The Syndicate

This was a fun game! I've never had the opportunity to do a baddie suicide kamikaze in-thread meltdown before, and even if it didn't really work out how I wanted it to (I.e. To divert attention from SVS) it was a lot of fun to do anyway.

Congrats, Virtue.

DH was such an obvious bad baddie I wanted to SCREAM! (Granted, I thought he was bad from day 1, but whatevs... :lol: )

Bullzeye wrote: That's brilliant. You should be the official banner maker for all games ever.

I think pretty much everyone is probably in agreement with this.

*points down*

*gets busy making winners banner*

I am awesome.
No one suspected me at all.
I played a perfect baddie game.
I win.

Also DH. DH is a GIANT BLIND SPOT for everyone.

He is so obviously bad and I want to kick him.

Bullzeye wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:Made, buddy. Give in. The baddies have won. It's over for me. If you want to avenge me, you know where to look: directly in your blind spot.
You say stuff like this but don't seem to recognise that there are two baddie teams opposing each other. They aren't working together they're each out for the other's blood. Neither can live while the other survives. I don't see why all of them would jump on the same bandwagon so brazenly because they haven't won yet and they need to keep out of each other's sight. Especially the smaller team.

???
Where in this post do I suggest that there is only one baddie team? I consider the death of all the civs to be a loss, no matter which of the baddie teams wins. And killing me is moving us much (much) closer to the end of all the civs. Of COURSE both baddie teams would willingly jump on a "lynch Canuck the virtuous yet misunderstood civ!" bandwagon. They can be working towards contradictory win conditions and still share the same goal of eliminating the civs.

Made has a blind spot. His blind spot is Dana. He needs to open his eyes and see that she is B A D.
Other people in the thread have SVS shaped blind spots.
I've done my best to help.

Canucklehead wrote:Fwiw, and because I think my (unjustified, unrighteous, unbecoming, and undeserved) death is imminent this lynch (since none of y'all will listen to reason, and since I think one of the baddie teams is probably REALLY close to winning and is therefore playing a little fast and loose in the thread), here is where I think the baddies are:

I think SVS and Dana are definitely on the same baddie team. They might be the duo, but if they are the trio I think maybe MP might be their third, but I'm not sure?? The third could also be dead??

I think DH and made are a baddie team. Again, not sure who the third might be if they are the 3 person team.

As far as today's vote goes, I will likely vote SVS b/c she's probably a baddie based on the cases others have brought, and b/c she's the best hope for saving my own ass, and b/c I can't vote for Dana.

I stand by this

.....only now I might remove you from the list and insert ninjajujube in.

Made, buddy. Give in. The baddies have won. It's over for me. If you want to avenge me, you know where to look: directly in your blind spot.

I missed Bullz an nijuu's votes in the linki machine.

Silly boys. You should have saved me. You just lost our team the game.

S~V~S wrote:

I don't even know what to think of that, lol.

Um, Canuck is committing suicide?

Nice map

*Votes Canuck*

Dana wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:Try this:
http://imgur.com/bG9d6iL
Canuck that map was absolutely beautiful!

The connection between these two is so obvious!! How can no one else see this??!! I'm pulling my hair out over here!

Try this:
http://imgur.com/bG9d6iL

Fuckity balls, my pretty picture didn't work.

Dana: How are you not sure where I'm going with this?!

Here, I will draw you a map:

Fwiw, and because I think my (unjustified, unrighteous, unbecoming, and undeserved) death is imminent this lynch (since none of y'all will listen to reason, and since I think one of the baddie teams is probably REALLY close to winning and is therefore playing a little fast and loose in the thread), here is where I think the baddies are:

I think SVS and Dana are definitely on the same baddie team. They might be the duo, but if they are the trio I think maybe MP might be their third, but I'm not sure?? The third could also be dead??

I think DH and made are a baddie team. Again, not sure who the third might be if they are the 3 person team.

As far as today's vote goes, I will likely vote SVS b/c she's probably a baddie based on the cases others have brought, and b/c she's the best hope for saving my own ass, and b/c I can't vote for Dana.

