The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
G-Man wrote:Ah, but what if Roslin was NK'd? When did the amnesty act take effect?
I suppose that's also plausible. I don't know what'd cause the delay though since the line of succession is pre-determined. There should be no need for an entire day to progress before Roslin's replacement is determined.

And why wouldn't it take effect immediately? Say Roslin gets NK'd one of those nights and sig is next in line of succession. Someone thought the Marmot Protection law was rooted in a prophecy of Roslin's, which makes sense for something so specific and cryptic.

If Roslin was NK'd Night 4 or Night 5, the replacement (sig?) could have taken effect immediately. That would still allow for the theorized impeachment mechanic when Glorfindel claimed and made sig the lynch poll leader. An impeachment mechanic would add a level of protection to a PotC, possibly as a check and balance to the rezz ship thing. Instead of dying, they are just impeached? Maybe Gaius has a mechanic where he can usurp power in the event of an impeachment or maybe there are no more successors left after sig, leaving things wide open for someone else to jump in?

Ah, but what if Roslin was NK'd? When did the amnesty act take effect?

*looks back at Golden's ISO*

It was Day 3. We had the missed kill on Night 3 and Scotty and Spacedaisy got NK'd since then. If one of them was Roslin, then maybe sig was next in the line of succession?

Honestly the impeachment angle makes more sense to me than Gaius have a mechanic to get himself elected. What say those knowledgeable in show lore? Anything there to help us on this one?

So say we all.

Alright folks, here's six days worth of technicolor vote breakdowns. I fixed Day 4 per Golden's authoritative list. Still no official list on Day 5 or 6, so I am just assuming that Bea's vote for Glorfindel Day 6 counted.

Teamwork behavior can't stay hidden in the voting forever (it's how we got our groove back in Biblical, true story), so let's dig in and examine our suspects. We have plenty of them. What you want to do is look at when a person votes and who they vote for. Also pay attention to the voting happening around them, both before and after. This is why I have two lists formats. One is just voting order but the other chunks voters together by who they voted for.

Look at everything- clusters of votes for the same person, clusters of votes that go back and forth, gaps between votes for the same player, votes that seem to mark a shift in momentum. Put on your tin foil hats and try to see how your top suspects could be the baddiest baddie that ever was bad. The trick is to not focus too much on just one day of votes. If you think you see something suspicious, take it to the next level and compare that day's votes to the next day. You may find suspected teammate behavior confirmed or called into question by what you see.

I say pick your top two or three suspects, go to town, and share what you think you see in the technicolors. Keep thread content in mind but vote analysis is void of tone interpretation. It's all hard facts. Who voted for whom and when. Share your findings and we can discuss/debate the veracity of what you think you see.

I took the liberty of marking DrWilgy and Glorfindel as Toasters because I think the evidence from the previous two lynches points to both of them being such.

Since I already believe Glorfindel to be a Toaster, I am going to look at the two players who nearly wrecked our chances of confirming Glorfindel's status- DrumBeats and rabbit8.

DAY 1

Spoiler: show

DAY 2

Spoiler: show

DAY 3

Spoiler: show

DAY 4

Spoiler: show

DAY 5

Spoiler: show

DAY 6

Spoiler: show

Any votes left out there? If so, vote Glorfindel so we can confirm him as a Toaster. Please! This is like LoRab-Nero revisited.

DrumBeats wrote:Oh wow, looking at the timing of Glorf's claim that is an incredibly good strategic point for a cylon to claim.

The way it stands right now we have:

4 votes Glorf (discounting Silver's)
3 votes on Sig (Discounting Zebra)
3 votes on Rabbit

This forces us to vote break the tie and put somebody above Glorf in terms of votes, which will not allow us to be certain that Glorf is a cylon.

@ linki Epig I can make sense of them and see reasoning behind them. Zebra I often could not deduce reasoning. That being said though, Rabbits more recent posts were not so great and had little to no content.

I would personally rather take more time to read Rabbit and push for Sig today.

I also trust the people who voted for Sig more than those that voted Rabbit.

Sig

Actually, Vompatti cast his second vote for Glorfindel, so he has five votes. I knew he'd break down and claim! The Toaster becomes the toast tomorrow.

That post kinda makes Drum look worse, no?

Additional time is needed to process DrumBeats. Sorry Epi. The extra day hasn't provided me with too much extra clarity but it's been nice being able to take another look at a few people.

I'm staying true to the cause since he's a viable option today. Vote = Glorfindel

Addendum to what I said about Black Rock:

Through all my notes, something that sticks out to me is that she hasn't provided much in the way of player reads. At least not all at once. I have notes on her being suspicious of Wilgy and SVS in the last two game days. Other than that, I'm struggling to find reads on many (any?) other living players. She had stances on Nutella (lynched), LoRab (lynched), Spacedaisy (NK'd) and Long Con (lynched). Maybe she can give us an idea of where her head is at on everybody. It seems like most others have provided a smattering of player reads, if not full roster reads all at once.

An abundance of reading today but it's done me some good.

I read through JJJ's ISO on sig and I even ISO'd sig to make sure there were no gaps. I don't see any reason to take sig off of my list of suspects. He seems to play in recovery mode a lot. He seems inclined to latch onto conspiracy theories (Scotty was NK'd to frame him!, SD was NK'd to scare us away from lynching Wilgy!), coming up with ideas that are appeals for the thread to move in whatever direction he is leaning. He also called out Silverwolf today for not voting for Wilgy like she said she would, as if people are not allowed to change their minds with new information. It's almost like he throws mid-range to wild ideas out there hoping for something to stick. I'm comfortable with him being on the chopping block today.

JJJ surprised me with his ISO on Black Rock. I didn't find her drive-by suspicion on SVS to be odd because I was conflicted on SVS's waffling over the amnesty claim myself. Black Rock went a little more in depth than I had been thinking, so I'll have to take a harder look at SVS later tonight (Game 7 baby- go Pens!). BR's turn on SVS didn't feel as jolting to me as JJJ because I know how long SVS and BR have been playing mafia together. While I don't track meta myself, I can't help but give an Old Guard meta case a serious look. Some of these people have been playing together for the better part of a decade now but I understand that those who don't go back with us as far won't share the same ping when something like what BR does pops up.

I think Epi might be on to something with DrumBeats. I'm going back to ISO him now. I recall liking him at the start of the game but his behavior deviated to weird and hasn't corrected course by much. We'll see if an ISO sheds any light on anything.

As for this:

Glorfindel wrote:I know I'm on my own here in saying this but anyone that isn't willing to do the same or thinks it's smart to be obnoxious to others really doesn't help anyone to enjoy this game. For that reason, I sadly think that I'd remove G-Man. I know it's not what you wanted to hear but like I said, to me, some things ARE more important than winning. I mightn't be popular for saying what I have, but new members are the life blood of sites like these and as one you'll potentially lose, I figured you should know.

I mean, ouch. While I think everyone has been at the point where they think they'd rather get rid of someone they read civ because they're annoying instead of someone they're suspicious of, it stings to hear someone come out and say it about you. Please don't give up on this site just because of a bad experience or two. Persevere and make us bend to your will/play-style. There is room at the table here for players of all stripes.

Silverwolf wrote:Glorfindel needs to have the most votes and be forced to claim. Make sure the second place person is someone you want lynched today. He has refused to claim or address my questions when I ask why. Do not give him another day. He's scummy on top of refusing to claim. Put him in first. Get him to claim. Do it today.

Allow me some time to do some more thorough research on a few other players. There's a strong chance that I will join you in voting for Glorfindel. I fear that my focus on him has left my cases on the rest of my suspicion list a hair too lean should he get lynched today. A few things said today have my top suspects in motion and I'd like to try to pin the order down.

Actually, Drum, Epi hosted a game (Biblical Mafia) last year with I think 30 players in it and only 4 or 5 started as baddies. There was a side faction of indy-type roles but all the civs had to was lynch those four or five players. It took the cives darn near forever to clinch the win. Remembering the layout of that game better tonight has opened new perspectives for me on this game. I don't know a thing about the tv show BSG but there are familiar elements when I look at it from 10,000 feet. Secret roles, secret wincons- it's like a cousin format to Biblical if true.

I'm glad we have an extra day to this phase. As much as I want to vote for Glorfindel, I'd like to step back and look at a few more people as well. JJJ had a big write-up on sig that I want to digest a second time and Epi's gradual chipping away at Drum has me curious. Today (realtime day) was on the quiet side and this whole phase seems to have been less productive than others. I share some blame for that what with joining in on jostling with zebra before her abrupt exit.

