The Syndicate

It took me way too long to realize what you did there Matt...I think it's my time for bed. :P

Congratulations Enrique, gotta love a supatown scum!

I do.

Well-played mafia, you helped us dig our own graves. :P

Excellent game MP, I can't remember the last time I played an old-school setup like this.

*changed your mind

Boomslang wrote:Zebra, you posted enough to counter my previous read; that's why I let that suspicion drop. I'm changing my vote to Tranq in hopes of countering the other wagon, which I don't like.

I don't buy it. Post count doesn't mean a thing and I think you know that. I rarely see civs let their suspicions drop before their targets even acknowledge the issue they brought up. If you really changed my mind based on my posts then I would be interested to see a specific post that inspired you to.

That still doesn't justify why you think that's a likely option because of him and not, again, the person you're voting for. But then again these vote-based statistic-heavy analyses of yours aren't always the best tools to decipher what's actually going on in the first place...

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote:~AceofSpaces: TheFloyd73 (4) 3%

~bcornett24: FZ. (19), Sorsha (21), Epignosis (26), bea (27), Golden (36), Long Con (38) 16%

~Devin the Omniscient: rundontwalk (7) 3%

~Diiny: Devin the Omniscient (6), thellama73 (24) 5%

~DrWilgy: Ricochet (23) 3%

~JaggedJimmyJay: Rbzmncaeaei (37) 3%

~Long Con: Choutas (12), sig (16), seaside (17), DrWilgy (18), motel room (31), bcornett24 (32),
JaggedJimmyJay (34), Russtifinko (35) 21%

~Matt F: Roxy (15) 3%

~Metalmarsh89: Bullzeye (20) 3%

~seaside: Metalmarsh89 (2), Strawhenge (10) 5%

~Sorsha: Matt F (25), Elohcin (33) 5%

~thellama73: MacDougall (13), Diiny (28), espers (30) 8%

<<<~~~~~>>>
Start: Votes required to 50% kill LC (3) { (brackets represent killing point)
MM puts Seaside at 1 *marker(2)*
-Where has MM been since?
-Votes to kill LC +1 (4)

Floyd ties it with AceofSpaces at 1 *marker(4)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +4

Devin ties it with Diiny at 1 *marker(6)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +4

RDW ties it with Devin at 1 *marker(7)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +4

Strawhenge gives seaside the lead at 2 *marker(10)*
-Votes to kill LC +1 (5)

Choutas is the 1st of final votes on LC *marker(12)*
-Votes to kill LC -1 (4)

MacDougall votes Llama *marker(13)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +4
Roxy votes Matt F *marker(15)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +4

Sig Seaside and DrWilgy give LC lead at 4 *marker(16,17,18)*
-Votes to kill LC -3 (1)

First vote for bcornett by FZ *marker(19)*,
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +1

Bullzeye first vote for MM *marker(20)*,
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +1

Sorsha for bcornett *marker(21)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +1

Rico on me for 1 *marker(23)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +1

Llama on Diiny *marker(24)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +1

Matt F on Sorsha *marker(25)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +1

Epi and Bea on bcornett *marker(26, 27)*
-Votes to kill LC +2 (3)

Dinny and Espers on llama *marker(28, 30)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +3

Motel room and cornett on LC *marker(31, 32)*
-Votes to kill LC -2 (1)

Elohcin on Sorsha *marker(33)*
-LC is currently at a safe spot with +3

JJJ and Russ on LC *marker(34,35)*
-Votes to kill LC -2 (-1)
}
LC is no longer safe

Golden on Cornett *marker(36)* {
-Votes to kill LC +1 (0)

Zebra DOESN’T save LC at *(37)*
-LC is in danger at 0

LC tries to save himself… } End

Now, I created a point system to analyze this based upon my personal scumtells:

Increasing LC's survival number gets 1 scumpoint
Leaving LC on a + number without affecting it gets 2 scumpoints
Increasing LC's survival number from -1 to 0 gets 3 scumpoints
Increasing LC's survival number from 0 to 1 gets 4 scumpoints

leaving LC's survival number on 0 gets no points

Decreasing LC's survival number by 1 gets -1 scumpoint
Leaving LC on a - number without affecting it gets -2 scumpoints
decreasing LC's survival number from 1 to 0 gets -3 scumpoints
decreasing LC's survival number from 0 to -1 gets -4 scumpoints

Points are multiplied by a value determined by their timing, or marker number, here's the key:
Marker 0-5 = *1
Marker 5-15 = *2
Marker 15-25 = *3
Marker 25-35 = *4
Marker 35+ = *5
(greater value is non-inclusive, i.e. marker 5 would be ruled as *2)

Final scumpoint values without organization:
MM: 1
Floyd: 2
Devin: 4
RDW: 4
Strawhenge: 2
Choutas: -2
MacDougall: 4
Roxy: 6
Sig: -3
Seaside: -3
DrWilgy: -3
FZ: 6
Bullzeye: 6
Sorsha: 6
Rico: 6
Llama: 6
Matt F: 8
Epi: 4
Bea: 4
Dinny: 8
Espers: 8
Motel Room: -4
Bcornett: -4
Elohchin: 8
JJJ: -12
Russ: -20
Golden: 15
Zebra: 0

Now organized with color:
Russ -20
JJJ -12
Bcornett -4
Motel Room -4
DrWilgy -3
Sig -3
Seaside -3
Choutas -2
Zebra 0
MM 1
Floyd 2
Strawhenge 2
Devin 4
RDW 4
MacDougall 4
bea 4
Epi 4
Roxy 6
FZ 6
Bullzeye 6
Sorsha 6
Rico 6
Llama 6
Matt F 8
Dinny 8
Espers 8
Elohchin 8
Golden 15
Vote changed to Golden

I'm going to bed now... that took me afew hours...

...so perhaps the real team isn't even on that list of yours.

Oh right, I forgot which game I'm in. Here you go town, remember to bump it when I'm dead:

a2thezebra wrote:In fact since it leaves room for me as well, IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU SAID MM INSTEAD OF THE PERSON YOU'RE VOTING FOR

linki: But the suggestion doesn't involve me and MM being on the same team, it involves me being on the same team as Boomslang and Tranq.

In fact since it leaves room for me as well, it's interesting that you said MM instead of the person you're voting for.

So vote for Tranq.

Or, alternatively, MM.

My favorite combination would have to be "Boomslang, Tranq, anyone who isn't Luke, Floyd, Choutas, or Bea" since it leaves room for you.

Choutas wrote:I don't really know what to think of the Wilgy/Zebra/Marmot convos. The Marmot plays exactly like he did in TH, I lean town on him for that. Wilgy's first post that MM quoted doesn't look good. Does he always posts like that in all games? Zebra mirrors well what I saw from him in TH. He's a good player though I'm sure he's capable of doing that as scum so I''ll have to watch for the slight details that might give that away.
I'm voting for Wilgy until a better case forms.

This post alone, regardless of how you feel about its content, puts Choutas in a much better position than Tranq. This is actual content that could be analyzed and argued with. Tranq has offered nothing of substance whatsoever.

Enrique wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Enrique wrote:Feel better, bea. Don't worry about the game, your health comes first

I'm not really worried about Tranq. Call it a gut feeling, but I feel an evil Tranq would at least be trying to pull some strings. I think he just doesn't have anything to say yet.
Or maybe he hasn't found any strings to pull. Current thoughts on me/Wilgy?
I still think he's good. As for you, I'm not all that comfortable moving my vote somewhere else and letting the baddies pile up on it and control this lynch when it's already looking settled.

Is there really that much separating Tranq and Choutas? They both seem to be playing the same game to me. Disregarding post count (I don't really pay attention to that), their contributions so far are practically the same.

So you would prefer a "settled" mislynch to a justified but riskier potential baddie lynch? Good to know. As for the Tranq/Choutas comparison I think it's much more difficult to justify perceiving Chouta's ISO as deceitful or scummy in general when up against Tranq's. Choutas seems rather flustered with the direction the game is going in similar to myself. I never base my reads off of post count myself; I can have a strong town read on a person with one post and a strong scum read on a person with one post as well.

