The Syndicate

In case no one noticed, Darryl and Gabe have been revealed.

Serge wrote:The question is probably "should we open more folders?"

So I'm not sure why people are voting no. Vote yes.

A bit presumptuous, aren't we?

Serge wrote:
fingersplints wrote:
Serge wrote:I think the "no" voters consist of the scum team.
Why? Revealing roles would benefit baddies too. They want to see what the civvies are working with. Plus it seems pretty stupid for an entire team to vote the same way on a extremely vague night poll in my opinion. I don't see it, and this honestly makes me feel worse about you.
If you look at the role list a ton of civ roles have been revealed. I'd rather we know what's happening than not. Why even vote folders and people in the previous night polls, then? I suspect Epignosis and I suspect Timmer to a lesser extent(lone post about Angela seems to be distancing from the civ lynch). Also, since we didn't know what the poll was for, they could vote with impunity.

@Dom did the night poll end with nothing happening because it's a draw or did you randomize the winning choice?

Why are you acting like there was a definitive in the night poll? The question could have been "Are you bad?" Hell, it could have been "Are you a supporter of genocide?"

My point is: jumping on someone for an ambiguous night poll is just clutter, and not an informative way to call someone out.

That's pretty crap guys. I'm sorry Matt.

Voted No, because the last title post was "No, No."

im gonna be gone all day today y'all, gotta go be 'murican

fingersplints wrote:
Scotty wrote:You're telling me we've had 4 days and 4 nights worth of discussion and you are still "uninformed" or have any "solid thoughts"?
We've had 4 full days and 4 nights of discussion???

Yes. I'm counting 3.1 and 3.2 as separate nights.

fingersplints wrote:Does anyone else get the feeling Scotty is trying to set up indi to save his teammate because she made it clear she won't be around?

I don't get that feeling, no. I'm legitimately perplexed by her vote.

Although I can't stop y'all from calling me out as his scum buddy. I'm just not.

Are you his scum buddy, splints? If you think I am scum for his behavior towards me, you can hardly say he has done that much different with you this game since day 0.

I'm out and about on the beach today, not to mention getting over some terrible food poisoning

Some things:
-There's 4 hours left to vote and we only have 6 votes? That's not good for vote analysis.

indiglo wrote:Crap. I just realized I will not be able to be online before EoD again.

Quick poll, that will have to close within the next 30-45 minutes. Would it be preferable for me to vote now, uninformed and not having solid thoughts? Or miss the vote today and give my vote next day phase to Meredith?

I'll check back soon to see if there's a consensus, because I will have to pass out soon. Sorry for being lame this weekend.

Wait why are you voting for yourself? You're telling me we've had 4 days and 4 nights worth of discussion and you are still "uninformed" or have any "solid thoughts"?

I really don't like this self vote. Being busy is one thing that can't be helped, but this lack of conviction for anything is unnerving as hell.

Turnip Head wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:And yet you're holding your vote.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
Because I plan to vote for espers.
Case please.
I mean, where do I even start?
Why do you suspect espers?
Maybe because every one of his 6 posts has the words "I AM SCUM" written in big red letters across it? Wake up sheeple.

Here's a link to his post history, take a look for yourself.

so I guess TH is claiming forced.

Matt wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Matt - What is your current stance on Scotty? Do you think SVS was a civ or mafia? What are your top three scum reads?
1. Scotty.

Well, I can understand his frustration with everyone calling us scum buddies (even I said it haha) since we're not, but other then that, I dunno. I still think my suss of him and FS was valid, considering SVS was in the thread at the time I was asking her questions, but whatevs.

Also, Drummy, you were wrong on BWT. You were...potentially...wrong on SVS. I know you're wrong on me. Sooo since you suss Scotty, that leaves me inclined to lean civ on him.

2. SVS

Unless we see her resurrected, I'm going to assume she was civvie. If she were to be resurrected, it doesn't mean she's auto bad either, but if the baddies have some kind of rezz thing, then I can totally see a team nuking one of their own only to revive them later. But for now, civvie.

3. Top Scum Reads

Hmmm

1. INH
2. Splintsy
3. Turnips.

Turnip, have you ever hosted me in a game outside of GoC? I could be wrong, but I was a baddie in that game and as a baddie with teammates, I don't often PM my hosts all that much, so earlier when you said "In my experience hosting him, he would usually PM the host with such a question", I wanted to know where you came up wit dat.

But it's true, tho, I usually do PM my hosts lots and lots, but I want to know what other game(s) Turnips has hosted me in where he came up with such a conclusion.

Also Drummy, thanks bro, I bet I got blocked last night cuz of you. Killin' da town, man, killin' da town.

Matt, Matt, Matt.

Half the time this game I go back and forth on you, just because I never know where you'll stare at with your laser beam eyes. Right now I just have to believe you're bad. I have to. You've been throwing my name in the fire this whole game. You chose the non-No-U route, which I guess is nice, but I think this could be a tactic since your ass is on the line. IF you are not baddie, then I of course am terribly sorry. But I think you are.

Even though TH has his head up my bum and thinks I'm on your team, I think TH is reading genuine right now.

DrumBeats wrote:
Enrique wrote:Okay, seriously, how ridiculous is this? It's on par with Golden saying I threw Nero under the bus in Arkham. Some people actually believe this:

SVS is part of a baddie team~ said team has the power to end one day early, and they find out that killing Quin will give them two nights of funsies. Only a few minutes into the say, SVS takes matters into her own hands (because she doesn't want to play anymore? do we have any indication of that?) and decises, on day frickin three of the game, to pull some stupid manouver to out herself that early into the game. The argument is, well, she can still talk her way out of it or play it as a setup... right? Haha no they decide the best way to spend their extra kill is on her In two nights and a day, two civs and a baddie died. So that's... completely standard. They get absolutely nothing out of it. "But it throws the town off".

While, you know, THEY COULD HAVE KAMIKAZEED QUIN AT ANY TIME, AND NOT KILL THEIR TEAMMATE.

I can hardly trust anyone who is framing it differently. It's not some huge complicated issue. They killed a civvie because that's their job, and having the pick of people to blame for it is only an extra.
The only thing is that if they killed their scummate, it would never be revealed that she was scum.

The fact that it has apparently happened before makes me think it might happen again here. Do I think that for certain? No. But do I think it is worth considering? Yes. And we can find the answer later, through what the role list reveals. If there is a method by which SVS's vote could have been forced, SVS is likely a civ. If not, then there is no reason a civilian SVS would have had a forced vote, and thus SVS would likely be mafia.

My thought : Why argue over what alignment SVS is right now, when:
1) She's already dead.
2) It will be revealed in time due to the role list in the OP.

Let's focus on lynching baddies, who are your top suspects enrique?

Also @ Serge - I see the ghost vote. Explain it please.

Drum, the situation is different here. In the game I referenced, LongCon was all but confirmed as bad, and he was going to get lynched the next day. SVS was still a huge question mark.

You must have an agenda for thinking she was bad, though. Why even bring that up, if not for influencing how you feel about potential reads and interactions?
Also why are you so sure about #2? She won't be linked to her role until endgame, so what purpose does waiting for the role reveal have?
Unless you're talking about the vote forcer role, which is entirely possible. But highly improbable I feel. It may never even be confirmed.

ok back to beach. i'll be back later

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:And yet you're holding your vote.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
Because I plan to vote for espers.

