The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:Perhaps so, but my team had just killed you in Fight Club. Killing you twice in one day just felt mean to me. I have been killed twice in one day and it sucks. You played a really good game, Go Baddies

S~V~S wrote:

Keterman wrote:I'm not positive but I think SVS was Tony.

I knew you were bad the second I died. After I said I was going to ignore you, suspicion of me had no more value, plus you had no reaction whatsoever to my death and you spent the whole game hounding me, Lol.

This was a fun game to play and to follow.

Congrats winners, and thanks Canuck for being awesome

DharmaHelper wrote:So nobody else has anything to say ??

DharmaHelper wrote:To me, the only possible baddie here is MP.

Dana wrote:I'm glad you're not dead!

MovingPictures07 wrote:Made and Dana, I have to say, it's been a hell of a ball playing a game with you both. I hope you play again for sure.

Made wrote:

Keterman wrote:Even with my little knowledge of Bullz' meta that was obviously a curse, and he basically confirmed as much. The silent votes for him? Not okay. I don't know what's going on with Made but the near-scumclaiming is too WIFOM-y for me, and considering his behavior earlier that seems like something he would try to pull off, perhaps to distract or perhaps just to fuck with our heads. He's getting my vote. That silent vote from DH also pings me but of the two Made just feels like scum that's already won the game.

I'm leaning town on MP now unless he's pulling off confusion very well. I'm also leaning town on Bullz for getting cursed but are even there more than two or three living civvies in this game? This seems pretty hopeless right now.

I agree.... but for real, WHY DID YOU HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT . (except the curse, not sure if i'm buying that.... gonna double check to see if this actually even lines up...)

Made wrote:

Dana wrote:

Made wrote:Considering the only confirmed kill the notes have given us were from nutelLa, who we've deduced was innocent, at this point, I think it's safe to ignore the notes.

Are we completely sure nutella was innocent?

There's always the chance of kill steals....but....

Nutella was killed by Liam. Since we killed Sally, and Tony has been alive since at least night 3, Nutella was civvie. As Liam (probably) wouldn't of killed a team mate and nutelLa died before night 3, Tony's last kill. I don't know how, but killing Tony tonight is civvies best chance and pulling this off. Killing Tony means no night kill, thus a civvie deathless night.

S~V~S wrote:

Keterman wrote:I know that rebuttal is overdue but I didn't make it sooner because I didn't feel it necessary. Apparently it is necessary if everyone has magically forgotten how scummy SVS was early in the game, and how her actions since have only supported my case against her. No other lynch options come close, that is all.

Sorry Dude, you're wrong. I was not scummy, I was having fun.

If you were just having fun, why bother defending yourself in such a serious, formal way with "Sorsha is a bold leader"? If you were having fun with that vote you should have been like "Yeah she offered free puppies so I voted her" rather than actually try to justify it.

I will read back a bit before work, to see if anything new has been said.

Let me see if I get this:

OMG, early in the game she changed her mind and voted early to give a prize (perhaps, we don't know what happened that poll, only DH does) to another player! Then, when it should have been clear to everyone based on a wiki that SVS was the OBVIOUS choice, many voted for Sorsha (which must totally be SVS' fault) INCLUDING SVS, even though Sorsha had effectively quit the game, and SVS was putting up a spirited defense, and it was that OR both she & Sorsha are out of the game. Answering all questions put to her, might i add, from a phone on a bus while the "Fllod of a Century" storm was rolling in, lol. Sorsha wasa civ

"Spirited defense" I got nothing. And I say again, if you answered all the questions on the bus before you made the in-depth response, why make the in-depth response? Why worry about it? Why does no one else see the obvious contradictions in your motivations and how contrived your defense are?

It should also be said that she totally suspected Made for having BTS based on an early (in her opinion) slip, and her belief is TOTALLY supported by her posts. Right or wrong, it should be fairly sure what she thought. The fact that the basis of this slip turned out to not be likley (she was killed by the 3 man team, and for my theory to be correct it would have to be the three man team she & Made would have had to be on, so i doubt she was bad at all).

