The Syndicate

DFaraday wrote:Both the Epi voters and the leetic voters are pinging me a bit, as I haven't seen any reason to suspect either of them. Although it's possible that Bea and Splints could be forced by Meredith.

What's more noticeable to me is the shift in attitude of the Day 1 Quin voters:

S~V~S wrote: I was out all weekend and had to read Quin in ISO; would it surprise you to hear that his output during the night period made me feel much better about him? Would it surprise you to hear that his vote made me feel even better?

DrumBeats wrote: Also would not surprise me to hear that the night made you feel better about Quin, I feel a bit better about him myself. The vote making you feel better surprises me a bit, but whatever floats your boat

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I know I definitely am not. We're less than 24 hours away from Day 2 ending, Quin's posts since after the Day 1 lynch have started to make me feel better about him, and I'm currently catching up and have zero suspicions on anyone. Although part of that may be because this is a very large game and most large games take me a bit longer to start to sink in and get more concrete ideas.
3 of the 4 Quin voters now feel good about him (DB even listed Quin as civ) with basically no reasoning for this shift beyond, "His posts made me feel better about him." BWT's especially strikes me as an easy way to springboard off of what the others said without offering any new thoughts on Quin. I'll be looking at these three for the remainder of the phase to see if anything else stands out to me.

I thought about this just as I was going to bed last night and intended to post about it. I can't help but feel nervous about this and I wonder if there's some baddie backpedalling going on.

bea wrote:You guys. I'm really sorry. 2 missed votes is unheard of from me. I got swamped at work on sat and never did make it back to try to vote day 1 and I honestly forgot that there was a very strong likelyhood that there would be a night poll, so yesterday, I spent the day napping and trying to not brain. I am the suck. I promise I will get better.

RIP wigglcreed and wabbit.
Welcome espers and JJ.

@ quinn - I know I don't have a lot of post history. I am indeed sorry about that. Like others, I'm having a bit of trouble finding my footing yet. This isn't unusual for me at all. Takes me a few cycles to get into the swing of things. I didn't initially answer wigly's question to me because I was at work and quickly phone posting and also because I honestly didn't understand why he singled me out in asking it. It was a weird request to me. My answer may have seemed like a non-answer to you but it is truthful. I do not find myself often an early target. Most people hit the power players with their powers post game. I remember one game where SVS got hit by literally every single power possible on N1. In this game she got a curse and wabbit got a NK. I'm not a power player, so I don't ever really think of myself as someone who would get targeted early in the game.

I think that JJ is reading like JJ - that makes me happy. I think INH definitely comes out looking worse than JJ in their back and forth. If I had a second vote, I'd use it on INH at this point in time.

As it is, I don't want to miss a 3rd vote in a row and be the most lame mafia player in all of existence. I'm voting leetic. I doubt that will change but I promise to do a much better job of following along and providing what little insite I can than I did last cycle.

I get you

I'm in the same position when it comes to finding my feet, which is actually abnormal for me. When you did respond to Wilgy I didn't perceive it as a non-answer, I just thought it was odd that you answered with information that I perceived as irrelevant to the question, when you mentioned things like who you thought would be targeted and your history as a baddie. I don't particularly feel pinged by you doing that but it was concerning at the time.

I agree with you about 3J. I only played with him in TW where he was on a sock the whole time, but I'm easily able to associate him now and him then.

linki: I know for sure that I'm awful at mafia, doesn't stop me from thinking I'm right all the time though.

LOVE ME!

Spoiler: show

These are Epignosis's initial interactions with Matt. I don't see anything particularly pingy about it, but it's clear he's putting the pressure on Matt from the get-go.

Spoiler: show

I think clung is a strong word for the post which I'm assuming Epi came to this conclusion from, which is:

Spoiler: show

If it appeared as though Matt was trying to force fingersplints as the most suspicious of the two over multiple posts, I could understand Epi's judgment. But really it just feels forced.

Spoiler: show

What I'm gathering from this is that he doesn't see a reason not to lynch me, but he's choosing not to because of the reasons that I had votes. Epi, did you vote Wilgy based entirely on your suspicions, or did you want to save me from being lynched?