Ah, yes. Of course.

DrumBeats wrote:If you think it's a no u, then that's fine Scotty, but I find you way too certain that Leetic is mafia and that SVS is town. Neither of their alignments have been revealed, yet you are confident enough to develop reads based upon it.

@ Matt - What is your current stance on Scotty? Do you think SVS was a civ or mafia? What are your top three scum reads?

Drumbeats, don't you see the hypocrisy of that? What are you making reads from? Because surely SVS isn't confirmed bad? We have 3 confirmed lynches. The rest is running through the dark with a flashlight containing 14-year-old-batteries.

I'm making my most educated guesses. I think I graduated middle school, at least. Sometimes I don't know.

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:[snip]
Ok so let's say hypothetically speaking someone had vehemently defended SVS and went head to head with anyone that opposed her. She gets NK'd. Now is your instinct to go after that person for defending SVS? If they were bad, they would have known she was good.
Why are you asking me this?
It's really a question for anyone. But since you're responding to me, im asking you.
Well, you quoted me, so

It's not a question I'm interested in answering, because it's a loaded question. I see what you're doing.

That's fine.

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt wrote:Caught up. Goin' to work soon but if you have any questions for me let me know and I'll get back to you tonight.

RIP SVS.

Lol @ Drumbeats

@ Scumbuddy Scotty
Yup, let's lynch this mofo.

And yet you're holding your vote.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:[snip]
Ok so let's say hypothetically speaking someone had vehemently defended SVS and went head to head with anyone that opposed her. She gets NK'd. Now is your instinct to go after that person for defending SVS? If they were bad, they would have known she was good.
Why are you asking me this?

It's really a question for anyone. But since you're responding to me, im asking you.

Matt wrote:Caught up. Goin' to work soon but if you have any questions for me let me know and I'll get back to you tonight.

RIP SVS.

Lol @ Drumbeats

@ Scumbuddy Scotty

On a scale of 1-scumbuddy, how did you get such a nice smile?

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Scotty, if you really truly suspect Matt I think you should put your money where your mouth is, put your low poster crusade on pause and vote for him. Let's see what kind of support it generates.
Fine.

vote Matt

Have you read what I wrote about Drumbeats and motivations of baddies to gun for someone only to have them find their demise?
Out of all the SVS haters, DrumBeats felt the most genuine to me. If SVS was indeed the mafia's intended target, I think it was because they realized an SVS lynch would be more problematic for them than they originally thought. They would have been forced to give an opinion one way or the other, and after the flip they'd have to own up to those opinions. DrumBeats was already on the record, he didn't have much to gain from SVS being night killed as opposed to following through with his suspicion.

Ok so let's say hypothetically speaking someone had vehemently defended SVS and went head to head with anyone that opposed her. She gets NK'd. Now is your instinct to go after that person for defending SVS? If they were bad, they would have known she was good.

DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:I'm curious as to whether heavily suspecting a player before they are night killed is a civ look or a bad look. In SVS' case, Drumbeats drove that tunnel home. (JJJ did to an extent as well. In JJJ's case he claimed indie, which I'm choosing to believe)

But i think it's a smart move to be an antagonist of someone right up until the edge of the night so that when that player is killed you can throw up your arms and go "woah! I'm sorry guys, I was totally wrong!" It gives you more options to lynch the next day. Plus, those people that were defending her civiness look worse.

What I can't understand (and I thought about it last night) is why on satan's red earth as a baddie you would kill a prime lynch candidate. My BIGGEST suspicion of Drumbeats was predicated on the assumption that SVS was civ, and now we can't know for sure. But I strongly think she was civ.

It might be confirmation bias at this point, so I'd like other people's opinion on this. We still don't know if she was forced to vote Quin, or who forced her, but I have this nagging feeling that Drumbeats set up SVS to get lynched by jumping right on her after the Quin lynch as confirmed bad.
Or maybe you're setting me up for a mislynch by killing SVS so you can claim she's a civ? I tunneled SVS because I was, and still am, relatively sure she was mafia. I've detailed my reasoning on this about a thousand times, so if you find any of it disengenuine feel free to point it out. From what I've heard, the reasoning for killing ScumVS is actually more sound than a civilian SVS, but I do agree that both are possible right now.

This is the second time that you have based a suspicion on me on an unknown alignment of a nightkill. I'm starting to think that you have more information than you are letting on about their alignments

Nice NO U.

I don't know if SVS is civ. I believe she is, and I'm gonna follow that conviction until I know more info.
Do you think I'm disingenuous about my theory or do you have more info about alignments? I felt strongly about leetic and SVS as strongly as you felt about SVS. Could be we're both just stubborn civs throwin out theories. I just think I'm right and you're wrong

fingersplints wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:Hey @Matt! What do you make of SVS dying? Would you join Drumbeats, myself and others in lynching you today?
I was just about to ask where your Matt suspicion went. You just paying lip service to it?
Convenient, isn't it?

Isn't what convenient?

Turnip Head wrote:Scotty, if you really truly suspect Matt I think you should put your money where your mouth is, put your low poster crusade on pause and vote for him. Let's see what kind of support it generates.

Fine.

vote Matt

Have you read what I wrote about Drumbeats and motivations of baddies to gun for someone only to have them find their demise?

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Matt wrote:
Scotty wrote:Hey Matt, question for you: you still suspect FS and I for our "defending" of SVS on Day 0. Does that mean you suspect SVS? You never answered this when I asked you like Night 1.
And do you have any other suspicions besides us?
I'm not really sure who I suspect. I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm starting to like you a bit more, but I wonder if that's only because I know you're genuinely frustrated with being linked to me as a baddie partner. Tho that part is genuine, you could still be bad.

So here's the thing Matt. I've been flitting about my suspicion of you for not developing any other noticeable reads besides our little doe-see-doe Day 0. I don't know if that's your normal meta Matt, tunneling on one or two people until they get lynched. Hell, that's been my general quid pro quo in a lot of games, but I got away from "tunneling scotty" because it drove me into insanity (lol sorry @Quin from the Sock Mafia).

I still think you could be bad for your tunneling, because the only Bad Matt I remember was from LOST Again where you went after our scumbuddy Bullz, but here I know I'm civ, so this is a stretch to link that behavior to this game.
But I'm keeping both eyes open in case we're literally 2 civs driving each other into a Romeo and Juliet ending. And that's hardly my favorite ending to a Shakespeare play.

Tomorrow, should I still be alive, I would suggest we both look at other people. I'm a little weirded out by leetic's self vote and I figure I'm not doing enough to look at the low posters hiding in the shade.
This is a pair of scumbuddies if I ever saw one.

On the bright side, I'm glad to see you're starting to read through the thread before you came in. Remind me/ did you replace Zeus or sig?

@DOM can you add Juliets and TH to the front page with their replacees/post histories when you get a chance pls?

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:Hey @Matt! What do you make of SVS dying? Would you join Drumbeats, myself and others in lynching you today?
I was just about to ask where your Matt suspicion went. You just paying lip service to it?

