The Syndicate

so what happens in the sequel now since sauron succeeded

frodo nooooo

so? did you do it? did you get the hobbits to isengard?

gah!!! i died after changing my avatar again!!! the curse is real!!!!!!

oh shit i thought this ended later.

first time getting mis-lynched outside of a speed game and it only happened because i forgot to vote

good luck, fellowship

timmer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:43 pm Voted Kylr. I'm stuck at work with an unexpected surgery to process, inh's case is the best of the day

dislike. :[

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:32 pmYes.

niiiice

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:28 pm
Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:52 pm what is the primary difference between a civmac and a mafmac, metawise?
Idk, but I assume if I see Mac a way 3 times and he's civ 3 times and then he's here and he's different and he's kinda sorta saying things that are inconsistent...he's bad.

But maybe I just don't know Mac. (Yeah, I got to say it this time.)

is this a reference to "you don't know jack" the popular computer game from the 90's

I think I see where you're coming from in that post. the Mac I've seen has been incisive and direct. cutting people down with broadswords. I don't see that same energy. his excuse is that he's tired though and like.... I feel that, but he also seems to have given up. He's giving up even though he could easily push for my lynch, he suspected me at some point and we're not even that far apart rn in votes but he just sorta... gave up. he gave legacy reads with more than 24 hours left in the poll

I have no doubt that the change in Mac behavior is in part due to lack of energy, I guess the question is "is that the only reason or is the lack of energy manifesting in a half-assed imitation of his civ play"

what is the primary difference between a civmac and a mafmac, metawise?

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:46 pm
Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:00 pm can someone who's voting for mac explain the case against him
I know you read my post about it. You said it made you think I was more town than before.

me reading and remembering things are not mutually exclusive.

can someone who's voting for mac explain the case against him

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:57 pmJust pick a different color.

no way gross

Once again, you keep willfully ignoring the crux of my argument, continually making me out to not understand basic concepts that I'm actually accusing you of not using in a pro-civilian way. Yes, I know that you were ostensibly voting for these people in order for in-thread "pressure" reasons. I just think that the justification for these "pressure votes" is weaksauce and unfortunately your "pressure votes" have the consequence of counting as actual votes, meaning that you could have an easy-ass justification for a vote and eventual lynch of un-controversial players who won't publicly drag you through the mud.

first of all... there's no such thing as weak justification for pressure. everyone who isn't an obvious townread or an obvious scum-read needs to be put under pressured so they can exhibit behavior which can be read and analyzed. that's the entire point of this game.

You called him your main scumread.I interpreted that as fact, and not some weird psy-op strategy that none of us, except Jack, was supposed to take seriously. You really seem to enjoy shirking culpability for your own opinions and stances.

I absolutely did not??? I said I was concerned about him. I took steps to figure him out more. I didn't say "scumread". scumread implies completeness. Jack was in process.

your only argument was that CIV JACK WOULD HAVE DROPPED THE GIMMICK BY THIS POINT, which is nonsense. But I suppose that's irrelevant since when you say that you scumread someone, we're all supposed to realize that you don't really scumread them, and that this is an elite questioning strategy to extract...nothing from Jack. You got nothing from Jack. Literally all he did to get you to stop "worrying" about him was stopping posting in emojis.

yeah... its nonsense cus that was never even what my argument was in the first place. my argument was that Jack needed to be held accountable for his level of participation and his influence on the thread, despite his self imposed challenge, and I didn't get nothing from jack I got an explanation for why he chose to do it that satisfied my worries about him.

You weren't building any opinion of your own, or defining your own viewpoint in any way. You were just continually asking somewhat asinine questions in what looked like a facile attempt to seem active and invested, despite not really caring and knowing that a civ would be lynched either way.

again please do your homework and go read any game i've ever played? thanks.

You never once vocalized your thought process or why you decided to vote Sofi outside of basic-sounding fluff like the below quote from after EOD. You claim to have been carefully assembling info to build an informed, cogent viewpoint, but instead your Sofi vote feels like a half-hearted excuse.

there wasn't time for a thought process. Mac and Sofi weren't my suspects, but one of them was going to be lynched. I needed to find out why they were in the positions they were in and decide if I agreed that one of them deserved to be there more than the other. that's how voting works.

