The Syndicate

NIGHT 5

Matt F saves the day! He redirects TheFloyd73's target from himself (unknowingly) to JJJ, who survived the NK.
Interestingly, Russtifinko is the player selected by the ACEOs for "Radio Head".

bcornett24 wrote:Meh I've been so busy last two days, I haven't had time to look this over, just remembered come back 12 pages of 50 posts to read, is not happening.

DrWilgy wrote:Bcornett, you were 1 of 2 who said BR was good in our gth. Why did you think this?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Choutas wrote:Question to all. Who do you think both the SK and the scum targeted?

Ricochet is my primary guess.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Matt F wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Floyd has been going through some shit. Let him figure out the game and learn how to play before you make him regret playing dude.

So you believe I should let him be?

Oh shit, I just came out from the clouds again. Sorry bro.

Anyway, I'm out for a few hours. I may check the thread out when I get home, if not, see ya all tomorrow!

Defensive when no need to be.

He's barely played on the first four days and making votes is about the easiest thing to imitate. He might be scum, but it'd be impossible to tell. Your reasons for thinking so are based on your own meta.

We should lynch sorsha today based on the fact that sorsha got unlynched yesterday and golden (who is basically confirmed town) was the other candidate along with rico who is apparently unlynchable today.

Sorsha is my vote.

What and Why?

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Nothing has happened to unmake her a scum but all other candidates from yesterday look town ergo I am inclined to believe she was saved by le scum making her mega scum like a megazord.

What does this even mean?

If I recall correctly, you disagreed with some of the reasons people wanted a Sorsha lynch.

Here:

Spoiler: show

MacDougall wrote:

Matt F wrote:

MacDougall wrote:No. It was gun to head. I did the same with Matt F. I have no overwhelming thought on him. He made me tingle once. Nowhere near some others. It's not worthy of consideration and you look bad to me for trying to dwell on something so pointless.

And this is why I usually read the thread first. Still reading, btw, but since I stopped for his last post, might as well stop for this one.

If you remember what it was that made you tingle, lemme know.

Alright. The post that caught my eye first was this one.

Matt F wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:Everything about the bcornett bandwagon screams easy mislynch, further cementing the civilians' loss in this game, days and days before the slow brutal end. I don't want to participate in a game that's as one-sided as that, do you? Vote JJJ, so we'll have one mislynch for one baddie lynch.

You may not be bad, but you're not pro-civilian.

wow. this. putting my vote on rbz for now.

Despite him proclaiming me def town, I don't have a read on RBZ.

However, if you agree with Epig that rbz is not bad but pro town, then why vote for rbz? You're still voting for someone you think is civvie.

Sorsha, what do you think of Eloh's vote for RBZ?

Here you made a point of reminding the thread that someone has you as a def town read. You are speaking as though it's normal that if someone has a pro town read on a player that the player returns the favour. That's not normal and it doesn't need to be said. It's weird that you would even bother qualifying the post with the aforementioned, but not a huge tell. It did catch my eye but until now I haven't had a chance to look at you in detail.

Until you started to receive some attention you appeared to be struggling to produce content and tried to force it out by discussing game mechanics. Strange, especially for someone who according to yourself is known for posting lots and lots in a game. Your entire page 2 ISO are posts of this nature. I would have thought, and this might be website differences, that a volume posting townie would be accusing all and sundry at that point rather than dwelling on game mechanics.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 1&start=40

You had a couple of people post mild suspicions of you and I sensed relief that you had an excuse to post. For someone who I can already see is a good player, struggling to scum hunt would be unusual for you as town, but would be an explanation for struggling to post if you were scum.

Matt F wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I feel like Matt is stretching with trying to find links where there are none and he's still on day 0 when everyone else is on day 2 so yeah... I can see that.

Everyone else, huh?

I suppose reywas coming in the thread to say "hello" means he's on Day 2, huh? Or TheFloyd, who has hardly said two words, if that, he must also be on Day 2?

As for me stretching it, again, I ask you, is Elohcin also stretching it by agreeing with my idea on you, or is still just me?

I don't like your reason for voting sorsha, but I particularly don't like that sorsha seems to be your big go to and your other scum hunt efforts are very low effort and not elaborated on in great detail despite you saying you would. Certainly sorsha accusing you of being the only player stuck on day 0 is disingenuous but it could just as easily be her using hyperbole as an excited townie thinking she's nabbed a scum. Her read is much the same as what I've discovered above in your ISO.