Serge wrote:Let me get this straight, we can't roleplay?

Serge wrote:So the thing we voted on, Personnel won and now roles have been revealed? Why only townies? If we voted management would have that revealed the roles of the management? I seem to recall a post here wherein the management is a separate group.

Checking out!

Serge's only posts. I posted them just for the sake of having something to say. He didn't vote on Day 1, either. And that's all I have to say.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Post history links are necessary for my survival.

bea
birdwithteeth11
Bullzeye / JaggedJimmyJay
Cobalt / indiglo
DFaraday
DrumBeats
Elohcin
Enrique
Epignosis
fingersplints
Goldy / espers
insertnamehere
leetic
LoRab
Matt
Quin
Scotty
Serge
sig
Sorsha
Spacedaisy
S~V~S
timmer
Zeus

thank you so much. i thought i was going to have to go search for serge's posts.

Spoiler: show

bea wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
sig wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:UPDATED RANKINGS

bea +100 cuz she's nice
birdwithteeth11 -1 for showing up out of nowhere
Bullzeye -1 for being scum in my last game
Cobalt +5 because he has a cool name
DFaraday +3 because Jeremy Davies is an underrated actor
Drumbeats 0 drum is a mediocre instrument. I prefer the theremin
DrWilgy +7 for the Danganronpa references
Elohcin +2 because of cake
enrique -2 anyone with the letter q in their name is automatically untrustworthy
Epignosis +1 for disliking David Lynch's Dune
fingersplints 0 i'm really kind of neutral on Mindy Kaling. Wasn't a big fan of her show tbh
Goldy -1 for not being Golden
insertnamehere -10 why won't he reveal his real name? obv scum
leetic -5 hasn't posted an ISO yet, obv scum
LoRab -3 doesn't have a muppet avatar anymore
Matt -1 for reasons stated in a previous post
Quin -1 the letter q rule strikes again
rabbit8 -100 sneaky weaselly wabbit
Scotty -1000 Russell Hantz defender. Do I need to say more?
Serge +1 in apology for Attack on Titan
sig -1 for anime references
Sorsha -1 the three letters "sha" in connection with one another are very suspicious
Spacedaisy +100 cuz she's nice
SVS -5 tildes are the most scummy of symbols
timmer +5 reminds me of the band Timber Timbre
Zeus +100000000 he's the greek god of lightning and shit. I mean, come on!
Is this really necessary? Not only are you making fun of Matt, but you've done so twice now making big wall posts. When even if it is strange he is trying to game solve.

Scotty wrote:+10 points to Gryffindor!

Matt, you're the only one throwing around suspicions, and we're not even into Day 1 yet
I don't like this either, baddies have been caught or at least sniffed out on day 0. So why are you trying to silence Matt and cast suspicion on him.
So suspecting someone is trying to silence them? Where is your outrage for Matt trying to silence me, then (Not that I think he did such a thing, just making a comparison~ I don't think Matt or I are very likely to be silenced by the kind of remarks heard just yet)?

Matt do you think sig is suspect for defending you on Day Zero?
this right here is interesting...

bea chimes in on the Matt/Scotty/Sig/SVS interaction with this. There's no elaboration beyond 'interesting'. What exactly was interesting about what SVS just said? Though it should be said, that post IS interesting and I might have a lookover SVS's posts as well to really explain my thoughts.

Spoiler: show

Although I didn't really understand what Wilgy wanted when he asked me this question, I did intend to answer it. bea just straight up avoided the question.

Spoiler: show

It was a day (and a bunch of sort of fluff) later that she addressed Wilgy, but her answer encompassed so much more than the pretty simple question he asked her. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, myself.

I should add that I didn't say much about Scotty (and I won't say much about anyones) Day 0 vote actions, because baddies would be just as interested in that mechanic than civs would and so it's not particularly alignment indicative.

I'll do all three of them.

Someone give me another low-flier name to look into.

LoRab wrote:I can appreciate that.

Here's some stuff from Scotty that should be addressed.

