The Syndicate

Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.
I am not mocking you, my friend and yes, you're right - You are reasonably high on my town list at the moment - if I come across as sarcastic, I apologise. I do happen to believe you are misguided in the conclusions you're drawing here.

You are not coming off as sarcastic, but you were coming off as a little frustrated and maybe a bit flustered there. And this is something that I am programmed to find suspicious, unfortunately. I can't go against my programming.
Why do you think I'm town?

Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:The whole timmer wagon was the reason I looked at Glorfindel in the first place. Not that I resisted at all, but in hindsight I can't not see timmer as a potential low-hanging fruit, so anyone who advocated for his lynch becomes more suspicious. I followed up on a few players, Glorfindel came out looking the least good in my eyes.
For the record, I had no reason to suspect timmer before I made that observation and yes, I allowed that interpretation of events to influence how I voted and I said as much. If you are genuinely looking for Mafia, I'd recommend you consider those players that voted for timmer WITHOUT any justification...

No. I am looking at the people who provided justification, because they would be the ones responsible for turning the tide against him.

Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you
Sloonei wrote:I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.
Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.
It certainly is an opinion, but I can't dismiss the point entirely on the fact of your opinion. So much of this game is built around forming opinions of things, and my opinion is that this particular opinion you expressed gives the impression of something dishonest. It is not unreasonable to entertain the thought that all potential scum killers could have simply neglected their duties, but to jump to that conclusion as strongly and as swiftly as you did seems like quite a leap. It seems like you were trying to work a specific angle or spread an agenda, or avoid something else.
Please elaborate my friend on precisely what "specific angle" I was working or what agenda I was trying to spread or what it was I was intending to avoid by making the comment that I did. For what it's worth, given the number of absent and semi absent players in this game, I don't know that it is necessarily that long a bow to draw. In any case, if you consider that sufficient grounds to suspect me, it looks like the Mafia teams will have an easy ride of it this game.

I think you were trying to work the angle of pushing for low-posters to be lynched, or at least creating that as an avenue for yourself to pursue so that you could stay out of any more heated cases later on. Your other vote was on Sorsha, so you cast two votes on players whose biggest mark against them was silence. Consistent, but also safe. I also do not like the method of defense that attempts to entirely brush off and discredit an accusation, which you are using here. I think I've stated a fairly reasonable concern and your response is to mock it as being so bad that I am helping the scum out; which at least suggests that you believe I am town, so it's good to know that.

MacDougall wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
nutella wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
nutella wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
nutella wrote:Damn. Sorry Timmer and RIP Rico.

I am inclined to go after Sorsha and TH today especially considering Eloh's implication. Russ is still up there for me as well.
This feels a bit fake to me.
Why?
I dunno, just does. Is it?
Not at all.
Thoughts on Glorfindel?
I don't find Glorfindel suspicious. I thought the point he raised about Timmer was a good one, and it's part of the reason why I voted for Timmer. That, and I didn't think the other wagons were good ones.

Right now, I have concerns about Bass, BWT and Dunny mostly. I will try find time to put some more meat in some cases but I'm looking to find me a good seafood platter and enter a food coma right now.

The whole timmer wagon was the reason I looked at Glorfindel in the first place. Not that I resisted at all, but in hindsight I can't not see timmer as a potential low-hanging fruit, so anyone who advocated for his lynch becomes more suspicious. I followed up on a few players, Glorfindel came out looking the least good in my eyes.

nutella wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
nutella wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
nutella wrote:Damn. Sorry Timmer and RIP Rico.

I am inclined to go after Sorsha and TH today especially considering Eloh's implication. Russ is still up there for me as well.
This feels a bit fake to me.
Why?
I dunno, just does. Is it?
Not at all.

Thoughts on Glorfindel?

Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you
Sloonei wrote:I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.
Indeed you did, my friend. It was addressed (rather obvious;y to every other player in this game) not to me. I expressed an opinion to explain what I thought was (in a game this size) the rather odd occurrence of there being no NK Night 1. Others expressed their views and I accept the validity of them. As I said earlier, I may very well have been naive in my assumption but from my perspective, in a game of 38 players, I should think that equally, the odds of both NKs being negated through role blocks, etc would be pretty long. Again, it's just an opinion.

It certainly is an opinion, but I can't dismiss the point entirely on the fact of your opinion. So much of this game is built around forming opinions of things, and my opinion is that this particular opinion you expressed gives the impression of something dishonest. It is not unreasonable to entertain the thought that all potential scum killers could have simply neglected their duties, but to jump to that conclusion as strongly and as swiftly as you did seems like quite a leap. It seems like you were trying to work a specific angle or spread an agenda, or avoid something else.

LoRab wrote:
Sloonei wrote:@LoRab, I've also felt some suspicion of CapsFan. I even voted for him at the end of the day yesterday. Let's talk about that! What posts of his did you find suspicious?
I also voted for him yesterday.

His whole, vote for me pinged me. And then when he was questioned, he sort of just dropped it. Other than, "It's better than doing nothicn," which makes no sense from a civ perspective.

His posts about Dom seemed off--I understand reading Dom as civ if you know him--but I'm not sure someone relatively new to this field of mafia would read the way Dom is playing as civ game play. (I am currently undecided on Dom)

And his evasive answers about how he plans to votes and what he's thinking.

linkitis: I think if someone makes a post about a player, it is, at least in part, addressed to that player. Or at the very least has the expectation of being responded to by that player when it lays out suspicion of them.

In the mafia background that you come from, are posts usually only answered by the people to whom they are directly addressed? That seems odd to me, as it is the polar opposite of what I am used to. Honest question.

I am in strong agreement with you on all these things RE: CapsFan. He's a player I would love to hear more from this phase, because right now he's not looking too great but I'd like to think he can turn that around.

And @ glorfindel, yeah. My bad for not making it clear, but any post I make about you is also being addressed to you. I was inviting everyone to talk about that post, and I count you as one of the everys. Responding to your response in another post.

@LoRab, I've also felt some suspicion of CapsFan. I even voted for him at the end of the day yesterday. Let's talk about that! What posts of his did you find suspicious?

Hello Glorfindel, I wrote a post about you

Sloonei wrote:I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

a rainbow list:

Turnip Head

some other people.

LoRab wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I mean... that post was a joke. I don't know what else to say about it except that it was very clearly a joke.

Spoiler: show
I also don't believe you read all the links because the very first one links to the "Don't click this topic" game and by that game's rules you'd have to post and admit that I made ya look
I did read them all. And I rolled my eyes at the figurative rick roll. And chose not to play that game.

And yes, I'm not denying it was a joke. But jokes aren't necessarily innocent. Heck, I'm the reason that there's a rule that anything in OT green is necessarily off topic, because a few players and I used green text as a civ code in a game once (back in the early days of OT green....Supermarket Mafia on LP, if anyone actually cares to go look it up). Point being, things are not always what they seem. A joke can have deeper meaning and shouldn't always be written off because it's a joke. And, my whole point that made that post ping my suspiciometer is the fact that it was a joke. But I think it was a jokey post that was also an inside joke.

I think it was a joke that you were also laughing about in BTSC.

Listen, I get that you're frustrated. Although the tone of your defense also has me further suspecting you. I notice patterns. It's how I view the world. When something is off in a pattern, I notice it. Your joke was off in your usual pattern of banter.

And I may have been wrong about votes for prefect (again, sorry about that...looking back, I think I just misread someone else's post and didn't fact check). But I could also see MM voting for 2 teammates on the first lynch. You because he always votes you day 1 and Wilgy for the particular shits and giggles of voting for 2 teammates.

Who's your second biggest scum read, independent of all things Turnip related?

Turnip Head wrote:
Quin wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I mean... that post was a joke. I don't know what else to say about it except that it was very clearly a joke.

Spoiler: show
I also don't believe you read all the links because the very first one links to the "Don't click this topic" game and by that game's rules you'd have to post and admit that I made ya look
Would you expect a reasonable person to comment here about you linking to the 'don't click this topic' game? Even in passing?
This is going to be one of those questions that I ignore.

What about this one?

Golden wrote:sloonei, what do you make of TH's overall reactiveness today?

Stuff like saying all the rational people are dead so he will probably just be lynched... town or mafia post?

I like him. Everything he's saying is believable and sensible. He seems exasperated at the way yesterday unfolded in front of him while he couldn't say a word. If this is a scum ploy I applaud him for it.
Haven't made up my mind on how LoRab looks in all this. But there were also other TH voters who aren't here presently.

What was your thought process in choosing which bandwagons you would join yesterday?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:People are focusing too much on the nanman and forgetting web have a second mafia to deal with. And a cult. And a serial killer.

DDL's last post. I don't mind the nudge for people to stay focused. I'm not sure I saw any strong levels of concentration on one baddie team to another, but like I've said a few times, that's hardly something that has been on my mind at all so I could simply be oblivious.

I do not like the silence since this post. At this point it's probably Life things, but some sort of comment on something would be nice. I trust that he'll be back with plenty to say soon.

Anyone know what role a prefect would serve in the flavor of this game?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Honestly the fact JJJ is such an active civ is one reason for me to put him on my "do not trust" list, not the opposite.

Specially sice I've seen him admit he tries hard to make his baddie meta as civ-looking as possible.
I'm not sure I really understand your point. I think most people are voting JJJ because: #1) He is a thorough player and #2) He is an active player and we know he won't flake on us a few days in.

And, don't we ALL try to make our baddie meta as "civ-looking" as possible? I've never known anyone to get a baddie role and try to look bad...well, except maybe MovingPictures that one time
Not exactly. We want our bad metas to look like our civ metas, but a lot of us have civ metas not as thorough or pro-active as they can be, so the baddie counterpart to those metas are easier to make. We don't look that good all the time, so when we actually are bad, people don't detect it that easily.

But Jay? Like you said, he is the perfect civ. He is the town leader, the pro-active guy, the king of TL;DRs. And he tries to make his baddie meta look exactly like that (Ive never seen it myself, but he has described it that way). And that makes him a more dangerous baddie than most. Its harder to pull that metaboff successfully, but if he does it, we have a problem.

So I tend to be paranoid and avoid easily trustingnplayers like him. A good parallel to that is Marco from my forum, who plays a similar way.

This post makes me uneasy. His paranoia about Jay is bordering on malicious, almost. It gives the impression that he's trying to sow paranoia more than he's trying to provoke level-headedness.

Hey DDL, what was your read on Jay during his time in the game?

Dunny wrote:I have seen a lot of people post that JJJ is an obvious choice.
Can someone fill me in as to why thats an obvious choice or is it because JJJ is an active player?

This is the context of DDL's original "I don't trust Jay" stance. Dunny is talking about voting for prefects (i still haven't figured out what that means), not voting declaring anyone a town read.
I'm not sure I interpret this as indicating anything for DDL's alignment. He always plays with a bit of firm and aggressive stance, especially early on, so I can see a town Luffy just wanting to get this thought out there for the uninitiated. I still have some doubts about the sincerity of this stance though.

Quin wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Quin wrote:Here's my thoughts on Luffy...
What do the numbers mean here? Do low numbers = scum or town?
The lower the number the lower he'd sit on a rainbow list. So as of the end of Day 1, he's sitting on a light orange.

Gotcha. I'll have another look at the thing and share any thoughts I have.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. So I have still not caught up any more, and I am now about 15 pages behind. So I have 1 of 2 options:

1) Give up and ask to be replaced because I do not have the free time right now to read through the amount of posts I need to get through to catch up.

2) Start from scratch right now and build on from there.

And I'm going to try option #2. Soooooo....anyone got some Cliff Notes for what's happened so far?

This was birdwithteeth's last post. If he ever did get the Cliff Notes, he never did anything with them. I don't get any particularly scummy vibes from, but there's nothing in his post history that screams town either.

I will say that this post is similar to what I tried to do as scum when I fell behind in the champs game last week.

Quin wrote:Here's my thoughts on Luffy...

What do the numbers mean here? Do low numbers = scum or town?

Turnip Head wrote:I have read everything.

Do you think any of the people who were pushing your lynch are bad? Who's most likely among them?

Elohcin wrote:Looks like they're killing the talkers. Baddies must be people who don't like to read.

How do you feel about reading?

MacDougall wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I am playing in a mafia game with Macdougall. This has not happened for a very long time. I owe him an ISO or something.
Nah don't.
Never mind then. Just tell me your alignment.
Town as fuck

How can I believe you?

I'm still not totally on board with a lot of the suspicions that I've seen leveled against TH, but that doesn't mean I have him as a town read. I keep forgetting that I've only actually been in this game for about 72 hours. There's a lot of players I have undeveloped reads on. My sorsha vote was influenced by my desire not to lynch Turnip Head or Dom at the end of yesterday, but now that I've had time to reflect I do not think that was a good decision on my part.