Actually on further thought when she said you were "stuck on day 0" did she not mean that your attention was on day 0? How does mentioning reywaS posting "hello" dispute the fact that your posts were all about day 0 up until that point? Hmmm... And this is your reason for starting your big tunnel job?

I think you've either misunderstood her or intentionally twisted her words. Which is it?

Most of your other major contributions occur when someone levels suspicion on you. You come out of the aethyr to respond, much like you have just now.

Discussing game mechanics early game to get post count up.
Tunneling a player who showed suspicion of you but made a faux pas in the process and despite a promise of more scum hunting...
You come out of the clouds to respond when someone mentions you in a negative light.

Pretty big scum tells.

Then there's this.

Matt F wrote:Russ looks completely anti-Mafia to me now. He might be SK (er...apologies to whoever doesn't like talking about the SK...?), but consider this...

Russ made the 8th and final vote for Long Con, and was rather late with it.

Then, Long Con was forced to use his "x3 vote" on bcornett just to TIE with bcornett. I very seriously doubt Russ would make that vote if Long Con was his teamie. He could've easily avoided it by voting bcornett or Llama.

Anywho, right now I believe Sorsha is a baddie.

Sorsha wrote: Of course he, as mafia, would try to associate with or otherwise make a civ look guilty.

^--Talkin' about Long Con and her.

What's funny about this, is when I mentioned how Sorsha maybe voted with Eloh in Day 0 all three times to make Elohcin look guilty in the case that Sorsha was lynched and flipped baddie...Sorsha said how ridiculous I was.

But now, you do believe it's possible that members of the Mafia try to associate with civs to make them look guilty?

Linki

I like Golden, heck he even voted me CEO (thanks G!), however, after seeing Russ' very late vote for Long Con, I see Golden switched his vote to bcornett before the poll ended.

Golden - What are your thoughts on Sorsha? Do you think we should lynch her today?

Also, I had a slight ping on espers, but I'll write out a new post for that one. What's everyone else think of espers?

I don't think so. If Long Con's teammates were resigned to his lynching that would be a decent vote to make. I mean, if you're town you just justified him doing so!

I will say that if sorsha is lynched and flips scum it would be extremely unlike you're bussing her.

If she is lynched and flips town... well it won't condemn you. But it will make you look like a dick at least, scum at worst.

Can you please elaborate on some of the other scum pings you've had. I'd like to see you put some effort into other players before the end of this day. After analysing you further you've got me mighty worried.

I welcome the input of others here... Especially on the bolded part.

So you think that the case is wrong? But you vote for her immediately today?

But:

Spoiler: show

MacDougall wrote:I'm split on sorsha and golden as lynch candidates. Golden has been the scummiest player today, which is why I want him lynched but sorsha has been not really better and I'm keen to see sorsha flip so I can develop more of a MattF read. To me sorsha being scum is slightly less likely mathematically due to the fact that Matt is slightly more likely than I thought and I think it's incredibly unlikely that they are on a scum team.

Does anybody else have any theories that could develop from a lynch of one of these two?

linki: I recall one time getting lynched by town because scum Equus made a post that was a flow chart of probabilities that led to me being scum in the majority of cases. We lost the game because she got me lynched. If you are genuinely telling me that "colours and probabilities" are enough for you to say that DrWilgy is a strong town read and that's the towniest post in the game. I might as well just not bother posting actual cases and just make up wifom bullshit about people I have gut scum reads on.

I wouldn't say most look good. But wifom aside, there aren't many players who have outright been suspicious to me. Evidently there are six. Being that I'm awesome it's probably the entire scum team.

I assume you mean that my town and scum games are identical? *sigh* Dude that's wifom. We need to focus on actual cases and inconsistencies like the part where MattF has actually completely misconstrued (or misrepresented) a valid point sorsha raised about him and tunneled her the entire time since. Using wifom and meta in my experience is anti-town. Either townies making cases based on nothing that fluke lynch scum but more often result in lynching townies or scum making up reason to push suspicion onto townies.

looks like a Sorsha defense to me.

Doesn't these highlights contradict each other? You say you want more information for your read of Matt F, but you previously stated that the only thing you would get out of it was a Matt F clear. Is that your goal for voting Sorsha today? A Matt F clear?

Don't make no sense, no no no...