Spoiler: show

It looks like he's inferring some degree of suspicion on Matt, but you can see he claims he didn't intend to in the next post. I get the vibe that Scotty really was suspicious of Matt here, but I don't think that's any more indicative of him being bad than it is him just trying to avoid being the Day 1 lynchee. He did develop a suspicion of Matt later on, however.

Spoiler: show

He's pointing the finger at people answering for Matt and he votes for Goldy based on inactivity. He voted an inactive in Turf Wars if I recall, so I don't see a problem in that, however his reasoning bugs me a little. If he's voting for the sake of having things make sense after Goldy flips, wouldn't he vote for someone that would result in making the most sense if they were lynched?

Spoiler: show

I thought I'd just make a note here that he was adamant but realistic in his interrogation of the claim I made earlier and I think that reflects well on him.

LoRab wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.
He earlier called me out for feigning ignorance as to the LD's limitations, and right now I'm kind of seeing the same thing here in that he's pretending not to realise he's wrong in the hopes he can latch onto the possibility of voting me later. Or maybe he's misinterpreting what Dom said. But I think it's the former.
Dom was clear. You are not understanding what Dom has said. I believe that you are feigning ignorance. I am not wrong--you are.

Having played in many, many games with LD's, I cannot even begin to comprehend why what you are claiming would begin to make sense. If I thought you were being accurate, I would probably quit the game because it wouldn't make sense in terms of game set up--but I trust that Dom hasn't changed the idea of an LD so much as to make it an entirely different role (which would be an interesting role, but isn't what an LD does or should be able to do).

Does anyone else who has ever played with an LD think that an LD can determine if a conjecture is correct or not, especially when posted in a list of conjectures listed for the explicit purpose of being checked?

Also, I'm female.

linkitis: I will link momentarily.

There is clearly a discrepancy between Dom's LD role and the ones you are used to.

If something is presented as fact. A claim. That is checkable.

This is all I need in order to prove that what I'm saying is correct, LoRab. What I presented was presented as fact.

I'm honestly not sure why I'm arguing this. It feels like such a moot point.

By the way, it doesn't appear as though we earned any new role descriptions by voting Sales last night.

DrumBeats wrote:So basically I was right. Cool.

New rule: We should all present everything as fact. Get rid of any "I think" or "Maybe" statements in order to allow everything we say to be checked by Pam.

@ linki Quin - you've given me worse reasons to push you than that, but INH is my current vote. You're a close second though, and LoRab is working his way up to third

@ linki LoRab - What are your thoughts on the following people? :

INH
3J
Scotty
Matt
Indiglo
birdwithteeth11

Since I've checked this morning INH has gone from a slight civ lean to a slight baddie lean. His back and forth with 3J didn't do a whole lot for my opinion, moreso it was the fact that his defense of me could easily have been feigned for the purposes of gaining civ cred.

I have a slight civ lean on 3J, mainly because he shares some of my concerns and he defended when it was not necessary to do so.

I haven't given enough attention to Scotty. I think I recall promising to look more deeply at Scotty, so I guess I'll have a look at him because he's flying pretty under the radar.

I've already given my opinions on Matt, but I would struggle to lean either way on him.

indiglo could be argued to be in the same position as INH, because INH's defence stemmed from indiglo. However, I'd put him as a civ lean because he also addressed SVS in the same post, so it didn't feel like I was his priority or that he had any agenda.

BWT is a baddie from my perspective. His vote for me was highly opportunistic and felt like an attempt to join a bandwagon while still maintaining his independence and bringing his own argument to the table.

Quin is a special snowflake that people should leave alone.

And my opinion on LoRab is the same as the above post.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

He earlier called me out for feigning ignorance as to the LD's limitations, and right now I'm kind of seeing the same thing here in that he's pretending not to realise he's wrong in the hopes he can latch onto the possibility of voting me later. Or maybe he's misinterpreting what Dom said. But I think it's the former.

LoRab wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.
A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

What is your perspective on me now knowing what you now know?

DrumBeats wrote:Thinking about it, I would like Quin to answer that question as well.

If leetic and Eloh are around/when they get around, I would like them to do so as well, and add the following players to the list:

Quin
LoRab

Will do.

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

If you really want to push for its uselessness, sure.