Oh, and the last one is as good as fluff too.

DrWilgy wrote:you are correct. It is discouraging. It's also discouraging how the wagon piled on, and I don't understand Floyd, Luke's, and Tranqs votes for you. I don't think I'm going to change my vote at this point, unless something really convincing comes up. I understand you are at a frustrated point of not caring, but if you would please discuss these following players with all your current thoughts (even short synopsis on your thoughts would help at this point), if you are civ, and there is any chance of us winning, it will help us in the end.

MM, Boomslang, Choutas, Luke, and Tranq

MM - Refer to my case using MM's ISO. Nothing has changed, except that since I think at this point that you are more likely to be bad than he is, it's less likely that he's bad based solely on my gut feeling that the interactions between you two earlier in the day were not staged. Since these reads are meant to help you guys "in the end" consider that this could change if you are revealed to be civ, while on the other hand if he is revealed to be civ I really think people should wake up and look at you already.

Boosmslang - No specific pings so I haven't mentioned him yet, but GTH I would actually say he's bad. I don't like how he said this:

Boomslang wrote:RIP FZ. Hardmode is right when the cop goes down on the first night... sigh.

a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?
Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.
Now this is an interesting post. Especially when it regards vocabulary that became important to following the thread. That kind of cockiness might come from knowing that you've got two other people in your corner (the rest of the mafia) who won't board your wagon. If the case was so unconvincing, it should have been easy to refute, right?

...but then let it go and later said I was simply frustrated and was most likely civilian. That seems like a convoluted arc of an opinion. I also fail to see his suspicions of Choutas.

Choutas - I think he's civ. The only ping I've had on him was one I had while catching up in the thread, and it was erased as I caught up further.

Luke - From the impression I've gotten from him so far he seems like one of those players who could easily be misinterpreted based on his preferred method of gameplay. So far I haven't been given a reason to think he's bad.

Tranq - Tranq has rubbed me the wrong way from the beginning but I don't like stating reads that are based on nothing more than my gut in the thread, until I have enough material to work with in trying to justify them to everyone else. So since MM has also asked for me to elaborate, let's take a trip through Tranq's ISO:

Tranq wrote:Bea

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:A no lynch sounds rather boring. How about a 13-way tie?

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:I saw a boomslang... I wonder where it went.
I know where it went

Fluff?

Tranq wrote:I'm moving my vote away from Bea.

Who should i vote for?

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:Sure why not.

Revenge-vote for Choutas.

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:Rude. I'm in the top 10 posters this game!

Precisely. And it's all fluff. Including this. That's a problem.

Tranq wrote:That's a silly question. If i move my vote to bcornett24, it would be 6 to 3, so i'd have to answer with a no.

Half fluff, half mediocre reasoning.

Tranq wrote:
Boomslang wrote:why the Choutas vote other than simple revenge?
I asked who to vote for and DrWilgy responded.

Two Pets in one Sound.

Fluff which makes one go

at previous posts.

Tranq wrote:Chou is the 2nd Pet

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:I had to google that but ok.

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:CFD

Fluff.

Tranq wrote:Temp-voting Zebra for now. Vote may change when i'm actually able to read through the thread, hopefully later today.

The only post of the entire day (which I remind you is almost over) as well as blatantly unjustified yet on a building wagon. This is the cherry on top. Tranq is fitting that perfect blend that I mentioned MM was in earlier (though now admittedly less so) of having enough posts to avoid lurker accusations from others but having little enough content to avoid having posts that one could call out as scum-motivated or use to find connections to teammates later on.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think FZ checked DrWilgy, per her comment on Day 1. I think zebra is civ.

Matt think Matt is bad though. I'll quote the post that pinged me.

Linki: Don't die bea
Any day now
Sorry, I only just got a seat with an outlet.

No need to be sorry I'm just being that person

Exactly, meta is bullshit, that's why it's discouraging that so many people are using your meta to avoid doubting your alignment.