Wilgy runs over to Fuzz. Tackles him and shows him affection of all sorts. "It's not gay if we have a good laugh." Fuzz thinks to himself. What he doesn't expect, is that Wilgy is harvesting his DNA behind his back!

Fuzz, you read me better than anyone else here. What do you think of me currently. I noticed your intrigue in Bcornett's suspicion.

DrWilgy wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:I'm not sure, myself. You play strangely on Syndicate, I'm only used to your JTM (and Avalon) antics.

bcornett, can you elaborate on why you put Wilgy in "probably scum"?

Thought you would say that. Regardless of your alignment, you know I play better with you pushing me. Don't let me miss those techs and punishes Fuzz.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Sorsha's play being scum is well documented, you only have to look at her recent posts to get a sense of posting nervously as scum playing poorly with a lynch on them tend to do.

DrWilgy... Are you tunneling me because I said you were scum in that Jimmy's game? Oh my God, u suck brah.

Not tunneling, just asking and pointing out things of importance. Luv ya bruh <3

Ok then, lets set up a chain of events, based on Sorsha crumbs.

When Sorsha flips baddie, who would you vote the following day?

When Sorsha flips civ, who would you vote the following day?

Generating rainbow lists for both if Sorsha is bad or civ would be a good thing as well... Maybe abit much to ask for though.

Bcornett are you bad?

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Browsing over posts right now, I have a bit to do after I complete my second job today.

Mafia to do list:

• In-depth analysis of devin the omniscient
• In-depth analysis of Mac
• Bullzeye post review
• Elo post review
• Espers post review

If I missed anything or somebody has some questions please let me know.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!


I just lost my shit. I actually screamed when I read this.

Someone cool me down! Im seeing red!!

DrWilgy wrote:JJJ is probably scum. Only 55% sure though.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:How did missing your night kill make you feel?

Mac, how sure of this are you?

Floyd, Fuzz, or Matt, did epi miss a night kill?

DrWilgy wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:I think Wilgy is dirtier than Mac. My preference would be to lynch the player I am most confident in being scum. In addition, Mac is a strange individual that I am unfamiliar with, while I've known Wilgy for years. Speaking for myself, I'd rather lynch Wilgy, because he's aware of the responsibility to play correctly that all civilians have. He hasn't been contributing what he should be contributing as a townie if he is one, and that leads me to believe that he's not. The Mac lynch is more complex, both the case and the player (to me), so I'd rather take the action that I believe to be more correct with the information I have available to me.

Lol explain this responsibility Fuzz. Obviously I'm incorrect somewhere.

Also, you seem to be obsessing with me, while only looking at my interactions with you. Do you have anything to say about my interactions with, bcornett, or mac?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Let's talk about Dr. Wilgy then.

By all means, let's talk about me! Why does someone else need to lead the discussion though?

And your refusal to answer questions excuse is pucky, my question was asked 1 week ago, and you didnt answer till yesterday. I made it very clear for about 3 days that you missed it, and gave you multiple chances to go back and answer it.

When I quoted my own question, you stated something on the lines of "why are we back at sorsha?" If we are "back" at sorsha, how can catching up be relevant? It's clear you had already read through when the question was asked, yet you still blame the size and speed of this game for not responding.

Who said somebody else is leading it i already have a draft saved I am on mobile right now. I will continue when I get home in an hour or so. I can't manage the copy paste work from mobile.

Quote me a place in which I have refused to answer questions. I would love to see this.

Here is the question series I think you are referencing I quoted them along with my responses.

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Hey bcornett, feel like answerin my question now?

What was your question? Remind me please.

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Sorsha's play being scum is well documented, you only have to look at her recent posts to get a sense of posting nervously as scum playing poorly with a lynch on them tend to do.

DrWilgy... Are you tunneling me because I said you were scum in that Jimmy's game? Oh my God, u suck brah.

Not tunneling, just asking and pointing out things of importance. Luv ya bruh <3

Ok then, lets set up a chain of events, based on Sorsha crumbs.

When Sorsha flips baddie, who would you vote the following day?

When Sorsha flips civ, who would you vote the following day?

Generating rainbow lists for both if Sorsha is bad or civ would be a good thing as well... Maybe abit much to ask for though.

Bcornett are you bad?

Why are we back to sorsha, or is this just part of the quote and you randomly asked me if i was bad after?

No I'm not bad are you?