Missing in this last minute vote justification: any actual reasons why sofi is more likely to be scum and Mac is more likely to be civ.

I really don't know why this is a point you're bringing against me when you voted for me and stayed out of effecting lynches that weere actually probable

Spoiler: show

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:21 pm Oh goodie. It's been a while since I've gotten into a wall-post-based battle with a player I suspect that's more or less an irrelevant genitalia measuring contest because no one ever reads these damn wall-posts, unless they themselves are mentioned or accused in them.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:07 pm
insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pmKyle responded to these posts by explaining what "pressure votes" are, not realizing that my problem with him was that all of his "pressure votes" were directed at easy, low-posting targets which allowed him to float through the thread without having solid, objectionable opinions.
this is wrong. my pressure was placed where it could do something. glorfindel was pressured to gauge a reaction, sofi was pressured because I wanted to hear an explanation for her vote. I put pressure votes on players I wanted to verify things about, saying they were just quiet players is false.

Once again, you keep willfully ignoring the crux of my argument, continually making me out to not understand basic concepts that I'm actually accusing you of not using in a pro-civilian way. Yes, I know that you were ostensibly voting for these people in order for in-thread "pressure" reasons. I just think that the justification for these "pressure votes" is weaksauce and unfortunately your "pressure votes" have the consequence of counting as actual votes, meaning that you could have an easy-ass justification for a vote and eventual lynch of un-controversial players who won't publicly drag you through the mud.

Accused me of tunnelling.
you are.

nice attempt at discrediting me

He then went after Jack, who was targeting him earlier in the thread, ostensibly because he wasn't stopping posting in emojis.
you seem to think the only reason anyone should ever make negative comments about each other is to try and get the other person lynched. That's not how I play. The first step to any suspicion is questioning that player and trying to figure out their motivation for doing the things they've done. That's what I did with Jack and it's also why I started to feel better about him. None of that could have been accomplished without the push.

You called him your main scumread. I interpreted that as fact, and not some weird psy-op strategy that none of us, except Jack, was supposed to take seriously. You really seem to enjoy shirking culpability for your own opinions and stances.

My thoughts on people with self-imposed posting limitations are already well established:

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.
that's irrelevant. obviously choosing to do a posting thing isn't necessarily alignment indicative. that doesn't mean any player who does a posting thing doesn't have an alignment and shouldn't ever be questioned.

your only argument was that CIV JACK WOULD HAVE DROPPED THE GIMMICK BY THIS POINT, which is nonsense. But I suppose that's irrelevant since when you say that you scumread someone, we're all supposed to realize that you don't really scumread them, and that this is an elite questioning strategy to extract...nothing from Jack. You got nothing from Jack. Literally all he did to get you to stop "worrying" about him was stopping posting in emojis.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:28 am so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.
...says the guy who hasn't given a single strong case or clear opinion.
I've been doing plenty of work, you've just been dismissing it all as opportunistic :/ I don't tend to make accusations and big cases in the early game, inh. that's not how i play. I ask questions and gauge responses cus it's what I'm good at. Other people do what they're good at and it creates a well functioning machine that mafias. jack is an actual good mafia player so ofc I expect more from him.

I'm not arguing with your patented method of question-asking and response-gauging. Sloonei did a shitton of that, and he was a townread for me. I think that I'm dealing with the evil, scummy version of Kyle that does the same amount of inquisitive behavior, but without really doing anything with it. I'm simply not happy with the results you've gotten from your methods, which makes me think you're using them nefariously.

After Jack breaks his emoji-posting pattern, and writes in, y'know, words, Kyle immediately posts this:

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:56 am i am no longer worried about jack
This continues Kyle's trend of backtracking on any original in-thread stances whenever he gets a whiff of backlash.
"kyle changes his mind about things sometimes when confronted with new data so obviously he's bad" :/

first of all that's overly simplified, I didn't say that about jack because he posted without emojis, I said it because I believed in his response. it made sense as an explanation and jived with something Jack had said previously

the entire point of questioning someone is to figure out where someone stands. you're acting like asking people questions and then ending up not wanting them dead is somehow wrong

You called him your top scumread because he posted in emojis, (and also happened to coincidentally suspect you, but let's ignore that) and then did a 180 when he broke the gimmick and posted in words. Oh wait, no, it's apparently because he mentioned the phrase "tone words," and his response just feels "really genuine."

Not really seeing the startlingly relevant data that causes you to make him a non-scumread, and that justifiied your extensive, advanced interrogation techniques.

Kyle's reaction to the Ambray Vs. Mac Day 2 kerfuffle was, predictably a bunch of waffling.

He sure did ask a bunch of questions, which I guess is supposedly civilian-type behavior.
It's absolutely average Kyle-typebehavior. Read any game I've played recently and you'll see the same thing. If I don't understand something I'm going to ask questions until I have the baseline of knowledge required to figure things out for myself. If you want a link to one I can provide but you can probably just click on any of the more recent games from the last 5 months and see what I mean.

The fact that you yourself identify this as your prototypical town behavior means that you'd consciously choose to do the same damn thing if you were scum, except less productive and genuine. I believe the following questions are examples of this malevolent, outwardly-inquisitive Kyle.

This may be what Kyle refers to as my prospensity for "tunnelling," but these questions all seem like Kyle looking for someone to tell him what to think, and who to vote for, instead of actual case-building.
kind of telling actually? is that how you believe mafia should be played? 20 players make cases on their own in 20 lonely vacuums without input and ignore cases made by the other players?

You weren't building any opinion of your own, or defining your own viewpoint in any way. You were just continually asking somewhat asinine questions in what looked like a facile attempt to seem active and invested, despite not really caring and knowing that a civ would be lynched either way.

It also feels like he's trying desperately to sell other players on Ambray and Mac being the two lynch leaders, forcing attention off of other possible candidates. Despite claiming to have ISO'd both candidates, and asking so many questions, Kyle doesn't actually post a clear stance or opinion against either of them until after the vote ended, and after he pulled a literal last minute vote against Ambray.
I didn't have a clear stance, that's why I was asking so many questions basically up until the end of the phase. I don't make rash decisions. If I don't feel properly informed on a topic then I work to fix that.

You never once vocalized your thought process or why you decided to vote Sofi outside of basic-sounding fluff like the below quote from after EOD. You claim to have been carefully assembling info to build an informed, cogent viewpoint, but instead your Sofi vote feels like a half-hearted excuse.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:45 pm I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac
For all the shit he gave Jack for posting emojis, Kyle's vote-justification is merely the text equivalent of this:
yeah? the only votes that mattered at that point were sofi and mac so i voted sofi, cus i thought Mac was more likely to be civ.

Missing in this last minute vote justification: any actual reasons why sofi is more likely to be scum and Mac is more likely to be civ.

I would prefer if you'd actually quote things individually instead of inserting text and recoloring it this is going to be a nightmare to respond to

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:42 pmplease show me where I called Ambray suspicious? I didn't like her Glorf vote, but I accepted her reasoning.

okay so then you've only had one suspect. is that supposed to be an improvement? I looked through your posts the only players you ever mentioned were me and sofi.

Meanwhile, you used it as an excuse to prop her up for an easy lynch, despite also targeting Glorf yourself.

no?? ambray voted glorfindel without knowing any of the context. and my vote for her was a vote for not Mac who I thought was more likely civ. what are you even talking about

Epignosis wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:44 pm
Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:41 pm
Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:27 pm nutella
Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*
the poll doesn't expire til tomorrow and i'm just kinda chilling, i guess. i should probably be putting more effort in since people want to kill me, I'm just tired lol. 3 games is too many games for any mortal man
I thought you were voting early and often these days.

I was. I haven't felt confident enough in a read or the effectiveness of a prod to continue doing it.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:27 pm nutella
Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

the poll doesn't expire til tomorrow and i'm just kinda chilling, i guess. i should probably be putting more effort in since people want to kill me, I'm just tired lol. 3 games is too many games for any mortal man

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:27 pm @nutella
@Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:52 pm IN SUMMARY

Kyle has floated and waffled from weak suspicion to weak suspicion, mainly focusing on easy targets who weren't likely to go after him. He asks substanceless questions in attempt to seem semi-active and civilian-esque. He hasn't had one solid opinion, stance, or case this entire game.

Total scummeister.

*votes Kyle*

2 things... did you take time to photoshop my name on top of a waffle? cus that's amazing.

second thing... go back and read through *any* of the recent games I've played other ones. tell me the name of a single player I suspected and used accusatory language towards in the first two phases of any of those games. name one.

Fiddler doesn't count. In Fiddler I was pushed out of my comfort zone in the first few days by a Jay and Sloonei onslaught. I reacted emotionally but I did my best to identify things people did that might be scummy because I didn't want to die. like 90% of the players I accused were civs. identifying scumtells or whatever isn't in my wheelhouse. I wish it were but it isn't. I'm more a more effective player later-game phases.

that's why my gameplay style isn't to accuse people blindly and make them die so I can know if I'm right or not, that's ineffective. my style is to question people and analyze their responses to my questions as well as those posed by others in hopes of expanding the context of their behavior and understanding why they might have done or said what they did.

Maybe I don't fit into your cookie cutter view of how you think a civ should act but... I think that's a good thing. If every player only shouted about their own cases and didn't weigh in on each other's thoughts we wouldn't actually get anything done.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:30 pmHitching my wagon to INH's Kyle train without reading Kyle's defense. I'm sure this will annoy him.

Yeah, a little.

Make no mistake, I suspect Kyle on my own. INH just spells it out better and adds to it. Also, I strongly think INH is town so that helps.

Inh suspects me for doing things that I do in almost every game. His case isn't the same as yours at all, you should probably read it.

INH feel free to keep suspecting me but do you have any suspects other than me and sofi?

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pmKyle responded to these posts by explaining what "pressure votes" are, not realizing that my problem with him was that all of his "pressure votes" were directed at easy, low-posting targets which allowed him to float through the thread without having solid, objectionable opinions.

this is wrong. my pressure was placed where it could do something. glorfindel was pressured to gauge a reaction, sofi was pressured because I wanted to hear an explanation for her vote. I put pressure votes on players I wanted to verify things about, saying they were just quiet players is false.

Accused me of tunnelling.

you are.

He then went after Jack, who was targeting him earlier in the thread, ostensibly because he wasn't stopping posting in emojis.

you seem to think the only reason anyone should ever make negative comments about each other is to try and get the other person lynched. That's not how I play. The first step to any suspicion is questioning that player and trying to figure out their motivation for doing the things they've done. That's what I did with Jack and it's also why I started to feel better about him. None of that could have been accomplished without the push.

My thoughts on people with self-imposed posting limitations are already well established:

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

that's irrelevant. obviously choosing to do a posting thing isn't necessarily alignment indicative. that doesn't mean any player who does a posting thing doesn't have an alignment and shouldn't ever be questioned.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:28 am so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.
...says the guy who hasn't given a single strong case or clear opinion.

I've been doing plenty of work, you've just been dismissing it all as opportunistic :/ I don't tend to make accusations and big cases in the early game, inh. that's not how i play. I ask questions and gauge responses cus it's what I'm good at. Other people do what they're good at and it creates a well functioning machine that mafias. jack is an actual good mafia player so ofc I expect more from him.

After Jack breaks his emoji-posting pattern, and writes in, y'know, words, Kyle immediately posts this:

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:56 am i am no longer worried about jack
This continues Kyle's trend of backtracking on any original in-thread stances whenever he gets a whiff of backlash.

"kyle changes his mind about things sometimes when confronted with new data so obviously he's bad" :/

first of all that's overly simplified, I didn't say that about jack because he posted without emojis, I said it because I believed in his response. it made sense as an explanation and jived with something Jack had said previously

the entire point of questioning someone is to figure out where someone stands. you're acting like asking people questions and then ending up not wanting them dead is somehow wrong

Kyle's reaction to the Ambray Vs. Mac Day 2 kerfuffle was, predictably a bunch of waffling.

He sure did ask a bunch of questions, which I guess is supposedly civilian-type behavior.

It's absolutely average Kyle-typebehavior. Read any game I've played recently and you'll see the same thing. If I don't understand something I'm going to ask questions until I have the baseline of knowledge required to figure things out for myself. If you want a link to one I can provide but you can probably just click on any of the more recent games from the last 5 months and see what I mean.

This may be what Kyle refers to as my prospensity for "tunnelling," but these questions all seem like Kyle looking for someone to tell him what to think, and who to vote for, instead of actual case-building.

kind of telling actually? is that how you believe mafia should be played? 20 players make cases on their own in 20 lonely vacuums without input and ignore cases made by the other players?

It also feels like he's trying desperately to sell other players on Ambray and Mac being the two lynch leaders, forcing attention off of other possible candidates. Despite claiming to have ISO'd both candidates, and asking so many questions, Kyle doesn't actually post a clear stance or opinion against either of them until after the vote ended, and after he pulled a literal last minute vote against Ambray.

I didn't have a clear stance, that's why I was asking so many questions basically up until the end of the phase. I don't make rash decisions. If I don't feel properly informed on a topic then I work to fix that.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:45 pm I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac
For all the shit he gave Jack for posting emojis, Kyle's vote-justification is merely the text equivalent of this:

yeah? the only votes that mattered at that point were sofi and mac so i voted sofi, cus i thought Mac was more likely to be civ.

speedchuck wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:39 amSince that time, from what I can tell in a quick ISO, Kylemii has asked a bunch of questions but not followed up on them much. I don't know where he stands, and that's not comfortable.

I can't handle being in 3 games at once and bring the same level of passion to each. I signed up for what became the third while I was dead in the first and now I'm stuck with 3 games that I can't fully contribute to because I don't have the time or energy. I came back from working in game 2 last night and realized I barely even remember what's happening in this game. Being concerned that you don't know where I stand here is completely fair cus idk either.

remind me to never sign up for 3 games at once again

Sloonei wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:25 pm I've asked to be replaced if I survive the night. I'll be leaving for an extended trip in a few days anyway, and I have lots to do in the meantime. I can't commit to a mafia game right now. Sorry folks. Bring this thread to life when I'm gone.

I feel it would be irresponsible of me to leave legacy reads in my position. I've only followed along loosely since the end of Day 1 and don't know what went down at all last night. INH and Glorfindel are town reads, but that's all I can state with any confidence.

[mention]MacDougall[/mention] did you think the end of phase time was tomorrow, or later tonight?

......rip sofi

I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac

there's also like only 3 minutes left til the lynch drops

MacDougall wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:34 pm
Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:29 pm @Sloonei do you have any input on sofi v mac?
I'd like to discourage this right now. Ambray/Sofi appears to have a firm civ read on me and reducing the options to Ambray vs. Mac at this point of the day is going to encourage Mafia/lazy players to just throw drive by votes on whichever of us they gut read worse with little explanation which is going to miss an opportunity. I prefer your line of thinking as to who else might be on the table, and I feel like Sloonei firmly should be for one.

that's actually not why I asked that, I noticed Sloonei is viewing the thread, I want to know his thoughts on this particular topic since he's at least tangentially involved

Ambray wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:28 pm Don't have much to contribute other than I'm still uneasy over the LC 'bandwagon' situation.

Sloonei's posts I don't like just as a vibe as I struggle to see whether they posts as a civ throwing mud and seeing what sticks or a baddie just stirring trouble. However, from how others have reacted this seems his typical game style so hard to judge.

Jack's posts are going to get old pretty quick. I'm not looking to lynch him at all right now, but I question whether this is normal behaviour for him? I think it would be pretty easy to get the ball rolling as an easy lynch. If he is civ, I don't really know how he's helping himself or others with his posts..

this is the only post i found where sofi mentions feeling negative about sloonei

[mention]Sloonei[/mention] do you have any input on sofi v mac?

most specifically sloonei, did she mention sloon?

Ambray wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:28 pm For what it's worth if I am lynched - LA and Sloonei have given me the wiggins. No particular reason why, just a feeling to throw out there. Hurrah.

I can't check rn cus I'm at dinner, did Sofi mention either of Sloonei or Nutella before this post?

[mention]MacDougall[/mention] i remember you referencing a difference between phone mac and computer mac before, what game was that in? was that Fiddler?

MacDougall wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:38 pm
Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:34 pm mac when did you begin suspecting ambray?
When I got online and I decided to actually read some back game and ISOs and saw glaring scumtells from the first ISO I read. I was reading the game very differently before about 30 minutes ago.

differently why?

mac when did you begin suspecting ambray?

you're right mac that was bad formatting, i thought you were shouting at yourself

mmmmmmmmm [mention]Ambray[/mention] [mention]MacDougall[/mention]

please tell me who you would lynch today if you weren't currently top vote getters, and neither of you could vote for the other.

hmmmm going to iso mac and sofi

I want to expand on something I said earlier, the reason I feel okay about Jack's emoticon posting thing now is because he mentioned tone reads in his explanation to Sloonei. He mentioned tone being a problem for him in a recent game as well. I'm inclined to believe that that would be a motivation for him to try out an experimental thing like emote posting. I also feel less concerned about the potential for his self imposed posting restriction becoming a communication barrier because of his "this is what I feel like, maybe I'll feel like something else later", i don't believe that dedication to his posting code will get in the way of him giving reads. Otherwise his post felt very genuine to me, I believe him.

I'm interested in seeing DF's response to Sloonei and Timmers' cases

timmer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:24 pmBut it read like someone who was feeling an awareness of how his vote could come to be seen if his lynch vote became attached to the eventual lynchee. If this was a bigger game, with indies etc, I'd have a stronger feel that Kyle's reaction signalled a non-civ since I think non-civs tend to obsess over how their vote is viewed more than civs (others may disagree?).

when people follow my votes or agree with my reasoning or say "I trust Kyle so I'm going to do this" it makes me question their motivation, because I can't fathom people looking at me and thinking "that guy probably knows what's up". That's a lot of why I tend to play more passively early on and why I tend to wait to vote until the end of early phases most of the time. I've been experimenting with earlier voting lately.

I place my vote on DF temporarily and see Epi put his vote there while he eats, suddenly you come up and vote there too, with a short case on him, I have to figure out for myself if your vote for him and the case you made were influenced at all by the fact that he already had 2 votes. It tilts my perspective in a way that wouldn't have been possible if my vote hadn't been there. The same thing happened with sofi.

I've been meaning to find this. This was Marmot's tie-policy in Mountain Mafia:

Marmot wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:34 am
nutella wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:08 am @Marmot any chance you can tell us how ties are handled?
In the event of a tie on Day 1, no one is lynched.

In the event of a tie on any other day, one of the tied players will randomly be chosen and cast into the abyss (lynched).

I think it's best if we avoid drawing any conclusions based on the no-lynch result.

i am no longer worried about jack

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:32 am
Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:25 am
Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:06 am
Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:02 amsloonei's back
that was probably the most you're gonna get out of me for a while, unfortunately. Talk to me about things. How's INH looking? who do you want to vote for?
i liked your case on DF, i think that's something worth pursuing and looking into.

i would like to ask for your thoughts on Jack, outside of his self-imposed posting quirk.
I don't have any specific thoughts on him at the moment. I kind of lost touch with this game over the weekend and lost track of things.

Sometimes I don't know what exactly his emojis mean and it doesn't seem like much has been made of him one way or the other. But he's been offering reads and making an effort to explain them without words. So while the quirk is limiting, he's not using it to avoid gameplay. I like that. But there's also a part of me that's worried no one has really jumped on his case yet. Maybe that's just because some of us have been vigilant about that sort of thing so far. I don't think I have the energy to ISO him right now. How about you?

my main issue is that his quirk lowers his amount of influence on the thread. he can post a bunch of wolf emojis after players posts and highlight particular sections of them to signify "i think this post by this player looks bad", and that's good i guess, but once we've cracked our first egg, it's going to be an issue because it's going to difficult to distinguish between real reads and fake reads. if we lynch a mafia and Jack has a suspect vote, looking back and seeing that he said "eyeroll emoji wolf emoji" about something that player had said is going to be less informative than the verbal equivalent would be.

so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.

linki- oh, those were words

Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:06 am
Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:02 amsloonei's back
that was probably the most you're gonna get out of me for a while, unfortunately. Talk to me about things. How's INH looking? who do you want to vote for?

i liked your case on DF, i think that's something worth pursuing and looking into.

i would like to ask for your thoughts on Jack, outside of his self-imposed posting quirk.

inh is a player i remember misreading frequently because he has that really.... that sort of "aha! gotcha punk!" way of expressing his cases, which is at odds with my "consider all angles of everything even though it's sometimes impractical" method of gameplay. i think i agree with your assessment of inh here. especially the authentic bulldozer part.

sloonei's back

Search found 156 matches