The Syndicate

I'm placing a vote on insertnamehere. Nearly everything he has posted has incited a negative reaction from me.

Stated reasons for voting DrWilgy:

[1] leetic: N/A, he never mentioned his vote.

[2] insertnamehere: He had numerous exchanges with Wilgy on Day 1 that look quite like his exchanges with me on Day 2. Not a fan.

[3] Quin: Self-preservation, placed at the latest opportunity before he had to leave. No problem with that.

[4] Epignosis: Reasoning seems to be focused here. The numeral grades are essentially spam. I'm not a fan of how Epi treated Wilgy's comment that a bad INH might indicate a good Matt. I see nothing off-putting in that reasoning, and I share it.

[5] DFaraday: He sided with INH in his exchanges with Wilgy. I don't fault him for this. I'm reminded of Transistor.

Well, his was the first Wilgy vote, so it's harder to accuse him of opportunism. Those that followed are worse at face value. I wasn't here as the lynch developed live, but at no point in my catching up did I find Wilgy suspicious; I even found him agreeable. I'll have to assess those votes individually to see who was properly invested.

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:leetic has put no effort into this at all, which is often a town-tell rather than a baddie tell. Evildoers tend to be at least engaged enough to pretend to care. There have been exceptions though. The only leetic post that bugs me at all is his most recent:

leetic wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I am going to go with Customer Service tonight.

Why are you posting such fluffy, non-game-related stuff this late in? Surely you have something else to talk about?

It's hypocritical.

I wouldn't have seen that as a civ tell. Placing the initial vote on the person that ultimately got lynched, with no reasoning at all? He had ample time to defend his vote, and came back by bemoaning Elo's lack of gaming. Putting no effort into the game doesn't help the civs. It's like giving your checkbook to a child and counting on him to balance it for you.

Linki; @jjj yes, I apologize: I corrected myself after that

I hadn't seen his vote. If it went to Wilgy then I'd agree that's a bad look.

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:He's pointing the finger at people answering for Matt and he votes for Goldy based on inactivity. He voted an inactive in Turf Wars if I recall, so I don't see a problem in that, however his reasoning bugs me a little. If he's voting for the sake of having things make sense after Goldy flips, wouldn't he vote for someone that would result in making the most sense if they were lynched?

Another valid point. If the premise is that a lynch flip will yield information to help progress reads into Day 2, then to lynch a lurker would seem the least productive option. There's nearly no information to be drawn from such a flip.

False. Voting patterns are information. Let's say she is lynched. If she (or you, now) is civ, we have lost a no-show. Never assume a no-show is getting replaced with ease. It was hard enough to fill the game. Thankfully you filled in for her, but she may have just been sitting in limbo, not helping civs at all. If she is civ, we can look at the ease at which people vote her, the votes people didn't case for her that look better when she flips. If she is mafia, then a) bingo and b) voting patterns once again. Were there any efforts to save her?

I dunno man. There's lots of info for me to pick apart. Instead we lynched our tracker, who had stuff to say.

I am not inspired, sir.

1. "Player X is not being helpful" is not an adequate reason to lynch someone in any day phase unless that unhelpfulness is perceived to be a deliberate baddie tactic -- any civilian is helpful by default because they provide a numbers advantage that cannot be discarded frivolously.

2. The information you've attached to this lynch is the information that can be attached to any lynch. It's the bare minimum possible information. I said that there could be nearly no information gleaned from a lurker lynch, not none at all. If information is what you seek, then the vote you placed is among the very least productive on the table. This is indeed a contradiction, and when "information" is cited as a reason to lynch a player with no posts at all, I view that dubiously.

I know you've already corrected this, but I will repeat it now so it doesn't infect the minds of readers -- replacements are easily confused. I replaced Bullzeye, not Goldy.

leetic has put no effort into this at all, which is often a town-tell rather than a baddie tell. Evildoers tend to be at least engaged enough to pretend to care. There have been exceptions though. The only leetic post that bugs me at all is his most recent:

leetic wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I am going to go with Customer Service tonight.

Why are you posting such fluffy, non-game-related stuff this late in? Surely you have something else to talk about?

It's hypocritical.

S~V~S, any suspicion I have of you is barely defined right now. I don't figure you'll be a top vote candidate for me today. If nothing else, I am enjoying the way you're utilizing the semi-colon to push the boundaries of question-mania.