Is that even a good thing or a bad thing? You used the same statistical analysis as a baddie in TH, so hopefully now people can stop saying "well he's totally different from his TH gameplay therefore that magically makes him civilian"

"doesn't have anyone listed as not teammates"

I'm confused.

Tranq. For whichever civs that are voting for me today, you're going to have hell to pay for the rest of the game if I'm lynched.

Enrique wrote:Feel better, bea. Don't worry about the game, your health comes first

I'm not really worried about Tranq. Call it a gut feeling, but I feel an evil Tranq would at least be trying to pull some strings. I think he just doesn't have anything to say yet.

Or maybe he hasn't found any strings to pull. Current thoughts on me/Wilgy?

bea wrote:You guys im still dying. I'm sorry. I'm trying to skim and make sense of everything but my brain just can't processes it. I have no idea who to vote for. My gut says quiet tranq is skerry. Dunno if it's enough for a vote bit definitely worth watching. I have no idea who to vote for. I am gut feeling ok about zee idk why peeps are suspecting her. Matt and Enrique feel ok to me too. ?? Regarding literally everyone else. I hate working when I'm sick. I'm pretty sure I have the plague.

Keep calm and vote Tranq.

Since no one thinks MM or Wilgy is bad then I'm down for a Tranq lynch.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think FZ checked DrWilgy, per her comment on Day 1. I think zebra is civ.

Matt think Matt is bad though. I'll quote the post that pinged me.

Linki: Don't die bea

Any day now

Matt F wrote:Is nobody else feeling Floyd? I appreciate the answers, Floyd, but I feel like something doesn't add up with you voting for your bud like that. Wilgy earlier you said you felt Floyd was civvie, how so?

I also don't understand the votes on Wilgy so soon after we learn FZ was the cop. I'm not saying let him slide all game but so soon?

After reviewing a few ISOs...

Boomslang - Do you no longer find Tranq suspicious? It seems you were questioning him a bit and then dropped it completely and moved to Choutas.

bea - I know you're sick but do you have any suspicions?

Who wants to vote Floyd with me?

I still don't understand why you think FZ flipping cop is anything but a non-sequiter to Wilgy's alignment. We don't know what her default role ID was, and again, you seem way too sold that a potential connection is the canon connection.

Save for maybe Enrique, there is not one remotely justified vote on my wagon.

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:No DrWilgy, this is caring enough to respond to it.

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
bea wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Matt F wrote:Boomslang, Luke is pretty new to Mafia just so you know. He's played a few games but I think he's still getting the grasp of it.
Fair enough, and I'll take that under consideration. Still, even if he's new, he's had the same chance to study the thread and its arguments as the rest of us. The vote did come after all of that naysaying, so to ignore it is still making a statement.
he's so new...are you sure he read the thread and digested it like he should have??

And I"m going to correct matt too. He's not played "a few games'" he's played one. Epi's speed game- in which he's prolly going to be lynched.

He's as new and green as they come near as I can tell boom.
That's the thing. There's no scum motivation for ignoring the arguments against a No Lynch. If he didn't read the thread, he didn't read the thread. It ain't a big deal. And if he's bad and he did read the thread, what could he possibly have to gain by trying to sway the town in favor of a No Lynch when clearly no one would support him? I'm more suspicious of those that are looking at his No Lynch post as an opportunity.

And Wilgy, Choutas' No Lynch vote is unexplained. And he's no stranger to the game. That's something to raise an eyebrow to indeed...that is until he changed it to Tranq. I think it was just a placeholder since his initial vote was rendered moot and he had no other pings at the time. I believe you're response and that you weren't trying to start a wagon so I'll switch my vote to the most opportunistic of the Luke voters, bcornett. I don't buy bcornett's reasoning at all.

bcornett24
So here's the thing about Zebra, how can a civilian "believe" something in this kind of gamestate?
What does this even mean? Even in the earliest stages of the game you either believe someone is genuine or you believe they are not. It's literally impossible for a civilian not to believe something in a Mafia game unless they obtain the information that allows them to leap from belief to knowledge.

