The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

Cobalt wrote: Sue me.

I'd rather vote you. As you said, you don't have any cheese.

Trust me.

I would LOVE to see you vote me.

Epignosis wrote:

Cobalt wrote:Epi, got something to say to me? I can practically TASTE your salt.

I do all the cooking at my home. "Salt" is an ingredient.

Processing salt is also an important chemical reaction for human life.

You know what else is an important process for human life?

Processing shit.

You are shitting.

And I ain't tasting that.

And yet you still won't get to the point... hmm.

Sloonei wrote:LC definitely does need to answer for that vote. I've not been suspicious of him all game, but that was a bit peculiar.

LC threw himself under the damn BUS with that vote tbh. I won't be stopped next phase. I want his head on a pike now.

Epignosis wrote:I'm going to harp on this:

Long Con had three votes: MM, Cobalt, Epi

S~V~S had three votes: MP, nutella, DFaraday

Tied.

S~V~S votes her damn self.

Colby-Jack says the LC vote has lost traction, so he's changing his vote to S~V~S.

Ah, this must have something to do with it.

First of all, I'm named after a hue and an element, not a fucking cheese.

Secondly, I'm not used to people not voting until later in the phase. I'm used to most votes being laid out earlier and then adjusting them over time. To someone like me who is unfamiliar with the style here, it didn't look like LC had any traction when it turns out he did. I was late to the party, my bad. Sue me.

Epi, got something to say to me? I can practically TASTE your salt.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Gumshoe wrote:

nutella wrote:@ sloonei LC said he wouldn't be around (a factor in my picking Cobalt over him).

This caught my eye. Is this true? Because apparently he was waiting and watching the poll without posting as he swooped in last second to finish off SVS.

That's why I want him gone.

That's why? Not all the other reasons you gave earlier? If you still want him gone, why did you vote for SVS?

That's why I want him gone ESPECIALLY now.

We didn't have Long Con voting SVS while not posting on the record earlier. Him doing that was the last straw for me now that I see how the votes played out.

Epignosis wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Gumshoe wrote:

nutella wrote:@ sloonei LC said he wouldn't be around (a factor in my picking Cobalt over him).

This caught my eye. Is this true? Because apparently he was waiting and watching the poll without posting as he swooped in last second to finish off SVS.

That's why I want him gone.

Good job making that happen.

Except, according to you, you weren't even around when LC voted.

I wasn't around. But that's apparently what happened. I can fucking read.

Cobalt wrote:That said, I'm moving my vote to SVS for now, as it doesn't seem that Long Con is gaining any traction, Epi.

In fact, it almost looks like he's keeping under the radar so as not to draw too much attention to himself.

Did I call it or did I call it? As soon as he could put the final nail in someone else's coffin, he did.

Gumshoe wrote:

nutella wrote:@ sloonei LC said he wouldn't be around (a factor in my picking Cobalt over him).

This caught my eye. Is this true? Because apparently he was waiting and watching the poll without posting as he swooped in last second to finish off SVS.

That's why I want him gone.

Epignosis wrote:

Cobalt wrote:Not a civ. Goodie.

Long Con tomorrow? I had to help my sister put the kids to bed cuz she's really sick, and then I got a little distracted. Wasn't around towards the end, or I probably would have moved my vote back to LC.

Anybody have anything they want me to answer, go for it.

Please don't bring real life or sick people into this. I won't entertain it.

Ok. I wasn't around. End of story.

God damn.

Not a civ. Goodie.

Long Con tomorrow? I had to help my sister put the kids to bed cuz she's really sick, and then I got a little distracted. Wasn't around towards the end, or I probably would have moved my vote back to LC.

Anybody have anything they want me to answer, go for it.

I'll vote for him again next day when this SVS mess is out of our way.

Epignosis wrote:

Cobalt wrote:That said, I'm moving my vote to SVS for now, as it doesn't seem that Long Con is gaining any traction, Epi.

In fact, it almost looks like he's keeping under the radar so as not to draw too much attention to himself.

I don't like this. Hard working civilians make traction. They don't go where the wind is blowing.

It reinforces my view that you and Long Con are teammates.

Oh.

That's cool. idrgaf.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote: Sloonei - I still wonder why you focused so hard on the interaction between myself and Gumshoe. I still wonder why you haven't committed to a vote, is it to see if my bandwagon takes off before getting on it? You look moderately iffy to me because you won't commit.

This does not feel like a natural case against me. You said earlier in the game that you like to "address the situation directly" when your name is involved, and I've been naming you a lot all Day. You've been addressing my posts, but it has not been as aggressively as I would expect a townie player who is directly addressing the situation to act. You have lingered on my initial post about Gumshoe even though that particular post has hardly been a factor in my case against you. I initially brought it up out of suspicion for Gumshoe, not you. Your reaction was what triggered my suspicion. I feel if you were really a townie/civ you would have tried harder to case me than you have. You've hardly pushed back at all, and now you've put a somewhat weak scum read on me for my failure to commit to a vote. I feel like I've made it clear in all of my posts that I like to keep as open a mind as possible on Day 1, and as such my vote is not likely to come until the end of the day.

