[ENDGAME] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia

[Golden]

General question for Syndicate regulars: roles with the ability to resurrect others, are they typically civilian? associated with a more exotic independent role? or anything else?

You might want to think of other potential explanations... like what happened in the thread not so long before Sloonei was rezzed.

[Golden]

Is there any reason to assume the holder of the singer role must be civilian?

This is a decent point, except I think the content of the various singer's posts point to civilian. And I haven't seen that kind of role be anything but civilian before.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

General question for Syndicate regulars: roles with the ability to resurrect others, are they typically civilian? associated with a more exotic independent role? or anything else?

You might want to think of other potential explanations... like what happened in the thread not so long before Sloonei was rezzed.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, and I am considering that. I just don't want to throw all my marbles in that basket without educating myself better about standards on The Syndicate.

Because on RYM, resurrection is so extremely rare that nobody ever even thinks about it.

[Golden]

General question for Syndicate regulars: roles with the ability to resurrect others, are they typically civilian? associated with a more exotic independent role? or anything else?

You might want to think of other potential explanations... like what happened in the thread not so long before Sloonei was rezzed.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, and I am considering that. I just don't want to throw all my marbles in that basket without educating myself better about standards on The Syndicate.

Because on RYM, resurrection is so extremely rare that nobody ever even thinks about it.

Fair enough. I'll give you my experience of rezzes.

1) It can be inherent to a role. I'd say that I've seen it be civilian 100% of the time I've played with such a role, but I hosted a game in which a civilian had three rezzes but one of the three was guaranteed to be bad (as it happened, that person brought back two, decided in their gut they both were good correctly, and never rezzed a baddie). Although I've never seen this role be bad, someone else here may have?

2) It can be a prize. Prizes can work in many ways. Sometimes its just a rez. Sometimes its a rez and recruit. If it's a mafia who uses it, they could rezz a civilian and turn them bad (hence epi asking about corruption I'm guessing). If it's a civ who uses it, a rezz and recruit would be a rezz and btsc (it wouldn't convert a mafia person to being a civ if they rezzed one).

3) It can be a host fixing an error where someone should not have died. In this game, Dom has fixed his mistakes by owning them, rather than turning them into rezzes, which I actually far prefer. I prefer when it is at least theoretically possible to account for things that happen by way of player actions.

[Golden]

Sloonei, I want you to read the flavor text in Dom's post with the Epi kill and then report back how it has affected your perspective of the game.

Just sloonei?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Sloonei, I want you to read the flavor text in Dom's post with the Epi kill and then report back how it has affected your perspective of the game.

Just sloonei?

The thing I have in mind is specific to Sloonei yes, but if you have any commentary then by all means share it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

This kinda stinks, because my favored method for approaching a game after numerous bad lynches is to interrogate more than analyze. But with so many players absent I feel pretty stunted in that regard.

[Golden]

Sloonei, I want you to read the flavor text in Dom's post with the Epi kill and then report back how it has affected your perspective of the game.

Just sloonei?

The thing I have in mind is specific to Sloonei yes, but if you have any commentary then by all means share it.

I shall wait until after sloonei to share my commentary, then, in case my response should for any reason risk changing the direction of his answer.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Would you be able to produce a rainbow or some other sort of reads list at the moment, Golden?

[Golden]

Would you be able to produce a rainbow or some other sort of reads list at the moment, Golden?

I would normally acquiesce to that request. But then, there have been golden moments like epi being NKed which might not have happened if we all rainbowed, and I currently have other good reasons for not wanting to frame my suspicions in quite that way like I normally would. I'm not ruling it out forever. I'm just not doing it right now.

I would, however, really advocate that we consider lynching people who are actively putting in kills over someone like Neverwhere, however bad we think she may be. For that reason, I'd like to try and figure out the phantom today given we know its someone who has been permanently active. That rules out a lot of people. I think it could be DF.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I've suspected DF as long as I've been in this game, so I've no major beef with that notion. He's posted maybe twice since I last spoke with him here so my feelings haven't changed.

[Golden]

I've suspected DF as long as I've been in this game, so I've no major beef with that notion. He's posted maybe twice since I last spoke with him here so my feelings haven't changed.

I'm also willing to entertain other names. It's just my personal suggestion.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I think Gumshoes and SVS 2.0 are the only players left that I haven't thoroughly examined yet. Hopefully time and energy will permit that effort tomorrow.

