I'm rereading/skimming thread and posting thoughts, read if you want but it's mostly for my own benefit
AceofSpaces wrote:Golden wrote:AceofSpaces wrote:I have never taken day 0 votes seriously. To me, they are a grace period to let everyone know the real game is about to start. I don't really see any point in writing up a two page essay on why I think the porter did it.
I have always taken day 0 votes seriously. They can affect the outcome of the game. Certainly when I host, they
do affect the outcome of the game.
I'm just flagging early. Jumping on bandwagons without explanation gets you my eye. Easy thing to do if you are bad.
Differing opinions, I suppose.
Interesting that you'd call this a bandwagon. Don't you think you're stretching a bit?
Is there perhaps a reason Aces didn't want the porter bandwagon labelled as a bandwagon? At the time, Eloh, Llama, MM and Aces had all voted porter without really citing any reasoning. JC followed shortly thereafter, but was the only one contributing anything meaningful.
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, now it's Day 1, so might as well get discussion going. Does anyone have any reads yet?
I would say I thought Golden's aggressive pursuit of suspicion using only a D0 poll was suspicious, but I know better. :P
Other than that, I got nothing.
Funny funny, but in retrospect, knowing Golden is probably not a weasel, makes me uneasy. Was MP trying to squash conversation? We all know talking = friend of civvies. Add in his weird refusal to overanalyze and I'm back to grabbing my pitchfork
Interesting back and forth between MM & MP on page 4, where MM is suspicious of MP but not vice versa yet. MP basically ends it abruptly with this post:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I have nothing to contribute at the moment, and I need sleep for my midterm, so I'm out of here.
MM, if you want to actually accuse me of something, let me know.
MovingPictures07 wrote:Duly noted, BF, thanks for elaborating.
I do find it noteable though you don't name a single suspect even though you give stock into D0 like Golden does. You said some votes seemed bandwagony but didn't provide any names of people you suspect, even though you said you don't suspect three players. You also said my behavior was "odd" but don't quantify if that equates to suspicious (if you did, I missed it, but you didn't say this outright; I'm not sure what quirking the eyebrow means). That honestly pinged me a bit. Who are the couple people who aren't posting that you're worried about?
This so bothers me. His next 3 + posts go on and on and on about suspecting me for calling his behavior odd but not necessarily suspecting him. Yet at least one other person has done the same at this point, MM, and he's not jumping down his throat.
The other reason he's badgering me is because I took stock in the theory something could be determined from the Day 0 vote but didn't give a suspect list. To be fair, he did ask if I found anyone suspect and I told him I did. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time, but I think perhaps the right course of action here would have been
to ask me who they were instead of going on a rampage.
One of those weird things about mafia. The more you mention someone (and associate them being bad), the more it sticks out in my mind if I'm just skimming. I wonder if that's true for anyone else? And mention me he does. Over and over and over again.
thellama73 wrote:rabbit8 wrote:
Wording them carefully. How so in your opinion? Been so long I don't even remember anyone's tendencies. Can I get some examples please.
Fingersplints almost posts words spelled backwards when bad.
MP's baddie game is marked by excessive smilies.
AceofSpaces says "blaaah!" a lot when indy.
Golden has never played mafia before.
I am never bad, so I don't know what my tendencies are.
Juliets only posts in brown text (the color of coffee) when bad.
My fave post so far.
Long Con wrote:rabbit8 wrote:Long Con wrote:Anti-marriage, eh?
I don't have any particular suspicion of the more active people in the Day 0 Lynch, like Golden. It's not that they're any more likely to be Civvie than baddie because of it, but I want to play a game with enthusiastic case-builders, and people who are willing to put themselves out there.
I could see my vote going to someone who seems to be trying to lay low and hold off giving opinions or making cases. That's my Day 1 opinion of things... I want to start this game off right, with interested participation. Soon, I may just accuse someone of something for reactions.