DrumBeats wrote:@ LoRab - Based on what Dom has said, the wording is the only distinction between theorizing and a claim. For example if I said "LoRab and Quin share BTSC" - that could be checked regardless of whether I know it to be true/false. If I said "I think LoRab and Quin share BTSC" then it cannot be.

@ Quin - I do not get the point of voting if you don't suspect him. The only thought I came up with is reaction baiting, but in that case why the hell would you follow the vote with "but I don't suspect you". That sort of negates any reaction you would try to bait. Explain.

@ linki Quin - It's checkable, but its useless as hell

I think you should come to your own conclusion, as I cannot explain.

Useless in the context of baddie hunting, sure. But like I said at one point and spent an entire game doing - I like to uncover game mechanics.

LoRab wrote:
Quin wrote:
LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.
This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.
Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.
No, he did not.

Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.
If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.
Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.
Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?
I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

Apply the structure of the coloured statement and compare it to the statements I made. You will find that they are checkable.

'There are items in this game' is structured as a claim, not a theory. Therefore, it is checkable.

Voting SVS. I do not recommend that she be lynched, unless of course further information comes to light that would support it. Either way, don't take my vote to mean I even suspect SVS, as I do not.

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.
If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.
Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.
This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Quin wrote:I don't even know. I was pinged by Matt because I agreed with the principle behind what INH said in that faking reads is counter-productive, but I don't scum read him after taking everything else into account right now. BWT doesn't look all that great given his vote for me, though. I feel as though my vote might go there tomorrow.
Sorry. I was exhausted last night when I was trying to explain my voting for you. Let me clarify:

1) Yes, your statement rubbed me the wrong way in terms of what you said about baddie hunting. But, combined with the fact that I felt you had done pretty much no quality baddie-hunting yourself up to that point, made that statement jump out at me even more.

2) I didn't have much else to go on at that point. Wilgy's positions seemed completely ungrounded in anything factual and was 100% suspicions. I did not think that there was anything at the time in between Matt and INH and felt it was civ on civ. Your statement was the first thing that jumped out at me on Day 1 and was the strongest ping I got.

That being said, it is still a ping that I will keep in the back of my mind as the game progresses. But that along isn't a strong enough reason to vote for you on Day 2 vs. on Day 1 unless you give me other reasons to do so going forward.

It's easy to say that you thought I was already suspicious for not doing baddie hunting after its already been established I don't have a defence to the accusation. The only time you actually referred to me before your vote was when you disputed Wilgy's assumption that INH and I are on a team. On top of that, you've contradicted yourself. If the first thing that caught your eye in this game was the post you voted me for, you clearly didn't have my lack of baddie hunting in your arsenal already.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:I recall I already defended myself in saying I didn't have a defense. I'd been lacking in the scumhunting department in this game, I know. It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, albeit disastrous for town.
The best defense is sometimes a good offense. Find the baddies immediately and help us slaughter them.

I intend to, it's just that I'm struggling to find my feet in this game for some reason. Right now I'd push for a BWT lynch. My opinion holds that he jumped on that specific post as if it were a baddie slip so quickly that it felt like he was reaching for a reason to vote for me that was different from the rest so it didn't look like he was jumping on a wagon.

I think when Day begins I'll have a look at some players I think are playing under the radar and see if I can bring them out into the open.

DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes
Why do you civ lean INH right now?
I don't anymore. New information and stuff, yo.
Why did you?

I suppose I could relate to what he had been saying from a town mindset. At the time, I'd also been under the impression his defense for me came before the votes for me were made. I was wrong about that and if I'd known beforehand, I wouldn't have said I leaned civ on him.

I recall I already defended myself in saying I didn't have a defense. I'd been lacking in the scumhunting department in this game, I know. It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, albeit disastrous for town.

DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes
Why do you civ lean INH right now?

I don't anymore. New information and stuff, yo.

indiglo wrote:Welcome 3J and espers!

I am now about to enjoy a lovely football match, and shall then make my evening vote. And there has not been much discussion about the options on the poll, so it seems as though I will just do whatever I feel like doing, unless there is further analysis forthcoming from anyone.

After the football match will come GoT season finale, so I am likely to be scarce for the night. (I hope no one I love dies! )

Oh, I forgot I was going to say something about this.