Oh don't worry, it's still there. Like herpes.

timmer:

Most of timmer's posts are in Day 1. He goes back and forth on Quin and INH. He is ultimately satisfied with Quin's answers and votes for INH. There's only a few posts of worth after day 1:

timmer wrote:Sorry guys, busy busy the last few days...

So, sorry what is the case on lee tic? I missed that, I think.

I'm not feeling an epig lynch, I don't think the posts made by SVS add up to anything substantial.

I'm not as solidly turned around on INH as some of you, and I don't get civvie vibes from BWT, either. That said, INH's post DID at least show a viable set of reasons for why he said the things he said. I concede that there could be truth there.

I will try to find some cases/suspicions to build on the work you guys have done, but today's not the best day for it, I may end up having to judge which case of others I feel best about, today.

He acknowledges the leetic vote, but says he doesn't understand it.
He doesn't understand Epi's suspicion.
He doesn't get a civvie "vibe" from bwt but INH could be turning it around.

timmer wrote:Thank JJJ, I won't be voting for lee tic if that is what it is based on.

BWT I could get behind. There still isn't much going on in this game, but I'd still lean bad on both INH and BWT if I had to guess.

He doesn't find leetic suspicious for being suspicious, so shifts his suspicions back on INH and bwt. He places his vote on Bwt.

timmer wrote:Lec tic self voted?

Towards the end of day, he acknowledges that leetic self voted, but that's it. This post is like noticing a meteor careening towards Earth and timmer just looks up at it and goes, "I think I left the bathroom light on at home"

Nothing timmer has said gives me confidence in his civviness thus far

Hey @Matt! What do you make of SVS dying? Would you join Drumbeats, myself and others in lynching you today?

DFaraday wrote:I'm not sure why people are trying to figure out Epi's alignment based on SVS' remarks. It seems she only said he was bad once during the Eternal Night, and with very little reasoning given. I don't see that as cause for a frame-up or a kill to protect Epi.

Are you in the camp that SVS was bad, or good?

Serge wrote:Epignosis didn't vote for Gabe. I rest my case.

Thanks for holding your vote, Serge.

Quick question: do we think the Day ender role is a one-stock role? I think at this point it is. But one can never be too sure..

bea wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
I think it's plenty fair, there are a ton of players in this game and a decent amount of middle-to-high posters. Three isn't a hard number to name. I agree that Epi is suspicious as well. A lot of posts with very little actual discussion imo.

I'd define it right now as the group of people who are straight up barely here. Sorsha, Spacedaisy, Enrique at least. LoRab, timmer, and bea are borderline imo. Maybe juliets too, but thats a recent sub. How do you define it, and which among them are your top suspects?
if i cant remember the last time they posted or the content they included, that's generally going to be a low poster for me. In the context of this game, it's not as big or heavy-handed as others, so there's going to be a more lax definition. TH has been pretty active since coming in, which is nice, but I'd probably use 30 posts or so as a good line right now. You mentioned timmer, who has 30 posts. That makes timmer, splints, bea, LoRab, Enrique, DFaraday, SpaceDaisy, espers, Sorsha, and juliets as potential low posters. Which is over half of our current population. So im a little limited there, hombre.
Where in my posts have I not given meat?

If you are looking at low posters look at the people giving their opinions as best they can - vs a solid I know peeps expect me to post a few times maybe.

in that list - who seems to be trying to help you? who doesn't seem to care?

I think you've done a great job to pad your posts with content. I'm not suspicious of you right now, but I don't like going around giving civ passes to people that easily, mostly because that paints targets. I prefer to draw my targets by coloring outside the lines like a 4 year old Picasso.

Timmer is my current look as a potential baddie.

I'm curious as to whether heavily suspecting a player before they are night killed is a civ look or a bad look. In SVS' case, Drumbeats drove that tunnel home. (JJJ did to an extent as well. In JJJ's case he claimed indie, which I'm choosing to believe)

But i think it's a smart move to be an antagonist of someone right up until the edge of the night so that when that player is killed you can throw up your arms and go "woah! I'm sorry guys, I was totally wrong!" It gives you more options to lynch the next day. Plus, those people that were defending her civiness look worse.

What I can't understand (and I thought about it last night) is why on satan's red earth as a baddie you would kill a prime lynch candidate. My BIGGEST suspicion of Drumbeats was predicated on the assumption that SVS was civ, and now we can't know for sure. But I strongly think she was civ.

It might be confirmation bias at this point, so I'd like other people's opinion on this. We still don't know if she was forced to vote Quin, or who forced her, but I have this nagging feeling that Drumbeats set up SVS to get lynched by jumping right on her after the Quin lynch as confirmed bad.

Before I go, vote Golden to get that guy out of this office. No Golden childs here.

DrumBeats wrote:Noted, thanks Scotty/Sorsha. I definitely think that its a possibility, but SVS had a pretty good shot of getting off clean still so idk. Regardless, they probably want us to spend too much time focussing on it today, so I digress.

I'm heavily leaning toward a Matt lynch today. How about everyone else?

If it leads us to that, I wouldn't be averse.

However, I wish I could better determine if mafia killed SVS to frame Epi, to protect Epi, or if mafia killed SVS at all. Those are the options I see right now. I just wish they weren't so WIFOM-y, dammit.

You're not off the table for my vote either, DB. How you feelin about me?

Anyway, I'm goin to bed.

DrumBeats wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.
I forgot to respond to this. I don't really understand the connection you're drawing. I'm sure I've defended SVS just as often as I've accused her, I'm probably batting .500. I feel okay about your motives though so feel free to keep an eye on me
It means I question your ability to read SVS and I feel like you lean civ on her a bit more than is warranted.

ripiywg SVS... it's not unheard of for the mafia to kill one of their own. Especially if they thought she would be getting lynched today, plus it saves her team from having to defend her. And it makes everyone go WTF.
Is mafia killing their own common here? Can someone provide me with some games when this has happened?

The mafia team did it in Downton Abbey. It really threw us for a loop when they did it and we lost probably 2 day cycles because of that confusion. But in that situation, the following day lynch was obvious: LC was definitely bad. So to make it weird, they killed him that night.

This could be that kind of situation, but SVS was hardly majority mafia/majority civ. It was pretty divided I'd say.

Just added to the front page:

Gabe – Gabe is infinitely awkward. He blocks one person each even night.

NEUTRAL – Can win with anyone
Bandit – Bandit is Angela’s cat. He is adept at falling out of ceilings. Bandit is a sly cat and can spy on people. Bandit selects one player each night. Bandit can do one of the following:
1. Role Check
2. Target Check
3. See if They Were Targeted
But Bandit must use all other powers before repeating one.

Moze – Moze is Dwight’s cousin. He has lots of beets. A beet gives you an extra vote. Moze can give someone a beet each night. He cannot give beets to himself. Beets must be used the day period they are sent otherwise, they go bad.

Interesting....

So much for those reads she was gonna do tonight.

This was her last real declaration, and she kept hammering it home:

S~V~S wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
If Drumbeats says there is any information that says I am bad, as opposed to opinion, he is dead wrong. Since I am not bad.

Bad: Epignosis

Not Bad: Me

She def didn't like Epi. Maybe she had some beef with him? And not the Taco Bell kind. Everyone knows that aint real

That.

was unexpected.