DrWilgy wrote:"Choutas' No Lynch vote being unexplained" feels as if he's trying to buddy up on me, while distancing from Choutas while not committing to it. Why not implore Choutas?
What do you mean implore Choutas? I called him out and displayed my reasoning for not being convinced that what he did was scum-motivated, did you want me to put it in larger font or something?

HEY CHOUTAS WHAT'S UP WITH YOUR TEMPORARY NO LYNCH VOTE OH WAIT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN THAT YOU PRETTY CLEARLY WEREN'T INTENDING TO END THE DAY WITH IT AND COULDN'T THINK OF ANYONE ELSE TO VOTE FOR OK BYE

DrWilgy wrote:Also, he had gone in on me seeing me as opportunistic.
Indeed. Wait, I thought I was trying to buddy up on you? You can't lose sight of a deceitful narrative mid-case Wilgy every scum knows that!

DrWilgy wrote:Don't the concept of thinking I was opportunistic and then "believing" in me contradict one another?
Here's an idea. Maybe, as a civilian, I don't know for sure whether you are town or scum, so if I happen to change my opinion of you (and back again) it's part of a natural development of my scumhunting process that I apply to every other player in the game as well? For example, I currently have a scum read of both you and MM. But given that I don't see the sparring between you two on this page as staged, I'm more certain that I'm wrong about at least one of you then I am on my reads of either of you individually. So now my process is deciding which one of you (if not both) I am mistaken about. Hence me believing that you are being truthful with some posts but not others. Performances can be convincing, you know.

DrWilgy wrote:Also looking at the votes from earlier to now:
[img]nope[/img]
[img]me%20no%20spam%20in%20quotes[/img]
All 3 of my suspected mafia list were spread out, quite safely, if I had to be a judge, and now one of them had moved over to the second highest wagon, that probably won't take off at the rate that it's going. Is it so they look good not being on a possible civvy mislynch? maybe.

Well unfortunately this particular argument has now been proven not to apply to me, being on the bcornett wagon and all.
you seem to be rather worked up, but the larger font is nice.

First of all, nothing is impossible, secondly it is most definitely true that civs have a harder time coming to something they believe in, not a belief. beliefs are everywhere and they exist frequently, but to take a belief and believe in it are completely different things, er.. noun vs adjective per say. I have a hard time BELIEVING that civs can come to a solid belief, so that when you stated "I believe" based on what little I had said it bothered me. Why not draw out more information to solidify your belief before coming to a state of believing?
First of all, I hope you're kidding with that impossible comment. And this is some hardcore semantics nonsense, if you're civilian then I'm seriously stunned that you would go to these absurd lengths to justify an unwarranted suspicion based on the word "believe".

By imploring Choutas, you would have him explain the meanings behind his actions, not make a statement. It's one thing to actively question ones actions, but another to make a statement. After mentioning Choutas once, you didn't bring it up agian, why?
Again, I had no reason to further suspect him. If you had read the post you're responding to, or better yet, the original post you claim to be pinged by, you would know that I was satisfied with the conclusion I came to regarding why Choutas left a temporary no lynch vote. I am not a fan of being asked to elaborate on something that has already been sufficiently explained, hence my reluctance to respond to this post here or your original case.

Yes, the opportunism came first, then I felt a sense of you wanting me to board the S.S. Buddyship. You can't lose sight of a deceitful chronology mid-case Zebra every scum knows that!
Please. What pedestal have you put yourself up on that you think I should be obligated to answer to this nonsense when you won't even elaborate on how or where I was buddying, or when with what content did I actually display any opportunism? Why are you allowed to make a case based on nothing with no specific examples but when I don't feel like responding to it because, again, as I've already stated, nothing good or productive will come of it, you cry rivers? Double standard much? Please take a step back and look at how abysmal your logic is here. Unless you're mafia in which case do carry on while town digs their own grave by listening to you and not me or anyone else with posts of substance. Quality over quantity for the love of mafia.

Yes, but it is naturally hard for people to change their opinions, especially with what little information we had. It's not the fact that you changed opinion that bugs me, it's the fact that you went into the state of believing from a state of suspicion.
Again, I already elaborated on this. You're not helping convince me that you are town by responding to my counter-arguments with the same arguments you've already stated, even if they were good arguments, which they are not.