Post history links are necessary for my survival.

bea
birdwithteeth11
Bullzeye / JaggedJimmyJay
Cobalt / indiglo
DFaraday
DrumBeats
Elohcin
Enrique
Epignosis
fingersplints
Goldy / espers
insertnamehere
leetic
LoRab
Matt
Quin
Scotty
Serge
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
S~V~S
timmer
Zeus

Quin wrote:It looks like he's inferring some degree of suspicion on Matt, but you can see he claims he didn't intend to in the next post. I get the vibe that Scotty really was suspicious of Matt here, but I don't think that's any more indicative of him being bad than it is him just trying to avoid being the Day 1 lynchee. He did develop a suspicion of Matt later on, however.

I think you raise a valid point, and I would advise against giving him an auto-pass in your own head just because of "avoiding being the Day 1 lynchee". That's not good enough.

Scotty made an observation about Matt and accompanied it with the ponder emoji. He had to have some reason for bringing it up, and if it wasn't suspicion then I don't know what it'd be. Otherwise it'd seem like Scotty saying something just for the sake of saying something, which isn't an ideal look.

Quin wrote:He's pointing the finger at people answering for Matt and he votes for Goldy based on inactivity. He voted an inactive in Turf Wars if I recall, so I don't see a problem in that, however his reasoning bugs me a little. If he's voting for the sake of having things make sense after Goldy flips, wouldn't he vote for someone that would result in making the most sense if they were lynched?

Another valid point. If the premise is that a lynch flip will yield information to help progress reads into Day 2, then to lynch a lurker would seem the least productive option. There's nearly no information to be drawn from such a flip.

Quin wrote:Someone give me another low-flier name to look into.

I'd like to hear about bea and Serge.

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:linkitis: @Quin: That doesn't make sense. What you posted, and encouraged others to post, was not presented as fact/claim--it was presented as theory and hypothesis.

I don't agree with you, and I don't fault you for your interpretation. I think there is gray area here and it's not currently confirmed which of you is correct based upon Dom's testimony. He has answered on his own terms, but it's not conclusive. Quin's statements were presented without an "I think" qualifier, which can fairly be perceived as a claim and not a theory. However, they can only be legitimate claims if it's possible for anyone in this game to actually know those to be true, which is unconfirmed.

This is why I think you're both wrong and I don't really suspect either of you for it.

What do you think though of LoRab's lack of time to form reads, while simultaneously having time to argue the mechanics this long, and clarify the mechanics with Dom privately.

More reads is always better than less reads. I do think that getting into a back-and-forth with anyone can consume a lot of a player's time and focus, and this Quin/LoRab interaction might be a valid example of that. There is a limit though and I would like to see reads sooner than later.

LoRab wrote:linkitis: @Quin: That doesn't make sense. What you posted, and encouraged others to post, was not presented as fact/claim--it was presented as theory and hypothesis.

I don't agree with you, and I don't fault you for your interpretation. I think there is gray area here and it's not currently confirmed which of you is correct based upon Dom's testimony. He has answered on his own terms, but it's not conclusive. Quin's statements were presented without an "I think" qualifier, which can fairly be perceived as a claim and not a theory. However, they can only be legitimate claims if it's possible for anyone in this game to actually know those to be true, which is unconfirmed.

This is why I think you're both wrong and I don't really suspect either of you for it.

My immediate take on the LoRab/Quin controversy:

They're both accusing each other of crimes that I find doubtful. I can understand the accusations, but they look to me like the kinds of things that people accuse each other of in every game but nobody ever actually does them. Pretending to misunderstand a role that is plainly visible in the OP, or pretending to misinterpret the words of a host which are plainly visible in the game thread -- these don't sound like baddie behavior to me, or anybody behavior. Instead I think this argument is fraught with miscommunication and genuine misinterpretation of the role and the hosts on both sides.

DrumBeats's assertion that either or both of them might be encouraging Pam to waste her role (in Quin's case by focusing on minor mechanical details, and in LoRab's case by discouraging DB's own strategy) strikes me as a more plausible reality. I don't have trouble imagining a baddie doing that.

EBWOP

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

espers wrote:This post reminds me of what I've done in the past as scum, asking about someone's meta to look like you're producing content and shift the focus onto others if they bite. timmer is hedgy with this, not committing to a stance.

Also, it seems pretty inaccurate to say that quin missed that part of the role when he acknowledged it in the post timmer was referring to here. Bad look.

I like this post. The point espers makes is a valid one which timmer should answer to. I like the post though because I like where espers's head is at; this looks like a genuine read to me.

espers wrote:This post reminds me of what I've done in the past as scum, asking about someone's meta to look like you're producing content and shift the focus onto others if they bite. timmer is hedgy with this, not committing to a stance.