I'm back at work since Monday after two weeks of vacation and it has sapped all of my energy. I haven't been up to the task in this game this week, I readily acknowledge that.

[DFaraday]

I've suspected DF as long as I've been in this game, so I've no major beef with that notion. He's posted maybe twice since I last spoke with him here so my feelings haven't changed.

I told the thread I had no Internet for like 4 days, yet people keep talking about me as if I'm deliberately ignoring the game or something. Anyway, I am here, and would be happy to know if anyone has a particular reason to think I'm the Phantom (which I'm not, although that would be cool since it's one of my favorite musicals).

[DFaraday]

I'm thinking if there are two on Team Webber, it's Neverwhere and either Splints or Ninja. Then again, any of the above could also be Wildhorn. I also don't recall who JJJ replaced, but I've kind of just assumed he was civ because of how vocal he is. I should look into that.

[Marmot]

Oh look, Phantom of the Opera is back in action.

I'm not Phantom of the Opera, or any other baddie. I am civ.

You are patently not Phantom of the Opera.

I'm not sure MMs comment was aimed at you, but I also don't understand it. There's never been any point at which phantom was inactive?

It certainly was not directed at Spacedaisy. I was making an observation because Epignosis was a victim of the chandelier.

I voted Jay. I think has some control over the chandelier.

[Golden]

Oh look, Phantom of the Opera is back in action.

I'm not Phantom of the Opera, or any other baddie. I am civ.

You are patently not Phantom of the Opera.

I'm not sure MMs comment was aimed at you, but I also don't understand it. There's never been any point at which phantom was inactive?

It certainly was not directed at Spacedaisy. I was making an observation because Epignosis was a victim of the chandelier.

I voted Jay. I think has some control over the chandelier.

This is interesting. Why?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Probably thinks I killed Epi after arguing with him. Doesn't make much strategic sense.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Or he set it up to make that vote. Meh.

I'll discuss it after work.

[Marmot]

Oh look, Phantom of the Opera is back in action.

I'm not Phantom of the Opera, or any other baddie. I am civ.

You are patently not Phantom of the Opera.

I'm not sure MMs comment was aimed at you, but I also don't understand it. There's never been any point at which phantom was inactive?

It certainly was not directed at Spacedaisy. I was making an observation because Epignosis was a victim of the chandelier.

I voted Jay. I think has some control over the chandelier.

This is interesting. Why?

What he said, I think he killed him because Epignosis has been difficult to comprehend this game, and due to that late argument with him.

Also, I think Jay was distancing himself from the kill with this post.

[Marmot]

6.5 hours until the deadline. Don't all vote at once now.

[Golden]

6.5 hours until the deadline. Don't all vote at once now.

That would be a pretty impressive feat.

[Marmot]

What are you thinking about Golden?

[Golden]

What are you thinking about Golden?

I'm thinking about whether or not JJ is going to turn up and talk about whether he really thinks you could be bad and setting him up or not. I'm very interested in what he has to say about that. I'm also thinking that one thing I did in economics was make a case on TinyBubbles when I was nightkilling her, because that kind of thing can be a decent play for cred. I think the epignosis kill is a very interesting one, and it warrants care (or was it just revenge for his failure to 'die' at the start of the game?) And I'm thinking sloonei is silenced.

I'm thinking that I'm still most likely to vote DF today, and I'm very comfortable with that vote. But I'm still persuadable.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I can't log in to this site on work computers, it's blocked (RYM isn't). I can only post from my phone, which I am not allowed to carry on the work floor.

I'll have things to say when I am able. This comes to you from a toilet stall.

[Golden]

I can't log in to this site on work computers, it's blocked (RYM isn't). I can only post from my phone, which I am not allowed to carry on the work floor.

I'll have things to say when I am able. This comes to you from a toilet stall.

Wasn't trying to push you in to being fast, JJ. Prefer to get something where you can evidence your thinking.

[DFaraday]

I'm thinking that I'm still most likely to vote DF today, and I'm very comfortable with that vote. But I'm still persuadable.

I'd like to ask again for reasons why.

[Marmot]

An observation about Jay's voting record.