I imagine that you're voting for more role/s to be revealed from the department you vote for. Sales might give us Jim, Dwight and Andy, Customer Service might give us Kelly, Toby and that freaky tall dude, and Accounting would give us Oscar, Angela and Kevin.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Now that INH has responded to my original case, I expect other players to start chirping in now. What is your stance?

I don't like that he keeps putting things down as 'not alignment indicative', and I'm not a huge fan of you trying to present his +1/-1 joke post as suspicious, but then again the fact that he went to the trouble of revising it and doing it a second time is also something to be considered.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:I don't even know. I was pinged by Matt because I agreed with the principle behind what INH said in that faking reads is counter-productive, but I don't scum read him after taking everything else into account right now. BWT doesn't look all that great given his vote for me, though. I feel as though my vote might go there tomorrow.
What about Matt's posts or the game in general makes you feel less inclined to go after Matt?

Primarily, he acknowledged my vote on Day 1 but didn't try to discredit it or go to lengths to paint me as bad for it. To a much lesser extent, I can understand that he just wanted to get things moving because at the time there wasn't much of anything going on. I don't want to fault him for that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey gang. I'm TiredJimmyJay, so please bear with me if I catch up at a leisurely pace.

Anyone who cares: what are the three most important things I should know about this game so far?
I couldn't tell you exactly 'what' but I'd say that INH, Scotty and I (maybe some others but these come to mind easily) are most in the spotlight.
Who're you beefing with Quin?

I don't even know. I was pinged by Matt because I agreed with the principle behind what INH said in that faking reads is counter-productive, but I don't scum read him after taking everything else into account right now. BWT doesn't look all that great given his vote for me, though. I feel as though my vote might go there tomorrow.

I'm sorry, but this post here reeks of baddie to me. Anyone agree, or am I crazy? I'm going to go watch tv. I'll be back.

'Reeks of baddie' doesn't really give me much in the way of discussion, elohcin.

insertnamehere wrote:
indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.
I agree with this. I remember when I was civ in one of my early games, and I brought up the idea that civs should also be worried about self-preservation and not hyper-focused on baddie killing. I was lynched for that, and I don't think Quin should be. BWT in particular struck me as very hyperbolic and opportunistic.

This was after I already had 2 votes and was tying for first place, iirc. So its entirely possibility it was an attempt to gain civ cred.

S~V~S wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Quin wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Quin wrote:Specifying the night phase would, I think, infer more than just a dead townie. Dom gave the okay because it didn't break the info dumping rule.
That's as clear as mud. If it weren't in our best interests to lynch you because the town needs you, and it's not info dumping...how...can you be town aligned?
You should ask Dom to clarify his rules if you're confused, I think. He would do a much better job of explaining what is considered as info dumping to him than I would.
I just looked, and sorry if I am lame, but I did not see where Dom clarified this? Can you direct me to where you asked him this question please? Thanks.

And @Epi & Indi~ sorry if you found me reasoning weak but it is what it is. I feel he was trying to direct the LD into detecting mechanics. While I find mechanics intersting too, that role should be gathering info on players rather than asking mechanics uestions and risking exposing themselves by leaking said info into the thread. You can build a case on someone eing bad; you can't build a case about mechanics without pasting a big fat target on your own back.

I have been out all day, and will be out again shortly. I read a bit this AM but will have to finish catching up later.
I quoted it here. You said you asked Dom for clarification, but I can't find that.

I recommended that Scotty ask him to clarify his rules if he was confused. All I did was make sure that what I was intending to post didn't break those rules. I don't know where he draws the line

S~V~S wrote:Quin, did you see my post earlier? I was trying to determine what Dom clarified for you, I could not find it.

Linki @faraday, no I suspect Quin for trying to waste the LDs time with mechanics questions. Him thinking baddie hunting is not all that did not help, but I suspected him prior to that.

The only thing I've had Dom clarify for me in the thread is the hypothesis that the lie detector can check statements even if the poster isn't sure of the truth themselves. I'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to. Is it my 'you'll regret lynching me' statement?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey gang. I'm TiredJimmyJay, so please bear with me if I catch up at a leisurely pace.