Not that I'm scum reading TH either.

MacDougall wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I am playing in a mafia game with Macdougall. This has not happened for a very long time. I owe him an ISO or something.
Nah don't.

Never mind then. Just tell me your alignment.

I am playing in a mafia game with Macdougall. This has not happened for a very long time. I owe him an ISO or something.

Quin wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.
It's worth noting he mentioned the Yellow Turbans leader specifically. Thoughts?

This is my first time playing too, but I don't think that believing a kill-less night was due to inactivity could ever be something that someone historically believes in.

I'm still just starting to wrap my head around the multiple scum factions at work here, but any time a player mentions one specifically over the other it is something to take note of. Good catch.

If we had changeable votes, mine would be starting the day on Glorfindel and DDL.

And would you look at that, they're the two people I brought up first!

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"Can we lynch Dragon D. Luffy now?"
I feel like this kid's just fishing for reactions.

What's your reaction?

I was looking at some of the timmer voters overnight and a found a few questionable things in Glorfindel’s history. First, These two posts represent his only noteworthy contribution to the Day 1 proceedings, and all he is doing is rejecting a voting strategy proposed by others. He does not propose anything of his own and I see no commitment to anything, really. Looks like Glorfindel spent most of the day in the shadows and then stepped out late to position himself against what could be perceived as a bad lynch (Bubbles, aka me, voting for JJJ and Scotty. I assume Jay was town and have no read on Scotty at this point).

That’s one thing. I read that and was feeling a mild tingle, but then I got to his next string of posts and the tingling intensified.
There’s no nightkill Night 1, so Glorfindel immediately jumps to the conclusion that there’s an inactive scum who simply forgot to submit the kill and then proposes the strategy, which he’s normally against, of lynching quiet players because of this. On the following page people started pointing out all the numerous other ways that a nightkill could be prevented, but Glorfindel doubled down on the “inactive scum” theory, even suggesting it’s the most logical explanation. I would not say it is logical to assume that every single scum player (if any scum player is capable of submitting a factional kill, idk how Epi’s doing it this game) simply forgot that there was a responsibility to submit a kill on Night 1, rather than the list of other possible explanations (doctor, unkillable role, roleblocks, etc.). Glorfindel sort of acknowledged this here but also stuck to his guns.

What do y’all think of this? I am not at all familiar with Glorfindel’s playstyle, so any useful knowledge there would be helpful.

TheCapsFan and Sorsha

Of the candidates with lots of votes, they are the ones I am least inclined to put town reads on right now. TheCapsFan has seemed shaky and non-committal at times. I've not said much about him because I was trying to get more answers out of him before throwing an accusation his way, but that's out the window now.
Sorsha because I've spent the day waiting for her to explain a thing or two, but that never happened.

I went for a longer run than intended and now i'm back with only a few minutes to decide. I am here and thinking about stuff. timmer seems destined for a duel, so I might stay off him to put votes on my two preferred secondary candidates.

What do people think of DDL?

Simon wrote:Let's have Golden vs. Boomslang.

I do not presently support either of these options. I haven't looked at Golden yet though.

I could potentially get behind a dunny vote. I haven't looked too closely at his posts but I remember seeing the case against him and not thinking it was bad. That's a plus.

MacDougall wrote:To clarify my Sloonei case here are the cliffs:

He is Sloonei

I am not.

Nero, I touched on why I don't agree with your BWT suspicion here. Thoughts?

Sloonei wrote:
Nerolunar wrote: This post made me vote for BWT:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I hate having to do this, but I haven't caught up at all, I'm more than 10 pages behind, and I've had a really bad cold I've been dealing with for the last few days. I'm going to vote for myself and random another person on the list. I'm hoping with any off day tomorrow that I'll have enough time to read through everything and catch back up. Sorry everyone!
I hate random votes, and what I hate more is self-voting, even in a game like this. Seems like BWT wants to duel another random person and squash the opponent no matter who it is. I don't like it.
I cannot get behind this accusation and I do not understand your logic in making it. It seems that when BWT self-voted, he was the only person voting for himself that day. He wasn't asking to be put into a duel, he was simply trying to avoid doing any accidental or unnecessary damage. His stated reason that he was simply not caught up enough to justify any vote seems more believable to me. Additionally, would he not also want to use his second vote on one of the other players near the top of a bandwagon if this is what he was doing?

I can understand a self-vote in a situation like this one. I am not saying I town-read birdwithteeth because of it, but I do not scum read him for it either.

Sorsha could climb into my list, but she hasn't responded to any of the accusations against her yet. The longer that remains the case, though, the more suspicious she becomes.

Sloonei wrote:3 hours to go and I think my short list is down to 3 people. Right now I am leaning toward 2 of DDL, Russtifinko, and timmer. So far no one has more than a single vote, let's start working toward a consensus.

3 hours to go and I think my short list is down to 3 people. Right now I am leaning toward 2 of DDL, Russtifinko, and timmer. So far no one has more than a single vote, let's start working toward a consensus.

nutella wrote:I'm on my way out the door but I know Lorab quoted/pointed it out a few pages back.

Thanks. I am not entirely convinced by this. I doubt I'll be voting for Turnip today.

nutella wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?
The main thing is a bit of wifom early in the game suggesting he may be Wilgy's and MM's teammate. Additionally, many players have cited an intangible bad vibe from him since the beginning of the game, something about his style and participation is rubbing the wrong way.

Could somebody link me to said wifom? I could not find it.

I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?

I suppose it's time I looked into this Turnip thing.

Sorsha wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm here
Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?
Have only been skimming. Looks like Dom is mostly getting votes for the trump schtick, mm for some connection to wilgy and I have no idea what Russ did to be suspicious. My own suspicion is inh but it could probably be more of an annoyance than suspicion. Lobbying for prefect and promising to be active and then bailing.

I don't really find Dom suspicious I could be ok with a mm vote, Russ I don't know yet.

I do not like this post from sorsha. She just brushes over all the popular suspicions as if they're inconsequential, then brings up her own totally baseless suspicion and never elaborates on it. I can understand sorsha suspicion, but I'd be hesitant to cast a vote until she gives us more to work with. For now. Not a town read.

Boomslang wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Also I feel like I want to vote for TH, but cant find any rational reason for it. Something about him feels wrong though.

"Something about him feels wrong". I never ever like that justification. It means literally nothing and opens up the door for baseless accusation. Totally insubstantial claim posing as substance.
Fantastic catch. Very fluffy, and it gives DDL the flexibility to jump in either direction on the TH discussion. If they're teammates and a TH lynch looks preventable, he could say, "Nah, that was nothing" and vote elsewhere. If the lynch train has no brakes, he could say, "I still have that gut feeling, so I'm going to vote TH" and perform a bussing maneuver. DDL, search your feelings and give us something better to go on.

You've shared a good amount of suspicion against various players, but I'm having a tough time gauging the strengths of a lot of these suspicions. The day is ending relatively soon. Who do you plan on voting for?

If votes were changeable mine would tentatively be on Russ and DDL right now, with timmer as an alternate candidate.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Also I feel like I want to vote for TH, but cant find any rational reason for it. Something about him feels wrong though.

"Something about him feels wrong". I never ever like that justification. It means literally nothing and opens up the door for baseless accusation. Totally insubstantial claim posing as substance.

This server thing is really hampering my ketchup.

I was digging through DDL's posts and then his Day 1 votes came in and set off many alarms.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I find myself agreeing with Mac's point on Dunny. And something about him just feels off. Like he is just overly-defensive. I don't feel good about voting for a new player on day 1, but it's the game.

Also I didn't like Nutella's perfectly reasonable post, so away with her.

These are my votes. I might be able to make some posts tomorrow, but not read or write any big ones, so I'm voting now. Good night.

Prior to this post, I noted exactly 1 mention of nutella in DDL's posts, and it was just a few minutes earlier when he said she made a "well-reasoned" post, which he then spins into paranoia for some reason. A few minutes later he's decided to put a vote on her and... dunny, another player I've not noticed DDL mentioning at all previously.
It is not like DDL was being silent before these votes. What makes them so surprising is that he had been talking plenty before this, but then chose to toss a couple of votes on players he was otherwise not discussing at all. Why?
But then another thing that struck me was how many of his posts seemed to come out of Day 0. I was a bit surprised when I was well into his post history and noticed that the posts I was reading still had the "Day 0" headline on them. And he was sowing lots of paranoia back then too, right off the bat. I'm usually the first person to talk people out of trusting Jay intrinsically, but DDL seemed really eager to pounce on that when this game started.

Search found 235 matches