DAY 7 - Jay makes a case and votes nutella, the day that Black Rock is lynched. But he votes off from the main lynchee Black Rock, and doesn't comment on her. Not much later Jay backs off on his nutella suspicion due to her responses.

DAY 8 - The day Cobalt is lynched, Jay says early on that he'd rather vote Bass over Cobalt. Still, Jay offers several thoughts for Cobalt's potential to be mafia (here, here, and here. He also offers a point for the suspicion of Bass here. However, his point was disproved by Scotty, so Jay quickly turned his attention to fingersplints. Then, after ISOing fingersplints, entertaining Cobalt being a baddie, and having his reason for Bass being bad disproven, Jay votes for Bass anyway just to keep things from being a landslide? So again, Jay votes off from the main lynchee Cobalt, who flips civilian.

DAY 9 - Now that Jay acknowledges Bass could be a landslide vote, he decides to look more into Bass (after already voting him the previous day). Jay mentions in the same post that the lynch of Cobalt went to easy. Jay never dissuaded it. On the other hand, Jay brought some ideas forth to support the lynching of Cobalt, and even entertained voting for him. Anyway, Jay does an ISO of Bass, suggesting that he is a valid lynch. At this point, Jay addresses his strategy here of voting off the "bandwagons". I don't understand this strategy. If Jay will discuss all day on Day 8 the possibility of Cobalt being bad, and does the same thing with Bass on Day 9, why should he be calling these 5 players suspicious for their votes just because he decided to vote off?

DAY 10 - Jay is silenced this day. He votes DFaraday, again voting off from the main lynch of Hedgeowl. Though in his defense, he did clear Hedgeowl from his suspect list on the previous night.

DAY 11 - Again, Jay mentions that several players should be seen as suspicious for their participation of civilian lynches. Again, the problem here is that Jay is looking at strictly vote patterns with this accusation. Upon closer inspection, Jay may not have voted on a single lynch of a player, but as I mentioned before, Jay lightly pushed the lynches of Cobalt and Bass on the respective days of their lynches. Jay should be held just as accountable. One more thing to add, and that is that Jay did not help with the lynch of Black Rock on Day 7. I realize that he had only joined the day before, but he still did state that he does not find her suspicious before she was lynched. Jay later goes on to vote for Neverwhere, again voting off the main lynch of nutella (one of his previous, and actually still current suspicions). Jay states here that there is valid reason to vote for both players, and also that there is valid reason to suspect inactive players in the game (can someone point to me where Jay offers a strong point to suspect inactives aside from mere probabilit?). Again, Jay analyzes all of the players who voted for nutella, focusing the magnifying glass on them as if only the voters matter, and not the perpetrators.



Addendum: Jay has pushed the lynch of 3 of the last 4 civvies lynched, not voted in their lynches (nor has he voted on a single lynchee's wagon this game), and lightly pushed suspicion in the directions of the players who have voted on these wagons. Thoughts?

Linki: Whoa, that's a lot...

[Marmot]

What are you thinking about Golden?

I'm thinking about whether or not JJ is going to turn up and talk about whether he really thinks you could be bad and setting him up or not. I'm very interested in what he has to say about that. I'm also thinking that one thing I did in economics was make a case on TinyBubbles when I was nightkilling her, because that kind of thing can be a decent play for cred. I think the epignosis kill is a very interesting one, and it warrants care (or was it just revenge for his failure to 'die' at the start of the game?) And I'm thinking sloonei is silenced.

I'm thinking that I'm still most likely to vote DF today, and I'm very comfortable with that vote. But I'm still persuadable.

What do you think? Do you think I am being malicious in trying to set him up? Do you think Jay could be bad?

[Marmot]

I've gotta run. I should be back before the deadline.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm home. Bear with me, because it'll take some time to pull up all of the thread evidence relevant to Marsh's accusations. He's said quite a lot. I'm working on it now.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What he said, I think he killed him because Epignosis has been difficult to comprehend this game, and due to that late argument with him.

Two things:

1.) Is a player who is "difficult to comprehend" (which I would agree could be a valid description for Epi 2.0's play) by nature a threat to either mafia team as opposed to some other player who is more comprehensible? What point are you making here exactly?

2.) The late argument I had with Epi may legitimately have influenced his being killed. I don't know for sure, but I don't struggle to imagine a mafioso observing that exchange and seeing an opportunity to lay a pretty obvious frame on me. I was making it clear that I thought Epi needed to go. So it isn't hard for anyone now to see that exchange followed immediately by his demise and play WIFOM.