Keterman wrote:You basically have a gut town read on SVS while going against my entire case, and you haven't attempted to refute a single point in it.

You basically have a gut baddie read on me, while going against the opinions of those who know me, and in some case have played with me for years. And you refuse to admit it is as such, or to concede the possiblity that you could be wrong. Like I have
said, you are acting like someone with info, doing the "making a crap case out of conviction" thing. Problem there is you can't have info that says I am bad.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You have the nerve to say me read is a gut read despite a mammoth of a case that people including those you know such as MP have acknowledge but refuse to subscribe to because "eh, I just dont' feel it". Even those who don't buy my case on you admit that it's a case, yet you still say I basically have a gut baddie read on you. If you were civvie, you would at least admit what MP admitted, and you would at least admit that I don't refuse to admit anything that's true. Way to ignore my actual point-by-point responses to you and then deflect to saying that I have to have info to think what I think. So opportunistic.

Made wrote:IF ANYONE HAS THE VOTES FROM DAY TWO, PLEASE HMU.

Some hosts keep a vote thread, it is soooo helpful. I guess MR does not. The people most likely to have a spreadsheet are MP (although the whole moving & hosting huge game thing may mean he doesn't) or DH.

I am going to keep my eye on this. My instincts are so screwed up by this, that i am fairly clueless who I would vote for were I not defending. I have to assume there are baddies in both the pro-me & anti-me camps, but it is hard not to mix that up into my own suspicions.

S~V~S wrote:Having reread her,I can see a bad Canuck. She seems to be flailing a bit.

S~V~S wrote:

I don't even know what to think of that, lol.

Um, Canuck is committing suicide?

Nice map

*Votes Canuck*

S~V~S wrote:

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Went with Canuck.

Wait wait wait wait wait ALL OF YOU.
Why are we Voting CANUCK, I don't understand.

You don't?

S~V~S wrote:

Keterman wrote:@Epignosis

Regarding SVS and Sorsha, I'm leaning towards them being teammates because the two have been buddying quite a bit as DH mentioned earlier. Trying to read individuals is taxing enough though so I try not to overstep my boundaries and figure out entire teams until later in the game, so take that with a grain of salt at best. Of the two, SVS is scummier to me at the moment because most of what has been used against Sorsha could be chalked up to things that don't indicate alignment, whereas with SVS I just don't understand how that could possibly be town playing.

Thanks for the meta on DH and Sorsha, although are you not weary at all of DH being deceitful in this game with his "selfless" act, especially considering that he's a good liar (which doesn't surprise me)?

We were "buddying" as we knew each others games very well in general, although I tend to read her as bad. I have probably played more games with Sorsha than anyone else in this thread, we both were VERY active at both LP & Hedville, as well as active at TP and RM. It is possible I have played more games with her than with anyone. Over 20, certainly, maybe even 30. I have NEVER seen Sorsha lead with fun when she's bad, she is much more serious, IMO.

I highlighted that particular excerpt in blue for this post just to remind everyone that my case against SVS has never been a case that relied on SVS being scummates with Sorsha, just that it seemed likely because many of SVS's scummy actions in Day 1 were related to Sorsha. I will say again here that I don't see how SVS's actions on Day 1 could possibly be town playing, and that SVS (as well as others) have tried to make it look like that was all my case was based on certainly doesn't make them look any better.

Answers in red:

Keterman wrote:Okay.

SVS asks if anyone's up to volunteer for the leadership role in her first post. I was the first to volunteer, but SVS immediately voted Sorsha because puppies. It seems strange to me that after a serious establishment from SVS that she was interested in who to vote for, she tosses consideration out the window and votes for the one who's going to give her a free puppy. She knows that there's plenty of time to vote, why toss it for such a random, informal candidate? My vote was fast but it was a self-vote. Some time later SVS makes a morning post, a fragment of which defends her early vote for Sorsha. At first I liked her defense for voting early, that we're not voting to kill someone so it most likely doesn't matter too much, all that. But then...