That's a time-honoured tradition that I enjoy, and it can even work!
I accuse this post. What the hell? Lets go for a time honored LC, rabbit showdown, baddie.
Quick to throw out the keep active players around early mantra, eh?
Oh yes, and my opinions on who to go for should I choose that path would probably have some influence from recent games... as in I'd be inclined choose a low lying player who has shown a pattern of the same, over a low-lying player who does have a good participation record.
Hmm.. actually, as I typed that, my mind changed. Instead of punishing someone who is acting like they always do, it would be better to go after a low-lying player who
isn't usually like that. A change in behaviour like that seems more... significant. I don't have anyone in mind just yet because I haven't looked into everyone's participation yet.
Anyways, there is this:
I accuse this post. What the hell? Lets go for a time honored LC, rabbit showdown, baddie.
*sigh* If we must.
Rabbit has shown his true colours very early in this game. From what I recall about his playstyle, he tends to be more aggressive as a baddie. Throwing out accusations, trying to see what will stick. For example:
rabbit8 wrote:Black Rock wrote:Not a chance in the world, not without good reason. I have been waiting years to play with the evil bastard again.
If memory serves me, which it never does, that kind of post would make me very suspicious of you, for some reason. It used to be a sign of....something. I'm sure it will all come back in due time. Maybe another beer or ten.
This kind of suspicion-splashing with no attempt or intention of backing it up. It's a way of "planting seeds" that he can come back to later if need be. I've even seen this kind of behaviour as a distancing tactic from a teammate, and I don't think any further explanation of how that works is needed.
Between that comment, and the playful and unserious non-accusations he has tossed around, and the sudden "let's make something happen" aggression spike toward me... I have a feeling that we're seeing the baddie rabbit8 game.
How was that, rabbit? I'm not sure exactly what you were looking for with a showdown, but there you go. I even quasi-accused my own wife in the process, to show that I am both hardcore and stone-cold.
I'm not sure that I remembered LC vs Rabbit going back this far. But even this far back I lean towards agreeing.
AceofSpaces wrote:Here are my thoughts on everyone so far.
Metalmash: Spent most of day 0 discussing the murder mystery. I couldn't see anything particularly suspicious there. During day 1 he calls out MP, but fails to provide any follow through. He also self voted, which is one of the best ways to avoid responsibility. Going to mark that down as suspicious.
Black Rock: Not much to go on from her. No read.
Juliets: She's been asking a lot of questions without putting forward any thoughts of her own.
Golden: One of the people making the largest effort so far, even if I think his Day 0 theory is bullshit. Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.
Llama: He's insane. He's always insane. No read.
rabbit: I haven't played a lot of games with rabbit. Or if I have, I've completely forgotten them. Either way, he started out very jokey but has since been making a solid effort. I appreciate this.
Long Con: Thinks rabbits aggressive nature is a red flag. Something for me to consider.
Moving Picture: Also making a solid effort.
And there's more, but those are the hightlights for now.
An interesting post from Aces before he had much suspicion on him at all. I'm underlining things I find particularly interesting.
1. Aces accuses Juliets of basically not being helpful. Doesn't read like distancing to me.
2. There he goes again, calling Golden's day 0 theory BS. Why is that so important for him to communicate? Does he not want us to look at those voters?
3. Considers LC's position on rabbit after subtly praising rabbit.
4. Praises MP but I'm surprised he doesn't add mention me here or add me to this list at all. God knows MP shouted my name to the rooftops enough. Could be a subtle way of supporting.
Elo post checking in and saying she caught up and doesn't suspect anyone, kind of interesting, I think there's enough content at this point to nitpick something.
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Not sure I know what's going on with Golden v. Aces, but I don't really suspect either of them. Aces was really aggressive right off the bat in Death Note (won't say more, since it's ongoing) and Golden is always aggressive, so I'll keep an eye on this, but I have nothing that has told me anything about their alignments just yet.