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Why are we back to sorsha, or is this just part of the quote and you randomly asked me if i was bad after?

No I'm not bad are you?

I am not. Why did it take you so long to respond even though I was listed as a sketchy sketch on your rainbow list?

What are your thoughts on what Fuzz said about me?

Because life is exhausting and shitty at times.

Once again I am way behind ~30 pages, if you want my thoughts on specific things please include them in the question otherwise Im digging through thirty pages Im already currently trying to catch up on to read an exchange.

If you want a detailed answer ask a question that provokes a response that is more than one word, this is not a yes no questioare. When I asked you to quote your question that is the response you gave me. If there was something more pressing or another questions please ask. But don't give me shit about not answering questions when you asked me if I'm bad.

The bit about sorta appeared to be addressed to Mac unless I'm mistaken.

• Good Looks
• Case Against Long Cong
• Case for sorsha
• Case against Mac
• Good points appears to be scum hunting
  
  Neutral Looks
• Little night participation
• Little content to look at
  
  Bad Looks
• Potential lacking of content/fluff

bcornett24 wrote:DrWilgy Analysis

I am looking for anything that I find to be suspicious or that I may need to reply to; hopefully something juicy.
Content is snipped slightly, I will not be pulling anything out of context, DrWilgy replies in blocks to multiple people and it is very hard to make this readable without some snipping. If you have concerns about the content please ask.

Day 0

Role playing

Day 1

Comments on a few posts, apologizes for being mostly inactive.

Day 2

Diiny wrote:Out of all the BWT votes I think Wilgy's is one of the worst. Guy's a scum lean for me, now. Basing a vote on day 0 shit and sticking with it and not grappling with anything else for the rest of the day is bad stuff in my book.

DrWilgy wrote:Sounds pretty normal to me. I wasn't here. I specifically addressed how I play earlier, and those who I played recruitment with at least know a little bit about how I play. If you would like a recap of that game from my perspective I'd gladly give one.

I Think he makes a fair point here it is kind of hard to base votes on anything if you haven't been around, based on the content. or lack-there-of for days 1 and 2 I think this is fine even if not the best.

DrWilgy wrote:Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Long Con wrote:

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

Makes a good point highlighting some points on long cons vote for bea agreeing with others assessments.

DrWilgy wrote:Now that I've gone and looked like a dummy...

ACTUAL Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Long Con wrote:

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

1. This is the problem. I believe it wasn't that hard for you to find relevant posts by bea, because I suspect you really did see those posts on first review and perceive a reason to bring them up -- either as a genuine expression of suspicion (now doubtful given your current stance), or as a means of unjustly smearing a Day 1 target. If I follow your posts during the incident in question and try to formulate a perspective of your mindset, I find it much easier to believe that you truly did invest yourself in an anti-bea agenda for whatever reason and expanded on your misgivings when so prompted than you made it up as a gambit to expose bandwagoners.

If you find it easy to believe, then good. It was supposed to be believable. I wasn't planning on "expanding on my misgivings" so much, but I got questioned hard (by you if I recall correctly), so I shrugged and gave it the ol' college try, bringing up bea's posts and going through them one by one to find scraps that would support my "case". You both led my posts in that direction, and then followed them now. My posts weren't made in isolation; they were prompted by you yourself. Don't ask for something and then bring it up a day later that I provided what you asked for as suspicious.

2. Do you have any other thoughts at all about the people who interacted with you relative to your stated suspicion of bea? That is: anyone who expressed faith in bea, doubt in your case, or suspicion of you for your case?

I'd like to know bea's alignment before jumping to any conclusions about those people. Any pings or nods in that direction would be tenuous at best for now.

3. It appears a convenient explanation because you were drawing heat from multiple players specifically for your treamtent of bea. To suggest that the very conduct that was getting you in trouble was actually some manner of test is inherently convenient. That doesn't imply that you must be lying, but I think it's fair to think you might have been lying given the context I'm pointing to now.

I have never been afraid to draw heat. Most games, I'm more than happy to draw just the right amount of heat in order to stay alive on those cold, murderous nights.

In fact, I'm going to revisit the entire scenario and illustrate what my doubts are:

This is a specific accusation of bea which can be supported, whether it's correct or not, with content in her post history. This was the first expressed suspicion of bea to my knowledge by anyone in the thread. Given your current explanation, I am forced to observe this post through two lenses and decide which one is more believable:

1. Long Con was not suspicious of bea at all, and placed this post here with supportable assertions against her and a vote as a tactic to expose anyone who might follow his lead.