So, you are annoyed I did not vote for you? My usual thing with day 0 polls (and this is not WIFOM, people who have played alot with me should also know this) is to overthink them, and put alot of discussion into them. That is the point of Day 0 polls, to be a discussion leader. But i was really struck by Sorsha coming in and trying to take the thread.

Nice try making it look like this was some kind of act of jealousy on my part. It doesn't matter that it was me you didn't vote or, the point is that after you asked for a volunteer, there was a volunteer before Sorsha and yet you still say that you voted Sorsha because she volunteered. Sorsha did not try to take the thread at all. Offering an imaginary free puppy for a vote is not trying to take the thread. At. All. It is not bold, it is not brave, it is not leader-like. It's fun. And it's funny that you try to use your meta (overthinking) as a defense here when it's a lack of overthinking that caused my suspicions in the first place. Rather than overthink, or think, about who to vote for, you pick Sorsha at complete random. Which was fine, but then your justification for it was too contrived to be anything but scum.

S~V~S wrote: Puppies aside, the main reason I voted for Sorsha so early is that she acted like a leader. She came in and boldly tried to buy the thread, no waiting and discussing for her. She saw what she wanted, and she made an effort to get it by bribing us to follow her. Whether that effort pans out for her or not is a "time will tell" thing. Initially I wanted to wait and hear from everyone blah blah but I think a bold move is a mark of leadership. Had someone else been the one to come in here with a bold move, they would have gotten my vote. Even good old El Hypocritico

Now wait a second. Sorsha didn't act like anything when SVS voted for her, she didn't have the time to. All she said was that anyone who voted for her got a free puppy. That's not being a bold leader, that's being playful. SVS actually considers the free puppy post a legitimate "bribe" here, and says as much. And even if is to be considered a serious "bold" bribe somehow, how is that acting like a leader? I really don't like how SVS goes from asking for a volunteer as if it were a serious concern of hers who gets the vote, then immediately voting for someone who made what's essentially a joke post, then goes back to being serious with defending that vote by making the candidate out to be a bold, audacious leader, entirely for the following post:

Sorsha wrote:Everyone who votes for me gets a free puppy!

It WAS a legitimate bribe~ it was a fun bribe, certainly, and not a real one, but she was buying votes. In a fun way, sure, but she was buying votes. In the context of this game, I thought it was a bold move, and I liked it. She had my vote. You can but all the spin on it you want (and so far, this "case" is just spin, based on the supposition that Sorsha and I were baddie teammates.

Again trying to make it look like my case against you relies entirely on Sorsha being bad when I've already made clear that that isn't the case as if it weren't clear enough from the points themselves. Fun bribes are not bold. How in the world is a fun bribe a bold move? And how is it leader-like? Why do you refuse to accept how much of an absurd reach it is to consider a free puppy bribe a leader-like, bold move?

And now for some hypocrisy. In a later post defending her vote for someone based on a single post, she claims Made to be lynch-worthy just for saying that nutella "knows what's up" citing only three posts. (one of which makes a good point against Sorsha...coincidence?) She tries to make it look like that Made was serious in her tone as opposed to being playful (this is the second time SVS has done this).

I explained this to Blooper~ I thought that single post was an slip, indicating BTSC with Nutella. I think that EVERY post I made regarding Made after that made it very, very , very clear that that was my thought. Especially after Dana came in to defend him, and one of her defenses echoed something Elochin has said to me in a different game.

It doesn't make sense that you would think it was a slip and trying to justify it by telling me that you made it clear that you WANT US TO THINK THAT doesn't make it any more believable. Using that as your defense also only makes you look worse.

S~V~S wrote:
Now, THIS is interesting:

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm strongly considering voting for nutella

Yeah, she seems to know what's up

Really? These are her posts in this game:

nutella wrote:yey game! huh, pick a leader, that's an interesting day 0 poll.

nutella wrote:I would more likely trust DH than SVS I think Canuck though, I'd put my money on her.

Those who have voted, is this a changeable vote?

nutella wrote:

Sorsha wrote: I think I am easy enough for most people to read, if I did happen to be bad (which I'm not), you'd all be able to tell in a day or two and could lynch me. I think I'm a good choice.