JJJ said he wanted Epi dead, and then Epi died. Connection???

I'll explain in a separate post exactly what mindset I was employing in that exchange with Epi and attempt to show the townie behind it (me).

Also, I think Jay was distancing himself from the kill with this post.

That post was irrelevant to Epi being killed, it was solely relevant to the flavor text (like I said). I was referring specifically to the content given by the singer. I think the "lyrics" of the singer's song on that particular night should be of special interest to Sloonei. So I directed his attention there. I agree that he's probably silenced right now and thus cannot speak about it.

[Golden]

What are you thinking about Golden?

I'm thinking about whether or not JJ is going to turn up and talk about whether he really thinks you could be bad and setting him up or not. I'm very interested in what he has to say about that. I'm also thinking that one thing I did in economics was make a case on TinyBubbles when I was nightkilling her, because that kind of thing can be a decent play for cred. I think the epignosis kill is a very interesting one, and it warrants care (or was it just revenge for his failure to 'die' at the start of the game?) And I'm thinking sloonei is silenced.

I'm thinking that I'm still most likely to vote DF today, and I'm very comfortable with that vote. But I'm still persuadable.

What do you think? Do you think I am being malicious in trying to set him up? Do you think Jay could be bad?

I think either of those things has a chance of being true, and it is worth my time to consider both of those possibilities. I hadn't given much thought to you or JJ being bad before now.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm going to revisit my argument with Epignosis one post at a time and try to show you where my mind was.

Spoiler: show

Epi, you endorsed a lynch of an inactive.

What gives?

This post started the argument. When I said this, I was referring specifically to this comment by Epignosis:

Spoiler: show

Second- and I know people will dislike me for this and I give no shits- if a person isn't voting, then you don't lessen the civilian tally by voting the person out. With potentially missed kills, you may nab Mafia. People don't like voting no-shows because it's the "easy" way, but sometimes the easy way is also the right way.

My intent wasn't to make a scathing accusation. I noticed what seemed like a discrepancy between this comment by Epignosis and his eventual vote in the nutella/Neverwhere tie (for nutella, the active player). This inconsistency warranted a question at least, so I brought it up and asked him "what gives?". I really didn't anticipate this becoming the argument that it became, but Epignosis isn't the predictable sort.

Spoiler: show

Epi, you endorsed a lynch of an inactive.

What gives?

That's...brushing with a broad stroke.

You play vaguely, you get broad strokes.

Er...no. You're not playing vaguely, so you shouldn't be giving anyone broad strokes.

I think you got it backwards, partner.

No.

Because you fail to offer any specificity, there can be no specificity in a question or accusation addressed to you.

Answer the question.

Epi responded by suggesting my question was brushing with a broad stroke. I thought this was an understandable perspective, but I also thought it'd be pretty difficult to paint with "narrow" strokes about a player who had been intentionally vague or evasive in the face of nearly all questions he'd fielded since I joined the game. So I said as much in response. By this point, it had become a legitimate exchange of words between Epi and I. And he doesn't strike me as the sort to leave things alone, so I thought it was an opportunity to get some kind of meaningful, readable posts out of him. I continued poking him with that in mind (as can seen in the last post quoted above.

Continuing...

Spoiler: show

I said I would break a potential tie. I broke it in accordance with my own predetermined criteria.

I don't know if your predetermined criteria is compatible with my win condition.

You might need to go.

He answered my question with more vagueness typical of him in this game (asserting he chose nutella as his vote because of "predetermined criteria"). This wasn't satisfactory to me, so I poked him again. Harder. To be honest, I was really trying to speak a language here that I thought might generate meaningful responses from Epignosis. I don't think he gives a crap about my standard methods, so I didn't use my standard methods. I got aggressive, and I behaved more assertively -- hoping he'd at least respond in kind. I think that was successful at least:

Spoiler: show

I said I would break a potential tie. I broke it in accordance with my own predetermined criteria.

I don't know if your predetermined criteria is compatible with my win condition.

You might need to go.

Well, if you're as good at convincing people to lynch me as you were for lynching Neverwhere, I'm not too concerned.