2. Long Con was genuinely suspicious of bea and stated his genuine misgivings.

3. Long Con was not suspicious of bea, but claimed to be with supportable assertions because he stood to gain from the appearance of his mafia hunting and the resulting pressure on bea.

You've taken away #2. We cannot work on that assumption anymore. When I compare #1 with #3 while looking at the post you made, #3 speaks to me more. I don't see a test. I see a real move against bea. I think the hangup here is that your initial points against bea were valid (not necessarily indicative of her alignment, but valid). I have my doubts that you brought attention to real, verifiable content in bea's posts which can validly be called suspicious independent of meta without wholly intending the resulting pressure to land on bea herself.

I am not suspicious of bea. That doesn't mean she's not a baddie. I don't think that her actions on Day 1 constitute enough evidence to conclusively say she's bad, like I did. But she might be! Maybe it will turn out that my "case" was exactly right and now we have a scum tell for bea that we can carry through the ages. I didn't make any attempts to prevent some pressure landing on bea, and I wouldn't try to prevent it in hindsight. From my perspective, that's a good side effect. You of all people should be able to appreciate some added pressure on a player.

Now, I saw that others had addressed this fact, but here are my highlights (follow the colors and underlined).
I feel that this is a good example as to why I believe this is well... unbelievable. The fact that Long Con saw the Roxy + Bea (and other players) correlation and pointed them out, but somehow isn't suspicious of bea bothers me immensely. It feels like a contradiction in logic, at least civ logic. Civ logic would've meant that upon making this statement, there was some momentum to be gained towards finding the solution, regardless if it was a "false case" or not. Plus I don't understand how you can see that create a "false case" and not walk away with any suspicion towards the person unless you knew their alignment. I'm suspicious of everyone, all civ thinking players should be. Some more than others, sure, but not suspicious at all?

This is a contridiction, unless something between these two posts convinced you that she wasn't suspicious.

This doesn't make sense either. If you were looking for a scumslip why did you let up pressure? Also, why list so many routes? why list so many goals? why look for Civvie accolades? It was simple, you were looking for day one intel (if you are civ). These goals feel forced.

This line bothers me. It feels like LC is saying, If I look scum, it's because I'm totally not scum, I just look scum because I like to. Also, doesn't this contradict the "most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful" line? It continues the question why let the pressure off of bea

A proper sum of my thoughts on LC can be described in one word: "Why" There's too much senselessness in this whole charade, and I don't see what was gained out of it by the time of the "teehee it was all fake" reveal.

Now, I'm not done with LC yet, but I wanted to get this part to you so you can at least see my efforts.

Cases Long Con, which looks pretty good for Dr

Day 3

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy scratches his head... papers are thrown everywere... "I don't get it!" he exclaims... there's too much info to process... It may be impossible...

I've been looking over the final vote tally, taking into account everyone this time. In doing so, I realized that Long Con was not put into a state of possible death UNTIL Russ's vote. I'm no longer feeling the Sorsha vote, and will post my work and change my vote as soon as it's compiled correctly.

also strictly based on my grand analysis, the most civvie players are russ and golden. The only situations where this is wrong are:

• 1. Bcornett is not Civ.
  2. Next level mind games, like 10 steps ahead mind games.

Backs off of voting for sorhsa, I am not sure if hi vote actually followed this as Dr does not highlight has vote in the forum, or has not thus far.

Russtifinko wrote:Floyd, I see you're in thread. Any thoughts on the events of recent days? You nearly got lynched but didn't; what do you think of your voters? JJJ? The last-minute seaside lynch?

And bcornett, I can already tell that post will be real long. Please be so kind as to include a tl;dr when you're done.

Diiny wrote:Out of all the BWT votes I think Wilgy's is one of the worst. Guy's a scum lean for me, now. Basing a vote on day 0 shit and sticking with it and not grappling with anything else for the rest of the day is bad stuff in my book.

DrWilgy wrote:Sounds pretty normal to me. I wasn't here. I specifically addressed how I play earlier, and those who I played recruitment with at least know a little bit about how I play. If you would like a recap of that game from my perspective I'd gladly give one.

DrWilgy wrote:Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Long Con wrote:

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

DrWilgy wrote:Now that I've gone and looked like a dummy...

