote was being placed, why did MM not actually express it? He said he preferred to lynch Choutas and voted for Choutas and that was it. It wouldn't have been hard for him to simply say either to Choutas or to everyone else "I am voting for Choutas because I think his current behavior clashes with his prior stated threats to pursue a modkill". Instead, we get it after the fact and it reads like an excuse.
This post might not mean much but I'll bring it up. He defended Bullzeye against "mafia" suspicion in light of Epi's serial killer theory. This is a weird goof up to make though because pretty much everyone suspecting Bullzeye was doing so on the basis that he's mafia, not that he's the SK.Spoiler: show
It could just be oversight because I didn't even notice it when I responded to this post originally.
Oversight. I meant SK, not mafia.
null points
MM references a specific Mac post which might suggest Fuzz and Bullzeye would be a difficult pairing to argue as mafia. He then maneuvers this into a case against Fuzz and not Bullzeye.Spoiler: show
MM entertains the notion of a Fuzz/Bullzeye pairing by checking into their interactions. This might be important because MM continued to push a Fuzz lynch all day while Bullzeye was still more likely to be lynched (as was Wilgy). If Fuzz weren't dead, this might be something MM would employ against him right now. That's only relevant if Fuzz was town though.Spoiler: show
Admittedly, it's not very likely that RadicalFuzz is mafia at this point. Possible, but unlikely.
Either the SK bought into the idea that RadicalFuzz was mafia, or he's more interested in setting me up. (and this is why I don't like your day-opening statement, because it could have come with that idea in mind).
He specifically selects Fuzz as the more suspicious of the two.Spoiler: show
Bullzeye is MM's low-hanging fruit.Spoiler: show
The Bullzeye vote we needed before finally comes on Day 11 in the form of banter.Spoiler: show
Welp, there it went. He "took the pressure" off of Bullzeye, which was surely suffocating given that banter vote.Spoiler: show
This kind of content is quite important, as this is MM speaking directly with Bullzeye in the heat of the moment -- team mate relationships can be affirmed or denied in these kinds of interactions. In this case he is offering encouragement to Bullzeye by assuring him he isn't automatically going to be lynched. I don't think this post is incompatible with a team mate relationship.Spoiler: show
Ok, now you're tunneling.
0/10 points
MM waffled on Bullzeye some more and then freaked out when I asked him to take an actual stance.Spoiler: show
You already called my behavior from the day before a bad look (and the worst vote in the game). Asking someone to do something you can incriminate them for later is a bad strategy.
0/10 points
Is it possible for this question to yield an insightful response on Day 11?Spoiler: show
Reaffirms his preference for Fuzz as the lynch of the day over Bullzeye.Spoiler: show
The highlighted statement might be fun, because MM was the one who denied having the interest in voting against it -- he sideline-supported the Bullzeye lynch while maintaining a preference for Fuzz (and used his vote accordingly).Spoiler: show
Define fun.
Bullzeye spew about Metalmarsh89:
Spoiler: show
Bantery Day 1 vote excused as "random"? This post is quite belabored. I am not sure it was really random. That implies a strategic intent.
Rico mentions the deathwish posts re: MM and Bullzeye offers a soft defense. This is an easy post for Bullzeye to make regardless of MM's alignment. He bothered to make it though so judge as you may.Spoiler: show
Bullzeye explains his Devin-was-saved agenda to MM. I don't believe there was a follow-up on this as I mentioned earlier.Spoiler: show
Bullzeye celebrates dramatically when MM makes a move against Russ on Day 7.Spoiler: show
Bullzeye responds to Epi's case as well as some Marsh content.
Epi's stuff was a lot more scathing than MM's, so the responses bear that out. Bullzeye is defending himself against Epi and explaining himself to MM.
Bullzeye wrote:Just because I deserve to die (and I do) doesn't mean you should kill me. That'd be too obvious.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ok, Bullzeye. :PBullzeye wrote:Guys, I deserve to die for missing the vote yesterday. I'm so ashamedI never miss votes! I was just so tired I forgot.
Bullzeye's empty promise to do something with his time in the game falls at MM's feet.Spoiler: show
You were keen on scum-spew yesterday. What did you derive from Bullzeye's scumspew of me?
~~~
Conclusion:
It's really easy to see MM in a bad light here. It's just not a good look at any juncture really. The prior analyses re: MM have been rather inconclusive, but this is distinctly bad and icky.