Why bring this up in that case? you felt strongly enough about ignoring CFD. What do you think about the other two I put you with on my list?

I don't care. I don't mind being lynched as town if there's a decent case against me but when I feel like I'm being lynched because people are too lazy to think for themselves and just vote for the "safe for people that haven't read the thread" option, it really kills my motivation to fight for a game that already is starting to look like a lost cause. My vote on you is staying.

I am not confident enough to say that if I am lynched we will lose but it will definitely make things harder.

DrWilgy wrote:Zebra, if you are civ and ignoring my posts, we will lose.

Need more energy; also quite a bold statement.

I would hate to see uncertain.

One person? Enrique. Enrique was the first person FZ addressed in the thread and with welcoming arms. She did not even come close to opportunistic behavior (unlike others...cough) regarding Enrique's interest in the No Lynch concept.

I think FZ's confirmed civ would more likely be you Enrique and just as likely be Luke or anyone else she mentioned positively that day. She said she liked Wilgy in response to my initial suspicion of him.

Matt F wrote:I'm not sold on Wilgy being civ. But the fact stands that FZ did say she liked him for now, and you have to admit that he is posting way more then he did as a baddy in TH, which is the only other game I've played with him (besides LC's where he replaced, I think). I think that makes sense, why don't you?

Do you really think FZ investigated him before dying? Post count doesn't matter, I fluctuate between posting a lot and posting little in games often and it says nothing about my alignment. Need more sense. I'm not sold on DrWilgy actually scumhunting. Making cases and posting frequently sure, but I haven't seen anything from him that has convinced me that he is genuine.

I'm not sure why you seem to be sold that Wilgy is likely a civ based on that hypothesis. Could you elaborate? And what weak reasoning to suggest that just because his behavior here is different from his baddie behavior in another game that invalidates how scummy he is behaving here and now. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I get discouraged from participating in a game as much as I'd like to aspire to because the rest of town isn't making any sense.

Knowing that I am civ and seeing the way MM and Wilgy have interacted with each other, I don't think there is a team within the three of us.

But Wilgy's reasoning has been consistently contrived.

I really don't see how DrWilgy's reasoning is justified from a civ perspective. If it was just regarding his thoughts on me I could overlook it but even from the start of the game he's been pushing ideas that just don't add up.

The logic that I sense is being spread around today is downright cringe-worthy. If this game is in hard mode at the moment it's going to get a hell of a lot harder (for town) if I'm lynched.

The colors...I...think I might be going blind....goodbye dear town, I'll see you in the morning.

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?
Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.
You did.

I didn't see any helpful discussion that would come from it. I felt that if I responded to it at the time that it would only distract from more helpful discussion. If anything that means my not responding to your case is evidence that I do consider discussion a priority. You don't have to agree or even believe me for that matter, but it is what it is all the same.

No DrWilgy, this is caring enough to respond to it.

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
bea wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Matt F wrote:Boomslang, Luke is pretty new to Mafia just so you know. He's played a few games but I think he's still getting the grasp of it.
Fair enough, and I'll take that under consideration. Still, even if he's new, he's had the same chance to study the thread and its arguments as the rest of us. The vote did come after all of that naysaying, so to ignore it is still making a statement.
he's so new...are you sure he read the thread and digested it like he should have??

And I"m going to correct matt too. He's not played "a few games'" he's played one. Epi's speed game- in which he's prolly going to be lynched.

He's as new and green as they come near as I can tell boom.
That's the thing. There's no scum motivation for ignoring the arguments against a No Lynch. If he didn't read the thread, he didn't read the thread. It ain't a big deal. And if he's bad and he did read the thread, what could he possibly have to gain by trying to sway the town in favor of a No Lynch when clearly no one would support him? I'm more suspicious of those that are looking at his No Lynch post as an opportunity.