However, as votes are changeable, I feel comfortable putting an early vote on Cobalt.
There is still plenty of time left in the day, though.

I don't need to case you because I don't want to vote for you today. Trust me, I'm known for MP-style dissertations when I think I'm gonna die, or when I really want to get someone lynched. Frankly, I'm also not very solid in that iffy vibe on you because if I'm totally honest there's something about you that I just can't put my finger on. I didn't feel the need to push back because I don't particularly feel threatened by you. Does that make you feel a bit better or no?

I just think it's amusing that someone expects me to be MORE aggressive when usually that's what does make me look scummy. I'll push back harder at ya next time, hmm?

That said, I'm moving my vote to SVS for now, as it doesn't seem that Long Con is gaining any traction, Epi.

In fact, it almost looks like he's keeping under the radar so as not to draw too much attention to himself.

I had people all over me saying I was "bullying" last game.

Basically, the vigilante gained a stock when each of three roles died or was lynched. Two players claimed those roles on like day three. I was furious, called them out and said how they were a. unbelievably inconsiderate and b. selfish for claiming something that would grant them immunity to night kill, pretty much, cuz the mafia wasn't gonna give our vigi stocks. I was called a bully by a salty mafia member that I took down even though those players didn't feel like I was bullying them at all.

So Epi, I see exactly where you are. I don't think you've bullied anyone; in fact I think you're one of the only voices in this game that I actually like right now.

S~V~S wrote:

Cobalt wrote:Due to all that has been said about SVS, I am on board with an SVS lynch if that's the way it goes today. Keeping my vote on Long Con for now until a few more are willing to commit to a vote elsewhere.

Why? Can you explain it to me in your own words, rather than referring to what has been said?

To make a long story short you're all over the damn place.

timmer wrote:@Tiny Bubbles, when you said you agreed with my gut on Cobalt, had you read his posts and come to the same conclusions as me? Or had you just assumed I was right about what I said and went with it?

@Cobalt, yes, I absolutely missed it. I'm not really sure how, but calling you out for it makes no sense when it's obvious now that you laid out your thoughts.

Glad you see it that way. I was a bit frustrated at being called out for not doing something that I did, and receiving votes for it.

Due to all that has been said about SVS, I am on board with an SVS lynch if that's the way it goes today. Keeping my vote on Long Con for now until a few more are willing to commit to a vote elsewhere.

timmer wrote:Apparently I am blind? How did I miss that? I read all of your posts from top to bottom. That's messed. I'll have to rethink my vote a bit, but it will have to wait until coffee break...

So you legitimately missed my explanation of my LC suspicions?

I don't quite know how, it's quite a big wall of text and if you clicked the link for all my posts in-thread, it's hard to miss. Guess it must have been an honest mistake though?

I liked your instincts and your reads, timmer, but your vote on me was misplaced considering you made it after I had already done what you wanted me to do.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

what are your thoughts on the individual players who are currently suspicious of you?

Timmer - Doesn't pay attention. Voted me because I didn't elaborate on my Long Con vote, which I did.

Scotty - Voted me as a total copout imo. Said he would vote me because he didn't have time to be around later in the day, and my only post @ him was why he was going so hard on the PM's. He said something like, "I'm trying to solve the puzzle, even though it'll make me a likely night kill target" which I thought was BOGUS, and trying too hard to look civ. Scummy read right now.

TinyBubbles - Bullshitter. Voted me because of what Timmer said, and I subsequently explained myself. Doesn't post much at all, actually. Staying out of the spotlight but throwing votes my way to turn me into a potential bandwagon? Likely.

MP - I was only a very slight mafia read for him and as far as I know I've said all I had to say to appease him.

Sloonei - I still wonder why you focused so hard on the interaction between myself and Gumshoe. I still wonder why you haven't committed to a vote, is it to see if my bandwagon takes off before getting on it? You look moderately iffy to me because you won't commit.

timmer wrote:

Cobalt wrote:What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

In fact, I'll put it more bluntly. You voted Long Con for apparently jokey reasons. Then you started referring to him as scummy, to bolster your vote on him. You've said about three times in different posts that you are going to get around to fully explaining your views on Long Con. BUT YOU NEVER HAVE. instead, though, you've made a handful of big posts mostly discussing MP and Devin.

So i see a problem, there. Please discuss why you keep saying you will explain your thinking on Long Con but never do.

Are you joking or just blind?

Cobalt wrote:

Cobalt wrote:Long Con, I'm coming for your weave this game.

Long Con wrote:My... my weave?

Some fake concerned/scared shit that he's pulling here. I found it uppity/overconfident instead of a joking tone.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

I don't buy that he was doing that either, as I already said in a previous post. He was basically saying "I talked shit and called it a shoving match to see what you would say about it", but who lays bait that specific for just one player during day 0 of the game? My post in which I talked about my previous games was a general post to see who would really point it out or come for me with it, because I wanted to see who would pick up on it or call me out on it, if anyone, to get a feel for the field a little bit.

Long Con wrote:I don't find anything suspicious about Gumshoe contributing to the discussion. I'm more pinged by those, like Sloonei, whose "initial reaction" was that Gum was defending Cobalt. I don't think it's likely that a baddie teammate would "jump to the rescue" so early, and for so little. He's trying to drum up a suspicion between Cobalt and Gumshoe that I don't buy. Is it that easy to catch baddies?

He picked a person that I would be pinged by for trying to drum up suspicion on me this early, like Sloonei, and the tries to make me look better? Or does that make me look worse? What angle is he playing here?

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Long Con is still my #1 suspect, however.

His manipulation is transparent to me.

Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

In case I haven't been clear, here is what I see is happening in this one line:

Long Con mischaracterizes and trivializes the exchange MP and I had Day 0. He quoted a bunch of posts from MP and me and called it a shoving match. He said he doesn't like the term "pissing match" (Glad he forewent "tug of war" ). Neither of those terms accurately describes what was going on there.

However, this serves the neater purpose of giving LC a place to vote if either an Epignosis or MP lynch gains momentum. He comments on it without saying anything meaningful about it (except for making it sound uglier than it is), which shows his audience that he is aware something is going on there, all the while leaving himself free to vote for either of us if the opportunity presents itself.

The "manipulation" you're seeing is only your own paranoia. I wasn't manipulating anything, I was just offering my point of view on the current goings-on.

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP. I saw it more as you each confronting the other with questions that demanded answers, while the other deflects it away with a different question. It's pretty much up to any reader to decide if the "shoving match" metaphor is accurate, or way off. It describes how I read the exchange, so it's the metaphor I used.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

He totally goes OMGUS on Epi here and says that he's paranoid when really Epi makes a great point about how he can now commit to a MP or Epi train later on when or if the opportunity presents itself, which I also got a vibe like that from his shoving match post. Why point it out if you don't have something to think about it? (I think someone already said something to the effect of that question. Why not wait until you DO have something to think about it before posting about it? Unless you would use it to pass yourself off later?)

Long Con wrote:Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

The S~V~S suspicion is based on her possible buddying behaviour to me. I have seen her do this kind of thing in the past, so it stands out to me. It also seems a bit like she was choosing that "issue" to comment and offer opinion about, because it's not a direct player opinion or accusation, but it does show up as contribution. Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

If LC flips bad, I'm inclined to think S~V~S a little bit clearer. She's the other person people have expressed scum leans on, so why throw shade on one of the only other talked about scum reads in the game? As far as I know, some people are willing to lynch Long Con and some people are willing to lynch SVS. Seems like a convenient opportunity to make her look bad if people would be persuaded to vote for her.

So in conclusion, I think a lot of what Long Con says is scummy. Just on gut I got a bad vibe from him, and me saying that I was coming for his weave early in the game was a joke that turned into reality when I found he looked worse with every post he made. Yes, I still want to lynch him as some form of salty revenge for the last game when he successfully fooled me as scum, but much of my vote lies with the above-outlined analysis.

I explained my LC vote and read already. If you're gonna place a vote on me for not doing something make sure to check and see if I actually did it or not first.

What would I have to explain to you guys in order to appear less suspicious? While I mentioned what I mentioned to see who would react to it, I didn't want my playstyle this game to have the adverse effect of looking scummy, which apparently it has a bit.

Turnip Head wrote:Are votes changeable?

Just checked. Yes.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:Oh btw I'm a guy I figured I would clear that up.

@Epi are you actually going to vote Long Con?

@Sloonei if you want SVS lynched why haven't you made an actual case? You seem content to just ask people questions and put pressure on without actually committing to any of your own reads. Why is that?

Because it's Day 1. I am asking questions to help develop reads on players. This is simply how I play, as I've stated already and which others have vouched for.
I can post my read on SVS, though I don't think I'll be saying anything new. I've not said anything extensive about her because others have already cased her pretty thoroughly and I was waiting for her responses to those. She responded this morning and it did not look good in my eyes. reasons forthcoming

So do you want to vote her today or what?

We have like less than 8 hours from the deadline. I'm sticking with Long Con unless everyone actually decides to commit to someone else and make a case.

Oh btw I'm a guy I figured I would clear that up.

@Epi are you actually going to vote Long Con?

@Sloonei if you want SVS lynched why haven't you made an actual case? You seem content to just ask people questions and put pressure on without actually committing to any of your own reads. Why is that?

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Sloonei wrote:@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I wasn't trying to distance myself from anything. I was addressing what was addressed about something that involved myself. Read it however you want, I respect your opinion, but that's not what I was doing.

In your big post there you suggested I might be pinging you for "drumming up suspicion". It pinged me. Do you think I am trying to drum up suspicion against you? Does this make me bad?