Really? I thought I'd seen you make it to the end as a sneaky baddie quite a few times...

Which of these make you think she knows whats up more so than anyone else playing so far? If this was a lynch, I think this post would have been worth a Day One vote, and it still might be.

Here's what I find rather amusing. Look at the bold. SVS attacks Made here for saying that nutella "knows what's up". Why not attack DH instead, who said he was strongly considering voting for her? That's a much more extreme indication of a serious endorsement than what Made said, so why go after Made and not DH? Made addressed this fallacy himself, and this is the response that SVS gave:

S~V~S wrote:
I voted for Sorsha, not DH, and it isn't a threat. It's a statement of suspicion; I find your behavior suspicious, and i am saying so~ as far as I am aware I can't lynch anyone by myself.Stating whom I suspect is how I play the game. Your statement was not the same as his. He said we was strongly considering voting for her. You said that she seemed like she knew what was going on. I get what you are saying, but i am not sure that I buy it tbh.

Mades answer gave a deeper implication of opinion; DH only said that he was seriously considering a vote for Nutella. Made gave an opinion about her based on pretty much nothing. Not the same.

No, it didn't. By saying her seriously considered a vote, that gave a very clear implication of opinion. Much clearer than someone who merely agreed with that implication. And you say I'm spinning things.

She dodges that she finds DH a good candidate without reason by saying that she didn't vote for him, she voted for someone else. Again, I find this amusing because in this same post SVS uses logic that renders that defense obsolete. A "statement of suspicion" is the same for a lynch vote as a statement of trust is for the Day 0 vote, so it doesn't matter that she didn't actually vote DH, she still excused him for a stronger offense than Made's. She tries to explain this by dividing the two statements of DH and Made: one is a vote statement, the other is "nutella knows stuff".

I said I found DH a good candidate (along with a few others) becasue I know him to be a strong leader. But ultimately, I did not vote for him, I voted for Sorsha, becasue I felt that she was a better candidate, and iirc, several people who voted to lynch ME actually DID vote for DH. So

I have nothing to respond to this because nothing you say here even attempts to contradict my point.

Okay.

Let's see here.

Why would DH consider nutella a likely vote? Her posts. Which, at the time, were three. Not much to base a vote off of, but hey, it's more than a "bribe" for a free puppy. Now what about Made? I don't know how familiar is with the language that Made has been going for throughout the game...but..."know's what's up" does not imply actual knowledge. At all. It's like, she's cool, she's hip, she's funky. When you take a simple ebonics-influenced phrase like that and stretch it so far you actually imply that it meant that nutella had superior knowledge of the game than everyone else, and you use that absurd leap as a justification for a potential lynch vote? I rest my case.

No, wait, then in her next post SVS dismisses her issues with Made over a simple misunderstanding while proceeding to hail DH, the one who possessed a stronger case against him based on SVS's own logic and had no newbie-related misunderstanding to excuse it. NOW I rest my case.

I've also been taking issue with Sorsha's post, but everything that's bugged me about her has already been mentioned extensively enough, mainly that she tried to make it out like if she were scum she could be lynched easily. Also her case against Dana was horrible and it was followed by the beautifully-fence-sitting statement that she trusts SVS but that SVS could be tricking her. That was her most recent post, too.

I've already stated my issues with DH early on and they're still present. His fittingly Ned Stark-ian "selfless leader" bullshtick seems fabricated to gain trust (especially taking into account that as I mentioned before it's regarding an online Mafia game for a vote that the general consensus seems to think doesn't matter much in the first place, even as far the actual game goes), and the fact that it worked as well as it did certainly doesn't help. Feigning honor and selflessness to gain power, how politican of you, DH.

I'm strongly in favor of a 48 hour day to see which of these three (SVS, Sorsha, DH, or a possible other candidate if someone else gets very suspicious very fast) will get my vote.

This whole thing is based on Sorsha & I being bad teammates. and a total misconstrual of my posts against Made. She was a civ, and I thought Made was bad, specifically with Nutella, based on that one post. I thought he made a baddie slip.