RIP SVS!

bea wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if a baddie were making that play, they wouldn't know when the complete list of roles would be revealed. And by that point, maybe the waters would be muddied enough that the damage would have been done. Let's say that there IS a civilian forced on even nights, and forced a BAD SVS to vote Quin, they would know Quin is bad so they could hide behind the premise that a) SVS would never do that as bad and b) there is a civilian vote forcer that forced her, so it's really out of her hands.

I think it's a hard road right now to come back from without complete WIFOM.
So you think that she was forced by a civilian to vote a certain way, and instead of just doing that and not arousing suspicion, she also forced the lynch to end early, shining the spotlight solely in her direction... while simultaneously hoping that the baddie vote forcer she knows exists will be revealed after the civvie vote forcer she also knows exists, her very life depending on this gamble. Also you're assuming that SVS knew Quin was bad even though he was revealed as a civilian role? Maybe that part was a typo.

I'm so lost as to what people think SVS's motive is here. I guess we think she wants to be lynched.

Someone please walk me through this from point A to point B.
I don't think SVS *has* a motive here. If that was unclear. I think the simplest solution is she didn't get caught in a failed baddie plan, she got caught in a good baddie plan that's attempting to take a civ SVS down.

Like I said, the *only* way I could see SVS as bad is if she was outvoted bts and she's teaching her puppies a lesson. I really don't think that's what's happening here though.

I know you weren't talking to me, but I wanted to make sure it was known where I stand in case there was any question.

Also - I just got home and here's the start of me catching up.

RL is cray-cray like normal. As soon as this game starts, one of the GM's in our area got himself fired. My old GM and I split temp running that store as well as our own stores. I spent 3 hours today running from store to store putting out fires and fixing things. I ran into my boss during one of them and was all like "Dude! It's hard to be you!" As such, I'm trying very hard to make sure my fewer posts have meat to them. I hope I'm doing ok.

Au contrair (sp) Du fromage! I think you are contributing great! I'll never get on someone's back for not posting due to IRL reasons- hell I do the same, so that would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise. So any and all contributions you can give are great!

Content > Quantity!

DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
I think it's plenty fair, there are a ton of players in this game and a decent amount of middle-to-high posters. Three isn't a hard number to name. I agree that Epi is suspicious as well. A lot of posts with very little actual discussion imo.

I'd define it right now as the group of people who are straight up barely here. Sorsha, Spacedaisy, Enrique at least. LoRab, timmer, and bea are borderline imo. Maybe juliets too, but thats a recent sub. How do you define it, and which among them are your top suspects?
if i cant remember the last time they posted or the content they included, that's generally going to be a low poster for me. In the context of this game, it's not as big or heavy-handed as others, so there's going to be a more lax definition. TH has been pretty active since coming in, which is nice, but I'd probably use 30 posts or so as a good line right now. You mentioned timmer, who has 30 posts. That makes timmer, splints, bea, LoRab, Enrique, DFaraday, SpaceDaisy, espers, Sorsha, and juliets as potential low posters. Which is over half of our current population. So im a little limited there, hombre.
Oh wow, I didn't actually realize we had that many low posters. Not thrilled with it at all. I would guess there's 2-3 mafia in that group of ten. Which of them do you find most suspicious?

Why 2-3? How many mafia members do you think there are?

Or...do you know how many there are?

I'm gonna start out with timmer. I don't like any of his posts of late- theyre mostly forgettable and lacking of...something.

DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
I think it's plenty fair, there are a ton of players in this game and a decent amount of middle-to-high posters. Three isn't a hard number to name. I agree that Epi is suspicious as well. A lot of posts with very little actual discussion imo.

I'd define it right now as the group of people who are straight up barely here. Sorsha, Spacedaisy, Enrique at least. LoRab, timmer, and bea are borderline imo. Maybe juliets too, but thats a recent sub. How do you define it, and which among them are your top suspects?

if i cant remember the last time they posted or the content they included, that's generally going to be a low poster for me. In the context of this game, it's not as big or heavy-handed as others, so there's going to be a more lax definition. TH has been pretty active since coming in, which is nice, but I'd probably use 30 posts or so as a good line right now. You mentioned timmer, who has 30 posts. That makes timmer, splints, bea, LoRab, Enrique, DFaraday, SpaceDaisy, espers, Sorsha, and juliets as potential low posters. Which is over half of our current population. So im a little limited there, hombre.

Epignosis wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
Why is Matt third on your list?

Sorry, I lumped both of you together. There's no real order.

I want to see more spunk from you.

Or...not spunk, that's the wrong word. More follow-through. Your game feels too safe. I can't put my finger on it.

DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.

Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.

DrumBeats wrote:I'm sure there is at least one. But I also think it's much more of a gamble to guess which one than it is to lynch players for their behavior right now. It's straight up not practical for where we're at in the game.

SVS, Matt, and Scotry are all likely to flip scum imo. Choosing a low-poster just makes it a complete roll of the dice. We have plenty of suspicious people posting, why not focus on them for a while?

What do you think I look for in low posters? Low posts?
No, it's all about their behavior to a point. Their votes, their nonchalance/intensity and reasoning for voting. It's not just a "complete roll of the dice". It's rolling the dice on SVS too. Doesn't mean you don't have conviction about it.

I'm trying to get more out of low posters- yes, the more they talk the better I can base an case around them. I'm not disputing that. But to say I'm a slave to the dice is wrong. Which is why I didn't feel bad in voting for leetic, and why I'm still thinking he was bad. He was around. He was asked questions that he never answered to. He came on at the end to vote for himself and yet didn't say why. Could be he was silenced, I suppose, but he wasn't silenced before adding fluff about Elo.

Sorsha currently has 5 posts. This is her last:

Sorsha wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
G-Man wrote:Switched my vote to Quin
For the sake of a little
Certainty tonight

RIP Quin
There is a vote forcer in this game, a civ. When *I* am vote forced to vote for someone I don't think, or don't know, is bad, I generally vote not unlike G Man did. No one else was going to be lynched when he voted.

This lynch actually makes LC look better to me, and Faraday and Soneji worse. But I need to read again, you don't read as well when you are a bear. Big claws, small brain.
And the link back so you can read it in context: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p260075

The highlighted section is referring to voting last minute.

What are your current thoughts based on what SVS has said?

Who else do you suspect right now?

indiglo wrote:Reading that post in context, I'm gathering that G-Man waited until the last possible minute to change his vote to where it was allegedly forced, and SVS saying that is how she would vote too if she were forced. Ie, wait until the last possible minute, so as not to begin a band wagon on someone who you don't know or don't think is bad.

Again, this jibes with what I know of SVS. We came up in a culture of non-changeable votes. Therefore we have ALWAYS been the type who hold our votes to as close to the end as we can. That early vote from her pings me the most. That's what makes me think she's quite possibly bad. It is just so opposite of her normal voting behavior. Whether she's forced to vote a certain way, or not, she's not an early voter unless she absolutely has to be (like, won't be here at EoD, etc).

What are you opinions since Jo was revealed, and SVS has responded to a myriad of concerns?
Who are your top baddie reads right now?

hey timmer! I see you dropped in 1 vote for Dwight. Which means you're around. But this is all you've had to say so far about the past few nights:

timmer wrote:WTF?