Made wrote:
Canucklehead wrote: Unlike you, I have on baddie teammates to help me be sure about the alignments of other people in the thread, so my mind changes, sometimes dramatically.
what does that even mean?

Other than a single typo (read "no" where it says "on"), I think the meaning is pretty clear, actually.

I'm justifying my propensity to change my mind and be "wishywashy" based on the fact that, as a solo civ, I have no ability to be sure about anyone else's role, and therefore my opinions shift and change as the game goes on. I am contrasting this changeability with the surety that goes along with being a baddie. Baddies can feel much more confident about people's roles (and therefore be falsely indignant when other people have changes of opinion) because they are privy to knowledge that civs are not.

Lulz. Your editing skills are very effective, m'am.

Dana wrote: Canucklehead - 50% Trust
Canuck is the most suspicious to me right now. Very slightly hypocritical in a few posts, and giving me kind of a bad feeling all around.
Canucklehead wrote:I am mostly a floater/follower/dance mindlessly along type player. I don't often have strong "suspects" on Day 1 (or Day 74, for that matter)
Why do you think I'm suspicious for not saying strong opinions either,then

1) I can be hypocritical and suspect you for something that I do, too, because I KNOW for a FACT that I am good, and I can only speculate about you.

I happen to be speculating at the moment that you are a bad baddie.

Dana wrote: Also a few more things:
Canucklehead wrote:I suspect Roxy slightly more than Bullz, I guess. I don't suspect either of them very much.

Canucklehead wrote:
Roxy wrote:Bullzeye - I like Bullz and that he seems to be wanting to help. The only thing that gives me paws (I like saying paws vs pause bc they are cuter) is that he feels he needs someone around to post with when finding suspects.
I also agree with your assessment of Bullz. His need for other people's input has read at points in this game as an attempt to provide cover later if needed

Canucklehead wrote:
Roxy wrote:Roxy - she is a bitch but wtf we still <3 her!
I think civ, tbh.

Canucklehead wrote:
Roxy wrote:nijuukyugou -
I feel like nijuu jumped pretty hard onto the supicions of me in a pretty opportunisitc fashion, and then backed down faster than anyone else. While I appreciate it (thanks!) it does strike me as being a little on the wishy-washy/don't take too strong a stance on anything/hedging carefully side. Possible for a baddie
So she suspected Roxy more than Bullz, and then a few posts later, agreed with Roxy about Bullz but still said she thought they were both good. Then she says nijuu being "wishy-washy" could mean they're possibly bad, even though she's been a bit wishy-washy herself. Canuck isn't sitting well with me.

Props.
2) Here is where your sneaky editing is at it's finest. The first quote there is from Night 1 (Aug 13 in real world time). The Second quote is from DAY 3 (or Aug 17!!!), which is hardly "a few posts later".

Even if you were only meaning "a few posts later" as refering to a few posts of my own later, I posted no less than 13 (thirteen!) times between those two posts! That's a fucking novel's worth for a player like me.
So no, Dana, I wasn't being wishywashy, I was allowing my mind and opinions to be changed over time by events that were happening in the thread and in the game.

Unlike you, I have on baddie teammates to help me be sure about the alignments of other people in the thread, so my mind changes, sometimes dramatically.

But good try on the manipulative editing, girl.

Hoping I'd be too lazy to notice?

DharmaHelper wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:What's that I hear?? Is it the Save Dana Express rolling into the station? Looks like SVS is driving, and MP has a first class ticket.

What a feat, saving someone who is off the poll.

Ok, King Baddie.

You know very well that stopping momentum against a baddie teammmate needs to be done right away or it gets out of control. Maybe these guys are just being extra diligent to make sure that we don't get a "Lynch Canuck today! Lynch Dana tomorrow!" train rolling that might be difficult to stop in the hands of lazy civs.

What's that I hear?? Is it the Save Dana Express rolling into the station? Looks like SVS is driving, and MP has a first class ticket.