ACTUAL Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Long Con wrote:

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

1. This is the problem. I believe it wasn't that hard for you to find relevant posts by bea, because I suspect you really did see those posts on first review and perceive a reason to bring them up -- either as a genuine expression of suspicion (now doubtful given your current stance), or as a means of unjustly smearing a Day 1 target. If I follow your posts during the incident in question and try to formulate a perspective of your mindset, I find it much easier to believe that you truly did invest yourself in an anti-bea agenda for whatever reason and expanded on your misgivings when so prompted than you made it up as a gambit to expose bandwagoners.

If you find it easy to believe, then good. It was supposed to be believable. I wasn't planning on "expanding on my misgivings" so much, but I got questioned hard (by you if I recall correctly), so I shrugged and gave it the ol' college try, bringing up bea's posts and going through them one by one to find scraps that would support my "case". You both led my posts in that direction, and then followed them now. My posts weren't made in isolation; they were prompted by you yourself. Don't ask for something and then bring it up a day later that I provided what you asked for as suspicious.

2. Do you have any other thoughts at all about the people who interacted with you relative to your stated suspicion of bea? That is: anyone who expressed faith in bea, doubt in your case, or suspicion of you for your case?

I'd like to know bea's alignment before jumping to any conclusions about those people. Any pings or nods in that direction would be tenuous at best for now.

3. It appears a convenient explanation because you were drawing heat from multiple players specifically for your treamtent of bea. To suggest that the very conduct that was getting you in trouble was actually some manner of test is inherently convenient. That doesn't imply that you must be lying, but I think it's fair to think you might have been lying given the context I'm pointing to now.

I have never been afraid to draw heat. Most games, I'm more than happy to draw just the right amount of heat in order to stay alive on those cold, murderous nights.

In fact, I'm going to revisit the entire scenario and illustrate what my doubts are:

This is a specific accusation of bea which can be supported, whether it's correct or not, with content in her post history. This was the first expressed suspicion of bea to my knowledge by anyone in the thread. Given your current explanation, I am forced to observe this post through two lenses and decide which one is more believable:

1. Long Con was not suspicious of bea at all, and placed this post here with supportable assertions against her and a vote as a tactic to expose anyone who might follow his lead.

2. Long Con was genuinely suspicious of bea and stated his genuine misgivings.

3. Long Con was not suspicious of bea, but claimed to be with supportable assertions because he stood to gain from the appearance of his mafia hunting and the resulting pressure on bea.

You've taken away #2. We cannot work on that assumption anymore. When I compare #1 with #3 while looking at the post you made, #3 speaks to me more. I don't see a test. I see a real move against bea. I think the hangup here is that your initial points against bea were valid (not necessarily indicative of her alignment, but valid). I have my doubts that you brought attention to real, verifiable content in bea's posts which can validly be called suspicious independent of meta without wholly intending the resulting pressure to land on bea herself.

I am not suspicious of bea. That doesn't mean she's not a baddie. I don't think that her actions on Day 1 constitute enough evidence to conclusively say she's bad, like I did. But she might be! Maybe it will turn out that my "case" was exactly right and now we have a scum tell for bea that we can carry through the ages. I didn't make any attempts to prevent some pressure landing on bea, and I wouldn't try to prevent it in hindsight. From my perspective, that's a good side effect. You of all people should be able to appreciate some added pressure on a player.

Now, I saw that others had addressed this fact, but here are my highlights (follow the colors and underlined).
I feel that this is a good example as to why I believe this is well... unbelievable. The fact that Long Con saw the Roxy + Bea (and other players) correlation and pointed them out, but somehow isn't suspicious of bea bothers me immensely. It feels like a contradiction in logic, at least civ logic. Civ logic would've meant that upon making this statement, there was some momentum to be gained towards finding the solution, regardless if it was a "false case" or not. Plus I don't understand how you can see that create a "false case" and not walk away with any suspicion towards the person unless you knew their alignment. I'm suspicious of everyone, all civ thinking players should be. Some more than others, sure, but not suspicious at all?

This is a contridiction, unless something between these two posts convinced you that she wasn't suspicious.

This doesn't make sense either. If you were looking for a scumslip why did you let up pressure? Also, why list so many routes? why list so many goals? why look for Civvie accolades? It was simple, you were looking for day one intel (if you are civ). These goals feel forced.