First off, DOM!!!, can I request that the thread title be changed with each day/night to make it easier to follow what happened when? with everything sayingDay 1 it's hard to figure anything out in that regard, thanks!!!

I'll digest more of this later, but for now, I again say... WTF?

wtf indeed. Thoughts? Words? Onomatopoeias?

Epignosis wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I once was bad and voted and ended the Day early. I got away with it until the recruiting faction outnumbered my faction and lynched me.

I'm still of the opinion that S~V~S didn't pull that stunt despite some evidence to the contrary. If she did, I would be surprised.
OK, but my own point of contention is what could have made her do that. We just don't know and until the rest of the roles are revealed, the entire field is wet and matted.
Do you wait to act until you know one way or the other?

I don't know. There's not that many roles left. Could be we'll always be stuck in WIFOM Disney World until she is voted out.

The thing that has my ears perked up is that there are too many people calling for her innocence (including me initially), and they can't all be baddies defending her.

Spoiler: show

Enrique wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
bea wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:How about this for something completely different:

I'm not a townie.

I'm independent. I've been approved to say that.

Townies: lynching me does not help you win this game.

Baddies: killing me does not help you win this game.

Just leave me be and I'll play Mafia in peace.

Y'all should call me Prisoner 509378.

Before 80 people ask the same question: "Why did you decide to reveal this now, JJJ?"

~ Because these repeated night phases terrify me. If I am one of those poor people who is slaughtered, I'm screwed.
Well that's fun. I've seen first-hand in the game I hosted how helpful you can be to the town as an independent, so I'm comfortable leaving you alone for now. Hopefully more roles will become available and we can piece together what you are in the coming nights. After we lynch a few mafia, I'm going to entertain lynching you.

@ linki Matt - Lol @ Baseless. You have both provided plenty of reason for me to believe you're a baddie duo. I don't think voting Christmas is relevant at all to you and Scotty being buddies, but I'm still pretty sure you are.
Whyfore again? Just the bullet points please. I'm sorry - I'm a crap player who has limited time and honestly won't go back and reread. I know it's a thing I can't remember the deets. If it peaks my interest I will dig in more.

linki- stuff blowing up and I still am prolly 3 pages behind. I'm terminally in crackberry mode. lol.
Gonna try to speed this before update in case I'm dead.

- Day 0/1 Matt focusses on FS over Scotty despite suspecting both for same thing.

- Day 1 Matt considers voting for Goldy due to a suspicion on Scotty, rather than just voting Scotty.

- Day 2 Scotty questions if Matt has been silenced way early in the day (though he wasn't in the end so this one wasn't that big)

Post more in a sec if I'm alive, I think it's about update time and wanted to get this started.
- Day 2 I was trying to make a Scotty push, and Matt tossed out a throwaway vote on fingersplints. The night after, he began to suggest a Scotty lynch the following day. Looks like distancing imo, because why would Matt not be willing to vote Scotty with me Day 2 if the suspicion was legitimate?

- A minor one, but both players jumped to SVS's defense incredibly fast.

Some of this case is more of individual reads on them as well that make me think each is mafia by themselves too.

- Matt tried to dispel my whole argument about his willingness to vote Goldy over being suspicious of Scotty as a lie due to me using the word "likely" instead of the actual word "maybe". Discrediting the argument based on one word rather than answering it.

- Scotty has placed nothing but inactive player votes, despite his early-game comment of wanting to learn more based on how our lynches flip. First vote was for Goldy, who had zero posts, and his second vote was for leetic, who had in the single digits. He then after leetic died, assumed leetic was mafia, and was confident enough to build a case on me based upon an assumption of an inactive player's allegiance post death, so basically a roll of a dice.
This is all very good. Scotty focusing on inactive players is completely in character for him, but I also thought the assumption that leetic was bad was a huge stretch and definitely not something you can base a whole different case on.

My experience with Matt is he's zany but he's also usually bad. Now watch him stubbornly defend his votes and never come back to Scotty again.

Is it a huge stretch though? I think it is far less of a stretch than you think, what with him acting completely guilty by ignoring questions asked of him and abstaining from saving himself...but then I guess we are both entitled to our opinions.

The only concrete info we have in deaths right now is Quin, the bringer of Forever Night (tm), Erin, and Wilgy, our Creedy tracker. I'm trying to read between the lines here, but we had like 9 votes that were forced by Merideth on Day 2, nothing but SVS to go on for day 3, and day 1 im still not seeing patterns with.

Tomorrow, should I still be alive, I don't want to just focus on SVS, but hone in on those low posters, including you Enrique.

Epignosis wrote:I once was bad and voted and ended the Day early. I got away with it until the recruiting faction outnumbered my faction and lynched me.

I'm still of the opinion that S~V~S didn't pull that stunt despite some evidence to the contrary. If she did, I would be surprised.

OK, but my own point of contention is what could have made her do that. We just don't know and until the rest of the roles are revealed, the entire field is wet and matted.

Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:On why SVS voted the way she voted:
S~V~S wrote:
LoRab wrote:
S~V~S wrote:German.

Who needs a better theme?
I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.
Good point. TH, I was just reading back through your posts.

I voted early becasue I was trying to emphasize the similarity of our experiences to Quin. It is also my experience that when you have no choice but to do a thing, either do it immediately and get it out of the way, or wait until the last second and play stupid. For the reason I stated re Quin, I chose the former. Also I am all about open & honest this game, and playing dumb at the last minute does not seem to work with that.

@Daisy, sometimes TPTB just won;t let you say what you really want to say. And you (or me, lol) is sleepy and does it anyhow.

ALSO,re framing, I am mega mega mega MEGA surprised that no one has tried to imply I was the one to kill Rabbit (or if they did I missed it). I know that when I kill someone when I am bad in order to frame another person, I NEVER bring it up myself. I wait for the civvies to bring it up under those circumstances. And there are a few people I would have expected to bring that point up. When Rabbit died I was waiting for it, and it did not come.

@LoRab, I did not think of it in that context. My husbands BFF is German, and that is my first association.
She chose to follow the same pattern of immediacy that Quin gave her when he force voted. This can be believable.

But this:
Jo – Jo is very convincing. She can control someone’s vote each odd night.
DB does bring up a point that Jo couldn't have used her power on Night 2 to influence this, so the options I see are:
a) SVS is faking the force vote or
b) another civ power forced her to vote for Quin.

How likely is it that we have Merideth, who forces votes of inactives, and another vote forcer on even nights? I suppose that would counteract the mafia role of forcing votes on odd nights, but if that were the case, forcing SVS to vote for Quin is an...odd choice.

I dunno SVS...that role reveal is not exactly damning, but it's not a good look for you.
Why would it have to be a civ power?
Why would the same mafia power be alternating odd and even nights? I makes more sense from a balance perspective that a civ would have the even night phase.

EBWOP unless there's 2 mafia teams, but I don't think that's the case, with how things have been playing out.

DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:On why SVS voted the way she voted:
S~V~S wrote:
LoRab wrote:
S~V~S wrote:German.

Who needs a better theme?
I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.
Good point. TH, I was just reading back through your posts.