As for lack of substantial play, I don't deny it and have tried in the past few days to rectify it.

As for not being lynched (by which I think you mean to imply tht I have teamies looking out for me), what can I say? No one wants to see this pretty head hanged.

Seriously, though. I can't speak for people who are suspicious of me but not lynching me. I'm glad that's how they're acting, but it's certainly not because they are my baddie teammates.

(For the record, you are also *my* main suspect, DH, so there's some lovely symmetry there

)

i'm not sure if I think made is bad or not (I've been leaning civ for him all game), but I DO think that there's a good chance that Dana is using his trust/read of her as a shield. She's pretty much letting him do all her defending, and then popping in to say "Aw, shucks! I just don't know what to think!".

Keterman wrote:Do I come off as that overly-serious?

No, don't worry! I'm just being silly! I like to make up for the intense inadequacy and guilt I feel when I see other people actually putting effort into things by poking fun.

Keterman wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Made wrote:Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Your early vote, regardless of resoning, was really stupid considering tonight could very easily be lynch or lose dawg.
Conviction is the best weapon a civvie can have. A good case with no support is better than a shit case with unanimous approval. If you really believe you have a baddie caught, the burden of proof is on you.
"Ow! My head" said the nail.

Holy shit! Everyone! Keterman made a joke!

You are one of us now, my friend.

Roxy wrote:Canuck - you have missed the vote again while you were here

THIS IS WHY I DONT DO LONG POSTS!

Also, I thought today was Saturday.

Also, I think I missed the vote in the other game too.

Fuckity balls. I suck.

Forgot to add: I'll totally vote Boogs if I need to to save my own ass

Just to prove to y'all that I'm just as lazy as I say I am, I'm going to steal Roxy's template for suspicion-saying

My SUPER INSIGHTFUL bits are in PRUPLE

Roxy wrote:Boogs - I have made my feeling known and presented my case. He has people defending subtly and openly which is also nose twitching to me. I could see my self voting for him very easily bc he has gotten quieter with suspicion still on him. Maybe he is hoping it will blow over? Idk.
So, I was totally willing to follow along with the super Boogs suspicious people, but then he did his pouty frustration thing and (like what happened with Sorsha) I immediately thought he was civ. I think baddies have the opportunity to vent their frustrations with suspicion against them in btsc and therefore don't have to do it in the thread, so frustration like that always reads as civ to me.

Bullzeye - I like Bullz and that he seems to be wanting to help. The only thing that gives me paws (I like saying paws vs pause bc they are cuter) is that he feels he needs someone around to post with when finding suspects. I do not understand why he can't just post his thoughts and then later when others are around they can comment on his thoughts.
I agree about paws and pause. I also agree with your assessment of Bullz. His need for other people's input has read at points in this game as an attempt to provide cover later if needed, like a "but look! I wasn't sure and I asked for input so I can't possibly be bad b/c stuff and reasons and uncertainty and DEMOCRACY " I'm currenty thinking he's civ, though, but that just might be b/c I'm scared of re-igniting bullshit-gate and am therefore backing down.

Canucklehead - You keep saying that you are jokey and never serious. And that you never are the first to come up with suspects. I call bullshit. I can remember an RM game where you were the first to call me out as a baddie from one post. I remember it like yesterday bc I thought it funny you used a picture of a Ping golf club to say ping about my post. So while you have always been funny and sarcastic you have also been one to suss out baddies. So I am asking for you to step it up.
I am attempting to Step Up 2 The Streets I hope to do you proud

Dana - seems to be finding her feet on our site. I like the way she is thoughtful in her posts. I would like to know how she feels about everyone she does not have familiarity with. Also I would like to ask why do you think Made is hiding behind this gangsta posting style? If so what is he hiding? Is he afraid to be his normal self that you might find him out quicker if he posts normally?
Dana seems to be doing the quintessential float-along game to me. I'd mostly be wiling to give her the newbie benefit of the doubt, but the fact that she's super buddies with so many players here makes me think that she should probably be a little more comfortable speaking out. But I suppose I'm not one to point the finger for not contributing enough thoughts. :P

DharmaHelper - Been fooled by you so many times its not even funny. I always trust you when I shouldn't. I hope I am not wrong to trust you this game. I feel like we have been on the same page a lot this game and that in and of itself makes me nervous LOL.
DH is actually probably the person I most suspect, and have suspected since Day 1. I can absolutely see a DH being a ballsy baddie and winning a leadership contest.....but I can also see a civ DH doing the same. My feeling on DH is gut-based, and not evidence based, though, so I've been waiting for him to actually do something that I can pin a concrete "SUSPICIOUS" label on, but he''s too wiley/crafty/silly and I haven't really seen anything yet. I'm ALWAYS suspicious of DH, and I'm certainly not always right.....but I do think I would put him at the top of my gut-based list.

Elohcin - I am so happy you are posting way more than I am used to seeing from you! And I likes it!! I do agree with much of your list and agree that speed games are easier to wrap your mind around.
Seems just as disengaged as me, but much nicer of a person. No read.

Keterman - You are very finger pointy after this last lynch of which you did not participate. Also not a surprise I disagree with a lot of your list. Idk if it has to with you telling us we do not know how to suss out baddies or just your tone. But my hackles are up and my nose is all twitchy like. Your defense of Boogs has given me my biggest nose twitch to date.
I have a lot of reactionary, NO U, lash-outy feelings towards Keterman which are clouding my judgement. I don't like being called ridiculous, or being told that there is a correct or smart way to play mafia, nor do I enjoy people insisting on using the word "scum" and "scumhunting" about 400 times every post. JARGON is JARGONY and WEIRD. None of these things have anything to do with knowing whether K-man is bad or not, so I'm trying to be a big girl and not read him as bad just because hes VERY WRONG about me. He's probably civ.

Made - I hate to tell others how to play so I will just request you make one post NOT in gangsta-speak so that I may understand what you are saying just once. I have found myself skipping your posts bc I do not understand them I will try and find a gansta translator and see if it will help me figure you out for the rest of the game.
I dunno. A lot of chatter about how good he is at real life mafia, not a lot of content that I really remember.

MovingPictures07 - I did not mean to offend you by asking if you had any other suspicion besides the one Epi had brought up. It deffo was not my intention. I wish I could have read what you had to say about Hedge before I voted but timing is what it is. Still you being busy has made it hard to get a line on you bc you are not posting like normal MPSockydude normally does. You know somehow I always expect more from you though it is definitely not fair on my part to expect it but I still do. Who are you top 3 suspects and why?
I was suspicious of MP for something really recently, but now I can't remember what it is. Will look again once I finish this monster

nijuukyugou - I do not remember much from you and am not keeping notes . The feeling I get when I see your name is what has she done to help? I can remember nothing which in my mind leads me to think you are being careful and blendy. So now I feel like a re-read of you is in order.
I feel like nijuu jumped pretty hard onto the supicions of me in a pretty opportunisitc fashion, and then backed down faster than anyone else. While I appreciate it (thanks!) it does strike me as being a little on the wishy-washy/don't take too strong a stance on anything/hedging carefully side. Possible for a baddie

Roxy - she is a bitch but wtf we still <3 her!
I think civ, tbh.

S~V~S - *waves* Happy Sunday SVS! I am not sure about you as always. You may be able to read me but I am totes unable to read you After the Day 1 lynch and you had defended when others said you had not really made me think you were good. So I have kind of left you in the back of my mind. I am looking forward to hear who you find suspicious this round and why.

I haven't seen anything explicitly suspicious from SVS, which could be because hse's been much less vocal this game than I remember her being in the past? This might be an indication that she's bad, but I dunno. I need to re-read what people who still suspect her are basing it on.

OK, I'm going to attempt to do a quick read and summary of what I'm seeing, then vote because I don't want to miss again and because I'm currently in a very brief lull before a storm and should take advantage of that.

Back in a fewsies.....

nijuukyugou wrote:
My feelings haven't changed much about Canuck, in that although SHE ( ) has been defending herself, it's really the same points rehashed with nothing new. Eloh makes a good point - a lot of discussion of gameplay, but not a lot of discussion of her suspicions.

What "new" material would you like me to add? What "new" points would you like me to make?

I'm mean, I'm always happy to start inventing shit and making stuff up to keep it interesting for you, but usually when I'm providing explanations to multiple people for the same event, I'm not really focused on keeping it fresh......I'm pretty sure that's called lying and is generally frowned upon in polite society.

Keterman wrote:We got a confession everyone!

Not a confession, a giggle at the fact that you accuse of skimming (true!) and paying insufficient attention/not taking things seriously enough (also true!)....but yet you yourself haven't read closely enough to realize I'm a woman....despite the fact that I made EXACTLY this point about Elochin in my previous post which you claim to have read closely and thought about carefully with your big, non-ridiculous mafia brain.

I say again, Lol.

So before I address each one individually, I'm just gonna preface this by saying that while I understand why my inattentiveness/carelessness/whatever might BOTHER you and might make you think that I'm not playing very well, I really don't understand why it makes you think that I'm a baddie.

I know a lot of you haven't ever played with me before, and I know that those of you who have might not really remember how I play....but to be honest, I just don't really pay very close attention to games, especially in the early stages. I rarely formulate my own suspicions until later, and often ride the coattails of other players (and my own irrespressible charm

) to float through until I really get a handle on things. (I'm honestly surprised at how many theories/suspicions people already have in this game, since it's only day 2.) Anywho, I'm not suggesting that my way of playing neccessarily indicates that I'm a civ (I play this way regardless of affiliation), but I just don't see how it indicates the opposite, either.

The comment that started this whole fiasco was really just an off-the-cuff general annoyance thing about the whole facade of "defenses" in mafia, not directed at anyone in particular. Then, when Epignosis (or Bullz?) pushed me on who, exactly, I was referring to, I didn't really have a good answer, so I did a quick keyword search through the previous page to quickly pull up the quotes that had sparked my thought. I didn't cross-reference these quotes with the poll, at that point OR during my read-through before the initial post, so I ended up making some silly mistakes and putting my foot in it.

I've admitted my mistakes (several times now), retracted my "suspicions" of Bullz and Roxy (which I only named because Epi specifically asked for names. I did mention explicitly in the post that my "suspicions" were barely worthy of the title, and that Rox got called out by process of elimination), and am ready to move on. Pretty please?!

I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to offer any of you an explanation that is satisfying to you, because I've kind of already said what's going on and why.....but I'll try again, and maybe this time it will stick?

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I'm not quite sure about a vote for Boogs or Hedgeowl. I just am not reading either of them as bad. At this point, I think I'd vote for Canucklehead. I could see the Epig kill coming from someone who isn't (yet) a site regular, but I have no reason yet to believe Dana or Made are bad (no read on them, but I don't know them, so), and I'm not sure I buy her recent posts.

That said... I feel really iffy on that. I just don't feel that strongly about any one player at the moment. I'm hoping there can be some discussion before voting time... and I need to revisit if I can because reading that quickly some posts kind of blurred together I think.

I don't actually understand why me not being a site regular makes me any more or less likely to kill any given player? I get that you were unconvinced by my posts, so that made you suspicious of me....but I don't get the part about being new to the site....halp?

nijuukyugou wrote:
I don't have too many particularly strong feelings towards anyone at the moment, but Canuck's recent posts (save the pee one, which made me lol) have pinged me. I find it weird when people forget to vote and then turn around and almost immediately point fingers at those who did vote (especially when she also says she would have randomized rather than pick a side). Also, there are too many instances of posting before fact checking for my taste. I understand grad school is stupid busy (trust me, I know!), but it would be better to post less with more thought than the opposite. She appears too floundering in response to people pointing these things out and blames it on either "laziness" or "work." Hmmm...Anyone else have thoughts?
:

Hi, we've never played together. I guarantee you that I blame my low posting/not voting/general ineptness on my busyness and lazyness and lack of focus at least once in EVERY game I've ever played. I get that you don't like that excuse (and I appreciate the "advice" to think more and post less

You sound like my committee chair

), but these responses aren't "floundering"....they're truth.
As for forgetting to vote and then pointing fingers, that's valid I guess.....though I still think everyone is reading my "calling bullshit" post as being more accusatory or more specifically directed than was intended when I wrote it.

Tone is hard on the internets.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I have to leave, so I suppose I'm voting Canuck, only for my perception that she seems most possibly insincere at the moment.

I've never been sincere a single time in my entire life.

Roxy wrote: Canucks - calling me out without even reading is very ping worthy. I didnkt like the way she tried to joke her way out and blame school when asked about it.
?

It's not that I didn't read, it's that I didn't look at the poll.......(and also read kind of selectively

) Again, my calling you out was not originally directed at you, and I never really felt that strongly about it. Also, I joke and blame school for everything. You know that

Epignosis wrote:I voted canuck. I think the case on him is the strongest at this point.

There are a lot of things wrong with this post.

Elohcin wrote:UGH SHIT....I tell you.. I was sitting here catching up. got up to go to the kitchen, came back and Epi had logged me out and logghimself in in the couple minutes I was gone!....HOST, should I vote as Eloh too? I votes Canuck. I would have used my laptop but other than it being slow as molasses, it was as sticky as molasses as well....I have been working today.

So you read the thread close enough to buy the case on me.....but not close enough to realize I have lady parts? You're just as good a mafia player as I am!

(Just in case it needs to be said, that last bit was meant to be jovial in tone...not bitchy...

)

nutella wrote:....does it occur to anyone that canuck appears to be cursed

Srsly, people.

Now to address the INSANE and UNFOUNDED (and by that, of course, I mean kind of pretty reasonable, actually) accusations that very nearly resulted in my death.

I'm really embarassed to say this, but I occasionally have sex dreams about John Milton.

Confession: I have an unhealthy addiction to Sour Patch Kids. I've eaten entire jumbo-sized bags all by myself in a single sitting.....many times....
*shame*

I've got something I really need to tell you guys.

I've peed onstage 3 times in my life....only one of which was when I was under the age of 5.

DH: Lol, Ok. Fair. I can't really argue with that.

Linki: Rox: I'll admit to not paying a huggle amour of attention to this game yet, and then jumping in when I had a free moment and thought I saw something and neglected to do sufficient fact checking. I will attempt to do better

but, as I mentioned, my brain is pretty occupied with stressy school stuff right now. Not an excuse, just an explanation.

...and Sorry for reading upsetsiness into a non-upset post.

^ (That wasn't meant I sound sarcastic, though on re-read it comes off that way. I actually am sorry if you're upset by my carelessness, Roxy.)

Roxy: I apologize that my mistake upsets you? I'll try not to make mistakes in the future? I'm not sure what the appropriate response to your post is.

*checks poll*
Lulz. You are correct. This is what one gets for searching pages for keywords and not looking at things in context.

Epignosis wrote:Kindly explain, if you would Canucklehead, who your top suspect is out of the group you are referencing and why. If you are uncomfortable talking about that Night, no problem.

I have no probs talking at night. I am brave.

To answer your question: I did a re-read of the page or so before the lynch results were posted to try and sort out/revisit my thoughts on this. It turns out that unless I missed some (which is entirely possible because I really didn't try that hard), there were only three players who explicitly did (what I'm calling) the "deflect-y victim-blaming over-compensating" thing (yes, I've trademarked that. Don't try and steal it you bastards.). Here are the posts:

Roxy wrote:Too bad! I wish she had actually cared enough to respond instead of self voting. it prob would have made a difference. I do like the way Boogs is playiing like he put up some huge defense for Sorsha. Interesting take.

Keterman wrote:Now I'm especially pissed that I forgot to vote and especially pissed that she self-voted. A good defense wouldn't have been difficult for her, she could've saved herself pretty easily. I'm ready to see that "in-depth" defense SVS promised, some serious scumhunting from DH, and this Boogs and Roxy thing go somewhere where I can get a confident read on both of them.