You're certainly reading pretty far into the situation involving Gumshoe and I which would have been nothing to talk about if you didn't insist on tunneling on it. Sure does make me wonder why you seem so eager to keep certain people in the spotlight.

Sloonei wrote:@Cobalt, I think you misunderstood my latest post about you. I was not saying that you were defending Gumshoe. I was saying that your attempt to explain why Gumshoe was not defending you ended up just being a summary of how Gumshoe was defending you. It struck me that you would go to such a great length to make an argument distancing yourself from a case (that you were being defended by Gumshoe) that could have otherwise been inconsequential, and that it turns out you did not really even disagree with at all.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I wasn't trying to distance myself from anything. I was addressing what was addressed about something that involved myself. Read it however you want, I respect your opinion, but that's not what I was doing.

Cobalt wrote:Long Con, I'm coming for your weave this game.

Long Con wrote:My... my weave?

Some fake concerned/scared shit that he's pulling here. I found it uppity/overconfident instead of a joking tone.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

Nah.

I don't buy that you were doing that.

I don't buy that he was doing that either, as I already said in a previous post. He was basically saying "I talked shit and called it a shoving match to see what you would say about it", but who lays bait that specific for just one player during day 0 of the game? My post in which I talked about my previous games was a general post to see who would really point it out or come for me with it, because I wanted to see who would pick up on it or call me out on it, if anyone, to get a feel for the field a little bit.

Long Con wrote:I don't find anything suspicious about Gumshoe contributing to the discussion. I'm more pinged by those, like Sloonei, whose "initial reaction" was that Gum was defending Cobalt. I don't think it's likely that a baddie teammate would "jump to the rescue" so early, and for so little. He's trying to drum up a suspicion between Cobalt and Gumshoe that I don't buy. Is it that easy to catch baddies?

He picked a person that I would be pinged by for trying to drum up suspicion on me this early, like Sloonei, and the tries to make me look better? Or does that make me look worse? What angle is he playing here?

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Long Con is still my #1 suspect, however.

His manipulation is transparent to me.

Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

In case I haven't been clear, here is what I see is happening in this one line:

Long Con mischaracterizes and trivializes the exchange MP and I had Day 0. He quoted a bunch of posts from MP and me and called it a shoving match. He said he doesn't like the term "pissing match" (Glad he forewent "tug of war" ). Neither of those terms accurately describes what was going on there.

However, this serves the neater purpose of giving LC a place to vote if either an Epignosis or MP lynch gains momentum. He comments on it without saying anything meaningful about it (except for making it sound uglier than it is), which shows his audience that he is aware something is going on there, all the while leaving himself free to vote for either of us if the opportunity presents itself.

The "manipulation" you're seeing is only your own paranoia. I wasn't manipulating anything, I was just offering my point of view on the current goings-on.

I don't think "tug of war" is the metaphor I would use for the exchange between you and MP. I saw it more as you each confronting the other with questions that demanded answers, while the other deflects it away with a different question. It's pretty much up to any reader to decide if the "shoving match" metaphor is accurate, or way off. It describes how I read the exchange, so it's the metaphor I used.

I'm surprised by how defensive you got about it. In the last part of the quoted post, you have me voting for you and MP over this. I didn't comment on it to say it's suspicious, or even that it's unusual for the two of you. I said I don't know what to make of it, and you are reading a lot into that and feeling threatened by it. All it means is that you guys asked more questions than you gave answers, and that left some things hanging, cut off others before they could become discussions. Maybe I'll "know what to make of it" when there's more answers and opinions, and less stonewalling.

He totally goes OMGUS on Epi here and says that he's paranoid when really Epi makes a great point about how he can now commit to a MP or Epi train later on when or if the opportunity presents itself, which I also got a vibe like that from his shoving match post. Why point it out if you don't have something to think about it? (I think someone already said something to the effect of that question. Why not wait until you DO have something to think about it before posting about it? Unless you would use it to pass yourself off later?)

Long Con wrote:Epi for his defensive reaction to the "shoving match" comment. He's turned it into an excuse to suspect and vote for him, when it was just a comment on the situation. And he's accusing me of lying about saying things to gauge reactions, when the shoving comment wasn't even the first time I did it.

The S~V~S suspicion is based on her possible buddying behaviour to me. I have seen her do this kind of thing in the past, so it stands out to me. It also seems a bit like she was choosing that "issue" to comment and offer opinion about, because it's not a direct player opinion or accusation, but it does show up as contribution. Comments on issues rather than players are an easy way for a baddie to be involved without getting their hands dirty.

If LC flips bad, I'm inclined to think S~V~S a little bit clearer. She's the other person people have expressed scum leans on, so why throw shade on one of the only other talked about scum reads in the game? As far as I know, some people are willing to lynch Long Con and some people are willing to lynch SVS. Seems like a convenient opportunity to make her look bad if people would be persuaded to vote for her.

So in conclusion, I think a lot of what Long Con says is scummy. Just on gut I got a bad vibe from him, and me saying that I was coming for his weave early in the game was a joke that turned into reality when I found he looked worse with every post he made. Yes, I still want to lynch him as some form of salty revenge for the last game when he successfully fooled me as scum, but much of my vote lies with the above-outlined analysis.

MovingPictures07 wrote: 3) Responses to Cobalt

Spoiler: show

Cobalt wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Cobalt wrote:My eye is on Devin almost immediately because of that joking truce thing. Mafia Cobalt tries to jokingly buddy up to people to see if they'd be receptive to it or not.

nutella wrote:

Long Con wrote: Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.

Basically this

I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.

So because it is line with your mafia meta to do something, you extrapolate to mean that it is likely within someone else's meta, whom you've never met, as well?

Are you implying that we shouldn't vote for you because you have good instincts? What does that have to do with your alignment?

I actually missed this.

1. Meta is meta. If you really think every single person would have entirely different mafia strategies, note that it's likely impossible for there to be no overlap. Lots of different beginning of the game strategies that I've seen, people tend to overlap. ESPECIALLY people that I don't know, because it's a whole new field with all new players, but you're likely to see things you've seen before elsewhere.

2. I never said you shouldn't vote for me because I have good instincts, I was just trying to let you know I'm not a tentative newbie who's afraid to get their feet wet, in a few more words than that.

Spoiler: show

Cobalt wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks for putting up with my extended interrogation, Devin. This certainly won't be the end, but I wanted to take advantage of you being here at the same time as myself, early on, to try and pick your brain.

You won't be getting my vote on Day 1 unless something drastically changes. Neither will Epi.

I don't like this post for some reason. It gives me bad vibes.

Spoiler: show

Cobalt wrote:
It's only a very slight mafia read. I'll roll with it. Nothing to really come at you for.

Cobalt, I had to split up your post here into parts due to formatting reasons.

Response to first quote: Regarding 1., fair enough. What do you make of my opinion of him? Regarding 2., noted. However, can you see why the purpose of your statement can be seen as perhaps nefarious? So you're good, you didn't think that anyone else here is either? I could sit here and brag about my accomplishments, and so could many others, but none of us did so. So what was the real purpose of your statement? You say it was to say what you said in 2., but if that was the case, why not just say exactly what you said in 2.? I suppose I just don't understand your train of thought fully behind this.

Response to second quote: Can you elaborate in any way? Do you still feel this way after this post? If yes or no, why? Is there anything you want me to address?

Response to third quote: Noted. How do you think you would have reacted if it was a slight mafia read, moderate mafia read, or worse?

One last question: Can you fully elaborate your read on Long Con, please?

Thanks!

First quote: Regarding 1., I don't in particular see exactly why you find Devin civvy, in fact it was the scummy post made by you about thanking him for putting up with your interrogation or something like that which made me think he was even more scummy. It looked like scum trying to subtly clear fellow scum. Regarding 2, this post I made addresses it.


Second quote: Yes, I still don't like that post as I just discussed, I think it was scummy, your post didn't really change much for me, and I still want you to answer why you civ read Devin, someone who I found scummy because of a legitimate reason that you attempted to dismiss. Don't want me discrediting your potentially scum buddies, hmm?

Third quote: If it was a slight read instead of a very slight read I would have had the same reaction. If it was a moderate scum read or worse I would have questioned your reasons for having a strongly-oriented read on someone you've a. never played with before and b. barely said a word to.

Final question: I will elaborate on my Long Con reads after I catch up with the other posts about me and then make a few reads of people, including yourself. I'll get to it.

nijuukyugou wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:@Bass I was also a little weirded out by Cobalt implying that because he was super-civ important player in a previous game, then he is totally civ this game, but I forgot to mention it (I knew there was SOMETHING about SOME new person to me that I had seen). But for now I'd just like to keep my eye on him.

Do you believe he was trying to convince he was a civilian, or do you believe what he said about just wanting to let everyone know he's not a new player?

My vibe is that I think he's playing the civ card hard. A little too hard.

I'm not playing the civ anything. I've said multiple times, if you go back through my posts, PLEASE read the entire things, that I'm not trying to make myself look anything, and that if you find my behavior scummy to lynch me. Until then, I'm going to continue to prod things until they speak up, that way when I eventually flip it'll be easier to read situations I'll have been in.

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:So, Sloonei, who are your Day 1 suspicions right now?

Gumshoe, perhaps Cobalt, neither of them felt particularly strong in their responses to me earlier. I continue to sense something odd in that Gumshoe post and I'm not dropping either suspicion until they are resolved.
I'm not quite finished with any pre-emptive read on Gamer, but he feels close enough to an early suspect, at least for now.
I feel as if I'm getting a better sense of how to read you, and right now I'm leaning town. Still early.

What would you have considered strong in my response to you earlier? I explained my thoughts just fine, why did you not feel that was a sufficient response?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:This is the only real thing Cobalt said about LC.
In this same post he says he has a slight mafia read on MP.

So after all those post I'm getting a mafia read from Cobalt. He never really gives any real reason why he wants to vote LC but he has no problem voting LC. He also says he has a slight mafia read on MP but doesn't wait to see if that will become a stronger mafia read before the lynch ends.

If y'all would keep your heads off your desks and pay attention in class you would note that I said I would be getting into my read on LC when I got home from work, which I'm about to do.

Sloonei wrote:I had not noticed that metalmarsh and Cobalt both already voted for Long Con. This behavior seems in line with mm's usual style and it says nothing of his alignment. Cobalt is an unfamiliar player to me, but it is the more suspicious of the two right now, due in large part to the reasons Bass laid out.

Also @ you, I said I would get to my LC read later. In my forum we tend to vote early in the phase and then switch it later as things develop. I normally don't vote early on day one, but I've never had that much day 0 discussion to work off of.

Golden wrote:All in all, I find Cobalt hard to read. Even the behaviour Bass points out doesn't seem entirely inconsistent with the 'I'm aggressive and I don't give a shit what you think' approach Cobalt is taking to the game.

If I'm totally honest I'm playing a bit differently than usual due to being in a new environment, and I'm normally hard to read anyway. Usually things are much clearer once I flip later on in the game. I've still never been mislynched as a civilian, though.

ONCE AGAIN, for those of you who find it scummy that I've voted for LC without making a case against him I wanted to wait until a little later in the phase, and I'll be getting to my case against him in my next post.

Sloonei wrote:I am also somewhat suspicious of Cobalt, with this post at the center of my suspicion:

Spoiler: show

Cobalt wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

I tend not to wallflower when I'm being spoken about and I address the situation directly if I'm involved in it.

Interesting.

COBALT: (Dramatic eye roll, exit DSL)

What do you, Cobalt, think of Gumshoe right now? Do you feel he was defending you, even if it wasn't a delberate defense? Why/why not?

LIke I said, he wasn't so much defending me as pointing out to MP that my logic was actually solid considering I have no idea what the playerbase is like here, there's bound to be some overlap between my own scum strategies and those of players on here. Therefore, things I do when I'm scum can be seen as scummy when I look at them in other people.

MP was trying to say that was flimsy logic, that just because I did it doesn't mean everyone else will. Which is true, but he failed to consider the fact that I don't know the playing field and that there's only so many strategies one can apply as scum. I'm sure someone here will use something I've used at some point, and that's what I was pointing out in Devin.

So Gumshoe pointing that out was only serving to land my point. It wasn't exactly a defense, but call it what you want. Like I said, I appreciated the validation.

Doesn't mean he's clear in my book by any means.

Cobalt spends the whole time explaining why Gumshoe was not defending them by describing how Gumshoe was defending them. It smells like too much of an effort by a player to distance themselves from a read they perceived to be a threat.

Y'all are reading way too far in between the lines. Might need to even get you a stronger prescription on your glasses. Don't have any? That explains a lot.

Even if you want to extrapolate that I was defending Gumshoe "defending" me, two reasons: 1. If Gumshoe is civilian, then it's good that someone didn't allow MP to discredit my logic before I was able to accurately explain myself. 2. If Gumshoe is scum, he "defended" me to make me look bad - if he flips bad, I'll look worse for "defending" him. I hate that fucking word, explaining myself and disagreeing with your read on someone doesn't necessarily mean defense of anything or anyone.


@MP's post on why he slightly civ read Devin: Are you going to continue listing your only reads as "very slight" or are you actually going to commit to anything ever? Just wondering.

Scotty wrote:I'm gonna ask again straight-

IF YOU HAVEN'T COMMENTED ABOUT THE PM DOM SENT YOU, AND DON'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE SENSE OF IT, OR ARE STILL THINKING ON IT, POST DEM KEY WORDS so we can start making sense of it.

Also, I'm realizing I'm making myself easy bait for Night 1 lynch, but eh. I like puzzles and can't help myself.

I've already made my post about the PM I got, but why are you so concerned with every single person posting about it? And why are you bringing up that you might be a night one target so early in the day phase? It looks a lot like you're trying to make yourself look like you're trying to solve a puzzle, so bring results or I'm watching you.


To my thoughts on Long Con in just a sec.

Anyway, I'm off to work. Back later.

Let me address my PM real quick. There was something about a surviving win condition, but also about four lyricists (Sondheim, Brown, Schwartz, and Hammerstein) and about finding 3/4 lyricists. So I'm thinking there's a survivor role which needs to find or outlast three of the above listed roles.

Cobalt wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

The latter of the strategies listed is precisely why I made that post about my previous game. I wanted to see who reacted to it when and how. But I don't buy that you were doing it either.

This answers one of his questions though.

Long Con said, "Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about." I did this with myself. I wanted to see who reacted in what way to my discussion of my previous games. Those who fixated on it as a scummy statement were those I was going to be looking at.

I'm gonna be going back and formulating reads on everyone who actually addressed my original post and how it makes me feel about them. I posted it that way for a reason. The way I saw it, the best way to get reads on new people in a new forum was to toot my own horn and see who got their panties in a twist over it.

I'll get to my responses to MP after work tonight. I'm leaving soon.

Gumshoe wrote:Guys, I might be brainfarting here, is there a quick way to see a list of every post a user has made in this thread that I'm missing? I clicked on the number of replies in the The Current Job #2 section and it showed me how many posts each player made but I couldn't go to a page to see each post.

Under the avatar. It says Posts (All / In Thread) Click In-Thread.

Sloonei wrote:Fair deal. I'm excited to meet a player who makes drafts of posts

In my home forum I'm usually the top poster in the thread, and a lot of new posts tend to happen while I'm writing a big one so I always make sure I draft it in a new tab and then preview it otherwise I'll miss something. Just a habit I got into.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

I tend not to wallflower when I'm being spoken about and I address the situation directly if I'm involved in it.

Interesting.

COBALT: (Dramatic eye roll, exit DSL)

What do you, Cobalt, think of Gumshoe right now? Do you feel he was defending you, even if it wasn't a delberate defense? Why/why not?

LIke I said, he wasn't so much defending me as pointing out to MP that my logic was actually solid considering I have no idea what the playerbase is like here, there's bound to be some overlap between my own scum strategies and those of players on here. Therefore, things I do when I'm scum can be seen as scummy when I look at them in other people.

MP was trying to say that was flimsy logic, that just because I did it doesn't mean everyone else will. Which is true, but he failed to consider the fact that I don't know the playing field and that there's only so many strategies one can apply as scum. I'm sure someone here will use something I've used at some point, and that's what I was pointing out in Devin.

So Gumshoe pointing that out was only serving to land my point. It wasn't exactly a defense, but call it what you want. Like I said, I appreciated the validation.

Doesn't mean he's clear in my book by any means.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:So like, can we lynch Long Con or...

You seem keen to settle on a lynch very early in the day. What about all the other players in the game?

I want my salty revenge and I think he's scummy again.

Sloonei wrote:@ Cobalt: You also never answered my question about Gumshoe last night.

I think it got lost in my drafts. Hold on.

So like, can we lynch Long Con or...

Sloonei wrote:

XthAtGAm3RGuYX wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey Gamer Guy what do you make of this day zero?

Jesus Toast all around.

Personally I don't really start playing until day 2. I work better with hard facts and analytical data. Occasionally the classic freduian slip. For now none of this shit really means anything, but it may be useful in hindsight later down the road. I've mostly been skimming because I make a conscious effort not to engage in day 0. Gotten myself in trouble quite few times because I thought I would be smartass in one way or another.

This post keeps worrying me every time my eyes pass over it. I know every player has theirnown style, and i've certainly seen this particular style used effectively by townies (i do it sometimes myself), I never like a player giving themselves an excuse not to be active at any stage in the thread. GamerGuy has a few posts like this already. I am not saying that this strategy is dishonest or that his internet problems are not real, but I Refuse to give him a pass just because of these posts.
Tell us if you have any thoughts, Mr Gamer.

As far as I've experienced that's classic TGG, and before anyone jumps down my throat saying "defending him" and "interesting" I'm just pointing out things based on my prior knowledge and don't have a lean on him in either direction.

He's already defended himself just fine.

Golden wrote:Sure Cobalt. What do you make of the Epi/SVS/LC situation. Throw me in there for good measure if you like.

I find Epi civvy and LC scummy, SVS is still kind of a null read. I think he kinda just got caught in the middle.

You're a decent civ vibe for right now, subject to change.

Sloonei wrote:

Cobalt wrote:He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

You've now offered a seeming defense of Gumshoe in return. Interesting.
I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the exchange, more so that it happened. Although, in that context, what Gumsho said was absolutely a defense of you.

I tend not to wallflower when I'm being spoken about and I address the situation directly if I'm involved in it.

Interesting.

COBALT: (Dramatic eye roll, exit DSL)

He didn't so much as defend me as he pointed out that my logic wasn't flawed like MP seemed to be trying to make it appear. I didn't really think much of it but I appreciated the validation.

Anyone wanna pick my brain while I'm around for a few hours?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Cobalt wrote:My eye is on Devin almost immediately because of that joking truce thing. Mafia Cobalt tries to jokingly buddy up to people to see if they'd be receptive to it or not.

nutella wrote:

Long Con wrote: Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.

Basically this

I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.

So because it is line with your mafia meta to do something, you extrapolate to mean that it is likely within someone else's meta, whom you've never met, as well?

Are you implying that we shouldn't vote for you because you have good instincts? What does that have to do with your alignment?

I actually missed this.

1. Meta is meta. If you really think every single person would have entirely different mafia strategies, note that it's likely impossible for there to be no overlap. Lots of different beginning of the game strategies that I've seen, people tend to overlap. ESPECIALLY people that I don't know, because it's a whole new field with all new players, but you're likely to see things you've seen before elsewhere.

2. I never said you shouldn't vote for me because I have good instincts, I was just trying to let you know I'm not a tentative newbie who's afraid to get their feet wet, in a few more words than that.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks for putting up with my extended interrogation, Devin. This certainly won't be the end, but I wanted to take advantage of you being here at the same time as myself, early on, to try and pick your brain.

You won't be getting my vote on Day 1 unless something drastically changes. Neither will Epi.

I don't like this post for some reason. It gives me bad vibes.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I have every intention to continue my newfound love of rainbow lists, if at all possible, since I do find them particularly helpful in organizing my own thoughts and feelings on players, and I have to keep up the self-imposed moniker of Rainbow Sockman somehow!

I will put them in spoiler tags though, so that people may read them at their discretion.

Spoiler: show

MovingPictures07 wrote:TASTE THE RAINBOW

Devin the Omniscient
Epignosis

Bass_the_Clever
Birdwithteeth11
Black Rock
Bullzeye
DFaraday
Dragon D. Luffy
DREAM
fingersplints
Golden
Gumshoe
Hedgeowl
Long Con
Metalmarsh89
Neverwhere
nijuukyugou
nutella
Scotty
sig
Sloonei
S~V~S
timmer
TinyBubbles
Turnip Head
XthAtGAm3RGuYX

Cobalt


For reference:
Very strong civilian read
Strong civilian read
Moderate civilian read
Slight civilian read
Very slight civilian read
No read or unsure
Very slight mafia read
Slight mafia read
Moderate mafia read
Strong mafia read
Very strong mafia read

Come at me, Cobalt.

It's only a very slight mafia read. I'll roll with it. Nothing to really come at you for.

Epignosis wrote:I want to lynch Long Con. That's where my Day 1 vote will be going as of right now.

I'm so down for this. Count me in.

timmer wrote:

Cobalt wrote: I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.

So you were a great civ in the last game, and this means you... should be assumed to be a civ this time again? For realsies?

Oh, I never said to assume I'm civilian. If y'all think I'm scum then by all means lynch me. Just saying a little about me as a player with some examples.

Golden wrote:For me, the most interesting post this game is the one Cobalt posted, which Timmer quoted above. I think there are quite a number of players in this game who could point to games where they have played the super-civvie. Especially invoking the 'my most recent game' thing... and all in a comment where he purports not to care if we vote for him. Do I see potential civilian motives for posting it? Yes. It's not easy to have a voice in a place where you are not known, so making a cred grab isn't necessarily inherently suspicious.

But civilians don't usually go around flashing their supatown credentials.

If y'all knew me, you would know how I play. You don't, so I gave an example. I'm aggressive. Like it or lynch me.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."

Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.

The latter of the strategies listed is precisely why I made that post about my previous game. I wanted to see who reacted to it when and how. But I don't buy that you were doing it either.

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:This all got very interesting. I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.

Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.

I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.

Linki: I also suspect Gumshoe and Devin of being criminally fraternal in some subtle way.

Weren't you mafia last game? I do remember you personally leading a preemptive charge against me Day 1 for my first mafia game, and then proceeding to night kill me Night 1. Which was slightly irritating for my first game, but hey, that's the game. Correct me if I'm wrong with my info tho.

hhhh, drag ha

Long Con buddied up to my reads and he was my strongest civ read and he wound up being mafia. Thank fuck for a godlike vigi / JOAT. Won't be making that mistake again.

It's also why I'm coming for his weave this game.

Scotty wrote:

Cobalt wrote:My eye is on Devin almost immediately because of that joking truce thing. Mafia Cobalt tries to jokingly buddy up to people to see if they'd be receptive to it or not.

nutella wrote:

Long Con wrote: Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.

Basically this

I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.

You were MVP? I didn't know that.

Also I agree with Sig on the point of not excluding new members (like me) in the lynch early if they appear scummy. Scum needs a good powerwash. And I am for hire! I charge by the minute tho.

The game I was talking about was on GTF, not on JTM.

My eye is on Devin almost immediately because of that joking truce thing. Mafia Cobalt tries to jokingly buddy up to people to see if they'd be receptive to it or not.

nutella wrote:

Long Con wrote: Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.

Basically this

I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.

sig wrote:I'm new myself to this forum and to mafia, however I wouldn't say we should get a free pass. Don't go after new people just because they are new to the site or if they are wall flowering in the first few phases, but if someone new is acting very scummy then I would vote for them. However, mafia could just as easily start a bandwagon on someone new so anyone that advocates to strongly to lynch a new player should be watched.

Meant Devin not MP, also didn't realize it was a joke if it is.

Is there any other things like the joking truce new players should know about? Like certain players always voting to lynch the same player on day one, or lynching someone if they survive the first night?

My IMPACT.

Long Con, I'm coming for your weave this game.

Settled on 24. It's Stiles' jersey number from Teen Wolf.