This line bothers me. It feels like LC is saying, If I look scum, it's because I'm totally not scum, I just look scum because I like to. Also, doesn't this contradict the "most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful" line? It continues the question why let the pressure off of bea

A proper sum of my thoughts on LC can be described in one word: "Why" There's too much senselessness in this whole charade, and I don't see what was gained out of it by the time of the "teehee it was all fake" reveal.

Now, I'm not done with LC yet, but I wanted to get this part to you so you can at least see my efforts.

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy scratches his head... papers are thrown everywere... "I don't get it!" he exclaims... there's too much info to process... It may be impossible...

I've been looking over the final vote tally, taking into account everyone this time. In doing so, I realized that Long Con was not put into a state of possible death UNTIL Russ's vote. I'm no longer feeling the Sorsha vote, and will post my work and change my vote as soon as it's compiled correctly.

also strictly based on my grand analysis, the most civvie players are russ and golden. The only situations where this is wrong are:

• 1. Bcornett is not Civ.
  2. Next level mind games, like 10 steps ahead mind games.

bcornett24 wrote:

motel room wrote:So one of the three players he's been going on about (espers, jjj, diiny) have vote manipulation powers? I don't get why he was so adamant there was a scum in there and he never bothered to explain. Are there no town vote manipulation roles?

Well if that's true then there are only 2 possibilities left being jjj and diiny as espers obviously had no such powers.

Reviewing roles.

motel room wrote:So one of the three players he's been going on about (espers, jjj, diiny) have vote manipulation powers? I don't get why he was so adamant there was a scum in there and he never bothered to explain. Are there no town vote manipulation roles?

Diiny wrote:

sig wrote:I'm having doubt about this lynch, if JJJ was mafia why would he continue to make these posts? These seem time consuming for a caught mafia, but likely something a civ would do. Thoughts on this?

To invoke reactions like this, dude

Russtifinko wrote:

motel room wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

motel room wrote:I'm happy to see JJJ lynched to remove the doubt but I think he did the same thing I did w/r/t mac.

motel room wrote:I actually feel like JJJ and Floyd will flip town.

Please esplain.

Which part? I wont be surprised if they were both town, but I'm not sold so hard as to defend them and they are both potential distractions now at this point and if not lynched now will probably ride on as lynch contenders until the end of the game is all.

To be more precise: esplain the part where you think JJJ will flip town, but you're happy to remove the doubt by lynching him. I recall Mac saying something very similar, I think about Sorsha. (Would quote, but have you seen that dude's post history?)

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

seaside wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Spoiler: show

So right now, we have this:

Long Con
8
Choutas (12), sig (16), seaside (17), DrWilgy (18), motel room (31), bcornett24 (32), JaggedJimmyJay (34), Russtifinko (35) 21%

++++

Diiny
6
sig (22), seaside (23), MacDougall (24), motel room (26), Choutas (27), JaggedJimmyJay (28)
21%

MacDougall
7
DrWilgy (4), Ricochet (10), Metalmarsh89 (11), Epignosis (15), Matt F (18), Elohcin (21), Russtifinko (25)
24%

++++

JaggedJimmyJay
6
Metalmarsh89 (3), Epignosis (7), seaside (9), TheFloyd73 (13), Elohcin (16), sig (23)
25%

TheFloyd73
5
Choutas (10), Strawhenge (18), Matt F (20), bcornett24 (21), Bullzeye (22)
21%

Takeaway the third:

seaside was the third vote for LC, and the second for Diiny. His reason for LC was "survival" (quotations appropriate). So with only two votes at the time (hours before the deadline), seaside puts his vote on LC. Earlier, he had voted rundontwalk, and also said this:

seaside wrote:I must admit, i have a pretty strong town read on mac atm. despite me calling him a rogue earlier.

Yep, that all looks bad to me.

Nice job at taking things outta context

What is the context?

I would like third parties to consider what context I am missing here, since seaside has thus far declined to provide one.

If I took it out of context, I would like to know so that I may make a more educated vote (and that will probably be 3J again).

If I didn't take it out of context, and seaside says I did, then he needs to be lynched.

Matt F wrote:Alright thanks for making the time to explain.

Just in case, I'm going to compare your rainbow read to your G2H and see if anything else looks interesting, but as of now, again thanks for making the time.

Matt F wrote:You said you were barely able to skim 30 pages. I went from "bad" to "green".