Not convinced? I think a good case can be made that he's the SK too. I'll work on that after I get a little sleep though.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:57 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
You're missing the point. Nobody knows how Strawhenge arrived at his conclusion, so asking players to trust him, knowing that, doesn't make sense.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Marsh, there are a ton of things in this thread that can be illuminated. I illuminated them loudly. Address them as you can and we'll talk about those things. Otherwise you're giving me nothing but insinuations that my word shouldn't be taken as gospel and nor should Strawhenge's -- things that are plainly evident already. Like I said: your focus right now is on my credibility and not the points I've made against you.
That's suspicious. Period.
linki: I didn't tell people to trust me or to trust Strawhenge implicitly. I gave them a case. Two of them.
You told him that over and over again yourself. I don't know why you've changed your opinion on that matter.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:25 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
It wasn't explicit, but I read that Jay is implying that I should be lynched because he is the CEO. He says Strawhenge should be trusted, but he can't tell me why, except that it should be obvious why.motel room wrote:Where did he do that?Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, "Trust me guys, I'm the CEO" =/= "Trust me guys, I'm civilian".
Feel free to correct this statement if it's wrong Jay.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:18 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
If I know what you're talking about, then what's the point? It's frustrating to watch things happen in the thread that can't be illuminated. And it's even more frustrating when I feel like you're taking advantage of that situation.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:There is no "emotional manipulation". There is only me playing Mafia. Sure I was trying to get a rise out of you -- not on any personal level but within the context of this game we've both been playing for an entire month. I'm trying to win, and if you're not on my team then you stand in the way of that. I don't understand why you're concerned with my "pride" right now, and you've still failed to acknowledge the most obvious explanation for my tight-lipped behavior.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay, making predictions of my feelings as I read your responses looks exactly like that. This post in particular looks like you are trying to get a rise out of me, and you are pleased with the thought of that. Why would that make you happy? Why would it be good to be able to emotionally manipulate another player in the game?
My point is, your pride is showing. Check it please.
You shouldn't care about my pride. You should care about my motives and my correctness. You're not challenging my read, you're challenging my credibility.
Also, "Trust me guys, I'm the CEO" =/= "Trust me guys, I'm civilian".
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:00 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Jay, making predictions of my feelings as I read your responses looks exactly like that. This post in particular looks like you are trying to get a rise out of me, and you are pleased with the thought of that. Why would that make you happy? Why would it be good to be able to emotionally manipulate another player in the game?
My point is, your pride is showing. Check it please.
My point is, your pride is showing. Check it please.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:48 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Get off your high-horse dude. Your read of me is incorrect, and you're going to blow this game (for the civilians at least) if you don't quit it.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:That's right.Metalmarsh89 wrote:You're right, I don't. You've refused to answer that question.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression that I have is that you've got quite a bit of "swag" right now, and you consider yourself top stuff. I resent that attitude, and especially at this junction.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:45 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Spoiler: show
- then yes, I would lean on him having seen civ manipulation rather than Drugs, so something working in your favour. But the only civ manipulation with negatives is Blind's, I think? And if so, why would seaside suss one of you out at all?My scum-hunting abilities might not be very good, but I'm still observant, and can make deductions, especially role-related ones.
Some of my theories have obviously proved wrong, but not all of them.
Linki: Hold that thought motel room. I am putting together a response to it, I'm just responding to smaller points and real-time chat too.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:38 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Making what up?motel room wrote:Forget Strawhenge. Do you think JJJ is making it up?
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:38 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
You're right, I don't. You've refused to answer that question.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:33 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
That has nothing to do with Strawhenge.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bullcrap.
I just put up nineteen page cases for you as a mafioso and as a serial killer. I did exactly what I begged Strawhenge to do.
So yes, dropping the point at the end #legacyofStrawhenge or whatever is is worthless if you can't use anything he has to offer.
Imagine another player in this game skipping the majority of the case and going to the bottom line of your case to see your conclusions, and finding that line in there. Using him as a reason to support your case is irrelevant if you have no reason to believe him.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:05 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Jay, after all the effort and "cheerleading" you put forth toward Strawhenge to come up with a logical and apparent reason for everyone to trust him, you're behaving the exact same way.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Guess what time it is? It's time for this emoticon!Metalmarsh89 wrote:So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?
You're seething.
Actually the perfect emoticon right now would be that shrug with the grinface.
Maybe DrWilgy has some thoughts about this.
Your progression is illogical.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:40 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Ok Jay. But I've pointed out a good reason why Strawhenge, even if he is a civilian, can't inherently be trusted.
There is also the case he made on Day 10 against Choutas and his vendetta against him. I know I voted Choutas that day too, but Strawhenge was wrong there.
So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?
Linki: I'm going to Jay, I'm about to leave for a midterm, but I'll be home in a couple hours.
Will you answer my question?
There is also the case he made on Day 10 against Choutas and his vendetta against him. I know I voted Choutas that day too, but Strawhenge was wrong there.
So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?
Linki: I'm going to Jay, I'm about to leave for a midterm, but I'll be home in a couple hours.
Will you answer my question?
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:34 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
This is why.Ricochet wrote:How would an already converted-to-Syndicatee Choutas NOT be able to be removed from the poll on Night 7? That's actually the part that literally would make sense (Choutas as Synner removed, you as Rymer blocked).Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, yes Choutas is Seen but not Seen, which has the ability to change his face and homesite. But had he done that, he would not have been able to be removed from the poll anyway, so that power was not in play.
Seen and Not Seen – During any night, it may try to change its face. "Changing its face" effectively switches the forum this player is from when it comes to all forum-driven role powers, unbeknownst to everyone else. For example, if this player is actually from The Syndicate, it may elect to change its face, and thereafter it is secretly from RateYourMusic, and a power that would previously have affected it because it was from The Syndicate only no longer will do so. It takes two full cycles before this change takes effect.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:25 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Also, yes Choutas is Seen but not Seen, which has the ability to change his face and homesite. But had he done that, he would not have been able to be removed from the poll anyway, so that power was not in play.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:23 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
That is my theory Jay. Do you oppose it?JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Moreover: I was absolutely not clear on what role Strawhenge was. I had some hunches and that one was among them (there were three of four viable candidates that I could think of). That you were clear on him being that specific role would seem to imply that you'd know his roleblocking power would be relevant to his read on you -- aka you knew why he suspected you.
Anyway, in my previous post, I address why Strawhenge would have been wrong.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:22 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
False.
Night 5: Nobody was removed from the poll on Day 6, so nobody could have been roleblocked. One of his powers wouldn't have gone through without the other one.
Night 7: Choutas was removed from the poll Day 8, meaning that somebody from the Syndicate was roleblocked. Remember that I am from RYM in this game.
Those were the two nights that Life during Wartime attempted and failed to perform a nightkill. The Night 7 one is more relevant because Strawhenge made his comment on Day 8, and Psycho Killer made a kill attempt that night (that also failed).
My point is that Strawhenge could not have targeted me on Night 7, as his roleblock would have had to gone to a Syndicate member.
Night 5: Nobody was removed from the poll on Day 6, so nobody could have been roleblocked. One of his powers wouldn't have gone through without the other one.
Night 7: Choutas was removed from the poll Day 8, meaning that somebody from the Syndicate was roleblocked. Remember that I am from RYM in this game.
Those were the two nights that Life during Wartime attempted and failed to perform a nightkill. The Night 7 one is more relevant because Strawhenge made his comment on Day 8, and Psycho Killer made a kill attempt that night (that also failed).
My point is that Strawhenge could not have targeted me on Night 7, as his roleblock would have had to gone to a Syndicate member.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:14 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
If it's not about his role, then what is it?JaggedJimmyJay wrote:That's the fun part. It doesn't even have to be about his role! I bet that's been driving you nuts, eh?Metalmarsh89 wrote:Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.
But you trusted him too. You had him blue in your rainbow. You said he was showing things you recognized in your "RYM research" that made you feel good. Why did you trust your biggest foe in the game?
I think I know what his role is, and if I'm correct, then there is nothing for him implicate me, especially concerning his statement that I am Love during Wartime or Psycho Killer.
I did trust that he was civilian, and I thought it was clear even what role he was (that role being Take Me to the River). That doesn't mean he was correct. See seaside.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:50 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:41 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Jay, you're full of shit.
I'll offer some more elongated responses when I get a chance, but you are stuck in a tunnel now. Your case on DrWilgy yesterday was based on everything that MacDougall said and nothing about what DrWilgy said.
Your case against me is based on my interactions with Bullzeye and no other derivation. The content looks bad, but I'm not basing my whole read on you from your interactions with MacDougall.
You're leaving out way too many pieces of the puzzle for Day 12.