I can see why some of the players here have believed this BS that my case rested entirely on you and Sorsha being teammates, especially because I said that I found it likely that the two of you were teammates. What you ignore here, and what others have been ignoring as well, is that the case did not in fact rest entirely on that proposition. You shouldn't have thought that Made made a scumslip there because it was obvious that she didn't, which leads to the conclusion that you were trying to get others to agree with you that it was a slip and get Made lynched. That's not the only thing that's scum-motivated for you, there are scum-motivations all over the place in your posts. Your constant mood-changing, as I said earlier, resembles a scum player trying to establish a certain way to go about things.

The thing about this is that you said after all my defenses that I did not address your case, and i did, totally. I don't see anything that I missed. back after work to reply to your reply. Please point out what I have not addressed that concerns you, and I will be happy to do so

When I said that, you hadn't addressed my case. NOW you have. It's funny to me that you had the nerve to say I didn't admit you addressed my points in the same post that you addressed my points. I'm not a time-traveler. If you were confident that you had addressed all my points before making this post, then why feel the need to make this post at all? Why not just say, I've addressed all your points and I'm town, come at me? You were scared that wouldn't be enough because you're scum and you can feel the walls closing in. This is backed up by how paranoid you were after this by accusing Made and I of constantly quoting each other to get you lynched, even though there's been very little heat on you in all other days outside Day 1.

Also, I have no indication of DHs alignment, he can be equally out there regardless of alignment, and we both can tend to misread each other as we play pretty different games. Did he vote for me last time? I only recall Elos vote (for not defending while I was papering the thread with a defense) and Nutellas (for being subtly evasive, which actually made me laugh out loud on the bus, which is not a good idea).

DharmaHelper wrote:

Keterman wrote:You're missing my point. How does that make her worse than SVS? If SVS was a scum read for you, then why vote for the person who was less of an asset to town over the person that most likely wasn't town and would not only not be an asset town but directly oppose it?

Because the evidence of SVS being mafia depended entirely on whether Sorsha flipped mafia.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Keterman wrote:I'm against quitting too, but that didn't make her scummier. Giving up isn't alignment-indicative.

What made her scummy:
- Her buddy buddy with SVS
- Her insistence that she would be an easy read
- Her reactionary post RE: Dana and I

What made her worse than SVS:
- Defeatist attitude, didn't bother to defend herself, etc.


Two separate issues

DharmaHelper wrote:

Made wrote:Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Your early vote, regardless of resoning, was really stupid considering tonight could very easily be lynch or lose dawg.

Conviction is the best weapon a civvie can have. A good case with no support is better than a shit case with unanimous approval. If you really believe you have a baddie caught, the burden of proof is on you.

S~V~S wrote:Thanks for the reply, Boogs. "OK, lol" was not inspiring me with confidence.

I was initially planning to vote for Made. I am once again holding my vote since I presume Made will vote for me, you might. I won't vote for you if I don't need to do so to save. Not so much for the No U, but for continuously voting and then saying he will come back with a reason, and he never comes back with a reason. I would have felt this way had he been voting for you, for anyone, really, not just for me.

What is your opinion on this list?

I agree with this. SVS was definitely the preferable lynch that day. I'm uncertain about DH and ni, and I've already made clear that I have a strong scum read on SVS and that hasn't changed. Bullzeye pegged me earlier with his responses to me. Then there's Canucklehead. In fact, let me make this easy and do a most-to-least scum list:

1. SVS
2. Canucklehead
3. Bullzeye
4. Roxy
5. Boogs
6. MovingPictures07
7. nijuukyugou
8. Dana
9. Elohchin
10. Made
11. DharmaHelper

SVS and Canucklehead are pretty neck in neck, with Bullzeye and Roxy not far behind, and after Boogs and MovingPictures07 everyone is pretty much interchangeable. I'm going to go ahead and vote SVS.

Keterman, why do you agree with it? Why do you think i am the preferable lynch for today as well as the day before Sorshas role was revealed? As I recall,, the main point was that I was buddying with Sorsha. You have not really given any new reasons for this belief. I would like to see them. Actual reasons, not snippets of various posts taken out of context.