I know Epignosis will dislike me for this and I give no shits- if a person is playing for their own interests and passing off responsibility for their own failures to anyone else in the room, then you don't lessen the civilian tally by voting the person out.

Is that what you think? That I failed?

I didn't fail.

I broke the tie.

I was successful.

This is where he started trying to get under my skin. He wasn't accusing me of doing anything particularly suspicious -- he was ribbing me for failing to generate the Neverwhere lynch that I clearly wanted. I think he can tell by now that I try to play with the mantle of leadership. It's important to me to deliver convincing cases that influence people's votes. I take pride in that. And he took the opportunity to point out that I was unsuccessful in that regard with my attempt at getting Neverwhere lynched instead of nutella.

That he chose to try to get under my skin instead of validly answer my question in a non-vague manner struck me as a non-town response. Even for Epignosis, in my limited experience playing with him -- I struggled to see a townie mindset inspiring that behavior. This became increasingly clear to me, even if in error (who knows), when he suggested his efforts during that lynch were "successful" merely because he broke the tie like he said he wanted to. As if the alignment of the player lynched primarily by his hand was irrelevant to him. Again: I struggled to see a townie mindset there. That led me to say this:

Spoiler: show

I was successful.

Then your objectives and mine are not going to work together. Let's hope you're dead soon.

"Your objectives and mind are not going to work together."

This is me, quite literally, suggesting that he was not pursuing town interests. That he felt his efforts were a success, combined with his get-under-JJJ's-skin approach to argument, suggested to me that whatever his alignment, Epignosis was not playing for the same goals that I am playing for. As a townie trying to eliminate threats to the townies. I don't know if that would indicate he was an independent or a mafioso, but either way his motives were a problem. If he was a townie, then hopefully he'll explain where his mind was after the game.

Spoiler: show

I was successful.

Then your objectives and mine are not going to work together. Let's hope you're dead soon.

Based on the work I've done so far, my own gut, and where we stand right now, here's a rainbow:

Sloonei
Epignosis 2.0
fingersplints
nijuukyugou
Golden
Metalmarsh89
Gumshoe
Devin the Omniscient
Spacedaisy
S~V~S
nutella
Neverwhere
DFaraday

Have I gone from the empyrean heights of celestial blue to the hellish nadir of infernal crimson so soon?

Has the god Iso forgotten me, abandoned me to this terrible fate?

Oh cruel world!

Truly there are fates worse than death!









Pff.

Again, he tries to get under my skin, this time more aggressively. He makes fun of my methods (rainbows and ISOs) and seemed to be insinuating that he placed no value in them. That's fair if it's his perspective -- but it's not a logical response to the questions I'd been asking him. I thought he was deflecting everything back at me without concern for context or fairness -- anti-town behavior.

Spoiler: show

Yep. I asked you a pretty simple question that I didn't think you'd struggle to answer. Instead you didn't attempt to answer it, and instead decided to try to get under my skin with irrelevant crap like that right there.

Your question was, "What gives?"

From someone who said this minutes before the lynch end:

There are valid reasons to suspect nutella. I have suspected her for most of my time in this game. I don't vehemently oppose her lynch.

You hardly have the moral high ground to ask me "What gives?" as though lynching absent(ish) people was at the foremost of my intentions, as though I should have voted with you simply because Neverwhere was less here than nutella.

Whatever your alignment, you clearly don't have town interests at heart.

"Clearly" is an adverb- one of the most dangerous ones. It assumes something is true without knowing all the facts, whilst subtly attempting to get others to believe that something is true when they also don't know everything.

It's a more sinister cousin to "obviously."

Here he finally responded to my original question in a substantive way -- and in a way that included suspicions stated of me. I didn't have time to answer to this before night ended and he was dead (he died 2 minutes after this post was posted). I tried, but I failed:

Spoiler: show

Yep. I asked you a pretty simple question that I didn't think you'd struggle to answer. Instead you didn't attempt to answer it, and instead decided to try to get under my skin with irrelevant crap like that right there.

Your question was, "What gives?"

From someone who said this minutes before the lynch end:

There are valid reasons to suspect nutella. I have suspected her for most of my time in this game. I don't vehemently oppose her lynch.

You hardly have the moral high ground to ask me "What gives?" as though lynching absent(ish) people was at the foremost of my intentions, as though I should have voted with you simply because Neverwhere was less here than nutella.