I'll offer some more elongated responses when I get a chance, but you are stuck in a tunnel now. Your case on DrWilgy yesterday was based on everything that MacDougall said and nothing about what DrWilgy said.
Your case against me is based on my interactions with Bullzeye and no other derivation. The content looks bad, but I'm not basing my whole read on you from your interactions with MacDougall.
You're leaving out way too many pieces of the puzzle for Day 12.
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:31 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
More substantive explanation to come.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I checked in at work and that's what time it was. Plus the death of RadicalFuzz without an accompanying "the mafia have been eliminated" or "the serial killer has been eliminated" leaves you square in the crosshairs.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Meantime, why did you make this post immediately after the new day started?
More substantive explanation to come.
Why do you care when I said that?
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:27 am
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 12] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I look forward to your expansions.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Very good chance Marsh is bad. Will expand later. #legacyofstrawhenge
Meantime, why did you make this post immediately after the new day started?
- Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:00 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Bullzeye was wasn't saying much nor giving us anything to work with. I decided to be blunt and ask him if he was intentionally being murky with his statements so as to not reveal anything upon his lynch.RadicalFuzz wrote:I won't state what I think of this yet, lest I misunderstand it and add fuel to the fire, but can you clarify what you mean with this MM?
Bullzeye, are you keeping your cards close to your chest knowing what will result if you are lynched?
- Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:17 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Yeah, that was in reference to the SK theory.Ricochet wrote:-- calls Bullzeye unlikely mafia, based on Epignosis's theory [wasn't that about the SK, though?!]
- Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:29 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
That game barely eclipsed 250 posts in a month. This game has 11 players who have posted 250+ times (including one with 1250)Ricochet wrote:A player called Llama would now have probably pointed you to this game
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:27 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Because I'm terrible.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Marsh your last two final votes are just abysmal, why tho?
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:02 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
This is true. I don't think Jay would continue throwing teammates under the bus for his own gain. He's supatown.Diiny wrote:Gratz, Russ! I'm excited for you!
Wilgy, the last few flips have only been making J look better and better. Why is he scum now, despite being 55% before?
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:00 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
The case against him has been about things that other people have said (MacDougall mainly), not what he's said.Russtifinko wrote:So I went back to read Wilgy expecting to basically see a whole lot of nothing. My gut read of him said it was a guy who tried really hard to start the game (see: ACEO campaign) and has been dropping off steadily since. I was pleasantly surprised, though. He's contributed a lot more substantive content than I thought.
I do see a few points against him, most of which have been brought up already:
- As Diiny mentioned (yesterday?), he has been fairly floppy floppy on RadicalFuzz, even though they read each other well.
- He was mentioned a lot by baddies (JJJ covered this in his scum spew analysis).
- He has posted large graphs and charts with little analysis to accompany them. (A number of people have discussed this already.)
Things I personally don't like are his declining contributions the past Day period or two, and the fact that he keeps asking people to infodump. I'm given to understand that info is cool on RYM, but RadicalFuzz has said that Wilgy knows the rules here. He seems determined to stretch them to their limit.
I actually feel moderately positive on Wilgy now, despite the shade he's getting. I don't really see him as a super likely SK either, since he's taken enough hard stances (Choutas and bcornett) to get some negative attention.
That is what I have gathered.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:58 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I don't know why I said that. I meant to say I would have placed a more meaningful vote.RadicalFuzz wrote:Oh god that formatting. I apologize.
Wilgy if you think I'm scum why did you save me? You had an emphatic defense of me. Why?
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:21 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I gotta go do some homework stuff, but this was a nice update for my spreadsheet. Good work today everyone.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:08 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
If there was a close lynch between someone else, I would have tied it. A unanimous lynch is a different story. Again, you've misunderstood me.RadicalFuzz wrote:By the way, while I'm gloating already, your vote is a one-of off-wagon vote Metalmarsh. The day we lynched scum. Looks like you missed out on all those brownie points, shame.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:04 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Oh damn, my vote for Choutas yesterday looks a lot worse now.RadicalFuzz wrote:I wasn't around then and haven't read it. My vote was more complex than a simple "He said X, X is scum talk, lynch him" so that's why I had exposition about my vote. Would you have preferred me gloss over my reasoning?motel room wrote:Fuzz, the posts I quoted were before and during you casting the vote. Like remember Long Con's eventual vote for Sig early on where he had to backpedal the Bea thing and find a more compelling reason to place his final vote? Reminds me of that. Too-heavy display of reasoning.