Also, it seems pretty inaccurate to say that quin missed that part of the role when he acknowledged it in the post timmer was referring to here. Bad look.

I like this post. The point espers makes is a valid one which timmer should answer to. I like the post though because I think where espers's head is at; this looks like a genuine read to me.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Could you please show me the conjectures you're referring to? Much of the context here is lost on me, because it looked like he was promoting a concrete statement be checked.

~~~

Separate note: I don't care about the bloody lie detector role and I encourage Pam to just do her thing.

I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

I'm going to leave the INH debate as it is. INH if you'd like to answer again be my guest, but I think the usefulness of these debates plummets after a certain number of posts. Nobody will be reading it anymore.

insertnamehere wrote:So I'm not allowed to disagree with another players methods and bring that up in the thread, because doing so would somehow completely discredit that player? I wasn't saying that everyone shouldn't listen to everything he says. I said that I won't be listening to what Matt says as a result of this specific method of playing that I don't agree with.

You did it again. I didn't say that either.

I didn't say you're not allowed to disagree with other player's methods. I said you're suspicious for parading Matt around like his methods are too crappy for him to be taken seriously in numerous different posts instead of making your complaint heard once and proceeding on with the game.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, if I have an opinion on a person's read and that person's playstyle, I'm not going to censor myself to avoid possibly hurting "their thread reputation." If I think something is stupid, I'm gonna say that it's stupid, and provide reasons why I think so. Presumably, people who play mafia online aren't complete sheeple, and will be able to look at both sides and determine who they agree with. You keep saying over and over and over again that I damaged Matt's ability to play this game by disagreeing with him. Do you have a quote from Matt saying that? Because you seem to know a lot about Matt's inner feelings and experience playing this game without, y'know, actually being Matt. Once again, I'd really like to hear his side of this story rather than your interpretation of his side of the story.

I personally find your assessment that I somehow shut down the conversation is ridiculous to me, because in a forum game, anybody can post anything and respond to anything, so it would be impossible to do so. Hell, you disproved yourself by continuing the conversation.

I'm not the person you treated like an idiot, Matt is. I am the one accusing you. To assert that me speaking to you about my suspicion of you somehow "disproves" what I am saying about you and Matt is nonsense.

I don't care what Matt himself might say about this. I care about what I see in this thread and in your posts and my own interpretation of events. I don't need Matt to confirm or deny his "feelings", I only need your posts and my responses to them.

insertnamehere wrote:I'm critiquing the logic behind your posts by applying it to a wider scale in order to show how disingenuous it is. C'mon, it's fairly obvious that was what I was doing. Are you running out of argument points? Because you just ignored most what I actually said in favor of this nonsense.

Nope.

You have now stated that in a PRIOR POST, you were trying to show how "disingenuous" I am being. Yet you expressed no suspicion of me in ANY post until this one. If in a prior post you felt I was being disingenuous, then you would have suspected me in a prior post. You didn't. It's too late now.

insertnamehere wrote:I shared my opinions on Matt's type of gameplay that he used, mainly that I didn't find it applicable or something that I'd take seriously, even though I don't suspect him. The only agenda I'm trying to push is my own genuine ideas on things. Meanwhile, you seem to want to both discredit and accuse me, using your own supposed definition of both. You, A. Think that I'm bad for what I think are nonsense reasons, and B. Are trying to make my opinions seem less valid by exaggerating them and making me seem like I'm running some kind of smear campaign.

This is, as usual, nonsense. I am accusing you of running a smear campaign, yes. That's the focus of my suspicion. It's not an "exaggeration" of anything. It's an interpretation. It might be right, it might be wrong, but no matter which -- it's still an interpretation.

insertnamehere wrote:Your arguments keep getting less and less coherent. When we first started this back and forth, I thought you were a confused civ, but the more you keep ignoring logic and digging into your stance against me, the more you begin to ping me.

If there's one thing my arguments in Mafia nearly never are, it's "incoherent".

My reasons for suspecting you are clearly stated and perfectly legible. Anyone else reading this exchange should have no difficulty understanding the points I have made against you. They may not agree, hell they may even suspect me more than you, but they'll understand the nature of my accusations. I say this with absolute confidence.

Bummer dude. I was hoping to play off of rabbit a little bit in this game. He seems like just the sort of infuriating presence that would complement my methods well, and in BG it was mostly mutual suspicion between us.

Oh well. I kind of do suspect S~V~S.

S~V~S wrote:You think suspecting him is opportunistic,but you won't say you think he is a civ? Gotcha.

Not a fan of this mindset. I don't think there's anything inconsistent about someone thinking an accusation appears opportunistic without necessarily reading the target of that opportunism as a civilian. That's a development that should come after the alignment of the potential opportunist is revealed, but before that it's all fair game.

insertnamehere wrote:OK, you got me. I think civilians shouldn't take reaction-baiting reads seriously. That's my opinion. I wasn't saying that Matt was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to, I just meant that these specific reads hold little to no value to me, and I find the entire practice counter-intuitive.

No, you didn't overtly state that Matt "was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to". Instead, you made light of his methods in the form of repeated sarcasm and jokes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's essentially the same thing. In so many words, you portrayed Matt as a player who should not be taken seriously.

insertnamehere wrote:How am I stopping people from responding to me? Am I hacking into their accounts and banning them from posting in the thread? Yes, I play and talk aggressively, and if a player's strategy strikes me as hurtful to civilians, I'm going to say something. That doesn't mean I'm actively trying to censor people.

Yeah I clearly didn't make the highlighted suggestion. It's nonsense logic to associate my commentary with that question. Nothing I said is remotely similar to that.

I didn't say you wanted to censor Matt. I said you were making him look like a dope. This is about how the viewing audience in this thread can be influenced by your behavior, and how that can affect Matt's ability to make headway in this game. This isn't theoretical, it literally happened in this game thread -- your treatment of Matt became a running gag, and as a direct result Matt's ability to make any dent in this game was inherently damaged.

insertnamehere wrote:So we shouldn't talk about people's playing styles at all? We should just completely ignore people's opinions of how to play the game, and focusing on finding baddies? If you really think this, you should find some better reasoning for your case against me. I didn't intend to somehow repress Matt's ability to play the game with my nasty mean-spirited jokes that weren't nasty or mean-spirited at all. If you think I'm wrong for thinking that Matt's reaction-baiting reads are useless to the civilian cause, then fine. I don't see how that means that I'm bad.

I didn't say this either. You're making absurd logical jumps to turn the things I say to you into decidedly more extreme and more ridiculous comments than they originally were. This is precisely the sort of thing that makes you look disingenuous.

insertnamehere wrote:Aren't you trying to discredit me and make my opinions of how to play the game seem wrong? Because all you really have against me is that you don't like how I didn't take Matt's strategy seriously, and because of that I must be "trying to make his opinions mean nothing" and that equals bad? This is a dumb chain of logic that has to do less with concrete facts and more to do with us having ideological differences when it comes to mafia. The difference between me and you is that I don't necessarily find you scum because of it.

Absolutely not. This is just a horrific response. I am accusing you of being bad, not "discrediting" you. To discredit a player is to work a visible agenda against that player's commentary such that their commentary is perceived to be less valuable. I have no interest in affecting the perceived value of your commentary, I have an interest in conveying the suspicion I have of you. The fact that you treated Matt as you did despite not suspecting him is the whole problem. I do suspect you. The comparison is nonsense.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, 3J, I'm not trying to censor you, I disagree with you. Yes, they are valid to be discussed, but I don't think they should matter in possibly condemning me. Don't try to discredit or censor me because of my opinions on how to play the game, please and thank you.

You're trying your best to make me look like a hypocrite, and in so doing you're making repeated logical leaps and assigning words to me that I did not type. You don't suspect me, but you think I'm discrediting you. You're bad.

Quin wrote:I recall I already defended myself in saying I didn't have a defense. I'd been lacking in the scumhunting department in this game, I know. It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, albeit disastrous for town.

The best defense is sometimes a good offense. Find the baddies immediately and help us slaughter them.

@DrumBeats

Poor S~V~S and indiglo, forever dudes in the eyes of newcomers.

I think your demand that indiglo take some manner of a stance is a fair one. INH's interjection into that discussion reads awkwardly to me; I don't know that he and you were talking about the same thing at all. I'm not a fan of his last post in which he tried to project what you might have said in the future based upon what was a rather ordinary interrogation.

DrumBeats wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

indiglo wrote:What did you think (if anything) about BWT's vote for Quin? And the ensuing back-and-forth with SVS over those 2 Quin votes?

It was a very easy vote and that does not thrill me. I think people giving Quin crap for suggesting that there's more to town mafia than just figuring out who the baddies are is more suspicious than Quin is himself for saying that. I frankly think Quin was stating the obvious, not something controversial.

I have no immediate perspective of S~V~S relative to this interaction. I'll look over it and report back.

My personal suspicion of Quin was that he was doing no baddie hunting despite when he was defending his first statement he claimed that "baddie hunting comes first". Actions not being consistent with words isn't something I'm a fan of, and also why I find Scotty's vote on Goldy odd.

That's a more reasonable rationale. Quin, defend yourself.

I'm so bossy.

indiglo wrote:What did you think (if anything) about BWT's vote for Quin? And the ensuing back-and-forth with SVS over those 2 Quin votes?

It was a very easy vote and that does not thrill me. I think people giving Quin crap for suggesting that there's more to town mafia than just figuring out who the baddies are is more suspicious than Quin is himself for saying that. I frankly think Quin was stating the obvious, not something controversial.

I have no immediate perspective of S~V~S relative to this interaction. I'll look over it and report back.

Now that INH has responded to my original case, I expect other players to start chirping in now. What is your stance?

insertnamehere wrote:From the beginning of this game, I disagreed with Matt's strategy. I didn't say that I thought that Matt was bad, I just thought his strategy was dumb and hurtful towards the civilians. And if you'd like to debate me on that, fine. But it has nothing to do with me or Matt's alignment, it's just a disagreement over playing styles. I'd like for you to explain to me how false-suspicions are "sound and legitimate," but that'd probably be what the mafia wants. Getting us distracted over playing styles and mafia theory, and not actually reading and judging people based on their opinions in the thread seems like a pretty good way to sidetrack us.