I voted early becasue I was trying to emphasize the similarity of our experiences to Quin. It is also my experience that when you have no choice but to do a thing, either do it immediately and get it out of the way, or wait until the last second and play stupid. For the reason I stated re Quin, I chose the former. Also I am all about open & honest this game, and playing dumb at the last minute does not seem to work with that.

@Daisy, sometimes TPTB just won;t let you say what you really want to say. And you (or me, lol) is sleepy and does it anyhow.

ALSO,re framing, I am mega mega mega MEGA surprised that no one has tried to imply I was the one to kill Rabbit (or if they did I missed it). I know that when I kill someone when I am bad in order to frame another person, I NEVER bring it up myself. I wait for the civvies to bring it up under those circumstances. And there are a few people I would have expected to bring that point up. When Rabbit died I was waiting for it, and it did not come.

@LoRab, I did not think of it in that context. My husbands BFF is German, and that is my first association.
She chose to follow the same pattern of immediacy that Quin gave her when he force voted. This can be believable.

But this:
Jo – Jo is very convincing. She can control someone’s vote each odd night.
DB does bring up a point that Jo couldn't have used her power on Night 2 to influence this, so the options I see are:
a) SVS is faking the force vote or
b) another civ power forced her to vote for Quin.

How likely is it that we have Merideth, who forces votes of inactives, and another vote forcer on even nights? I suppose that would counteract the mafia role of forcing votes on odd nights, but if that were the case, forcing SVS to vote for Quin is an...odd choice.

I dunno SVS...that role reveal is not exactly damning, but it's not a good look for you.
Why would it have to be a civ power?

Why would the same mafia power be alternating odd and even nights? I makes more sense from a balance perspective that a civ would have the even night phase.

Oh I have a request for tomorrow's day cycle:

Can we play "Hold the Vote" and not vote for someone immediately? That'd be greaaaaaaat.

Enrique wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I can only say what I would do if I was in this position. For now I'm going to assume there is only one baddie team because it says they kill every night, and most two-mafia setups will rotate the kill. The other variables:

I am a baddie with the power to end at least one Day phase early.

I may or may not know Quin's role and the benefit it would bring me by lynching him.

There were two deaths on Night 2, indicating that Andy has either used his one-time ability or there is another third party killer.

It is Day 3 in a 30 (?) player game.

Given all this, I would absolutely not vote early, end the Day early, in order to take out 2 civilians. Why?

I can feel reasonably safe that my power will not get taken out at Night, if Andy has no more kills left.

I can feel reasonably confident that Quin will not be killed at Night because I am on the only baddie team.

That means that I can use this ability any time during the game, and am in no rush to sacrifice myself to use it this early.

I can save my power for much later in the game when it will cause a bigger tempo swing, perhaps even sealing a victory for my team before the civilians have a chance to crucify me.

Using this power now indicates that I do not feel the need to use it defensively, ergo no one on my team is in danger of being lynched soon... but this will absolutely change if I use this ability in this way, and now I've wasted my only chance to prevent it.

The only time I would use this power on Day 3 is if I can use it more than once, or if, in using it, I will implicate players who are not on my team.

This is not SVS's first rodeo, and she knows how powerful such an ability is. While lynching Quin eventually is a priority for the baddies, this was the least impactful way they could use this ability, and that's not her style.

I would argue that implicating SVS in the lynch is a much better gambit than SVS implicating herself.
I missed you.

DrumBeats, what drums do you use?

Hello Mr. I Haven't Posted Since Tuesday.

What do you think of...anything?

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if a baddie were making that play, they wouldn't know when the complete list of roles would be revealed. And by that point, maybe the waters would be muddied enough that the damage would have been done. Let's say that there IS a civilian forced on even nights, and forced a BAD SVS to vote Quin, they would know Quin is bad so they could hide behind the premise that a) SVS would never do that as bad and b) there is a civilian vote forcer that forced her, so it's really out of her hands.

I think it's a hard road right now to come back from without complete WIFOM.
So you think that she was forced by a civilian to vote a certain way, and instead of just doing that and not arousing suspicion, she also forced the lynch to end early, shining the spotlight solely in her direction... while simultaneously hoping that the baddie vote forcer she knows exists will be revealed after the civvie vote forcer she also knows exists, her very life depending on this gamble. Also you're assuming that SVS knew Quin was bad even though he was revealed as a civilian role? Maybe that part was a typo.

I'm so lost as to what people think SVS's motive is here. I guess we think she wants to be lynched.

Someone please walk me through this from point A to point B.

No, I'm saying that a bad SVS would know Quin is good, and it makes sense that mafia were clued into Quin being a good lynch, so they ended it. A civilian vote forcer could have forced her to vote that way, OR mafia may already KNOW there is a civilian vote forcer that would eventually get revealed.
There's a lot of factors here that are overwhelmingly coincidental that make it hard for me to believe this was a fluke at this point.

I'm just saying at this point that there's so much WIFOM that it's turned into grape juice. Bubbly, rancid grape juice.

Turnip Head wrote:There could be another role that forces votes on even nights. Or the role is made up a la GoC 2015. I see plenty of ways around it, though I realize I'm starting to sound like I'm in denial.

TL;DR making conclusions based off an incomplete list of roles is foolish.

In the words of Matt: DERP. I totally missed this post and basically just parroted it.

Turnip Head wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:There could be another role that forces votes on even nights. Or the role is made up a la GoC 2015. I see plenty of ways around it, though I realize I'm starting to sound like I'm in denial.

TL;DR making conclusions based off an incomplete list of roles is foolish.
The game definitely has at least two vote controllers already; I think it's very unlikely that there would be three. Since SVS doesn't meet the criteria for Meredith or Jo, the most plausible explanation is that she was not forced.
So you think the most plausible explanation is that SVS lied about being forced, knowing that she would eventually be caught in that lie when the Jo role was revealed.

Okay

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if a baddie were making that play, they wouldn't know when the complete list of roles would be revealed. And by that point, maybe the waters would be muddied enough that the damage would have been done. Let's say that there IS a civilian forced on even nights, and forced a BAD SVS to vote Quin, they would know Quin is bad so they could hide behind the premise that a) SVS would never do that as bad and b) there is a civilian vote forcer that forced her, so it's really out of her hands.

I think it's a hard road right now to come back from without complete WIFOM.

Serge wrote:I think if Michael and Andy both die then the Mafia will win or will control some sort of game mechanic. Maybe Michael's the one picking these polls?

I think that would be woefully unbalanced if mafia win outright with 2 office managers dying lol. I'm voting michael because I'm just curious, but I will change my other vote Gabe as well.

On why SVS voted the way she voted:

S~V~S wrote:
LoRab wrote:
S~V~S wrote:German.

Who needs a better theme?
I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.
Good point. TH, I was just reading back through your posts.

I voted early becasue I was trying to emphasize the similarity of our experiences to Quin. It is also my experience that when you have no choice but to do a thing, either do it immediately and get it out of the way, or wait until the last second and play stupid. For the reason I stated re Quin, I chose the former. Also I am all about open & honest this game, and playing dumb at the last minute does not seem to work with that.

@Daisy, sometimes TPTB just won;t let you say what you really want to say. And you (or me, lol) is sleepy and does it anyhow.