MM as I've said all game I have done scummy things. Soft defense of Mac, illogical reasons for not voting Floyd, I'm aware of this. There is no defense to what I did, simply put. What could I possibly say that would make me look better with those moves?
Now you can't accuse me of this because I've already admitted it. :P
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:02 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
HOSTS: Will we be told if a team is eliminated?
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:00 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I understand moving the game along, but I'm against this.MovingPictures07 wrote:If somehow Sloonei and I receive all Night PMs within the next couple of hours and you all are OK with it, we will proceed to Day 12 and I will extend that period to 72 hours.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:55 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [NIGHT 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Yes! Please be Day 12!
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:51 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I don't think you're being genuine.Ricochet wrote:Guys, I'm voting Wilgy. He's the stronger questionable possible teamie, based on what I reviewed from JJJ's scans. Furthermore, he made an unexplained Bullzeye vote, part self def (I suppose 3-2 was close enough), part "lovin" Choutas' case (a player he mislynched a Day ago and never addressed his Bullzeye case) and I can't find a word on suspecting Bullzeye in the last two pages of history. I feel better sussing this.
With Bullzeye, the Going-Through-Head thought is that he wouldn't have made a towel throw smokescreen move, whilst barely having any vote on the tally, and in any situation in which he might have at least one teammate around. Maybe this is imaginable if the SK did damage and he's a lone wolf, but less so otherwise, because you can stil coordinate, you can still prepare at least one liner, you can make a half-assed move.
I genuinely hope everyone voting him turns out to be right, because I genuinely hope this lynch doesn't push the civs into near defeat. But I can't shed the doubts about this move in particular.
:P
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:50 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
Yes, I think he will.Diiny wrote:I mean do you think in your opinion that he's more likely than not to flip scum? Based on your read of him
Because obviously statistically it's the same as everyone else.
But there was no opposition to his lynch. Every single player alive in this game has either listed him as a highly-touted suspect, or has their vote on him right now (except for him of course). Unless there is only one baddie left, it is a little disconcerting.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:47 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I would be lying if I were saying it's not.RadicalFuzz wrote:Metalmarsh, is word usage not important? Words are the only venue we have to communicate, and this is a game about communication. When I made the comment about your desire to lynch me, I wasn't referring to your case against me, I was referring to your very minor efforts to get me lynched. "Vote X with me" is, in my experience, rarely a compelling argument.
But my point is, if I offer an explanation for your scumminess, rather than defend this accusation, you've chosen to dissect the explanation and suggest that I am bad because of how the explanation is portrayed. This is an elegant form of a NO U, and I've pointed it out several times, but you've misunderstood some of my posts with these attempts.
With no explanation as to why the accusation is false, I believe the likelihood that it is true is increased.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:43 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
By probabilities, he has the same odds as everyone else.Diiny wrote:on record, do you believe on the balance of probabilities that he's going to flip scum?Metalmarsh89 wrote:I understand if nobody wants to move their votes at this point. I just hope that this Bullzeye lynch is the correct choice.
Or do you mean something else?
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:38 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I understand if nobody wants to move their votes at this point. I just hope that this Bullzeye lynch is the correct choice.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:32 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
I've stated my reasons for wanting to lynch you before. I've made my suspicions clear. I'm not going to retype them at this moment in time because they are already existing, and time is running short.RadicalFuzz wrote:His desire has amounted to "vote RadicalFuzz with me" so pardon me if I'm not impressed.
If one vote to four at 45 minutes till deadline isn't an off-wagon, then at what point does it become one?
But I have noted your recent, consistent behavior in misreading and discrediting my posts. Many times when I have made a point over the past couple days, you have chosen to address my word usage. You have misrepresented my posts (intentional or not). I brought up an idea to discuss that you linked to my suspicion of you to discredit. And you've also admitted that your behavior at points in this game is scummy, but still seem astonished that I (or Jay or anyone) would call you for it several days later and after you pointed it out first.
You also called me illogical, and I don't even know why. You stated in that post that you skimmed the posts with your name in it, but still managed to come to the conclusion that I am "the worst kind of civilian, who throws logical thought out the window, or scum." That was your response to my ISO of your baddie interactions.
So yeah, I want to lynch you today.
- Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:19 pm
- Forum: Previous Sit Downs
- Topic: [END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
- Replies: 9232
- Views: 322658
Re: [DAY 11] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)
EBWOP: *stated the interest, not denied.