S~V~S wrote:
G-Man wrote:So say we all. (A lot of posts from Golden back there. Thought I'd throw that in for insurance)

Epignosis wrote:
Polo wrote:Glorfindel's posts seem to be full of words but devoid of content.
I'd use a stronger verb than "seem."
I hear you.

As for Black Rock, I'm curious to hear more from her. Any time an accuser goes back a long way with the accused, I can't help but perk my ears up. It happened after SVS seemed to waffle on one or two stances.

DrumBeats fell out of my civ reads for his bizarre advocation to put Nero ahead of LoRab Day 3. That defied the whole purpose of squeezing a claim out of LoRab while she was on top.

I think 'nonconfirmed Cylon' might mean a Cylon of undetermined alignment. That would be my guess at least. And to be picky, it should be 'unconfirmed' and not 'nonconfirmed.' I can see your angle on putting Polo in a lose-lose situation. Drum feels quiet overall, probably because he disappears for longish stretches of time. I'm not really one to condemn anyone for that though.

Linki:
What did I waffle on? And I also would like to hear more from BR, I think she may have misunderstood something I said to be snide (and I can see why) when I did not intend it that way, and whether she thinks I am bad or not, I hope she is not staying away becasue of me.

According to my last read on you:

G-Man wrote:S~V~S- She drops from a civ read due to what I see as backpedaling on the claim issue. She seemed very much in favor about everyone claiming initially but as holdouts emerged and continue to hold out the past two game days, her stance has softened because pressuring people to claim seems too 1984-ish. Her angle on taking out Cain before Cavil strikes me as odd because Cavil's part of a team, which can be rooted out, while Cain is one player, an indy most likely. It's not impossible to find Cain but it's a harder process that may take more time than we have available if we do need both Cavil and Cain dead. She still has a few reads that mesh with mine though, which counts for something. Her insistence that Long Con is Cain is something I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

ObscureAllure wrote:
G-Man wrote:Alright OA, let me see if I get this straight- Wilgy is a bum and you owe him nothing. He's a dirty mafia trying to turn suspicion on you.

At the start of the game you trusted zebra but that has changed. Now you think she's either been bad all along and just good at hiding it or she was recruited.

Is that about right?

Apparently not, unless you're confusing the shaking fist smilie for a fist pump. Respond with smilies:

for yes and

for no.

Is your first paragraph about Wilgy?

Is your second paragraph about zebra?

Glorfindel wrote: I had not paid a lot of attention to Black Rock until this point of the game but her actions at the end of the last Day phase has given me pause to look at her more closely. ISOing her, she has less posts than even I.

Ahem. Fewer.

Alright OA, let me see if I get this straight- Wilgy is a bum and you owe him nothing. He's a dirty mafia trying to turn suspicion on you.

At the start of the game you trusted zebra but that has changed. Now you think she's either been bad all along and just good at hiding it or she was recruited.

Is that about right?

Another link:

Can you run that through the insanifier again so we can piece that together better, OA?

So say we all. (A lot of posts from Golden back there. Thought I'd throw that in for insurance)

Epignosis wrote:
Polo wrote:Glorfindel's posts seem to be full of words but devoid of content.
I'd use a stronger verb than "seem."

I hear you.

As for Black Rock, I'm curious to hear more from her. Any time an accuser goes back a long way with the accused, I can't help but perk my ears up. It happened after SVS seemed to waffle on one or two stances.

DrumBeats fell out of my civ reads for his bizarre advocation to put Nero ahead of LoRab Day 3. That defied the whole purpose of squeezing a claim out of LoRab while she was on top.

I think 'nonconfirmed Cylon' might mean a Cylon of undetermined alignment. That would be my guess at least. And to be picky, it should be 'unconfirmed' and not 'nonconfirmed.' I can see your angle on putting Polo in a lose-lose situation. Drum feels quiet overall, probably because he disappears for longish stretches of time. I'm not really one to condemn anyone for that though.

Linki:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I am seriously fed up with people implying or saying that I'm not paying attention when the same people give me the same treatment, it's getting old.
I don't give a shit. If you're going to spend Day 6 insulting everyone then you get what you get.

...and you don't get upset.

a2thezebra wrote:
G-Man wrote:A2thezebra, what I gather from your posts is that you have jack on either Glorfindel or Wilgy and are merely stating your opinions as facts, which is lazy at best.
Gather what you will but that's a load of bullshit and you know it. I have not once claimed that anything I have said in this thread is factually true, and I have no given reason for anyone to believe that I desire to give off that impression. If you have an issue with my play style take it up with the mods please, I'm not adjusting it because you think it's "lazy at best" give me a fucking break.

Aww what? You get defensive when someone is as blunt with you as you are to others. Let me call the waaambulance for you.

At least start your opinions with "I think" or "I feel" instead of making everything seem like a declarative statement.

A2thezebra, what I gather from your posts is that you have jack on either Glorfindel or Wilgy and are merely stating your opinions as facts, which is lazy at best.

Linki JJJ: I concur. He's almost as bad as I am at presenting player reads in a timely manner.

For realz yo- make with the sus list already.

a2thezebra wrote:
Silverwolf wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
ObscureAllure wrote:He's a cylon so if he claims our number two (should be Wigly) dies and if he doesn't claim then Glor dies. Either way we have a mafia.
You're wrong on both counts. Neither Wilgy nor Glorfindel will be a successful lynch regardless of whether or not either or both of them claim.

We will get nothing if we lynch either of them. Nothing. Except the game might be over faster.
You are wrong. Wilgy and Glorf are cylons. What are the odds they are both good? Especially if I'm to believe Wilgy is good, then Glorf is almost certainly not. So yes, Glorf needs to claim or die. He needs to tell me straight up why he isn't claiming if he chooses not to. Glorf is hiding among the nonclaimers and we need to get him out.

This is really very simple and if you still don't get it, then I'm not wasting time explaining it again to you. I'm hoping others will see it and vote accordingly.
Nothing is simple. That's probably why you think this is something that you can just make people "get" by pretending opinions are facts.

And what facts do you have suggesting that neither Wilgy or Glorfindel are bad? We already know that Wilgy is a Toaster. What info do you have pointing to him being civ-aligned? What facts are available to us suggesting that Glorfindel is good? You're just as opinion-heavy as anyone else, so please drop some facts on me.

Authoritative vote lists are still pending from the host but here's what I've got. There is a question in my mind over when DrWilgy's Day 4 vote for sig counted. He did it earlier in the day and just used sig's name in red. Later in the day he said he voted for real with the more standard format. I'll revise if necessary once Golden gets his lists up.

DAY 1

Spoiler: show

DAY 2

Spoiler: show

DAY 3

Spoiler: show

DAY 4

Spoiler: show

DAY 5

Spoiler: show

There is a lot of uncertainty in this game due to the mechanics at work. A lack of awareness of faction composition prevents me from using the terms civvie and baddie (and even indy in the case of Long Con). Are we going to be told if an otherwise presumed human role is actually Final Five? And then there is the theory that not all Toasters have BTSC. Do just bad Toasters have BSTC? Do any of them have BTSC? Other than Last Man Standing, I've never played a game where BTSC was such a question mark. I think everyone that has been lynched has claimed to not have BTSC. Do we believe any of them?

One of the things that these technicolors help me with is hunting for teammate behavior in the votes. It really pays dividends in the second half of a game because it's not always something baddies think about early on. But if the existence of BTSC is in question, should I even keep doing these? They take a while to work up (especially without authoritative vote lists since the poll positions can't always be trusted

).

I gotta get back to work. I'm going to re-read the night and today's content after dinner.

FWIW, I feel you in regards to Glorfindel, Silverwolf. My case on him is mostly context, positioning, and tone. He's dancing the right dance but the moves feel more than a little off to me. I have yet to see him make anything close to a formal slip but it still feels like a facade to me nonetheless.

So say we all.

Argh.

Silverwolf wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Before I abandon my constant defence as I indicated I would do, there is something that I want to share with you All (and yes, I am referring to my fellow Town members). I know that when SilverWolf returns as she promised, she will present her case for my lynching. I accept that she most fervently believes that I am Mafia and she will present (presumably a case similar to G-Man's) and I would hope will present facts which alone are ambiguous as to my guilt. What she will propose to you is that my motivation and intent has been pro-Mafia and anti-Town. As was the case with G-man's arguments, the conclusion at which you arrive will be based on your interpretation of events in light of how my motivation.

No matter what SilverWolf or G-Man or anyone else says, they are dead WRONG if they interpret my motives in any other way than in the interests of the Town in this game. I am extremely proud of the fact that I can say that throughout my 87 posts in this game there is not a single lie or deliberate untruth (business as usual for Glorfindel ). Any of you that have played with me before I think will understand the point I'm making here. I have not lied before and I am not lying now. I know there will be some who will dismiss what I've said here as a vapid emotional appeal or the like and that's their right to do so. Personally, there are things though that some of us value above winning a game of Mafia. And if you judge me as an awful Mafia player for that, then it's something I'll happily own up to. I'd also like to make the comparison between this game and life. It's difficult and it's frustrating. There are times you just want to stop and get off and there's times when it can be quite exciting and riveting. But like life, I get the feeling that all of this will only be really understood once it's over.
First paragraph pre-emptively addresses a case I may be making on him. Why even bother when it's not done yet? What is he worried about?

The second paragraph says nothing of value except asking us to believe he's not lying. What good does this do? Mafia can easily go through a game without lying. They can just withhold information.

I don't care how genuine he seems. His posts say nothing of substance. Try looking at all the words in his posts and see if you see him actually saying anything helpful this game.

Also, JJJ's coaching of Glorfindel, takes him straight off my civ list. He also got involved in the Wilgy situation to encourage Wilgy. He's also faded quite a bit since his ISO's and I am wondering if he's actually bad this game.

Apparently preemptive defenses are his thing because I called him out on doing the exact same thing to me earlier. Wake up and smell the pattern folks.

Glorfindel wrote:
Silverwolf wrote:The second paragraph says nothing of value except asking us to believe he's not lying. What good does this do? Mafia can easily go through a game without lying. They can just withhold information.
One last thing, if you were actually aware of what I've written in my posts (that apparently say nothing) you couldn't even make this statement. No Mafia could say everything that I've said and not lie. I'd respectfully suggest that you are more careful with your facts in future. Thank you.

So you're lying. Thanks for clearing that up.

Is Glorfindel on the menu for today for anyone else? I realize that the sig/Wilgy/zebra triangle is sexier but after these types of posts (again!) I struggle to hold back on voting for Glorfindel this early.

Also, technicolors are taking longer to produce because Golden the Slowpoke

still doesn't have authoritative vote lists for Day 4 and 5 up. I've been going through the thread a little at a time to track the order.

A lot of intriguing conversation going on today. If Golden the Coward

wasn't so secretive we'd know more about factions and failed NK attempts. I blame him.

I'm working on updated technicolors. I'll post them during tonight's hockey game.

DrWilgy wrote:How about this, I'll claim tomorrow if I survive this. Me claiming now will do nothing but have the chance of providing false information at this point.

A little like "I'll pay you a dollar tomorrow for a cheeseburger today." Letting you live to claim tomorrow would buy you a max of two days. Claiming today only buys you a max of one day. Guess which one we prefer?

A list of my suspects, from least suspicious to most suspicious (part 3):

2) sig- He's pondered a few things that felt like attempts at distraction to me: wondering about the size of the rezz ships despite the fact that we were checking sectors of space (p36); pondering about last-minute Nutella voters (p66) despite thinking there was no reason for a Nutella lynch in the first place (p61); his repetition of his belief that hunting Cain is a waste of time; declaring that Scotty's death was an attempt to frame him (p125)- seriously do people still try such naked frame-jobs?; and his belief that zebra is void of content (p130). Some of his reads don't line up with mine either, making more suspicious because he doesn't trust the same people I trust (silly perhaps, but it happens all the time). He spent a page or two being all beside himself convinced that Epi was bad and needed lynched pronto. The behavior is off and some of his reads are in conflict with mine.

1) Glorfindel- For several reasons already stated ad nauseum.

Vote = Glorfindel to give us another option and in the hopes of pressuring him to claim.

A list of my suspects, from least suspicious to most suspicious (part 2):

4) Long Con- I'm still trying to figure him out but his behavior has been all over the place instead of the cool and collected LC I feel like I've seen in recent games. He poo-pooed JJJ's case on Nutella, saying it was flawed in places (pg 63). He played a running gag with JJJ's 'confirmed civ' jest, which somehow fooled a few people and increased thread tension. On page 86 you said that if LoRab flipped baddie/Toaster, you would feel more suspicious of Zebra, Vomp, Rico, S~V~S, and JJJ. Can you refresh my memory on why that is? Did those suspicions come to fruition? Have you walked back on any of them? If so, why? The whole asking for time to prove you're not bad when you really meant just wait a few more days was more than a tad disingenuous. LC has, to his credit, had some good theorizing on how to maximize the exploitation of the amnesty claims through pressure votes. Your erratic behavior is a mark against you though.

3) InaWILGYes- IAWY was nonexistent for so long that it hurts both post and vote analysis. I find it hard to tell when Wilgy is really suspicious of someone (OA for example on pg 91) or if he's just playing games. Day 4 he asks the thread who he should vote for and then follows the next voter, which was a vote for sig (pg 108). Was this a joke or did he actually trust that Scotty was right about sig? I just don't know what to make of him, which means he is a wildcard and that could be dangerous. It could be the WIFOM approach- "well Wilgy can't be bad because he's being too obvious and attention-getting about it." I just don't know but he worries me the most of the replacements.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
G-Man wrote:6) Metalmarsh89- After he seemingly broke the tie (actually creating a tie) by voting Nero Day 3, he seemed to be marked for death. All of that vitriol and suspicion seems to have disappeared as the thread moved on to LoRab and other distractions. He proposed everyone make the Toaster claim, which was a good idea to neutralize the amnesty law. He's still low level suspicious for breezing his way through Day 1 and most of Day 2. Only being helpful and on-topic at night for the first few days was strange. I know he's an odd duck but I feel the need to keep watching him.
Do you find any of my actions suspicious, or are you listing me because people aren't finding my actions suspicious?

Linki: I'm probably voting for you Long Con. But you can still give me an alternative.

As a matter of fact, I'm still weirded out by you being all silly by day and on-topic at night early on. Can you explain that?

Also, on page 55, why did you come up with that oddball theory about our sorties only having a probability of finding a rezz ship on each space of the sortie grid? That made no sense to me, because if true it would have made the whole sortie thing more complicated and possibly impossible to complete.

Have you given any more thought to Nutella using the word 'scum' to describe baddies for the first time? (page 69) Has that led you to any conclusions about specific possible teammates? Or are you just keeping that idea out there in the ether to come back to later?

Can you explain again why you voted Nero instead of LoRab Day 3? (page 89) Keeping LoRab as a firm leader would have been a full confirmation of her Toaster status. We were able to infer as much anyway but had she fought harder or more convincingly, there could have been doubt about her.

Can you explain why no one seems to be out for your head anymore?

Do you think it has something to do with the fact that you came up with the idea of everyone making the amnesty claim? That certainly got us off on a wild tangent.

Who are your top three suspects now?

A list of my suspects, from least suspicious to most suspicious (part 1):

7) Spacedaisy- She's a tale of two mindsets. Early in the game she was distracted with RL, not following the thread well, and made a poor random Day 1 vote. Day 2 saw her fluffing it up and didn't think Nutella was bad when quite a number of us were. After Nutella's flip, she looked worse and got equal parts defensive and pouty. Somewhere during Day or Night 3 something changed and she's been alert, open to discussion, and on the hunt a few times. She wanted to take a hard look at the Nero voters from Day 3, she questioned OA on her reasons for refusing to claim, and today she's giving the

to LC. The is my most distant concern because of her transformation from lynch-me-now pouter to sense-talking quasi-hunter. She could be a civ who found the will to claw her way back into the game after a rough start or she could be a baddie who has been rewarded by her efforts after falling flat on her face early on. Big changes like that worry me, so I'm wary and watching.

6) Metalmarsh89- After he seemingly broke the tie (actually creating a tie) by voting Nero Day 3, he seemed to be marked for death. All of that vitriol and suspicion seems to have disappeared as the thread moved on to LoRab and other distractions. He proposed everyone make the Toaster claim, which was a good idea to neutralize the amnesty law. He's still low level suspicious for breezing his way through Day 1 and most of Day 2. Only being helpful and on-topic at night for the first few days was strange. I know he's an odd duck but I feel the need to keep watching him.

5) FaraDex- Here is another total shift in tone, personality, and thought processes. DFaraday was getting on my nerves for being a light contributor. Dex seems to be the opposite. Maybe the only thing that pings me was his desire on page 119 to eliminate Cain before Cavil. For me, the last time a suspicious player subbed out by a replacement who seemed so genuine was... Golden the Coward

in Economics Mafia. Many of you remember how that worked out.

That is why I'm keeping an eye on Dex.

An alphabetically-ordered list of neutral reads (part 2):

Polo- In his favor is his suspicion of sig, Glorfindel, and DrWilgy, all of whom are on my sus list. He is also in favor of eliminating Cavil before Cain, which makes sense. Working with Cain to eliminate Cavil may give us time to learn more about Cain's intentions in this game and who she is. Upon eliminating Cavil (or along the way to doing so), we can reassess how much of a threat Cain presents to the humans/civvies/whateveryouwantotcallthegoodguysinthisgame. Against Polo is the fact that he's seems a little too focused on sig, Glorfindel, and Wilgy. He's a hardcore claim fan and a little obsessive over that too. He also said on Day 3 that he would vote for Metalmarsh Day 4 (pg 89) but hasn't really listed him as a suspect since. GTH read would be a fanatical civ though.

Ricochet- He's a picker and getting close to a spot on my civ list. I'm holding him here until after his bout of insanification is through. He's a little distractable but when he's on point, he produces good content. I liked his very detailed breakdown on the Nutella lynch and he's not afraid to put a bunch of reads out there as the game progresses. He's a contributor and headed in the right direction in my mind.

S~V~S- She drops from a civ read due to what I see as backpedaling on the claim issue. She seemed very much in favor about everyone claiming initially but as holdouts emerged and continue to hold out the past two game days, her stance has softened because pressuring people to claim seems too 1984-ish. Her angle on taking out Cain before Cavil strikes me as odd because Cavil's part of a team, which can be rooted out, while Cain is one player, an indy most likely. It's not impossible to find Cain but it's a harder process that may take more time than we have available if we do need both Cavil and Cain dead. She still has a few reads that mesh with mine though, which counts for something. He insistence that Long Con is Cain is something I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

SokothQultuq- He sassed, he stalled, he talked about a bunch of stuff that wasn't player reads, and eventually he claimed. He drove people nuts while holding out but for some reason, on the other side of his claim, this post makes me feel better about him. Not civ read better but on the positive side of neutral. I can't quite place it but somehow that post feels legit.

Vompatti- As I said before, anything Vomp says should be taken with a grain of salt unless it shouldn't be. There's been lots of salt to take but not all of his posts. I don't feel a null read is justified this far into a game, so I place him smack in the middle of neutral. Knowing Vomp, he probably won't move much on my lists.

An alphabetically-ordered list of neutral reads (part 1):

a2thezebra- There was that odd rainbow list on page 91 but she's also made some statements and stances that I can agree with. I just don't have enough experience with her to make a call one way or the other. GTH read would be civ.

Bea- She posts a lot at one time, which is why she feels like one of the quieter ones despite her post count. Her prolonged refusal to make the claim was curious but I also agree with her and others who feel that a vote for sig today is not a waste just because he made his claim. The claim for amnesty is a two-step process. They make the claim and then we can choose to check it. If we just move onto the next person every time a claim comes in, we'll never test the claim to see if it's genuine. She's got a few reads I can agree with too. Very torn on her overall.

Black Rock- My notes on her are light, which keeps her closer to the suspicious side of neutral instead of the civvie side. I can't help but not trust her. I'm not sold on her stance on Long Con but I can understand her reservations of S~V~S.

DrumBeats- This post and the concept behind it dropped him out of a civ read. We wanted to test LoRab's claim. Thankfully the vote was tied and LR continued on posting as a true Toaster, so we could infer a lot about her coming out of that day. His thanking Cain for martial law is curious. I'm guessing he didn't need any Cylons alive to win initially. With Epi as a civ read for me, the martial law thing is conflicting.

To be continued...

An alphabetically-ordered list of possible civvies:

Epignosis- The show lore suggests that his role could be civ-aligned. As much as the lore seems to have influenced other aspects of the game, this still makes sense to me. He also hasn't done anything to make me go

JaggedJimmyJay- He's been elevated from my neutral reads. My civ leanings on him are probably more wishful thinking than evidence based. JJJ can be a powerful force for good and he's tried to get people thinking about as many players as possible with ISO's and GTH reads. I appreciate that. Until I get burned by him engaging in faux-supatown JJJ activity, I'll be inclined to lean civ with him.

Matt-Weird post from page 83 aside, Matt's been very focused and punchy enough at times to feel genuine. He's kind of riding the fence by being both anti-Cain and pro-Toaster claim. He seems to have an overzealous streak in him as well. But he hasn't done anything contradictory that I can remember, which shows focus. Eyes on the prize is an admirable quality.

ObscureAllure- Barely. She's just about at the border between civ read and neutral read. She reminds me of the OA I remember from many moons ago and that consistency is encouraging. Her passionate refusal to make the claim really has me wondering though.

Silverwolf- Until I get burned by one or both of Ika and Silverwolf's reads on each other, I have no reason to doubt them. She's gotta be civ or she's cementing her place in history around here.

linki zebra: Wouldn't be the first time but this time feels so right!

art·ful
/ˈärtfəl/
adjective

1. (of a person or action) clever or skillful, typically in a crafty or cunning way.

2. showing creative skill or taste.

He's good with words. I can appreciate that.

Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:Am I crazy or is this yet another total non-answer? Can someone with an objective viewpoint on this show me where Glorfindel actually addressed my issues? All I read is a dismissive shuck and jive. I don't care what your play looks like in other games on this site. I don't track meta. Instead of looking for what "player X does when they are bad" I found what looks like suspicious behavior in general. As I said before, I could tolerate one or two of the things you appear guilty of (focus on mechanics, focus on lore, giving good reads only, giving lukewarm suspicions) but the amalgamation of all of those things sticks out like a sore thumb to me. And this isn't even a Keyser Soze thing for me because I'm not trying to string together everything you've done, reading it all with nefarious intent. These are simple observations. Someone other than Glorfindel please correct me if I'm wrong but his posts strike me as a steaming pile of BS.
You know my friend, it crossed my mind that your accusations (and perhaps more the manner of them) was some kind of punishment for 'treason' or some other reason but on a site that purports not to condone such behavior, that's probably not likely. You claim my response to your accusations was a 'non-answer' and dismissive. The truth is, I couldn't adequately sort through the insults, invective and blatant bias of your third-rate hatchet job to identify what your concerns were. In the post above though, you make more direct reference to a few things that I will address AGAIN because you're clearly not interested in my answers. According to you, I'm guilty of:

1) Focussing on mechanics - I fail to see how that is in any way a negative thing? The mechanics in this game appear to be totally different to any other game I've played and from what I've seen over the last 135 odd pages, I'm not alone in that boat. I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that this game is not about black and white (Human vs Cylon) and those that hold the opposite view are leading us by a fast path to defeat at the hands of our Mafia friends who must know the truth. Further, others have focused heavily on mechanics too, I don't see your accusations of them

2) A focus on lore - I didn't raise this, I've never seen the show (other than a couple of the original series episodes which didn't do much for me) but it is apparent that it has some bearing on this game. I know that Golden mentioned at the beginning that a knowledge of the lore wasn't necessary but in my view, it does help in that it serves to give us an indication of the motivations and relationships between different characters (e.g. the whole Admiral Caine thing).

3) Giving only good reads - I honestly don't know how many times I need to repeat this but in previous games (both here and elsewhere) I have (too often in my opinion) rushed to lynch players on what I thought were valid reasons only to find that I was mistaken. I don't expect you to understand this but I think I am more adept at determining that someone is Town than I am concluding that they are Mafia. This is what I've referred to in my previous posts as a process of elimination. That's NOT to conclude that I haven't had suspicions - I have and I've said so. If you're miffed that I'm not throwing around accusations indiscriminately, that's too bad. That's not my style. Never was, never will. My approach to these games IS both methodical and conservative. You say you don't care about player's styles that they reveal in previous games? Well, maybe you should.

So there you have it. I don't expect for even a fraction of a second that you will be satisfied with my explanations because you very clearly have made your mind up. I would hope however that if nothing else, other players in this game will see through your accusations for what they truly are. A number of other players have voiced their suspicions of me in ways that (whilst misguided) have been respectful. You on the other hand resort to insult and ridicule. I don't think that's smart and I don't think that's funny - it's exactly what I'd expect from a schoolyard bully.
All I take from this is the impression that you are putting forth a gallant, high-road response act in the effort of making me look like an irrational and pushy jerk. If this is your intent, I'd like to think it won't work because enough of the players who go way back with me will know that I don't play like a pushy jerk. Playing a few smaller games has helped me improve my ability to observe and identity sketchy behavior. It's not foolproof yet but I feel that I've seen enough sketchy behavior out of you to pounce.
I'm sorry, my friend, it wasn't me that made you look that way...

Glorfindel wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:So there you have it. I don't expect for even a fraction of a second that you will be satisfied with my explanations because you very clearly have made your mind up. I would hope however that if nothing else, other players in this game will see through your accusations for what they truly are. A number of other players have voiced their suspicions of me in ways that (whilst misguided) have been respectful. You on the other hand resort to insult and ridicule. I don't think that's smart and I don't think that's funny - it's exactly what I'd expect from a schoolyard bully.
Please show me, with a quote and not a paraphrase, one instance of G-Man casting an insult toward you.

G-Man wrote:Did you attend the George W. Bush School of Preemptive Strikes?

G-Man wrote:Someone other than Glorfindel please correct me if I'm wrong but his posts strike me as a steaming pile of BS.
I've no doubt Epi, that you will deny that G-Man's remarks that I've quoted above are insulting. Taken in isolation, I would agree with you. Combined however with the sarcastic and overtly aggressive tone that he has used in practically every post he has made about me says more I think about him than it does about his views on me and this game in general. His tone and the language he used to describe what I've said is CLEARLY biased to his point of view that he has been pushing all game and it CLEARLY lacks any shred of objectivity). As I pointed out earlier, other players like SilverWolf have asked me questions in a respectful manner and I've been happy to answer her concerns as best I can. G-Man has said that people on this site are familiar with his 'style' and believes that he carries more credibility than I do. That may well be true - he may have your credibitity on his side - I have the truth on mine (just like I did in Arkham Mafia. I want to make this crystal clear - I am not suggesting that G-Man is Mafia (the jury's gone out on that one again...) but he's certainly misguided.

I see that SilverWolf claims that my response to G-Man's claims are defensive. I don't belive that is necessarily true. I addressed the concerns that G-Man raised as fully and as sincerely as I am able. I struggle to see how else I am to answer these allegations that have been made against me without being defensive???

At the end of the Day, you can vote for me or not. That's up to you - that decision is in your hands.

Artful as your posts may be, they're also misrepresenting me. That's not entirely your fault though, because 1) I don't think we've ever played in a game together yet, and 2) I've got you on defense so it's your job to try to dodge what I'm hurling at you.

Let's clear the air a little here. First, if I come across as a bully/jerk/biased nincompoop, that is your interpretation of my words. You can't hear the way I intend these posts to read and I can't hear your posts the way you intend them to be heard. That's arguing on the internet for you. Have I been a little punchy with my write-ups on you? Sure. That's because I've got conviction, not because I'm a bully.

Look at my signature- I won the Spirit Award last year. As the award is described by the presenter,

And my final award to hand out, these folks just make this place better with their attitude and personality. These nominees are our most important members, nominated for the Spirit Award:

You don't win the Spirit Award by being an asshat. When I'm looking for evidence, I'm silly and lighthearted. When I think I'm on to something, I pivot to punchy. I pivoted early this game because I examined several low-posters on Day 2 and Day 3 for any LRD behavior. Nutella caught my eye Day 2 and the more I re-read your posts, the faster you climbed to the top of the list afterward.

Second, I do not believe that I carry any more credibility than you. That line of yours is a total misreading of what I wrote. Right now I see you trying to discredit my case by way of discrediting me. It's the indirect approach- make people doubt the legitimacy of the witness him or herself and they'll doubt the legitimacy of their testimony. It's all very Johnny Cochran (I watched The People v. OJ Simpson- I highly recommend it!) and a very well-put-together effort. The fatal flaw in your plan is not that I have more credibility. I don't. Credibility comes with being right and winning as a civ. I've barely won much since I joined here, so nobody should just take me at my word that you're bad. They should read my case and reach their own informed decision.

The flaw in your plan is painting me as a bully. People I've played with from forums long ago through today should know pretty well that being a bully is not my MO. I'd even venture to guess that some people that have only known me here would be inclined to think the same thing.

Closing arguments- discrediting my play style won't win you the case. You're going to have to address my case. If you think your few posts that do address my case to a degree are sufficient, then by all means stand your ground on them. I'm not being a bully. This is not personal. I just think I'm right and I'm pouncing.

Player reads after I get a shower.

Long Con wrote:
G-Man wrote:I ran the math too. A 6x6 grid has 36 sectors. At a max of four sectors per day, we'll hit all sectors in 9 real-time days. That's three game days and nights unless we get lucky and find however many are left before exhausting the grid.
Looking over G-Man's posts to determine if I think he's being genuine with Glorfindel, and I thought "Whaddya know - he was right!"

And we could have cleared the grid in exactly that time span (game phases) had we not been as sporadic with the sorties after indiglo was killed. She was the glue holding that effort together.

But if the final sortie tells us anything, it's that our host probably wasn't going to tell us when we got all the rezz ships anyway, even had we cleared them all out early. Typical coward stuff, really.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:The G-Man/Glorf insults and whatnot aside...

Lately, G-Man has been gunning after Glorf, hasn't had much to say about other players, and doesn't seem to mind whether others are interested in lynching Glorf alongside him.

I get the feeling his pursuit is not sincere. I'll see if I can gather some evidence when I'm not on my phone.

Actually, my pursuit is sincere. Like I've said, one or two of the behaviors I accuse Glorfindel wouldn't be as concerning. All of them together, however stands out to me; too many blendy tactics too close together for one person. I feel like I've caught a faker in the act and I'm pretty excited about it. When I spotted a baddie this way in the EST heist game, I got NK'd before I could see my target lynch through. I'd like to see this one through but my hunch hasn't seemed to gain traction with enough people yet.

Glorfindel's reaction to my case has been quite highbrow, I'll give him that. His largely level-headed responses have been like kryptonite to any momentum I may have had going for my case. It doesn't help that the thread has also been prone to louder, more colorful discussions of mechanics, lore, anti-[insert player/faction/group here], and other lengthy distractions like wolf-poking and claim demand obsessing. My absence for much of Day 4 and the following night phase certainly didn't help the appearance of sincerity of my pursuit but RL necessitated my absence here.

I believe I did give two sets of read lists so far that include everyone. I have a third one just about ready but I'd like to see if my Glorfindel case catches on with anyone before possibly adding fuel to other fires with my next list, which will feature a sentence or two about why each person is in the category they are in. I'll have some revised technicolors too but I'm hoping Golden the Coward

will post the authoritative list of Day 4 votes or else I'll have to comb back through the thread for the precise vote sequence. This is how I roll. The longer I'm in a game, the more data I collect and the more detailed my lists become.

I will keep Glorfindel at the top of my suspect list until he is lynched. I am willing to pursue other candidates though. I don't want to turn into "that guy" with the sandwichboard and megaphone handing out doomsday tracts on the sidewalk every day, because no one likes a crazy tunneler and I don't want my case on Glorfindel dismissed for being obnoxious and repetitive. I admit to not casing anyone else to anywhere near the same degree but that is because I feel certain that I am right.

Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:Am I crazy or is this yet another total non-answer? Can someone with an objective viewpoint on this show me where Glorfindel actually addressed my issues? All I read is a dismissive shuck and jive. I don't care what your play looks like in other games on this site. I don't track meta. Instead of looking for what "player X does when they are bad" I found what looks like suspicious behavior in general. As I said before, I could tolerate one or two of the things you appear guilty of (focus on mechanics, focus on lore, giving good reads only, giving lukewarm suspicions) but the amalgamation of all of those things sticks out like a sore thumb to me. And this isn't even a Keyser Soze thing for me because I'm not trying to string together everything you've done, reading it all with nefarious intent. These are simple observations. Someone other than Glorfindel please correct me if I'm wrong but his posts strike me as a steaming pile of BS.
You know my friend, it crossed my mind that your accusations (and perhaps more the manner of them) was some kind of punishment for 'treason' or some other reason but on a site that purports not to condone such behavior, that's probably not likely. You claim my response to your accusations was a 'non-answer' and dismissive. The truth is, I couldn't adequately sort through the insults, invective and blatant bias of your third-rate hatchet job to identify what your concerns were. In the post above though, you make more direct reference to a few things that I will address AGAIN because you're clearly not interested in my answers. According to you, I'm guilty of:

1) Focussing on mechanics - I fail to see how that is in any way a negative thing? The mechanics in this game appear to be totally different to any other game I've played and from what I've seen over the last 135 odd pages, I'm not alone in that boat. I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that this game is not about black and white (Human vs Cylon) and those that hold the opposite view are leading us by a fast path to defeat at the hands of our Mafia friends who must know the truth. Further, others have focused heavily on mechanics too, I don't see your accusations of them

2) A focus on lore - I didn't raise this, I've never seen the show (other than a couple of the original series episodes which didn't do much for me) but it is apparent that it has some bearing on this game. I know that Golden mentioned at the beginning that a knowledge of the lore wasn't necessary but in my view, it does help in that it serves to give us an indication of the motivations and relationships between different characters (e.g. the whole Admiral Caine thing).

3) Giving only good reads - I honestly don't know how many times I need to repeat this but in previous games (both here and elsewhere) I have (too often in my opinion) rushed to lynch players on what I thought were valid reasons only to find that I was mistaken. I don't expect you to understand this but I think I am more adept at determining that someone is Town than I am concluding that they are Mafia. This is what I've referred to in my previous posts as a process of elimination. That's NOT to conclude that I haven't had suspicions - I have and I've said so. If you're miffed that I'm not throwing around accusations indiscriminately, that's too bad. That's not my style. Never was, never will. My approach to these games IS both methodical and conservative. You say you don't care about player's styles that they reveal in previous games? Well, maybe you should.

So there you have it. I don't expect for even a fraction of a second that you will be satisfied with my explanations because you very clearly have made your mind up. I would hope however that if nothing else, other players in this game will see through your accusations for what they truly are. A number of other players have voiced their suspicions of me in ways that (whilst misguided) have been respectful. You on the other hand resort to insult and ridicule. I don't think that's smart and I don't think that's funny - it's exactly what I'd expect from a schoolyard bully.

All I take from this is the impression that you are putting forth a gallant, high-road response act in the effort of making me look like an irrational and pushy jerk. If this is your intent, I'd like to think it won't work because enough of the players who go way back with me will know that I don't play like a pushy jerk. Playing a few smaller games has helped me improve my ability to observe and identity sketchy behavior. It's not foolproof yet but I feel that I've seen enough sketchy behavior out of you to pounce.

Matt wrote:Oh jeezus, now I sound like OA.

A message just came to me from the Lord in response to your post:

Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Matt wrote:Yo Faraday...

You have 11 posts and the least amount of posts then any other living player in the game. 30 less posts then the second least poster, Nero.

That's lurky.
I'd be down with lynching DFaraday at this point.

For G-Man to keep his trap shut? Sure would.

Hey G-Man, don't you have a Diaper Genie to empty or something?

As a matter of fact, I do have a Diaper Genie. But it won't need emptying until tomorrow.

Matt wrote:
G-Man wrote:A question for Matt while he's around:

Matt wrote:Also, depending on what happens here rest of day, I think it's possible I may have been breached and may call for my own lynch on Day 4.

Don't ask me details, just sayin'. Deeeerp.
Are you able to explain any more about what on earth this post was about? It will help me place you on my reads lists.

linki: Matt, are you aware that Dex replaced Faraday?
Lol @ the Linki.

Oops.

As for your question...

I'd rather not go into details. I'd be fine with my own lynching, tho, if town ever wants to go that way.

Question, G-man - Do you believe the Mafia may be able to duplicate other players' powers?

Any number of powers could be in play for any role without a black-and-white description. I've never used a role replicator in any of the games I've hosted, so I'm not sure how that would work. Would a player be allowed to replicate only known powers? They would gain intel otherwise. What leads you to suspect it? I thought there might have been a shift in succession for the laws but I haven't revisited that line of thought since it popped into my mind.

And you can't elaborate on what you meant by being 'breached?' That's the word that stood out to me the most (aside from the declaration that you may wish to be lynched).

A question for Matt while he's around:

Matt wrote:Also, depending on what happens here rest of day, I think it's possible I may have been breached and may call for my own lynch on Day 4.

Don't ask me details, just sayin'. Deeeerp.

Are you able to explain any more about what on earth this post was about? It will help me place you on my reads lists.

linki: Matt, are you aware that Dex replaced Faraday?

Ricochet wrote:
G-Man wrote:A bit of advice for Ricochet- the shorter the sentence, the less insanified it will be. Running big blocks of text together yields the kind of results you are getting. Try keeping your sentences short and running each sentence through the insanifier separately.
Chowchow

Apparently one word answers aren't immune but I had luck with short sentences when I was insanified several games ago.

I'll be merging my notes and posting my player read lists after lunch. My wife is working on end-of-year report cards this weekend, which means no travel plans. I'll be able to check in quite often.

A bit of advice for Ricochet- the shorter the sentence, the less insanified it will be. Running big blocks of text together yields the kind of results you are getting. Try keeping your sentences short and running each sentence through the insanifier separately.

Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:Ay caramba! Looks like we're more divided on how to handle today's lynch the the United Methodist Church is over the issue of homosexuality. Good thing we have an extra day for this one. We may need it.

Ohaithur Glorfindel! I'll be aiming to fix your little red wagon during tonight's hockey game.

Stay tuned. Glorfindel case part 2 and some player reads coming soon. I can actually keep this promise tonight because the baby is doing MUCH better today!
I look forward to it my friend! Just do us all a favour though - refrain from criticising my voting record that I have already explained and come up with something other than biased conjecture against me like you've been doing since the beginning of this game.

I'd also like to say one more thing about the Sig situation. I've played I think four games with him now on this site. On (I think) every occasion, I've seen him lynched or NK'd early in the game. I acknowledge that on occasion, I have been party to that and was wrong on most if not all of those occasions. What I'm getting at here, is it seems Sig is an easy target in these games (makes me wonder frankly why he keeps coming back ). I think what we're seeing here is (as he himself commented) a lot of "Sig's bad, he must be Mafia." As I said earlier in this thread, his contributions were thin and somewhat ill-informed and that was quite legitimately explained as a consequence of his absence doing assignments, etc. I've rather a lot of experience with Sig as Mafia (far too much for my liking ) and I am absolutely convinced that it is NOT what we're seeing from him here in this game.

At this point, I still believe DrWilgy is most worthy of my vote but as others have said, it's a looooong day...

And another thing- does this not read like a pre-defense? He's trying to call any vote analysis a moot point and painting my pending case as likely full of bias before it even comes. Did you attend the George W. Bush School of Preemptive Strikes? This looks like he's setting himself up in advance for an automatic dismissal of whatever I have to say.

Am I biased? Aren't we all? It's called perspective and we each have our own. From mine, you are trying to snake your way to endgame as a baddie with a lynch save in your back pocket.

Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:A review of my first critique of Glorfindel is probably the best place to start :
Spoiler: show
G-Man wrote:A preface is in order to understand where I'm coming from.

I don't usually look for teammate behavior until I have vote data pointing me in that direction. I also don't track people's meta because I've never been the best at it. When looking at Nutella, I saw individual behavior that looked bad to me. My theory on Glorfindel is built around similar observations.

Check out his post history.

His first four posts include the following:
-Whoops I missed the start of the game
-Whoops I didn't read the rules
-A slight civ vibe based on skim reading
-A funny post of no substance
-Whoops I missed the vote

Then two mechanics related posts, and an "I'm catching up (43 pages in) but totally lost" post, lowering our expectations for Day 2.

On Day 2, we get:
-a post where he says he feels good about Matt and Zebra
-a mechanics related post on Toaster allegiance
-another mechanics post
-an oy, complicated show lore + complicated game mechanics = headache post
-another mechanics post
-a big long post where he hands out some civ reads but comes up empty on suspicions

Then there is the post where he says he finds it hard to take IAWY seriously without explaining what that means. Does he think IAWY is bad or just acting differently?

Then a "don't call me a slacker" kind of post responding to my LRD vibe pickup. He says he's trying but it's hard but he's not very good at the whole forming baddie reads.

Then he takes two posts to help DrWilgy sort out what thoughts were about IAWY to help him better understand the situation he's walking into. Helpful for Wilgy but not the big picture.

He says he thinks LC might be trying to get lynched (agreeing with SVS) but that LC's sortie hijack makes him as unhelpful civvie at best and mafia at worst.

He votes Long Con Day 2 for "reasons already stated" but his prior post didn't even label LC as suspicious. He just viewed him as a liability to the civvies. The way he worded it is shady because, rather than restate his reasons, he puts it on the reader to go back and find his reasons on their own. Because, you know, it's easy to remember the mild suspicions of a quietish player in a game with 2,500 posts.

When Silverwolf presses him for justification of his vote during Night 2, he finds a handful of detailed points that made it a reasonable choice for him. Where was all this info when he cast his vote? Nowhere. When he voted, he said "reasons already stated," which alluded to a post that only covered maybe two out of the five points he unloaded at night.

Then you've got a bunch of empty banter and trying to pitch in with the sorties overnight and into Day 3.

Later there is a post where he agrees with JJJ, calls a few people civ, and throwing shade at Sokoth without committing to calling him sus. Then a post defending sig, a post clarifying his stance on mechanics, and a post where he thinks something JJJ proves his point about either sig or mechanics (I'm not sure which).

He apologizes to LC for his vote and lists a few players he thinks LC is wrong about. Finally he chastises Sokoth for finally forming some opinions because Sokoth takes aim at Glorfindel for what looks like a hasty "NO U" reaction.

Early on, he sounds like someone trying to figure out game mechanics but he focuses solely on Toaster mechanics. There's the complete lack of calling anyone suspicious three days into the game. Fluff banter to look helpful and pad that post count too.

Any one of these on their own would seem harmless but all three of them combined sets off alarms in my brain. Asking questions and discussing no -suspicion related issues without the willingness to put some skin in the game just feels wrong.

Does any of this sound reasonable or am I working up another Keyser Soze?
I'm going to pick up with Glorfindel's reaction to my case.
Follow his post history if you like. I'll be starting out at this post:
Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:Finally he chastises Sokoth for finally forming some opinions because Sokoth takes aim at Glorfindel for what looks like a hasty "NO U" reaction.
Is that REALLY how you see that exchange my friend? I was chastising 'Sokoth' for precisely the opposite - I don't consider random, unsubstantiated accusations 'opinions'. I seriously doubt that anyone else here would. I AM genuinely trying to figure out this game and although I may be 'tinfoiling' for the first time I seriously think there is more to this game than the simplistic black and white view some people have adopted. Personally, I think what you've painted there is a pretty flimsy case almost rivaling the 'Two Face' accusation leveled at me in my last game here. Nonetheless, if that's the best you can do in finding a Mafia Team member, good for you.

One thing that has concerned me for some time time now is my initial exchange with IAWY. As I stated in the Sign-up thread, he was the reason I even signed up for this game. In the last game we played together, I defended him from the 'get go'. Given our history together, I find it extraordinary that he would make an accusation against me Day 1 like he did. After Dr Wilgy replaced him, gave him the benefit of the doubt and have heard practically nothing since. Then there was the exchange between IAWY and Magnus (Nerolunar). In retrospect, the whole 'No, you!' exchange doesn't really look as convincing as it did at the time. Distancing, perhaps...
A handful of people thought my post had some merit and, at the very least, required a response from Glorfindel on several of my observations, leading to this response from Glorfindel:

Glorfindel wrote:
sig wrote:Also I'm seriously considering voting for Glorfindel he only answered one portion of Gman's case and he seemed super defensive which I seem to remember is a baddie tell of his. However, I need to think on it since I have been wrong about him before.

Another thing which bothered me is him civ reading me. Civ Glorfindel always thinks I'm mafia or at the very least he is paranoid agaisnt me, he seemed to civ read me way to quickly this game. It could be an attempt to buddy me or just to get credit if I flipped.
Sig, G-Man's post was quit extensive but without a lot of content that I feel I can adequately address in the short time I have at my disposal (I am actually at work...) I am not super defensive at all. Someone actually goes to the trouble of putting a case together against me (even though he's wrong, I appreciate his effort - seems it's beyond some players here...) and I'm asked to refute those claims. I do, and you accuse me of being super-defensive? REALLY?

Yes, I believe you're Town, There, said it. I don't see you're problem with that opinion. I'd never 'buddy you' and if you honestly believe that... After all this time, if I don't know Town Sig by now... I don't see your problem - unless I'm wrong about you?
That line in pink led me to believe that he would come back later and address my case. Did he?

Not here.
Nor here.
Or here,
here,
or even here.
Here is a casual dismissal of my points altogether.

By all means, please check his post history to fact check me but he never comes back to defend himself against my observations. He said initially that he didn't have time to respond to me because he was at work, which I'm fine with but to ignore me later when he might have time raises another red flag for me.

From that last post I linked to, Glorfindel did have time to discuss (on a post-by-post basis)...

-Defending his voting record
-How lost he is (while mentioning my name among his likely civ reads, as if that gets him back in my good graces
-win cons and his votes
-a blend of lore and mechanics
-Hey wow! He discusses people and even casts shade on Wilgy. Barely.

Then a bunch of fluffy fluff that fluffs to pad ye ole post count. Then what amuses me is this post:

Glorfindel wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Polo wrote:Glorfindel, do you have a legitimate reason not to claim Cylon? Are you John Cavil?

I am here JJJ, please make good use of my time.
Largely a matter of principle and no, you have my word that I am not John Cavil. I want to re-read the cases for and against in relation to the claiming thing. I do however suspect something entirely sinister is going on here (feel free to call me paranoid. I have a question for you though - would Youi or anyone like to speculate on why we had the Cylon Amnesty Act in the first place? What could our President been trying to achieve by passing that law? I'd be most interested in any conjecture anyone would care to volunteer on this matter.
I notice that I've had no response to this question that I asked - so I will ask again...
So when I write up a huge post detailing several instances of shady behavior, you can blow it off like it ain't no thang, but when no one answers your role/mechanics question you feel the need to point out the lack of a response? Dang yo, that is cold.

I'm sorry dude, but your posts don't read like someone who is struggling to tread water. You read more like someone doing the dog paddle, letting everyone around you make waves that let you coast by largely as an afterthought. I'd like to see you doing the dead man's float soon.
Thank you my friend for reposting all that. I apologise that I forgot to get back to you but let me address that now. Looking at your initial installment, it is little more than an utterly biased summary of my post history to that point. It was not remotely balanced and the language you used to describe what I said was clearly sarcastic and biased. It was in no way objective and frankly leaves me at a loss as to what concerns you were raising You criticise me for not accusing anyone for three days (after quoting references I made to players like DrWilgy and Sokoth). Not everyone in this game feels it necessary to be direct and aggressive my friend - something you might like to consider yourself. As I'd said previously (in one of my quotes you apparently conveniently overlooked) I am trying to approach this game more conservatively (for reasons which I think should be obvious) and solve it by eliminating from my list of suspects those about whom I feel most comfortable leaving those to whom I would look more closely as Mafia.

You accuse me of spending time "focusing on Toaster mechanics" (whatever the hell that means ) but if you're referring to trying to understand how this game is working, yeah, damn straight I was and I still am. It seems to me that I am one of very few that don't see this game as a simplistic Human vs Cylon dynamic. If you disagree with me, that's fine but I think that's a flimsy basis upon which to build your accusations against me.

As for your latest effort, all I can see is that you feel disgruntled about me not having got back to you about your first accusation. You claim that "a handful of people felt your post had merit" but looking back, I can't see how. I'd be surprised if there were many people playing this game that lacked the objectivity to the hostile and unbalanced nature of your description of my words.

Again, let me spell this out to you my friend - I'm sorry that I didn't respond earlier to you but if had you'd have gotten verbatim what I posted above. If you expect me to be direct and aggressive in my dealings with others here, you'll be sadly disappointed. You can go back and look at every game I've played on this site and the dozens that I've played elsewhere and you'll find that my interactions with other players are almost conservative and polite. As I said to someone in the last game I played here, If you've got a problem with that, then that is your problem, not mine.

Am I crazy or is this yet another total non-answer? Can someone with an objective viewpoint on this show me where Glorfindel actually addressed my issues? All I read is a dismissive shuck and jive. I don't care what your play looks like in other games on this site. I don't track meta. Instead of looking for what "player X does when they are bad" I found what looks like suspicious behavior in general. As I said before, I could tolerate one or two of the things you appear guilty of (focus on mechanics, focus on lore, giving good reads only, giving lukewarm suspicions) but the amalgamation of all of those things sticks out like a sore thumb to me. And this isn't even a Keyser Soze thing for me because I'm not trying to string together everything you've done, reading it all with nefarious intent. These are simple observations. Someone other than Glorfindel please correct me if I'm wrong but his posts strike me as a steaming pile of BS.

RIP juliets.

No offense, Kat, but why couldn't you have died instead of Hot Dog?

A fresh round of player reads will have to wait for tomorrow. It's bedtime for me.

A review of my first critique of Glorfindel is probably the best place to start :

Spoiler: show

G-Man wrote:A preface is in order to understand where I'm coming from.

I don't usually look for teammate behavior until I have vote data pointing me in that direction. I also don't track people's meta because I've never been the best at it. When looking at Nutella, I saw individual behavior that looked bad to me. My theory on Glorfindel is built around similar observations.

Check out his post history.

His first four posts include the following:
-Whoops I missed the start of the game
-Whoops I didn't read the rules
-A slight civ vibe based on skim reading
-A funny post of no substance
-Whoops I missed the vote

Then two mechanics related posts, and an "I'm catching up (43 pages in) but totally lost" post, lowering our expectations for Day 2.

On Day 2, we get:
-a post where he says he feels good about Matt and Zebra
-a mechanics related post on Toaster allegiance
-another mechanics post
-an oy, complicated show lore + complicated game mechanics = headache post
-another mechanics post
-a big long post where he hands out some civ reads but comes up empty on suspicions

Then there is the post where he says he finds it hard to take IAWY seriously without explaining what that means. Does he think IAWY is bad or just acting differently?

Then a "don't call me a slacker" kind of post responding to my LRD vibe pickup. He says he's trying but it's hard but he's not very good at the whole forming baddie reads.

Then he takes two posts to help DrWilgy sort out what thoughts were about IAWY to help him better understand the situation he's walking into. Helpful for Wilgy but not the big picture.

He says he thinks LC might be trying to get lynched (agreeing with SVS) but that LC's sortie hijack makes him as unhelpful civvie at best and mafia at worst.

He votes Long Con Day 2 for "reasons already stated" but his prior post didn't even label LC as suspicious. He just viewed him as a liability to the civvies. The way he worded it is shady because, rather than restate his reasons, he puts it on the reader to go back and find his reasons on their own. Because, you know, it's easy to remember the mild suspicions of a quietish player in a game with 2,500 posts.

When Silverwolf presses him for justification of his vote during Night 2, he finds a handful of detailed points that made it a reasonable choice for him. Where was all this info when he cast his vote? Nowhere. When he voted, he said "reasons already stated," which alluded to a post that only covered maybe two out of the five points he unloaded at night.

Then you've got a bunch of empty banter and trying to pitch in with the sorties overnight and into Day 3.

Later there is a post where he agrees with JJJ, calls a few people civ, and throwing shade at Sokoth without committing to calling him sus. Then a post defending sig, a post clarifying his stance on mechanics, and a post where he thinks something JJJ proves his point about either sig or mechanics (I'm not sure which).

He apologizes to LC for his vote and lists a few players he thinks LC is wrong about. Finally he chastises Sokoth for finally forming some opinions because Sokoth takes aim at Glorfindel for what looks like a hasty "NO U" reaction.

Early on, he sounds like someone trying to figure out game mechanics but he focuses solely on Toaster mechanics. There's the complete lack of calling anyone suspicious three days into the game. Fluff banter to look helpful and pad that post count too.

Any one of these on their own would seem harmless but all three of them combined sets off alarms in my brain. Asking questions and discussing no -suspicion related issues without the willingness to put some skin in the game just feels wrong.

Does any of this sound reasonable or am I working up another Keyser Soze?

I'm going to pick up with Glorfindel's reaction to my case.
Follow his post history if you like. I'll be starting out at this post:

Glorfindel wrote:
G-Man wrote:Finally he chastises Sokoth for finally forming some opinions because Sokoth takes aim at Glorfindel for what looks like a hasty "NO U" reaction.
Is that REALLY how you see that exchange my friend? I was chastising 'Sokoth' for precisely the opposite - I don't consider random, unsubstantiated accusations 'opinions'. I seriously doubt that anyone else here would. I AM genuinely trying to figure out this game and although I may be 'tinfoiling' for the first time I seriously think there is more to this game than the simplistic black and white view some people have adopted. Personally, I think what you've painted there is a pretty flimsy case almost rivaling the 'Two Face' accusation leveled at me in my last game here. Nonetheless, if that's the best you can do in finding a Mafia Team member, good for you.

One thing that has concerned me for some time time now is my initial exchange with IAWY. As I stated in the Sign-up thread, he was the reason I even signed up for this game. In the last game we played together, I defended him from the 'get go'. Given our history together, I find it extraordinary that he would make an accusation against me Day 1 like he did. After Dr Wilgy replaced him, gave him the benefit of the doubt and have heard practically nothing since. Then there was the exchange between IAWY and Magnus (Nerolunar). In retrospect, the whole 'No, you!' exchange doesn't really look as convincing as it did at the time. Distancing, perhaps...

A handful of people thought my post had some merit and, at the very least, required a response from Glorfindel on several of my observations, leading to this response from Glorfindel:

Glorfindel wrote:
sig wrote:Also I'm seriously considering voting for Glorfindel he only answered one portion of Gman's case and he seemed super defensive which I seem to remember is a baddie tell of his. However, I need to think on it since I have been wrong about him before.

Another thing which bothered me is him civ reading me. Civ Glorfindel always thinks I'm mafia or at the very least he is paranoid agaisnt me, he seemed to civ read me way to quickly this game. It could be an attempt to buddy me or just to get credit if I flipped.
Sig, G-Man's post was quit extensive but without a lot of content that I feel I can adequately address in the short time I have at my disposal (I am actually at work...) I am not super defensive at all. Someone actually goes to the trouble of putting a case together against me (even though he's wrong, I appreciate his effort - seems it's beyond some players here...) and I'm asked to refute those claims. I do, and you accuse me of being super-defensive? REALLY?

Yes, I believe you're Town, There, said it. I don't see you're problem with that opinion. I'd never 'buddy you' and if you honestly believe that... After all this time, if I don't know Town Sig by now... I don't see your problem - unless I'm wrong about you?

That line in pink led me to believe that he would come back later and address my case. Did he?

Not here.
Nor here.
Or here,
here,
or even here.
Here is a casual dismissal of my points altogether.

By all means, please check his post history to fact check me but he never comes back to defend himself against my observations. He said initially that he didn't have time to respond to me because he was at work, which I'm fine with but to ignore me later when he might have time raises another red flag for me.

From that last post I linked to, Glorfindel did have time to discuss (on a post-by-post basis)...

-Defending his voting record
-How lost he is (while mentioning my name among his likely civ reads, as if that gets him back in my good graces
-win cons and his votes
-a blend of lore and mechanics
-Hey wow! He discusses people and even casts shade on Wilgy. Barely.

Then a bunch of fluffy fluff that fluffs to pad ye ole post count. Then what amuses me is this post:

Glorfindel wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Polo wrote:Glorfindel, do you have a legitimate reason not to claim Cylon? Are you John Cavil?

I am here JJJ, please make good use of my time.
Largely a matter of principle and no, you have my word that I am not John Cavil. I want to re-read the cases for and against in relation to the claiming thing. I do however suspect something entirely sinister is going on here (feel free to call me paranoid. I have a question for you though - would Youi or anyone like to speculate on why we had the Cylon Amnesty Act in the first place? What could our President been trying to achieve by passing that law? I'd be most interested in any conjecture anyone would care to volunteer on this matter.
I notice that I've had no response to this question that I asked - so I will ask again...

So when I write up a huge post detailing several instances of shady behavior, you can blow it off like it ain't no thang, but when no one answers your role/mechanics question you feel the need to point out the lack of a response? Dang yo, that is cold.

I'm sorry dude, but your posts don't read like someone who is struggling to tread water. You read more like someone doing the dog paddle, letting everyone around you make waves that let you coast by largely as an afterthought. I'd like to see you doing the dead man's float soon.

Ay caramba! Looks like we're more divided on how to handle today's lynch the the United Methodist Church is over the issue of homosexuality. Good thing we have an extra day for this one. We may need it.

Ohaithur Glorfindel! I'll be aiming to fix your little red wagon during tonight's hockey game.

Stay tuned. Glorfindel case part 2 and some player reads coming soon. I can actually keep this promise tonight because the baby is doing MUCH better today!

So say we all.

Alright I am about five pages away from being caught up but I have a pile of invoices to enter. Once that's done I can spend the rest of the afternoon here with you guys (and updating my spreadsheet- she's hungry for notes and vote data and starting to growl at me in an unfriendly manner).

I have to merge my notes together. I left my flash drive at the office yesterday, so some of my notes are on my phone. As for my top three, I've got this so far:

1. Glorfindel
2. Sig
3. ?

I'm open to suggestions on #3. I'll throw more fuel on the Glorfindel fire once I get my notes organized.

Another day, another round of sick baby drama.

I'm sorry for going AWOL for so long. RL has been baby, eat, baby, work, baby, eat, baby, baby, baby, sob in a corner, baby, baby, sleep, baby, sleep, baby, sleep, baby, sleep.

Between the baby's coughing fits and projectile vomit, I caught up a little. I'm on page 107 right now. While it's good to lynch LoRab, I wish we could have squeezed a few more declarations out of more holdouts. I hope that's something we do on Day 5.

I'll have to go back and check my notes because there were a few posts I had questions on. Glorfindel still reads like a baddie to me. Has he made the statement yet?

Search found 238 matches