Another MP post that mentions me but I snippeted this from the post. Golden and Aces are still arguing at this point and no one has really spoken up about who they agree or disagree with. Is MP subtly supporting Aces by brushing this exchange off as non-suspicious?
MovingPictures07 wrote:Golden wrote:MP, knowing it's a normal behaviour from him would change my view. Although I'm thinking I'll be voting for aces today.
I wasn't talking about it to start with because I thought it's not outside the realms of reason there could be legitimate civvie reasons for doing it. Secrets and all that. I've been known to create a role where their vote counts for -1, for instance. But that won't apply to MM every game.
Rabbit - did you accidentally die just then?
Well, exactly, which is why historically I've never voted for MM for self-voting, even though I express this every time. It's getting old though. And as LC pointed out, MM has been baddie and pulled this stunt in Film Directors, and I think he must have been bad in at least one other game of the 5(?) recent games that he's self-voted, but I can't recall.
Linki w/ Llama: I agree. The only things holding me back are (1) that I KNOW it doesn't tell us anything about his alignment because he does it all the time now and (2) I am probably more suspicious of BF, in terms of in-game behavior.
Exactly what Golden said happened is happening before my eyes lol. Discussing with the thread how bad MM and pushing for his lynch while still suspecting me over him. Afraid of having your vote on a civ when the poll closes? I wonder if MP even remembered why he suspected me at this point. How hard is it to ask for a suspect list?
nijuukyugou wrote:We really do talk about the same things every Day 1, don't we? Never really noticed until now. And now I'm noticing patterns more as I read. Anyway.
Today was a surprisingly busy day for my supposedly having an impromptu vacation. Some thoughts after catching up:
1) There always seems to be some sort of "battle" between two higher posters in the first day or so, and it looks like it's Golden vs. Aces. I'm inclined to see it as Civ vs. Civ, since I haven't had a really big ping from either one. I found Golden's pointing out of a "bandwagony" sort of voting pattern for the Day 0 poll as something interesting to point out. Dunno if it has much merit, but it could be something to look back on.
2) MM's self-vote pings me something awful, definitely more than anything else I've seen. As others have pointed out, he has done this in multiple games, and in most if not all of the games I've recently played with him. It may have been a joke the second or third time, but geez, you have plenty of time and a good amount of posts to at least make some sort of accusation or voice a suspicion. It is detrimental to the cause if you are a Civ (since you're taking out your own numbers) and weirdly drawing attention if you are bad. I have ignored it in the past, but I don't like it at all and am inclined to vote his way today.
3:
thellama73 wrote:rabbit8 wrote:
I twirl my mustache and think in an evil voice while stroking my red eyed black cat as I post........ 
If you post in dead red while not dead, you become dead. Bye, rabbit! It was nice playing with you!
llama's being llama and I'm fucking dying
I feel like I had a 4 and 5 but I got distracted by real life things and stuff. Dammit. I'll check back in before I go to triiiiiiiiivia
Oh this one's fun. Seeing Golden V Aces as Civ V Civ & pushing for an MM lynch. Could nijuukyugou be the mafioso I am looking for?
Golden wrote:Dom? I haven't seen much of Dom.
The more I think on it, the more I feel like Aces is the right vote for me to make. His reaction to my weak suspicion feels like a baddie reaction. My reasons for this are:
1) It reminds me of times in the past where baddies are annoyed that their day one lynch was for some daft thing they don't feel they did (anyone remember BLLs constant calling out of people on day 0 or day 1 minutiae?). Aces is focussed on the idea that the bandwagon idea is bullshit - which, to be honest, I really don't think it is in principle, whether he was doing it or not - and I think he is focussed on it because he feels that genuinely isn't why he voted for the porter, and because he doesn't want his baddie game to come down for such a poor reason. I've seen it happen a few times before.