And Wilgy, Choutas' No Lynch vote is unexplained. And he's no stranger to the game. That's something to raise an eyebrow to indeed...that is until he changed it to Tranq. I think it was just a placeholder since his initial vote was rendered moot and he had no other pings at the time. I believe you're response and that you weren't trying to start a wagon so I'll switch my vote to the most opportunistic of the Luke voters, bcornett. I don't buy bcornett's reasoning at all.

bcornett24
So here's the thing about Zebra, how can a civilian "believe" something in this kind of gamestate?

What does this even mean? Even in the earliest stages of the game you either believe someone is genuine or you believe they are not. It's literally impossible for a civilian not to believe something in a Mafia game unless they obtain the information that allows them to leap from belief to knowledge.

DrWilgy wrote:"Choutas' No Lynch vote being unexplained" feels as if he's trying to buddy up on me, while distancing from Choutas while not committing to it. Why not implore Choutas?

What do you mean implore Choutas? I called him out and displayed my reasoning for not being convinced that what he did was scum-motivated, did you want me to put it in larger font or something?

HEY CHOUTAS WHAT'S UP WITH YOUR TEMPORARY NO LYNCH VOTE OH WAIT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN THAT YOU PRETTY CLEARLY WEREN'T INTENDING TO END THE DAY WITH IT AND COULDN'T THINK OF ANYONE ELSE TO VOTE FOR OK BYE

DrWilgy wrote:Also, he had gone in on me seeing me as opportunistic.

Indeed. Wait, I thought I was trying to buddy up on you? You can't lose sight of a deceitful narrative mid-case Wilgy every scum knows that!

DrWilgy wrote:Don't the concept of thinking I was opportunistic and then "believing" in me contradict one another?

Here's an idea. Maybe, as a civilian, I don't know for sure whether you are town or scum, so if I happen to change my opinion of you (and back again) it's part of a natural development of my scumhunting process that I apply to every other player in the game as well? For example, I currently have a scum read of both you and MM. But given that I don't see the sparring between you two on this page as staged, I'm more certain that I'm wrong about at least one of you then I am on my reads of either of you individually. So now my process is deciding which one of you (if not both) I am mistaken about. Hence me believing that you are being truthful with some posts but not others. Performances can be convincing, you know.

DrWilgy wrote:Also looking at the votes from earlier to now:
[img]nope[/img]
[img]me%20no%20spam%20in%20quotes[/img]
All 3 of my suspected mafia list were spread out, quite safely, if I had to be a judge, and now one of them had moved over to the second highest wagon, that probably won't take off at the rate that it's going. Is it so they look good not being on a possible civvy mislynch? maybe.

Well unfortunately this particular argument has now been proven not to apply to me, being on the bcornett wagon and all.[/quote]

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I admit to not be concerned with getting lynched based on the merit of your arguments.
And why is you getting lynched based on the merit of my arguments your priority?
Who said it was my priority?
If you not getting lynched isn't your priority, and discussion isn't your priority, what is?

Who said discussion isn't my priority?

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I admit to not be concerned with getting lynched based on the merit of your arguments.
And why is you getting lynched based on the merit of my arguments your priority?

Who said it was my priority?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I don't disagree with your reasoning MM, it just seems disingenuous to single her out the way you did. It seems like that post had some sort of ulterior motive.
Why does it seem like that?

Linki: I don't speak Russian.

Partly because you didn't explain the reasoning when you made the original statement, partly because it seemed out-of-place for a statement to be as confident as yours was amidst your other posts that implied that you weren't feeling too strongly about anything in particular, and partly because it presents a certain amount of WIFOM in the context of FZ dying shortly afterwards.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?
Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.
Oh I see, if I ignore your case, then everyone else will too.

It's not up to you or me to decide if my case has merit. Town decided yesterday that Wilgy's case against me was not enough for a "CFD" and perhaps they will do the same for my case against you. bea thinks I might be on to something but that could be partly because of her current state.

bea wrote:I think in my hot toddy and cough syrup induced haze I agree with zeeb's points about marshynewt.

Oh god, I need my soup to be done so I can go to bed!!
The rest of it is starting to read like Russian to me.