I'm getting real twitchy with my vote today.

Matt F wrote:bcornett

In the G2H exercise, you listed me as "bad", and yet I'm green on your rainbow read.

Explain.

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Let's talk about Dr. Wilgy then.

By all means, let's talk about me! Why does someone else need to lead the discussion though?

And your refusal to answer questions excuse is pucky, my question was asked 1 week ago, and you didnt answer till yesterday. I made it very clear for about 3 days that you missed it, and gave you multiple chances to go back and answer it.

When I quoted my own question, you stated something on the lines of "why are we back at sorsha?" If we are "back" at sorsha, how can catching up be relevant? It's clear you had already read through when the question was asked, yet you still blame the size and speed of this game for not responding.

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Hey bcornett, feel like answerin my question now?

What was your question? Remind me please.

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Sorsha's play being scum is well documented, you only have to look at her recent posts to get a sense of posting nervously as scum playing poorly with a lynch on them tend to do.

DrWilgy... Are you tunneling me because I said you were scum in that Jimmy's game? Oh my God, u suck brah.

Not tunneling, just asking and pointing out things of importance. Luv ya bruh <3

Ok then, lets set up a chain of events, based on Sorsha crumbs.

When Sorsha flips baddie, who would you vote the following day?

When Sorsha flips civ, who would you vote the following day?

Generating rainbow lists for both if Sorsha is bad or civ would be a good thing as well... Maybe abit much to ask for though.

Bcornett are you bad?

Why are we back to sorsha, or is this just part of the quote and you randomly asked me if i was bad after?

No I'm not bad are you?

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Why are we back to sorsha, or is this just part of the quote and you randomly asked me if i was bad after?

No I'm not bad are you?

I am not. Why did it take you so long to respond even though I was listed as a sketchy sketch on your rainbow list?

What are your thoughts on what Fuzz said about me?

Because life is exhausting and shitty at times.

Once again I am way behind ~30 pages, if you want my thoughts on specific things please include them in the question otherwise Im digging through thirty pages Im already currently trying to catch up on to read an exchange.

RadicalFuzz wrote:bcornett I think you're bad because you seem to have very selective question answering skills. Questions that have been asked for days, not just once or twice, are hard to miss.

The only thing that leaps to mind for J3 downplaying or avoiding evidence is his apparent inability to discuss Wilgy. If I recall correctly he made a post asking for a rundown of the suspicions against him and then hushed up about it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:That comparison to the Mungbean buddy-fest is a good one Diiny. I buddied him, a townie, because he trusted me snd I knew people would wrongly link him to me. Scum 101.

Now I'm getting a dose of my own medicine. In this game Mac is JJJ and JJJ is Mungbean.

TheFloyd73 wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:@Floyd - Any thoughts on the game?

I'm a bit down at the moment, I don't really want to discuss anything about the game at the moment.

bcornett24 wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Hi!

Are you scum!

TheFloyd73 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:It's been fun doing it to a whole bunch of new people sure. More fun that I envisioned it would be.

I play hostile and provocative for a reason and you know why I do it. Same as it ever was.

I don't have any issue with anybody having a scum read on me. That comes with the territory. I have issues with players who go along with half cocked cases without criticizing them first. I don't even fault Matt his case, after it all came out in the wash I can see where he got the idea from, despite there being a glaring hole or two.

I'm trying to convince the folks here that I'm not awful at Mafia and that sometimes it can be beneficial to trust me a little bit. Is my town read on you going to be the reason they never trust me again ever when this game is over?

If you're the townie that I think you are your read on me is good.

MacDougall wrote:You cracked the case guys. Jimmy has been publicly orchestrating town lynches on purpose while maintaining a vocal town read on a teammate and we both bussed Long Con on day 2 because he asked us to.

Or we are both townies who have a town read on each other and both had a scum read on a scum player.

And in a twist of fate you two are our teammates.

Epignosis wrote:At some point, bcornett24 needs to be held responsible for all the shitty lynches he's voted in early.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Dusk 0: rundontwalk (17) and Devin the Omniscient (16)
Day 1: birdwithteeth11 (14)
Day 2: Long Con (32)
Day 3: Golden (10)
Day 4: Devin the Omniscient (15)
Day 5: Devin the Omniscient (10)
Day 6: JaggedJimmyJay (7)

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Thanks.

Curious that I am almost a unanimous baddie read.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: