The Syndicate

I just read back to before the stuff I caught up on and realised HBoy, you did start doing some gth reads before then.

So, you can ignore my second question.

For you HBoy

Golden wrote:There are lots of reasons you are my top town read, including:

1) The way a number of people jumped on you for poor reasons, at least some of which I think is likely from baddies.
2) The way you called that out when it just got dropped (completely right, and although I still haven't analysed who those people were I'm waiting to find out...)
3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.
4) The way you have handled Dr Wilgy... unflappable in the face of meaningless suspicion.

But I'll also point out Fuzz did not ask me 'why am I your top civilian read', which would have gotten this answer to begin with. He asked me (paraphrasing) 'how can I be your top civilian read when I've done x y and z, which you say you find suspicious', and my first response was to explain why he had not done x, y and z, and therefore how it was possible for him to be my top read despite the specific actions he mentioned.

A no u? Yes. I find your suspicion of me disingenuous. It's based on a poor read of an iso and seems way more, to me, like someone trying to discredit me and get votes off rico. It has served to make me more determined to keep my vote on rico.

This post felt all over the place to me, and difficult to follow your thought process or why you are doing a gth on me specifically - so replied inline with colours:

HamburgerBoy wrote:How would you describe his behavior? Unfathomable as a civilian. Fathomable as indy. Fathomable as scum.

I searched through your post history and I'll admit that he's being indirect at times, especially more in relatively recent posts than his earliest. What does this have to do with searching MY post history?

I am starting to see the possibility that he's a scum that was caught early, and is now intentionally shooting himself in the foot to distance himself from his scummates and give them townie points when he flips. Is this you setting up the end point of your post? I'm unclear, but are you saying that 'if rico flips scum, golden is his teammate'? Because thats how this post is reading to me.

Incidentally, searching your history also led me to this (which I see had a couple back-and-forth posts with Fuzz)...

Golden wrote:I don't think the point here is that they 'give information whether they are asked or not'. I think the point is that I do think voting off-wagon is justifiable, but people should provide their justifications.

For instance, lets say right now my top two suspects were Rico and, lets say JJJ for the sake of argument (I'm reading JJJ as civ in actuality, but I choose him because I don't think he is actually going to take any votes, especially given he is cursed). Now, if given the choice between voting one of the two, wouldn't my vote be more impactful on rico, given rico might be lynched, rather than off-wagon on JJ, even though it would be a legitimate suspicion? As a civ, isn't my interest in choosing my suspect that is more likely to be lynched?

For me, a civilian voting off-wagon (at least, after the point at which the wagons have formed) is effectively a civilian saying they don't suspect either of the wagon candidates. Or at least not enough to give them a vote. Otherwise they'd vote on the wagon. I don't think it is a big leap from there to say why.

How does bandwagoning impact anything in this hypothetical? You're saying that it is better to vote for a player likely to be lynched because they are likely to be lynched; that is almost contradictory, if a player is going to be lynched then any votes at that point and beyond have zero value. It seems to be built on a pessimistic assumption regardless; any lynch where one person is far in the lead is a sad one unless there's really good evidence. Also, since the topic is indirect answering of questions, what apparently started this: I don't really understand the point you are making here at all, and it feels like you have snipped a single post out of a long conversation that was about me and Fuzz talking through philosophies of voting off-wagon. None of this paragraph appears to address any aspect of what I was saying. Unless you are asking 'why is it useful for people to be on a major wagon at day end' in which case my answer is 'because voting records are a good place to find baddies'.

Also, this next bit did not 'apparently start it' as it came at the very end... are you reading my ISO backwards?

Golden wrote:1) there are 24 hours to go, so it's hardly time to be talking about where the major wagons in this lynch are... if I think your vote is to be criticised, I'll wait until I see where the wagons actually are and your vote is at the end of the day
2) Just because someone does something scum might do, does not mean that particular thing is the only thing I take into account when making a read. If I felt like you were deliberately skirting creating any opinions on the main candidates by voting off-wagon, then my opinion of you would probably start to fall from 'top town read', but it wouldn't immediately send you to 'worst scum read', either.

You didn't directly answer why you found Fuzz specifically so townie, you just kinda backed off on your praise as if you were buddying a townie to make him uncomfortable. "If I felt like you were deliberately skirting...", you're answering "Why am I town?" with "If I felt you were scum, I wouldn't find you town".

I gave Fuzz four numbered reasons why I specifically found him so townie, so this is blatantly incorrect and demonstrates that you haven't read my iso very carefully at all.

Gun to head, golden is scum.

Some questions for you...

Why did you call me out for apparently 'not answering a question', while not answering the question I asked you? What is your civ motivation for rico's behaviour?
Why did you frame your scum read to me as a 'gth' read? You weren't doing gth reads. What you mean is, you find some of my posts suspicious.
Where is your mindset, in which you defend rico over several posts, but also appear to set me up in this post as his teammate bussing him?

You seem so torn over your read on rico... this sentence in particular (requoted from above) I really do not like in the context of everything you've said before and since.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I am starting to see the possibility that he's a scum that was caught early, and is now intentionally shooting himself in the foot to distance himself from his scummates and give them townie points when he flips.

It seems to me you are ok reading rico as civ if you can then point to who you would choose to lynch next. You can see him as bad if there is an additional agenda to you saying it. Otherwise, you just don't see what he is doing as that bad.

So, I'll ask you again, HBoy - what is your objective theoretical motivation for his behaviour from a civ perspective. You say his cases are 'wrong' or 'bad'? No - they are just him saying people are confirmed scum, making rainbows where everyone is red, flipping coins to say who is red. They are literally impossible to take seriously (or be seen as bad) and noone does take them seriously or see them as bad. If you think thats the case, you don't even understand the case. You say there isn't room for explanation? He has been given plenty of room to explain, and has chosen not to. He's had four whole days to do it.

@HB - what would you describe as the objective theoretical civilian motivation for Rico's behaviour?

LoRab the twirl junkie

Long Con wrote:I have no intention of running interference for Metalmarsh. If he wants to use my contribution to avoid answering your questions, then that's on him. I have to participate in this game too. I saw some points that I thought were not accurate, and I spoke up.

Fair enough.

Long Con wrote:

Golden wrote:

Long Con wrote:

When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.

To me, saying "This is not a testament to his alignment though" means that you could be sensing Civilian intent as a Civvie or a baddie, so we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.

I don't think so. There is a difference between saying 'I don't see that behaviour as alignment indicative' and saying 'This is not a testament to HIS alignment'. It was about me, in response to Mac saying it matched my civ game.

But that's exactly what I said above:

...we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.

It was an appropriate response to Mac saying it matches your Civ game. Because the behaviour is not alignment-indicative, Mac was erroneous in saying it matches your Civ game.

I'm not trying to say that you are not Civ in any way, I'm saying that it is not correct to assume you're Civ because you normally praise a player that you sense Civilian intent in.

Of course it isn't correct to assume that, which is why my very first response to Metalmarsh was to agree that it isn't indicative of my alignment.

Mac was not erroneous at all. He carefully stated he had seen nothing of my baddie game, and the point he was making is that it matched his experience of me, which only included one affiliation. He said it was what he expected from me when civ. He didn't say it makes me civ-aligned.

But all of that is entirely besides the point that I'm asking MM to respond to, and it feels like you are running inteference.

MM said it 'amazed him' that I did it. Then Mac pointed out that its my normal behaviour in his experience, in games that MM played in (and, of course, it is normal of me in any affiliation. It's a pretty well known trait, and it is a fact that MM has played games in which I've done it as both affiliations).

My point is... why did he say he was so amazed? What amazed him so much? It's just my normal behaviour. I find it difficult to understand what MM found amazing, and I want him to clarify that.

Long Con wrote:

When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.

To me, saying "This is not a testament to his alignment though" means that you could be sensing Civilian intent as a Civvie or a baddie, so we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.

I don't think so. There is a difference between saying 'I don't see that behaviour as alignment indicative' and saying 'This is not a testament to HIS alignment'. It was about me, in response to Mac saying it matched my civ game.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:

Golden wrote:But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

Explain something to me. How can I, with my reasoning for voting Llama literally attributed to "I'm following the guy who can only speak in smileys," be your strongest town read when in the same post you claim you would criticize people voting off wagon without much explanation?

Fair enough Marsh. You realize, then, that if we're going to operate on the possibility of separate scum teams that catching scum provides very little credibility, correct?

That goes without saying.

Speaking of which, it amazes me that Golden was willing to give you such high credibility already.

When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.

This is not a testament to his alignment though.

It amazes you that I'd do it, even though you know it is something I do regularly enough that you can say it isn't testament to my alignment?

If you do it regularly enough, how does it determined what your alignment is?

I'm not saying it does determine what my alignment is.

My point is, if you know that it isn't, you must have seen me do it as both alignments. So why does it amaze you that I did it here?

MacDougall wrote:I would encourage you in this situation to not bother trying to force a case out of this ping because you will find absolutely nothing to support it beyond your own faulty intuition.

MacDougall wrote:Fuzz can you think of any other times where you have been incorrectly read as being in teams with other players? I feel like I can see where Metalmarsh's viewpoint is coming from after our recent couple of interactions.

RadicalFuzz wrote:So he compliments people with the intent to legitimately compliment them? That bugs me, one of my pet peeves is feeling manipulated when people say nice things about me. That's why I prefer people to suspect me, I know where their mindset is.

I have told you exactly where my mindset is. It's up to you to choose whether to 'know it' or not.

Choosing only to trust my mindset if I'm suspicious of you is flawed. It just means that I know my best move when bad is to be suspicious of you. It wouldn't make my suspicious mindset genuine.

I'll give my reads whatever they are. I don't really care if it makes you uncomfortable that I trust you. And, as Mac's basically implied, I don't even care if it gets me suspected. I think part of Mac's reason for suspecting me in that game may have also been that he was concerned I was being manipulative.

There are lots of reasons you are my top town read, including:

1) The way a number of people jumped on you for poor reasons, at least some of which I think is likely from baddies.
2) The way you called that out when it just got dropped (completely right, and although I still haven't analysed who those people were I'm waiting to find out...)
3) The way you have added your own content even when it is going against popular opinion without any reason to do so.
4) The way you have handled Dr Wilgy... unflappable in the face of meaningless suspicion.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:

Golden wrote:But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

Explain something to me. How can I, with my reasoning for voting Llama literally attributed to "I'm following the guy who can only speak in smileys," be your strongest town read when in the same post you claim you would criticize people voting off wagon without much explanation?

Fair enough Marsh. You realize, then, that if we're going to operate on the possibility of separate scum teams that catching scum provides very little credibility, correct?

That goes without saying.

Speaking of which, it amazes me that Golden was willing to give you such high credibility already.

When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.

This is not a testament to his alignment though.

It amazes you that I'd do it, even though you know it is something I do regularly enough that you can say it isn't testament to my alignment?

RadicalFuzz wrote:

Golden wrote:But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

Explain something to me. How can I, with my reasoning for voting Llama literally attributed to "I'm following the guy who can only speak in smileys," be your strongest town read when in the same post you claim you would criticize people voting off wagon without much explanation?

Fair enough Marsh. You realize, then, that if we're going to operate on the possibility of separate scum teams that catching scum provides very little credibility, correct?

1) there are 24 hours to go, so it's hardly time to be talking about where the major wagons in this lynch are... if I think your vote is to be criticised, I'll wait until I see where the wagons actually are and your vote is at the end of the day
2) Just because someone does something scum might do, does not mean that particular thing is the only thing I take into account when making a read. If I felt like you were deliberately skirting creating any opinions on the main candidates by voting off-wagon, then my opinion of you would probably start to fall from 'top town read', but it wouldn't immediately send you to 'worst scum read', either.

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Mac and Fuzz are teammates (in a bad kind of way).

Please don't make matter of fact statements like this without making a case or I will make your experience in this game very unpleasant.

Ok.

I would encourage you in this situation to not bother trying to force a case out of this ping because you will find absolutely nothing to support it beyond your own faulty intuition.

And also because it is not the truth???

But yeah, I was talking in the theoretical because I am in particular one of those who would criticise people voting off wagon without much explanation, and so I think talking through Fuzz's perspective is helpful for me to understand him.

Fuzz is my strongest town read right now.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote: Linki @Mac - I'm not ignoring today's situation, but I coined the '2 major wagon' thing and that is because we are talking about a matter of principle and its much easier to talk about in the simplest theoretical form. It's not actually a discussion about today's lynch situation. But if Fuzz was ignoring one, I doubt it would be llama, eh, given he's voted that way?

Okay I didn't realise your "2 major wagons" thing was a concept, I took it in the context of current situations. Tthough I feel like the Llama case is the one that's flying under the radar though given that there has been far more discussion around Lorab's wagon and they have the same number of votes on them.

If I had been talking about it as the game situation, I would be ignoring llama. It's not that I don't give it credence, but of those who haven't committed to voting or even of those who have voted but might consider changing their votes, I feel like LoRab is far more mentioned as a candidate than llama. My impression only, no scientific analysis.

RadicalFuzz wrote:

Golden wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

So you'd prefer every off-wagon voter to, whether directly asked or not, give information about which of the main wagons they'd rather see succeed? The issue I have with that is that you're forcing opinions from people. If a player is indecisive or split on the main wagons then pulling an opinion from them will inevitably cause a contradiction. When that player happens to be scum all is right in the world, however if that player is a townie then it creates a rabbit hole out of a mole hill, so to speak.

Mac the number of main wagons is irrelevant in this discussion, as far as I can tell. If there are 5 wagons with the same number of votes then the conversation would be the same.

Giving reasons why you are indecisive is still information. In respect of townies, all I'd ask is that they be honest about their opinions. This does not need to cause a contradiction (not that contradictions are inherently scum-tells, either).

I don't think the point here is that they 'give information whether they are asked or not'. I think the point is that I do think voting off-wagon is justifiable, but people should provide their justifications.

For instance, lets say right now my top two suspects were Rico and, lets say JJJ for the sake of argument (I'm reading JJJ as civ in actuality, but I choose him because I don't think he is actually going to take any votes, especially given he is cursed). Now, if given the choice between voting one of the two, wouldn't my vote be more impactful on rico, given rico might be lynched, rather than off-wagon on JJ, even though it would be a legitimate suspicion? As a civ, isn't my interest in choosing my suspect that is more likely to be lynched?

For me, a civilian voting off-wagon (at least, after the point at which the wagons have formed) is effectively a civilian saying they don't suspect either of the wagon candidates. Or at least not enough to give them a vote. Otherwise they'd vote on the wagon. I don't think it is a big leap from there to say why.

Linki @Mac - I'm not ignoring today's situation, but I coined the '2 major wagon' thing and that is because we are talking about a matter of principle and its much easier to talk about in the simplest theoretical form. It's not actually a discussion about today's lynch situation. But if Fuzz was ignoring one, I doubt it would be llama, eh, given he's voted that way?

RadicalFuzz wrote:The issue with declaring which of these hypothetical two main wagons you would vote for, Golden, is that it rarely helps the one declaring intent to vote. If they get lynched and flip scum then it was "free credit" because they didn't vote for the scum. If they get lynched and flip civ then it was "distancing from a mislynch" because they appeared flip-floppy. If that player isn't lynched it's almost worse, since there's no conclusion to this "I'd rather X be dead than Y" preference. My experiences show that scum hiding on a main wagon usually have worse reasoning than scum hiding on off wagons, as they can bandwagon and literally say "I agree with X's statements" without risking genuine interaction.

I'd expect anyone who does not join on the main two wagons to be able to put into words why they didn't vote for either of those people. If they can't, I don't care how good the reason is that they voted someone off the wagon, it is effective scum hiding. Nothing easier when scum than tunnelling on someone who isn't getting lynched.

The advantage of forcing them to say IS that it rarely helps them. It means they aren't doing it for themselves, they are doing it for the record. Scum then can't avoid making some form of statement about teammates when they have heat. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how genuine you believe someone to be in their reads, regardless of what those reads actually are.

Yeah, I mean it's an argument like this... if there are 15 pages and in amongst them there is 1 page of useful content, is that better than there only being 3 posts which are all useful content?

I agree that the vast bulk of it is nonsense and doesn't need to be read. But there has also been quite a number of legimitate cases made on people besides Rico, by people who aren't rico, which for day one is unusual.

@Mac - maybe, maybe not. As noted, I know from Star Wars that zebra is able to choose to appear supatown when bad. Choosing to look slightly lazy (in comparison to that game) could be a very good and intentional counterpoint to her Star Wars persona (regardless of her affiliation).

Based on going back and reading her iso, I would have her just slightly bad in my rainbow, but very close to neutral. I was disappointed to see how high a percentage of the content was just dealing with all the rico stuff, and how vague the rest is. And I don't really see why you wouldn't just offer up who is bad rather than asking people to guess (even for funsies).

But, I don't understand those things from any particular affiliation mindset.

Well, I mean, I was just assuming I had some basis on which to work with, but I didn't really.

If I was taking it seriously, I would have guessed Matt was in there (given your approach to his MM suspicion), and I was 50/50 on what your view was on LC. I wouldn't have gotten the others, though.

I think your view on Long Con is ambiguous but exists. I'd say Long Con is not one of the 6.

I'll go with...

HB
tranq
timmer
DF
bass
ninja

Maybe its a low poster thing.

Ricochet wrote:I can only hope Golden's ISO will reveal how bad zebra is.

Well....

It did make me feel like there isn't a huge amount of analysis there.

Does this make her bad? There were huge amounts of analysis in her Star Wars iso. So I'd say, on the face of it, that it does not make her bad.

But I was underwhelmed by how much I got out of 130 posts.

I did it and came up with...

None of them will be MetalMarsh or JJ.

That's about it. I don't think you've even expressed a view on me.

a2thezebra wrote:For funsies as well as to get an idea if anyone's misreading me be it deliberately (alignment-indicative) or because I post too much (not alignment-indicative).

I'm kind of surprised that you think they don't need to be guessed. You think you can correctly guess all six then? Remember, this is excluding Rico.

No, I couldn't guess one.

I can't pay attention to what everyone elses suspicions are this early on in the game. It takes getting deep before I have any hope of tracking where everyones head is at. I really only notice that 'player x suspects player y' if it is aligning with things I'm already thinking about and seeing.

But, I will do a brief ISO of you and guess for funsies.

a2thezebra wrote:Why has no one bothered to ask me about my six other potential votes for the day? Especially since most of us seem to agree that Rico is getting too much attention.

I don't think anyone needs to ask for you to share.

I was actually meaning to ask you why we needed to guess? Just for funsies?

Reminds me of Dune Mac, who demonstrated probably the best overall instincts I've seen from him in any game.

Draconus wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Tranq wrote:25 pages already?

They are not really worth reading.

There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.

I agree, I have managed to get quite a number of reads out of it so far.

Which are?

Frequently mentioned in the thread when I've formed them.

If Ricochet was not an option, do you know who you would vote for?

LoRab

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I can't believe Rico's strategy of making everyone think they're trying to get everyone to vote for them so no one will ultimately vote for them is starting to actually work.

I am happy to have a crack at lynching Rico, but just let it be known that I don't think it'll work.

It might, however, work at using up whatever power he has (for instance, a lynch protection.)

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dr Wilgy swings both ways?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Tranq wrote:25 pages already?

They are not really worth reading.

There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.

I agree, I have managed to get quite a number of reads out of it so far.

Which are?

Frequently mentioned in the thread when I've formed them.

MacDougall wrote:

Spoiler: show

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Unvote
vote MacDougall

So that test didn't work.

Thinking about Rico now... How could Ricochet be scum? It makes no fucking sense. He is playing sooooo whack, he is seemingly trying to get votes cast on him, and that's not a scum role imo. I think he might be my World Reborn role, or something like it. Where I had a win con of getting shit tons of votes on me and was a cop, and lynchproof etc. I was indy.

He smells indy as fuck to me.

Thats exactly why, to me, it makes so much fucking sense for Rico to be bad.

Rational people should rationalise it the way you just did. Rico has played it up SO MUCH that at this point I think he realised early he was taking heat and decided to wifom his way out of it.

You said he was taking heat early? Indicating that you think his behaviour is a response to the suspicion placed on him right?

Spoiler: show

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Was he REALLY under that much duress when he first started playing this way Golden? To me he was like this out of the gate.

No duress at all, his random behaviour was his own, and also I can't recall any frame of reference for what Rico does best being 'act completely cray cray'. What he does best in my own opinion is playing a very rational game, both as town and baddie, and rational is not a word that could be attributed to him in this game (at least, not based on the evidence we can see in the thread).

linki - vompatti level scum-slip right there. Lol Rico, nice biblical reference

You now say he wasn't put under duress and that his behaviour wasn't influenced by being under duress?

This a pretty inconsistent viewpoint.

I misunderstood your question. I mean he didn't begin his random behaviour under duress. But he could have gone any direction from there, it's fine to start out jokey. After he took heat, I feel like he amped it up to 11.

MacDougall wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Tranq wrote:25 pages already?

They are not really worth reading.

There's loads of useful shit been posted. This has been a very productive game so far.

I agree, I have managed to get quite a number of reads out of it so far.

So Draconus has also been cursed? To post only in questions?

JJ can't quote himself.

But, I'm sorry I don't understand the one with twelves cars in it. I get 'llama drives JJ to think lorab is suspicious', but I'm not sure.

RadicalFuzz wrote:I haven't heard your vocaroo. If you think we should stop fighting and just be friends then which of us would you rather see gone? I also really dislike it when people say votes not on leading wagons are going to waste. It's a very narrow-minded viewpoint that completely ignores any effect of lynch votes aside from voting to kill.

Hey Mac, question. If you had to blindly trust one player for the rest of the game, who would it be?

I like a lot of your posts, Fuzz. They bring an interesting perspective that I think is helpful.

I think votes off the main wagons can definitely be meaningful and analysed (see: G-Mans rainbow lists in Biblical). I don't think anyone should pick someone on one of the main two wagons if they feel that both are civilian. However, I tend to prefer that people at least declare which of the main wagons they would vote for, if they voted for either, because being off the wagon is an easy place to hide for a baddie.

Black Rock wrote:I am going to vote for LoRab for now. Her posts reek of her mafia self. I look forward to seeing what she has to say to Epig.

Certainly this post implies BR reads her well.

MacDougall wrote:I'd be happy with seeing the back of Ricochet's GoC Fun Time but I have doubts that lynching him will result in a lynch at all let alone a Mafia lynch and I think LoRab is more bad for non intentional reasons (ie. better ones).

I prefer to deal with maverick behaviour rather than let it slide. I don't blame anyone for avoiding it and going for LoRab though. I don't really get the 'false vibe' from LoRab's posts that others seem to, but I feel like the people who do see it are often good at seeing that stuff (and also, I think BR reads LoRab well... BR how do you feel about that statement?)

MacDougall wrote:Was he REALLY under that much duress when he first started playing this way Golden? To me he was like this out of the gate.

No duress at all, his random behaviour was his own, and also I can't recall any frame of reference for what Rico does best being 'act completely cray cray'. What he does best in my own opinion is playing a very rational game, both as town and baddie, and rational is not a word that could be attributed to him in this game (at least, not based on the evidence we can see in the thread).

linki - vompatti level scum-slip right there. Lol Rico, nice biblical reference

Oh, and also, if it is a role like your one in World Reborn than I don't really have any fear playing in to it. If Rico was that kind of Indy, I could trust in him to have no loyalties whatsoever and do whatever was best for him, which isn't necessarily anti-town. Indeed, if Rico is actually civ and the goal is for him to gain power through lynch votes I also don't have any problem with it. The only think I'm worried about with lynching Rico would be if he was mafia-aligned but his role got power from lynch votes and he could survive the lynch. Then it would suck.

MacDougall wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Unvote
vote MacDougall

So that test didn't work.

Thinking about Rico now... How could Ricochet be scum? It makes no fucking sense. He is playing sooooo whack, he is seemingly trying to get votes cast on him, and that's not a scum role imo. I think he might be my World Reborn role, or something like it. Where I had a win con of getting shit tons of votes on me and was a cop, and lynchproof etc. I was indy.

He smells indy as fuck to me.

Thats exactly why, to me, it makes so much fucking sense for Rico to be bad.

Rational people should rationalise it the way you just did. Rico has played it up SO MUCH that at this point I think he realised early he was taking heat and decided to wifom his way out of it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Jimmy

Apparently this is not cheating , but JJ I'd like to say I figured this out before reading this.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Translation

JJ suspects llama
Llama vanishes
JJ is forced to post in smilies
This is suspicious
JJ is noble and civ-like.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

I haven't caught up on the thread yet, but has anyone else connected that the sparta smilie appears to be Jay's code for himself.

a2thezebra wrote:However, shockingly enough I've got my eye on six others who may end up with my vote by the end of the day. Can you guess who they are?

Ricochet wrote:Your teammates?

No matter what affiliation rico (or zebra) is, this was awesome and hilarious.

Poll not meaningless. At least this is confirmed should there be any more. Given Epi voted Ezekiel, I'd put my money on that being the correct answer of that particular set.

Voted Rico.

Yes, votes are changeable. I doubt mine will change, though.

MacDougall wrote:Yes I did. I am also familiar with American Gods so I pretty well knew straight away just saying. I just don't know what you're getting at saying that Rico asked you why you weren't referring to him by name. I missed that. You say that it isn't what you mentioned per se, then what is it? You're going to have clarify your point.

He objected to me making, apparently, three different posts where I clarified your posts. I said the point was to draw attention to the fact that Rico's interpretations of them weren't reasonable. He wondered how I could do that without specifically referencing him in those posts.

I could see that as being a prod for me to explain the posts by way of a fuller rationale that mentioned his name several times.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I wonder what the current post count leader will think if I refer to that person solely as "the current post count leader" (or adapt for different ranks in post count as applicable).

Are you referring to Epi's 'Media' theory?

Although does anyone know if a similar role existed in any game in 2015?

I would point out that rico wanted to know why I didn't refer to him by name specifically in some of those posts.

But, at this point, if he is any role like that his mention count is already through the roof.

Are you serious?

Well, I mean, that isn't what you wanted to know per se, but it could have led to me mentioning you more. It would have been an effective prod.

But no, I don't think you are a role from 2013.

I just want to know where JJ's head was at.

How is me complaining about you saying quotes directed at Mac having to do something with me in any way the same thing as me complaining you don't bring me up by name?!!!

What you said was 'I didn't reference you in those posts'... is referencing you different to bringing you up by name?

MacDougall wrote:Okay tell me now, is snipping posts bad etiquette or not.

I snip posts all the time, to quote only the specific part of the post I'm referencing. It's completely open for others if they thing such snipping is in some way manipulative, and generally speaking the player you snip will call you out on it if there is any argument that this is the case.

I think readability > no snipping.