That's because the rest of it might as well be Russian, unless of course you speak Russian.

I don't disagree with your reasoning MM, it just seems disingenuous to single her out the way you did. It seems like that post had some sort of ulterior motive.

I admit to not be concerned with getting lynched based on the merit of your arguments.

DrWilgy wrote:Wait a second. Zebra, are you saying that you read the thread, read that I proposed a CFD, didn't know what it ment, read that Tranq had to google search it, didn't google search it yourself in the 24 hours we had between phases, and are just now concerned with what a CFD is, when it involves you?

Correct. Your case against me was that unconvincing. I didn't even care enough to respond to it and also didn't care enough to worry about whatever a CFD is to know that if it meant any kind of trouble for me and it was your suggestion to the rest of town, it wasn't going to happen.

DrWilgy wrote: Zebra are you suggesting that I am confident in not getting lynched? You are mistaken. The chances of me getting lynched seems to be increasing rapidly the more I discuss. That's kinda how the game works. Mafia generally want to halt civ evolution and adaptation, and that can be done most optimally through the killing of heavy speakers. If there's a chance to mislynch me for what I say, I have no doubt they won't take it. How is it bad for me to state that the game entered hard mode? Cop is our go to role. It devastates our chances of winning since he was hit.

Thanks, but that wasn't what I was suggesting. I assumed that wasn't a rhetorical question at first but then you proceeded to explain why the answer to it that I hadn't given yet was incorrect.

It isn't bad by itself for you to state that the game is in hard mode, what's bad is that it contradicts with everything else you've posted. You don't seem like your chances of winning have been devastated; perhaps because as mafia, they haven't been.

This is your first post game that hints at any sort of legitimate suspicion towards anyone. You helped to elaborate on why "No Lynch" is a problem and what LyLo means, but this is your first post that could contribute to scumhunting:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Matt F wrote:But bea, Luke also played LC's game.
Hi Matt, feeling lonely? You don't have any votes.

The problem isn't that you were posting a lot with little scumhunting content, (otherwise I'd be a blatant hypocrite) the problem is that your implied suspicion of Matt F is unexplained. Personally I'm not a fan of unexplained suspicions and I don't think anyone should be.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:MM, have you marked any players as "not voting for?" yet?
No. Well actually yes now, I'm not voting for FZ.

Recruitment was actually the first time I used that strategy (and tbh, it was for the lulz). It would be easier work to narrow the field in a small game like this, but probably not the best strategy.

I've mentioned this already. At the time you didn't specify why you were so confident that FZ was civilian. This post seemed to exist only to make it clear that you were sure she was one.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
bcornett24 wrote:
Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting no lynch for the moment, might change later
I think this needs to change, no day one votes is a horrible idea Luke11646
Bcornett is getting his wish.

Any thoughts on bcornett? Nope. Just observing a mislynch in action, not swaying it one way or another but still providing comments that are just tangible enough to avoid accusations of lurking and just useless enough to not provide any content to analyze. This post is a good example of the majority of your actions so far, or lack thereof.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'll join you on Tranq

Again, I'm more weary of posters that avoid lurking while also avoiding explanation of their actions than I am of actual lurkers. It seems like you're just going through the motions of do this do that blend in etc. etc. If you want to change my mind you should post more original thoughts, ideas, and opinions. So far the only insight you have offered has been unexplained, that is unless you are provoked to explain it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:MM, have you marked any players as "not voting for?" yet?
No. Well actually yes now, I'm not voting for FZ.

Recruitment was actually the first time I used that strategy (and tbh, it was for the lulz). It would be easier work to narrow the field in a small game like this, but probably not the best strategy.
Why not, Marsh?
Because she confused Boomslang and Bullzeye. I saw that as a sign of a civ.

But look, you are sympathetic to the civilians and angry at the Mafia, so there's no way you could be one of them yourself:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:The mafia are jerks. FZ can't rolecheck them if she's dead.

And finally...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:No, I'm a vanilla civ.

How did you come up with that quote so quickly after the day began?

I looked back in the page for content related to FZ. Your post stood out.

Search found 75 matches