Have you read back and seen that a few other people have mentioned Mades posting style?

S~V~S wrote:While you are here, you might try mentioning why you voted for me the last two days. You kept saying you would be back with reasons, but i don't recall that happening. You & Keterman keep quoting each other as rationale for voting me, but thats about it.

Roxy wrote: Made - I hate to tell others how to play so I will just request you make one post NOT in gangsta-speak so that I may understand what you are saying just once. I have found myself skipping your posts bc I do not understand them I will try and find a gansta translator and see if it will help me figure you out for the rest of the game.

Roxy wrote:

Keterman wrote:I'm not sure about Boogs. Roxy made what appears to be a decent case on him on the surface, but most of it was criticizing his exaggerations, and not too much of what she pointed out was alignment-indicative. Because of that, the case, and the read, actually comes off as opportunistic to me, so I think it's more likely that Roxy is scum than Boogs is. But they could be bussing each other.

We do not say bussing here bc old school that meant kissing someone. LOL!! We say throw/toss under the bus. So you are saying it is perfectly townie to lie and exaggerate about something that you did not do and that is not bad but when you point it out it is opportunistic? GTK.

Roxy wrote:

Keterman wrote:The fact that a civilian has even garnered suspicion for not saying RIP scares me enough, but actual lynches over it? If Bullzeye wasn't playing dumb about not knowing what towntells or scumtells were, I think this community needs to read up the MafiaScum encyclopedia. That's no slack to all of you, I like that you guys have a no-drama policy and I love how much thought is put into the games here, but if anyone's been lynched for not saying RIP to a dead player (and this is the first place where I've ever seen "RIP" used), I think you guys need to get a better idea of how to really detect scum.

I do not think its very nice of you to come here and tell we need to read Mafiascum encyclopedia to "get a better idea of how to detect" baddies. I have been playing Mafia since forever. It must be very boring on your site(s) to play if you lynch baddies every time and never lynching a civ. Congrats!

We have lynched for silly reasons' srs bns reasons and for thread based reasons none should be scoffed at since they have both led to baddie lynches and civ deaths.

I personally helped lynch a baddie based on a smiley they used after a gruesome night post. That was on Day 2 no less.Was it wrong to use what I had available to me? As a civ I do not get help bts. I must use what I have in front of me.

So silly or not - right or wrong I will continue to play the way I wish and I hope you will do the same. No one likes to be told they do not know what they are doing and should read someone elses version on how to do it properly. Its rude.


Now I think I will also go old school STV style and make me a list too <3

Bullzeye wrote:

Keterman wrote: Canucklehead. What in the world is going on with Canucklehead? Way too many smilies and way too much confidence in extremely flawed logic and obvious skim-reading. I do not see a civilian acting the way he has been acting since Sorsha's death. It's almost like he's going for a "too crazy to be scum" gambit, and I'm not buying it. I'd sooner dissect Finnegan's Wake than his ridiculous posts.

I've actually read her ( :P ) more recent defense - not the 'lol' but the one before it - as a fairly reasonable response to her accusers. I think I've only played with her once before, and that was a long time ago, but I seem to remember her tone being fairly similar at the time and she was a civ back then. Mafia doesn't have to be all serious and grumpy.

I'll concede that I put too much emphasis on her posting style when sharing my read of her there. The main thing that bugged me about her was her misplaced confidence, and I don't think she's defended it well. Not to mention that most of what she's done today is defend herself rather than trying to help town by providing reads or calling out scummy behavior. Yes, I haven't posted much, but I haven't been around much, and when I do post I address as much as I feel as necessary regarding me as well as anything. Canucklehead's been around plenty, has posted plenty, and yet hasn't moved the game forward much at all. If anything it seems like she's been trying to distract us from finding scum.

Keterman wrote:I see the end of Night 1 post does not state anything about Epignosis' role. I don't like that, and I find it weird that just about everyone posted "RIP Epi" when it was unconfirmed that he was a civilian. Scumslips or carelessness? He did seem to be scumhunting well when he was alive so I can see how something like that could be overlooked, but I still find it strange and bothersome.

Now I practically never make "RIP" posts for NKs or lynches because I don't see the point, but sometimes if I think a kill was particularly odd I'll comment on it. For instance killing the top poster in a game which, at the time, had been pretty quiet. For my part, I have no idea whether Epi was good or bad, I find him almost impossible to read sometimes because as a civ he does things that I wouldn't dream of doing as a baddie for fear I'd be too obviously evil. I just wasn't pleased that he died so early.

I don't either, I'm glad someone else feels the same way. I find it a bit odd that you felt the need to defend yourself for making an RIP post, though. And I find it strange now that a few people also posted "RIP nutella" when nutella's alignment wasn't revealed either.

Keterman wrote:I'm not sure about Boogs. Roxy made what appears to be a decent case on him on the surface, but most of it was criticizing his exaggerations, and not too much of what she pointed out was alignment-indicative. Because of that, the case, and the read, actually comes off as opportunistic to me, so I think it's more likely that Roxy is scum than Boogs is. But they could be bussing each other.

What does bussing actually mean? It's not a term we use round here. I disagree with your point about Roxy, and I think that exaggerating one's role in a lynch (e.g. saying you were the driving force behind it or that you tried to save the victim) can be indicative of alignment. Civs lie in their own ways, but baddies lie more.

Bussing, or, throwing a fellow baddie under the bus to make themselves look more town when their partner is revealed as scum. I've seen it used here already so you denying that it's a common term raises an eyebrow from me, but perhaps the particular word "bussing" didn't strike a bell for you. But with the context I used it in, it should have. I agree that trying to take credit that isn't yours for a lynch can be indicative of alignment, but not in Boogs' case.

Keterman wrote:My strongest town reads are Made and DharmaHelper. I don't believe in towntells, so it's mainly a lack of scumtells on their part combined with active scumhunting. I wasn't sure how to feel about Hedge but I wouldn't have voted her, I would've voted for Canuck, who I'll likely vote for on Day 3, unless someone else manages to out-scum him.

What do you mean by scum/towntells? Like role hints or something? Because anyone can role hint, though it's frowned upon by many and sometimes against the rules. I don't really have a strong read either way on the two you mention here but of the pair I'd say I think DH is more likely to be civ than Made.

Either our mafia playstyles are much more foreign than I thought, or you're playing dumb, because even without knowing exactly what a scumtell or towntell refers to, it should be pretty self-explanatory from the words themselves. A scumtell is when someone does something scummy, a towntell is when someone does something towny (or "civvie"). As I said however, I don't believe in towntells.

I have about an hour left here if anyone is around to talk, but after that I'll probably be sporadic until either Sunday night or Monday (probably Monday - it's me we're talking about, there will almost definitely be a pub trip Sunday night). I'll try to post from my phone as much as I can but it's annoying and I don't like doing it, nor will I get many opportunities.

Canucklehead wrote:

Keterman wrote:We got a confession everyone!

Not a confession, a giggle at the fact that you accuse of skimming (true!) and paying insufficient attention/not taking things seriously enough (also true!)....but yet you yourself haven't read closely enough to realize I'm a woman....despite the fact that I made EXACTLY this point about Elochin in my previous post which you claim to have read closely and thought about carefully with your big, non-ridiculous mafia brain.

I say again, Lol.

S~V~S wrote:

Keterman wrote:I see the end of Night 1 post does not state anything about Epignosis' role. I don't like that, and I find it weird that just about everyone posted "RIP Epi" when it was unconfirmed that he was a civilian. Scumslips or carelessness? He did seem to be scumhunting well when he was alive so I can see how something like that could be overlooked, but I still find it strange and bothersome.

Sometimes people qualify it with "iywg" (if you were good) but Epi, from my perspective (and I DO believe in "town tells") probably was a civvie. Like Bullz, I tend to avoid "RIP" in general; I have seen too many civs lynched from being attacked over not saying "RIP", or saying RIP to an NKed person (as you are saying) or not qualifying it~ I have even seen people get cases against them for their "RIP" not sounding sincere enough lol. So yeah.