Anyone who cares: what are the three most important things I should know about this game so far?

I couldn't tell you exactly 'what' but I'd say that INH, Scotty and I (maybe some others but these come to mind easily) are most in the spotlight.

Elohcin wrote:
leetic wrote:
Elohcin wrote:I am going to go with Customer Service tonight.
Why are you posting such fluffy, non-game-related stuff this late in? Surely you have something else to talk about?
fluffy, non- game related stuff? What are you talking about? I don't think I've posted anything non-game related except that I would be back to vote after my show last night and even that was semi-game related. I don't know what you're talking about. Also, looking back at all your posts, you have only made ONE semi-on topic post. The rest have been "fluffy, non-game related" posts.

DrumBeats wrote:@ Leetic and Eloh - What are your current reads?
I do hope you aren't lumping me with this Leetic person by asking us both about our reads at the same time. At the moment I am most concerned with Quin for his/her "I'm a civ and you'll be sorry" post before EoD 1. As I've said before and as most people are probably tired of hearing...big games are difficult for me. I am trying to keep up, take notes, and participate as much as possible. I will have more things to say as time goes on, promise.

In that case I think you would do better to address it to me and give me a chance to discuss it further, as opposed to hastily throwing down a vote for it and moving on.

So, what specifically do you find most suspicious about the post?

DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?

I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes

Scotty wrote:
Quin wrote:Specifying the night phase would, I think, infer more than just a dead townie. Dom gave the okay because it didn't break the info dumping rule.
That's as clear as mud. If it weren't in our best interests to lynch you because the town needs you, and it's not info dumping...how...can you be town aligned?

You should ask Dom to clarify his rules if you're confused, I think. He would do a much better job of explaining what is considered as info dumping to him than I would.

Specifying the night phase would, I think, infer more than just a dead townie. Dom gave the okay because it didn't break the info dumping rule.

Hey, I'm alive!

I didn't enjoy voting Wilgy (rip) and would have loved to jump on the BWT wagon had I seen it being developed as an alternative. I agree that it was opportunistic.

If Pam were to check my earlier statement about the consequences of lynching me I'd feel better, even if it only means one person knowing for sure I'm a civ. But yeah, weigh your options.

Voting Sales, because why not.

S~V~S wrote:Are you role claiming?

Dom has given the okay for that statement. No rules are broken in saying it!

Anyway, I'm switching my vote to Wilgy, for self preservation purposes.

You don't want to lynch me, because alignment aside, if I am lynched, the mafia will be given a significant advantage over the town in the next night phase.

#supatown
#plznokill
#trumpcard
#savemepam and Erin
#iwarnedyou
#skinnedsalmon
#toomanyhashtags

I have to go to a birthday thing now. I apologise in advance if you lynch me.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Quin wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.
I think this might be the first time I've ever been left speechless in a mafia game. I'm at a loss for words.

This also might be the easiest Day 1 vote I've ever had.

Votes Quin
If you think that was a baddie slip you need to have another go at reading it.
That's not the point I got from it. What I got is that if you are a civ, then that's the most antithetical thing you could possibly believe if you want to do well in this game.

The most powerful tool the civs have is the lynch for a reason.

Frankly, I disagree.

And with this information, the potential lies to make more accurate accusations to catch baddies.

I figured this last part would be inferred, but just so I didn't have to keep addressing it, I'm spelling it out.

S~V~S wrote:Well, Dude, that's a pretty controversial opinion, you must admit

I guess that's just how people are interpreting it. I'm trying to say that rather than doing everything for the direct purpose of catching a baddie out, we can act to collect information.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.
I think this might be the first time I've ever been left speechless in a mafia game. I'm at a loss for words.

This also might be the easiest Day 1 vote I've ever had.

Votes Quin

If you think that was a baddie slip you need to have another go at reading it.

At this point it's really a top 2. There's nobody I wouldn't vote to lynch but these two are at the top of my mind.

Matt, because of his fake opinion gambit, and last night Wilgy kept coming to mind when I thought about who I wanted to vote. I don't really know why I wanted to vote him, but I'll put him down too.

Search found 140 matches