Bullzeye wrote:Crap, sorry Sorsha. I wish you'd put up more of a defense, the fact you just gave up only made me more sure you were bad.

Of those three, Keterman didn't even vote for Sorsha so I guess technically he doesn't really fit into my GROUP OF SHAME, but I included him here anyway because the tone of his post (if not the actual circumstance) exemplifies the sort of thing I'm talking about......also, if I hadn't included him, my whole deal would've looked even sillier than it already is beginning to. :P

Anywho, between Roxy and Bullz, I guess I suspect Roxy a teeny bit more? She hasn't done anything else to raise my eyebrow this game (though I admitedly haven't gone through her posts because I'm lazy), but Bullz's responses to my post seem legit-ish, so.....she's the only one left?
I dunno.
The re-read didn't feel nearly as much like a chorus of really over-compensatory and disingenuous "OMG SORSHA WHY DIDN'T YOU DEFEND YOURSELF I TOTALLY WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED YOU BECAUSE I'M TOTALLY A CIVVIE WHO IS SO UPSETAHHHHHH"

as my initial/in the moment read did. Reading it through this time, and in light of Bullz' and DH's responses, I was getting much more of a vibe of people being pissed-off from a meta-game level.

tl;dr: I suspect Roxy slightly more than Bullz, I guess. I don't suspect either of them very much. My "calling bullshit" post was probably hyperbolic, but it really DID seem odd to me when I was reading through in a rush last night.

Edit for clarification: the "that" in my second sentence above ^^ refers to Bullz's pre-lynch statements about wanting to wait to hear from Sorsha, not to the quote I quoted....if that makes sense.

Bullzeye wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
I wouldn't have voted Sorsha because I did not suspect Sorsha What I was calling out were peeps who suspected Sorsha enough to want to vote for her, then claimed that a hypothetical "defense" by her might have changed their minds. Bullz and DH and you and probably others disagree with the validity of me making such a callout. Ok.
Had you not noticed that I said several times before the lynch I was hoping to see a proper defense from Sorsha? Do you think I was just doing that for the good of my health? In my case, and probably others' too, a valid defense from Sorsha may have swayed me. She chose instead to walk out in a huff.

I had, in fact, noticed that. I am (occasionally) observant and (always) literate. :P
Honestly, Bullz, that just read to me (just as the post-lynch statements did) as pre-compensating. That could very well be an incorrect reading on my part, but that is the impression I got in the moment (which is why I asked you about your query to the thread on the issue of waiting to vote for Sorsha).

It's not like I'm calling you a baddie or gunning to lynch you or anything, just pointing out what I noticed, and what is catching my eye. Also, you are not the only one my Rhetorically Flourishing Hairy Eyeball was directed at.....just the one to respond first to it. :P
It's OK if you think my "suspicions" are bogus. Not all of us can be devisers of Grand Unified Theories and Perfectly Coherent Suspicions. Some of us need to be the ones who just read along and point out dumb shit that, mistakenly or not, reads as odd to us. That's just how I play. Doing my part to maintain balance and order in the universe.

Epignosis wrote:Jobs and other real life things can cause one to miss a vote, that's true. However, you were here posting soon before the vote ended. Maybe it's nothing.

Definitely nothing.
I think your confusion might be because some assumptions about my work life that are incorrect? (which is totally fine, since you don't know me from Adam....for the record, I am not Adam).

Just so everyone is not bothered by my wildly inconsistent posting: I'm a grad student, in the stage of my PhD program where I am preparing for my comprehensive exams. I basically have no set schedule, and no parameters for "working", just a shitton of reading and thinking to do. I go to "work" (i.e. my carrel in the library) whenever I feel like it, I work from home when I feel like it. During my "work day" I often take many short (or not so short) breaks to give my mind a rest, and during those short breaks I do things like play mafia, or read stupid internet articles, or watch cat videos or.....you get the idea. Then, I go back to "work" (i.e. reading some pretty fucking dense and/or engaging shit). I often lose track of time. My "work" is exceptionally stressful right now because I am in the middle of the final stages of designing a course that I am teaching this Fall, and a lot of deadlines are coming up. In this vote situation, I was dicking around playing mafia for awhile, then getting back to work with the assumption I would remember to vote. I got engrossed in syllabus designing, and did not vote.
It was sucky of me, I'm sorry. For realzies.

Epignosis wrote: But you know what isn't nothing? The fact that you haven't named one suspect of yours. Then, after missing the vote, you give the eye to everyone and his uncle.

:lol: This is true. I had not named suspects prior to my rant.....because I didn't (and still don't) really have any suspects. I know you've not played with me before, but I am mostly a floater/follower/dance mindlessly along type player.

I don't often have strong "suspects" on Day 1 (or Day 74, for that matter)
As for giving the eye, that was more a rhetorical flourish.....though maybe I will pencil the Sorsha over-regretters into my non-existent Book of Suspicious Activity.

Epignosis wrote: Also:

Canucklehead wrote:For what it's worth, I probably would've randomized in a coward like that when it comes to close votes.

Canucklehead wrote:Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol??
By saying you probably would've randomized, you are saying you probably would not have voted Sorsha. So are you calling bullshit on yourself there?

I live my life in a constant state of calling bullshit on myself.

I wouldn't have voted Sorsha because I did not suspect Sorsha

What I was calling out were peeps who suspected Sorsha enough to want to vote for her, then claimed that a hypothetical "defense" by her might have changed their minds. Bullz and DH and you and probably others disagree with the validity of me making such a callout. Ok.

Epignosis wrote:Hey, that's a wide net for someone who didn't even vote.

What does my (terriblehorriblenogoodverybad) forgetting to vote have to do with my opinion on other people's reaction to the lynch result?

linki: Why doesn't that make sense?

Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol??

Have you people never played mafia before? 9 times out of 10, anyone who puts up any kind of defense is immediately labelled as "too reactive" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "too practiced and careful" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "not convinving" (as if there would ever be anything they could say short of a role claim that would convince anyone) and thus suspicious and voted for, or.......the list goes on. Once someone has the sort of heat on them that Sorsha (and SVS, I guess?) did, then it is nigh impossible to turn that momentum around, in my experience, regardless of what sort of defense they do or do not attempt. Once people have an idea of who they want to lynch, they very rarely change their minds, despite whatever hemming and hawing and hedging they do in the thread

I'm not condemning people for voting based on their gut, or their initial suspicions of Sorsha (though I didn't share them), or whatever pings led them to suspect her. I self-consciously and admittedly 100% cast myself in the same boat as those who tend to stick to their initial instinct regardless of defenses that might be offered (I'm a stubborn asshole, what can I say?

). There's nothing wrong with that, it's a part of mafia (and a much bigger part of mafia than most people are willing to admit, methinks

)..........but can we can it with the "Woe is me! If only she would have defended herself this never would have happened!" type nonsense??! That just reads as blame-shifting and self-indemnifying....which reads as baddie baddie baddie to me. So

to all of you ladies and gents who doth protest too much.

For what it's worth, I probably would've randomized

in a coward like that when it comes to close votes.

Guuuuuuyyyyyyssss!

I'm the absolute worst.

Sorry I missed the vote, super stressful work day for me made me completely forget that this vote was tonight.

Sad to see Sorsha (and her role) go. Rats.

Ummmmm.
What just happened with Sorsha?

Also, Bullz: I was totally on board with you being civvish until your last post, and then I got really confused. Why the heck are you asking the thread for their input on whether or not your voting strategy/choices are objectionable??! I have never seen that. I don't know if it makes me think you're bad, but it certainly makes me think you're odd....

Also, I still don't suspect Sorsha and I'm sad that she's frustrated. Bummer. I do think her quip to DH about "getting over it" was interesting, though, and would love to hear some more elaboration on that point from either of the involved parties....

Search found 54 matches