ALSO,re framing, I am mega mega mega MEGA surprised that no one has tried to imply I was the one to kill Rabbit (or if they did I missed it). I know that when I kill someone when I am bad in order to frame another person, I NEVER bring it up myself. I wait for the civvies to bring it up under those circumstances. And there are a few people I would have expected to bring that point up. When Rabbit died I was waiting for it, and it did not come.

@LoRab, I did not think of it in that context. My husbands BFF is German, and that is my first association.

She chose to follow the same pattern of immediacy that Quin gave her when he force voted. This can be believable.

But this:

Jo – Jo is very convincing. She can control someone’s vote each odd night.

DB does bring up a point that Jo couldn't have used her power on Night 2 to influence this, so the options I see are:
a) SVS is faking the force vote or
b) another civ power forced her to vote for Quin.

How likely is it that we have Merideth, who forces votes of inactives, and another vote forcer on even nights? I suppose that would counteract the mafia role of forcing votes on odd nights, but if that were the case, forcing SVS to vote for Quin is an...odd choice.

I dunno SVS...that role reveal is not exactly damning, but it's not a good look for you.

We should do some GTH reads before EoD tonight in honor of JJJ. Sorry I wasn't around tonight, JJJ, or else I would have been a proponent.

Mostly because I'm most curious about the low posters and what the most talkative people think of them. Night.

Hi.

RIP JJJ. I saw that one coming.

I'm not going to go through all the responses right now bc I'm tired.

DrumBeats wrote:I'm getting off for the night. My suspicion of TH has mostly subsided, because though I completely disagree with TH's opinions, after interrogation they feel genuine.

Final thoughts:

SVS needs to go
Matt needs to go
We need to vote Other to hopefully get info on corporate

What about me? Am I off the hooooook?

Epignosis wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I am of the opinion that 3J was bad.

Who among you was going to mount the charge against him?

Required reading.

I'm going hunting for his teammates.
As a player in that game I don't necessarily see the similarities. How do you suppose he died last night then if you think he is mafia?

I thought he was bad though.

You're implying that mafia killed their own last night? Or...what? This makes no sense to me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:A few thoughts/questions on the situation:

~ It would not be idiotic for a baddie to do this. To call attention to oneself is not a significant sacrifice to eliminate a beloved princess role with a significantly shortened day phase (amounting essentially to four straight night phases as DFaraday said). "Attention" doesn't mean anything at all if the baddie doesn't get lynched, and in this scenario -- getting lynched wouldn't even be a bad trade-off. In a 7:2 town:scum ratio (I have no idea what this game's ratio is, call that a baseline), it'd be right around breaking even. So, worst-case scenario they break even, and best-case they get ahead. It's a smart move, not a stupid one.

~ I don't think DrumBeats looks bad at all. He looks like a very confident townie, perhaps more confident than he should be. I don't struggle to attribute that confidence to the significance of the event and S~V~S relationship with that event. There's no logical necessity to associate his confidence with a baddie ploy.

~ I wish we'd stop basing everything around the cot-damned lie detector role. That's not center of the cot-damned universe cot damnit.

~ A better question to ask than "is this a good move for the baddies?" would be "is S~V~S the type of player who would make this move?" This is one I don't really have an answer to, but those who have known S~V~S the longest might. Does she have a history for making big plays like this, for badding around in plain sight, for loud gambits? These are not absurd notions; a ton of people really do play this way. Hi MacDougall.

~ What to people think of the relationship between Quin's Day 2 vote for S~V~S and S~V~S's Day 3 vote for Quin? They were nearly identical in timing and in being motivated by something other than suspicion.

I think DB jumping on SVS right out of the gate is opportunism. I acknowledge that literally anyone could have done it, but his doing so and his continual push that she is definitely bad has me thinking the opposite.

As for Quin's/SVS vote parallel's, I would definitely like SVS to answer that as I've said.

DFaraday wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I am appalled that anyone thinks I am enough of an idiot to do this. I mean, I can be an idiot, but I am a player whose best use to a bad team is via manipulation & talking in thread, not out of self sacrifice. But whatevs, if you want to lynch me Drum, go for it. You will be dissappointed if you really expect me to flip bad.

Also, re the use of the word "forced"; has it occurred to you that I am not allowed to directly say I was targeted?

What other factual checkable statement would you like me to make?

Linki @Faraday, what do you think of my factual remarks? We have 2 nights in a row for Pam to check me. What factual questions would you like to ask me?
You've made a few solid checkable remarks, but I don't think it proves much since a) Pam can't share with the thread what she learns, and b) we don't even know if Pam is alive, or will be by the time this Eternal Night Phase ends.

But for sportsmanship's sake:

Why did you vote immediately?
Were you aware of the day-ending ability?

I actually would also like the answer to this question, however, SVS. TH asked it too.

DFaraday wrote:I agree with DB that this scenario presents a huge benefit for the Mafia. Since the day phase was so short, we're essentially in three straight night phases, where the baddies can keep killing unchecked. Add in Quin's death, and the Mafia basically get 4 kills in a row while we're sitting ducks. Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer. It absolutely seems worth it for a Mafia member to risk themselves for what amounts to an extended period of thread domination and kills free of reprisal.

Besides, the reasons for SVS being civ are all more convoluted than her being bad. The whole "No baddie would risk themselves like that!" angle is pure WIFOM, and the scenario in which SVS just happened to vote super early, and the baddies just happened to know she would vote super early, and just happened to be around to send in a PM fast enough that no other players had even left a placeholder vote all strains credulity more than the notion that SVS is complicit.

Do you think SVS is bad then? I'm not sure if I understand your last line.
Do you have any other current suspicions DFaraday?

Okee DB, look:

DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - Huge assumption jumps that Leetic was mafia, considering his actions made him the biggest roll of a dice alignment out there. You're willing to make assumptions based upon but not upon SVS, who is so clearly behind the Quin death. Also, I'm just saying, if I were mafia and Leetic was as well, I would've lynches Leetic for the civ cred. If a teammate was being that useless, I would've driven the lynch myself. It makes more sense for mafia to push a lynch on a mafia Leetic, because they could get some use out if him in the form of civ cred. You seem awful sure he was mafia to start making suspicions based on that. Hmm...

@ SVS Yeah, I can say that if I were mafia I would 100% do that. It would buy my team two night phases, and I could just give that same bullshit argument that you are giving right now and try to walk away clean. Risky? Yes. But it is moderate-risk-high-reward. Let's think about the concrete facts for a second:

-Mafia knew Quin was civ
-Mafia knew that Quin had no reason to lie about the advantage the mafia would get for lynching him
-Mafia knew that Quin's vote on SVS appeared to be forced yesterday. Who knows if it was or not (I would assume so since why would Quin lie about it)
- Mafia had to know that Merdith's forced votes would not count if the players didn't submit them by EoD.

Let's talk about what these mean, specifically the last two.

Knowing that Quin appeared to have a vote forced is huge because it lets SVS walk away from the whole thing, looking better than before. If the vote forcing role was mafia, they would have control over it and could have:
Not used it so nobody could cc forced vote.
Used it on ScumVS so if she said the vote was forced, Pams lie detector would clear her.
Used it on SVillagerS and hoped she voted early enough for them to lock it.
Number 2 on that list seems the most likely to me personally. Given the information available it was too easy for SVS to walk away clean, as you guys are letting her do now.