2) The strong language, some of it emotive, used in his posts towards me to guide suspicion on me haven't helped my view of him - 'useless poll', 'bullshit theory', 'scapegoat' - it's all stuff that I think comes out when you are bad, not when you are good. It goes well beyond 'I'm not bad' to trying to actually discredit that my idea could have any merit and suggesting that I'm deliberately setting out to get civvie cred and create scapegoats.
3) His ambiguous seed dropping against me - "Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful". Plus, I mean, whats a civvie supposed to do? Not try and find any reason why people are suspicious?
4) His double standard - either the way someone acts in relation to the poll can be suspicious, or it can't. I have trouble seeing how when it applies to him day 0 conduct is meaningless, but when it applies to me its meaningful.
For these reasons, I'm voting Aces. I can't vote MM for his conduct when I have someone I genuinely think is bad.
The post that is quite possibly the turn of the tide for Day 1.
Bass_the_Clever wrote:as for golden vs. aces. I really don't know these players styles so its hard for me to judge, but a lot of times when I see stuff like this on day one its civ vs civ so I going to sit back for now and see if anything jumps out at me.
Zomberella12 wrote:Okay - I went back and reread Aces and I get Golden's argument, against him, but he seems more mad than bad. Didn't someone say that they both seemed civ? Who was that?
More possible teammates, but these come after Golden's analysis, which is interesting.
Golden wrote:I'll add to this, because I think I should get this out in case something goes wrong.
Aces was around the thread and on the site plenty after he stopped posting. Eventually he backed off, hoping that suspicion of him died away and if he let it go I would stop posting about him and the lynch would go another way.
Shortly after, MP comes in and starts pushing for an MM lynch. He takes the heat off Golden v Aces (he doesn't see anything there), and makes several pushes to lynch MM. He doesn't vote for MM, but Aces does.
If Aces is bad, I think MP has done a very classic team tactic to get the heat off Aces and put it on someone else. If we were to lynch Aces today and he's bad, we'd do well to back it up with MP tomorrow.
I know you're benching this Golden, but it does make sense.
rabbit8 wrote:Golden wrote:Bass_the_Clever wrote:I really don't like MM's self vote I think LC pointed out that he did it in flim director mafia and was bad.
On the other hand, MP pointed out he has done it about five times in a row.
I think a vote for MM is a vote against this anti-civvie tactic, not a genuine baddie catching vote.
Then a vote for MM is in fact a pointless endeavor. You may as well be self voting if you are voting on principal or against a tactic.
I don't know him so I will vote where I think a baddie is. Maybe BF or Juliets..........
Let's not forget that rabbit was also pushing for MM not to be lynched. To be fair, he wasn't helping lynch Aces either, but this makes him look a little better maybe.
Zomberella12 wrote:@Llama and MP - How to you feel about Golden's vote? Is it legit?
linki - I was thinking the same think about Llama.
@ Golden - You do have a case against Aces, but it's not really fair to say that the case on MM is pointless. I brought it up earlier too. Early votes, even self-votes, aren't helpful and could be a signal of a baddie trying to hide. Have you ever seen a baddie do this before? If yes, then it is fair to look at MM and Llama too. I'm just saying that we don't have very much to go on yet. If we vote Aces and he flips civ, then we just lost a huge asset. If we vote MM or Llama and they flip civ, then we just lost a joker early voter. I'm still trying to decide where to put my vote (and that does not make me a flip-floper! It makes me thoughtful).
I'm starting to feel kind of bad about Zombs. She is very likable, but what she's saying isn't making her look very good in retrospect.
I have to go pick up boogs and I'll be back later to vote. In summary, I've basically solidified my suspicion/vote today for MP. I also wouldn't mind further investigating bass, elo, nijuukyugou, zomberella.
Still feel good about fingersplints, golden, sophie, MM.
Fiddler on the Roof
) and I think you are the civviest civ who ever civved in civtown. I will never vote for you evereverever until the world ends and infinity plus infinity ever.