I didn't say I suspect you because I disagree with your position. I said I suspect you because I didn't think it looked like your stance on that position was as much a motive for your post as was discrediting Matt. I think this became more evident as play progressed.

As for your request: I make a living with reaction-baiting reads and it often works wonders. You're wrong.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, this is an argument about playing styles and mafia theory. I.E. this has jack squat to do with the game itself!

Whether or not you're giving other players a fair opportunity to respond to substantive accusations has everything to do with the game.

insertnamehere wrote:OK, I've taken so much heat for this goddamn joke post that it's not even funny. I WAS MAKING A JOKE. YOU KNOW, HUMOR? Yes, I put effort into it, bully for me. I guess I shouldn't put any effort into jokes otherwise they'll be taken as rope to lynch me with.

Jokes can be fine. I like them less when the purpose of the joke is to make another player look silly -- especially over something as meaningless as Matt's little "+1" and "-1" stuff. I don't think this serves any valuable purpose to the town cause at all, and indeed it has the potential to restrict another player's (Matt's) ability to play the game his way. This is especially problematic coming from a player who'd just loudly criticized Matt for his methods being "counterproductive". This is worse than anything Matt did for the town cause.

insertnamehere wrote:Matt, if you were genuinely offended by my sarcasm, I apologize. Sometimes I go too far, and I get too personal. I don't necessarily think that this is one of those times, but that's not really for me to decide. Just know that this wasn't intentional on my part. PM me or the mods and we can talk about this.

3J, I'm gonna say the same thing I said two times already. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT OVER PLAYING STYLES AND MAFIA THEORY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO EITHER OF OUR ALIGNMENT. If you're gonna try and lynch me over me not agreeing with how someone plays the game, even though I think he isn't scum, so be it. But I'm not going to go down without a fight.

Just to make it clear: I'm not accusing you of being "mean" to Matt. I'm accusing you of treating him in such a way that he is made to look like a fool for what I perceive to be a very bad reason. I've seen plenty of baddies do exactly this kind of thing, so I'm not interested in hearing you tell me that it's not alignment indicative. Maybe it isn't for you; I don't know you very well. But it is for some people. Hell, this kind of behavior was part of criticism I leveled [correctly] upon nutella in Battlestar Galactica -- she was more interested in making ika look like a dope than actually giving him the space to play his game.

insertnamehere wrote:I disagree with his statements against me for the same exact reason I disagree with your statements against me earlier in this post. At the time, I thought it was so patently obvious that these conversations existed outside the context of the game, that everyone would see how obviously illogical his points were. I guess I was wrong. I thought at the time it was him getting back at people who said that they had problems with him in the thread, i.e. me and Quin. He listed Quin as a likely teammate of mine for no reason given other than feels, and I thought his points against me were built on nothing. I was wrong, I admit. But I'm not gonna say that my thought process didn't make sense, or was illogical.

Those conversations existed in this game thread, in white text, and they were completely relevant to the play of a player in this game. They are valid to be discussed and I am inclined to discuss them.

insertnamehere wrote:Because I thought his reasons for suspecting me were slight and based on nothing, like I did with Wilgy.

You thought timmer was accusing you "based on nothing", which is demonstrably false, and you made no fair effort to engage him. You threw him aside. That's not good enough.

Quin wrote:I don't even know. I was pinged by Matt because I agreed with the principle behind what INH said in that faking reads is counter-productive, but I don't scum read him after taking everything else into account right now. BWT doesn't look all that great given his vote for me, though. I feel as though my vote might go there tomorrow.

What about Matt's posts or the game in general makes you feel less inclined to go after Matt?

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey gang. I'm TiredJimmyJay, so please bear with me if I catch up at a leisurely pace.

Anyone who cares: what are the three most important things I should know about this game so far?

I couldn't tell you exactly 'what' but I'd say that INH, Scotty and I (maybe some others but these come to mind easily) are most in the spotlight.

Who're you beefing with Quin?

Why JaggedJimmyJay is beefing with insertnamehere:
Not only do I think this post denounces a perfectly sound strategy, I think it does so in a way that appears insincere. This looks to me like an attempt to capitalize on Matt being Matt (I think Matt's own comparison to Transistor is a valid one) instead of a reasonable mindset borne of genuine townie frustration. INH has dropped a big deuce on Matt's [perfectly acceptable] methods without overtly calling him suspicious for it -- this achieves nothing but to discredit (everyone's favorite word!) Matt and make him look like a boob in the eyes of the audience.
This implies an "argument" existed which provided Matt with a reasonable avenue for response. I don't think calling his methods "99% BS" fits that description.

INH puts way too much effort into making fun of Matt's meaningless numbers. Sincerity is doubtful.

Again.
This post is just horrendous to me at face value. The effort to shit on Matt is taken well beyond necessary levels and it's just gotten pointless to this point. Matt > INH
I found Wilgy's points totally agreeable, and INH discarded them without honoring them in any reasonable way. Gross. The "No U" accusation is terrible too. It's barely even true.
No.
Just as dismissive of timmer as he was of Wilgy.
I hate this post. INH never addressed Wilgy's concerns in a fair manner, and later he reduced his accuser's attacks to this. The one who is warping the interaction is INH, not Wilgy.