Next we move onto how Meredith didn't play into this situation. I clarified with Dom after this event occurred and Merediths votes were not factored into the lynch, since they had not occurred yet, though being forced votes, I would assume they are active at EoD no matter what in case the inactive player refuses to vote. But the mafia clearly did not make the assumption that Merediths votes would get in the way before ending the day, evident by how quick it happened. This leads me to believe that the plan was premeditated, in which case SVS would need to be mafia. The scum team wouldn't have been able to rely on a forced vote coming so early, and especially from SVS who as Sorsha pointed out has voiced opinions on EoD forced vote posting, which directly contradict what she has done now.

Tl;dr: SVS is mafia, and as mafia I would have 100% done the same thing

So far for the mafia team I'm thinking:
SVS
Scotty
Matt

At least, Scotty's assumption that Leetic is mafia makes me feel like Leetic might have been, assuming I am right about Scotty.

First of all, why include all these if/then statements of you being mafia? This is WIFOM and not helpful. I don't think I've ever seen you as mafia, and I heard from someone in a past game (Epi I think) that metas are crap because people can easily take advantage of a perception. O don't know what you would do as mafia, and you telling me about it doesn't make it any more true.

'If I were mafia, I'd have smothered 5 babies with pillows by now' -Anyone, or no one, it doesn't matter

Now see, you're inferring SVS is bad from basic assumptions as well. If you're going to invalidate my claim that leetic is mafia based on assumptions, how can you use the same sort of logic to claim that SVS is mafia? The facts are not all there, despite the angle you're opining.

How could mafia definitely have known this? He could have certainly been baiting.

This statement is invalid. 'I Believe, based on assumptions and inferences from my own logic, therefore it IS true.' This is akin to saying "I think milk tastes like snot, therefore it is snot.

So you're agreeing with me that leetic can be assumed mafia? And that makes me bad?

You came out swinging for SVS' head not 20 minutes after the day ended early. This was your first post:

DrumBeats wrote:WHOA WHOA WTF.

What I gather from this:

One of Eloh/Leetic was the Maf kill; my bet is on Eloh because Leetic wouldve been an easy mislynch. Leetic was likely the work of Andy the vigilante, who now cannot take over Michaels power as manager.

SVS voted Quin and insta-locked it. SVS had to have had info that Quin was Holly as well as access to a lynch ender through another corporate role, hence it locking.

Idk am I tunnel-visioning this by assuming SVS is confirmed mafia now? I can't think of any other explanation for how shit just went down.

You assume Elo is mafia, for no good reason other than leetic was an "easy mislynch". A mislynch that you yourself could get behind, as I talked about in my last post.
You immediately throw a grenade at SVS, with the insight that she "HAD to have had info". Though you ASSUME she is confirmed mafia.

Literally everything you're throwing down at SVS is an assumption veiled as an absolute and I see right through it.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that I think leetic might have been mafia, and Andy took a shot at him. I think he avoided a lynch that should have been his, but instead was pushed for bwt. So this analysis is from the perspective that leetic was mafia

Both bwt and leetic (most likely) had 2 force votes each via Merideth: LoRab and Serge on bwt; splints and bea on leetic. So that leaves 5 votes on each of them.

I voted leetic, bringing it to 2 votes. splints had already voted leetic, lorab had already voted bwt. No other reasons were imposed yet for bwt.

Then this:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DFaraday wrote:3 of the 4 Quin voters now feel good about him (DB even listed Quin as civ) with basically no reasoning for this shift beyond, "His posts made me feel better about him." BWT's especially strikes me as an easy way to springboard off of what the others said without offering any new thoughts on Quin. I'll be looking at these three for the remainder of the phase to see if anything else stands out to me.
This I agree with. Both in his original suspicion of Quin and now his relaxed stance on Quin, BWT seemed to be following the herd too contently to be genuine.

JJJ imposes this general suspicion from DFaraday for bwt being too blendy.

Spoiler: show

DB lays out these suspicions:
he's "fine with a leetic lynch" but prefers someone who can give info like INH, LoRab or MaScotty (heh).
he votes for LoRab, for "lying low" and being uncooperative. Because apparently that will give more info than leetic (who, also, has been lying low and uncooperative. But I digress). He's still up to push a MaScotty vote, but he still "sees the appeal" of the leetic vote, but chooses to keep his vote between LoRab and MaScotty because "that train will have enough votes" without him.

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ DFaraday - My main suspicion on Quin was the discrepancy between saying baddie hunting was his top priority and him focussing very little on it day one. Over the night, and early day one Quin contributed much more to the thread than I have seen from a lot of players, including you, so that is enough to shift him to a civ read for now.

@ Epi - Post count isn't indicative imo, but the amount of fluff posts I've seen from you doesn't seem like the same Epi I saw in BSG. Not one of my highest scumreads right now, but still noteworthy.

-----------

I'm going to switch my vote to LoRab for now. Lying low with only one suspicion based on mechanics isn't a good look, and being uncooperative in looking at anything else makes it worse.

Matt and Scotty are still on my radar if anybody else wants to help me push a vote there.

Leetic is a vote that I still find to be a roll of the dice, but it is low-risk/medium-reward so I can see the appeal. I think that train will have enough votes without me, so I'm going to keep my vote between the LoRab or the duo.

I'm going to be off for the rest of the phase sometime within the next 45 minutes so if anybody wants to talk to me before phase end, lets do it now.
How would you feel about a BWT lynch?
I honestly don't see much of a case on him right now, other than his vote on Quin. If you can make a convincing enough case in about 30 minutes I would be down for it, but right now its just meh to me.

How would you feel about a Matt lynch?
Pretty much exactly the way you feel about a BWT lynch. I don't really see the case. My least favorite thing is that he has given me nothing on Day 2 after I demanded a return on my investment.

I'll try to lay out a quick BWT case.

DrumBeats wrote:Pretty convincing case, and while I'd still really like to push one of the three I mentioned, since I'm not going to be around at EoD, I doubt any of mine will pick up steam, so I'll switch my vote over.

DrumBeats wrote:Also just noticed that LoRab stealth voted BWT earlier in the day, despite exclusively pushing Quin. I searched the ISO and never found any mention of it. Could be distancing or forced by Meredith, but I figured it was noteworthy enough to point out.

JJJ suggests BWT out of nowhere, and DB "doesn't see much of a case on him" but is offers a challenge to make a convincing case in 30 minutes or less and he'll win a new toaster oven or something.
JJJ compiles some quotes and DB is suddenly convinced, even though he'd "still like to push [LoRab, Matt or me]" but doesn't think they'll happen, so he votes for bwt. At this point he is bwt's 2nd vote against leetic's 3 after bea voted.
He even acknowledges that one of the players he highly suspects and voted for 30 minutes prior already voted for Bwt, and just brushes it aside.

Spoiler: show

He says he "wasn't a fan of the leetic votes" even though at that point, it was me and the 2 [forced] votes on leetic. If he wasn't a fan, was it because I had voted there? That can't be a reason, because he voted where LoRab voted.

I think DB had been distancing from leetic by agreeing with his lynch while not pushing for it.

Search found 213 matches