And thanks for the faint praise

The fact that a civilian has even garnered suspicion for not saying RIP scares me enough, but actual lynches over it? If Bullzeye wasn't playing dumb about not knowing what towntells or scumtells were, I think this community needs to read up the MafiaScum encyclopedia. That's no slack to all of you, I like that you guys have a no-drama policy and I love how much thought is put into the games here, but if anyone's been lynched for not saying RIP to a dead player (and this is the first place where I've ever seen "RIP" used), I think you guys need to get a better idea of how to really detect scum.

First off, my main demand was SVS's in-depth defense, and while it wasn't a good defense (I don't think it could be given the actions SVS had to defend) it was a good effort that seemed genuine enough. Most of my points against her implied her being scummates with Sorsha, and since that was proven wrong, most of the specific points are now invalid. Nevertheless I have her as a scum read still because the tone of her posts and actions keep flip-flopping between taking the game seriously and not taking it seriously. It's like she doesn't know what act to put on. However...

I always take games seriously, sometimes too seriously. After a recent embarrassing rage quit incident at another forum, I am trying to return to my Mafia roots somewhat. I consider hedville my home forum for Mafia, even though games are not held there anymore. That forum was known for it's "no srs bsns" attitude, the mods used to call you out for it. Illy smacked me more than once I was known for some kwazy kwap. Sorshas opening move (and she played extensively there too) put me in mind of HV, it made me smile.

Srs bsns has its place, but OT shenanigans do as well. No acting required

Elohcin wrote:

Keterman wrote:I see the end of Night 1 post does not state anything about Epignosis' role. I don't like that, and I find it weird that just about everyone posted "RIP Epi" when it was unconfirmed that he was a civilian. Scumslips or carelessness? He did seem to be scumhunting well when he was alive so I can see how something like that could be overlooked, but I still find it strange and bothersome.

Most of the time, I think we assume the nightkilled were civ unless we are sure that there is a civvie night kill in the role descriptions. Do you have any reason to think Epi was not civ?

I don't, and thanks for the clarification. I still find it weird, but knowing that it's normal here helps.

Bullzeye wrote:

Keterman wrote: Canucklehead. What in the world is going on with Canucklehead? Way too many smilies and way too much confidence in extremely flawed logic and obvious skim-reading. I do not see a civilian acting the way he has been acting since Sorsha's death. It's almost like he's going for a "too crazy to be scum" gambit, and I'm not buying it. I'd sooner dissect Finnegan's Wake than his ridiculous posts.

I've actually read her ( :P ) more recent defense - not the 'lol' but the one before it - as a fairly reasonable response to her accusers. I think I've only played with her once before, and that was a long time ago, but I seem to remember her tone being fairly similar at the time and she was a civ back then. Mafia doesn't have to be all serious and grumpy.

I have to agree with Bullz here. I think Canuck is pretty genuine in her defense. Problem is, now I am not sure who to look at ATM.

@ Keterman, what do you think about the players who aren't around much?

Mister Rearranger wrote:

Someone left a bunch of letters again, this time in the locker room. Here's what was written on them:

"My buddy said Keterman told him he's planning something big for everyone. Like a picnic, but more cult-y. Guy creeps me out, I guess it's not just me."

S~V~S wrote:No, I did not think you did. I just mean in a one mafia team game, repeatedly voting for civs is a pretty sure tell, lol.

I kinda really thought Nutella was bad with 2 other people, but since she was killed by the 3 person team, not the two, i doubt that. Although I guess it is possible that she was bad on the two person team, but I just don't see that.

Made wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Made, do you have any thoughts on anyone else?

I do actually! I skeptical of anyone who voted sorsha day 1, so "DharmaHelper (3),Bullzeye (6), S~V~S (8), nijuukyugou (11) "
I mean come the fuck on yo. If we were lynching based on what happened, the obvious choice was SVS. I'll reiterate l8r, but check a few pages back for the specifics of this opinion.

I'll have a more official post later, yo. But I still got questions yo.