~~~

There you go. I've been here for eight minutes and I already have a case. Come at me.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.

I think this might be the first time I've ever been left speechless in a mafia game. I'm at a loss for words.

This also might be the easiest Day 1 vote I've ever had.

Votes Quin

bad birdy

Sorry for spamming y'all, I'm just dumping immediate reactions as they come.

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, Dude, that's a pretty controversial opinion, you must admit

I guess that's just how people are interpreting it. I'm trying to say that rather than doing everything for the direct purpose of catching a baddie out, we can act to collect information.

Is this where the Quin beefs are focused?

I don't take issue with this at face value. I agree with him.

insertnamehere wrote:You're awfully touchy whenever someone tries to question your reasoning behind your votes...

You've been touchy about exactly everything.

Matt wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt wrote:Do you still think I'm bad Epi?

I was just saying that to see what reactions I could get.

Lol.

What's with everyone being anti-reaction baiting btw? It's DAY ONE (and ZERO) peeps, what else should we be doing? "Hey guys what's your favorite ice cream flavor?"

I'll start off with that question next game, see if that helps as an alternative.

Anyway gettin' some food with the roommates, I'll be back in an hour or two folks.

I like Matt.

insertnamehere wrote:My reactions are in smiley format.

DrWilgy wrote: Why would have I needed something to say Epi?

INH put too much effort in his mockery of Matt's point system. Thus I think they are on opposite teams. The reason why I'm defending Matt is because of this. If INH is bad, then Matt is probably good.

Regarding Quin, I have no justification for why I think they are on the same team, thier patterns feel similar though.

In summary, your entire case is a crock of something that doesn't look like something I'd like to eat. This is you acting almost exactly like you did in AoT Mafia, making brazen NO U's, trying to interrogate people, and just making up bullshit justifications instead of following anything approaching logic.

Honestly, before this post, I was honestly thinking this was just Wilgy being Wilgy. Now I'm pretty sure there's more going on here.

You're more suspicious to me than anyone. Congratulations, sir.

Hey gang. I'm TiredJimmyJay, so please bear with me if I catch up at a leisurely pace.

Anyone who cares: what are the three most important things I should know about this game so far?