I never claimed to have any moral high ground, and there is clearly no such implication in the question "what gives?"

I have asked a thousand questions of a great many people in this game, and that was one for you. You had previously stated that you had a desire to lynch players who are inactive, and when given a chance you chose otherwise. I didn't call you mafia or insinuate it was some terrible maneuver. I asked you "what gives?"

Whatever your alignment, you clearly don't have town interests at heart.

"Clearly" is an adverb- one of the most dangerous ones. It assumes something is true without knowing all the facts, whilst subtly attempting to get others to believe that something is true when they also don't know everything.

It's a more sinister cousin to "obviously."

You think my methods are stupid, and I think your methods are stupid.

Cool?

linki: fitting end to that discussion.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

An observation about Jay's voting record.

DAY 7 - Jay makes a case and votes nutella, the day that Black Rock is lynched. But he votes off from the main lynchee Black Rock, and doesn't comment on her. Not much later Jay backs off on his nutella suspicion due to her responses.

On Day 7 I was completely clueless. This is a complex setup and a lot of weird shit had already happened in it prior to my subbing in. I had no idea what was going on, and had to kind of just pave my own way. I examined nutella and saw some cause for suspicion, so I voted for her. I didn't know anything about Black Rock. Frankly I expected to be the lone nutella voter, I didn't think two other people would follow behind the guy that had just joined in an was flailing around for information (Scotty and Hedgeowl). They were both town so it's all good, but without their votes there my vote would look much more meaningless -- which was what I wanted. I wasn't qualified to make a significant vote that impact the actual lynchee so early in my part in this game. I wasn't caught up at all.

DAY 8 - The day Cobalt is lynched, Jay says early on that he'd rather vote Bass over Cobalt. Still, Jay offers several thoughts for Cobalt's potential to be mafia (here, here, and here. He also offers a point for the suspicion of Bass here. However, his point was disproved by Scotty, so Jay quickly turned his attention to fingersplints. Then, after ISOing fingersplints, entertaining Cobalt being a baddie, and having his reason for Bass being bad disproven, Jay votes for Bass anyway just to keep things from being a landslide? So again, Jay votes off from the main lynchee Cobalt, who flips civilian.

I said if it was between Bass and Cobalt, my preference would be Bass. I didn't insinuate it had to be one or the other. You're right that Scotty showed me a good reason to dissociate Bass from team Wildhorn (I hadn't seen it yet in my efforts to catch up with this madness). So I acknowledged his point as valid and moved on.

You misrepresent me badly when you say I "quickly moved on to splints". I ISO'd splints next because Scotty asked me to in the exact same post you just linked. You misrepresented me again regarding my content about Cobalt that phase -- you linked three posts, only one of which was distinctly suspicious of him for anything. If you're going to reference my content to support a theory against me, that content has to support the theory.

I voted for Bass in the end because the phase was trickling down so quietly to that easy Cobalt lynch. No matter what the result was going to be at that point, I hated that. I always hate that. Calm, non-pressure EODs are mafia's best friend in every game no matter who is being lynched. So I tried to do something about it. And that became a trend me -- I did the same the next phase when Bass lynched. I generated late pressure on ninja, and the result was a much more active thread with much more useful content than would have otherwise been present.

DAY 9 - Now that Jay acknowledges Bass could be a landslide vote, he decides to look more into Bass (after already voting him the previous day). Jay mentions in the same post that the lynch of Cobalt went to easy. Jay never dissuaded it.

You're right that I could have done more to dissuade it. I wish I had. At the end of that day phase though, nobody was around. I was basically talking to myself. Had it been a more active thread (like the kind you see during a non-landslide higher-pressure EOD scenario), then maybe I'd have been better able to pursue that.

On the other hand, Jay brought some ideas forth to support the lynching of Cobalt, and even entertained voting for him. Anyway, Jay does an ISO of Bass, suggesting that he is a valid lynch.

I entertained cases against everyone. I'm thorough. There were valid reasons to suspect a large number of players. I even endorsed the Bass lynch myself. This is besides the point -- even if I had been on those wagons I would have raised suspicions about the other people on them. Only so many of us can possibly just be wrong. Someone in the mix seemed likely to me to be enjoying the easy breezy EODs for Cobalt and Bass. So I thought it was a great to look for some mafia.

At this point, Jay addresses his strategy here of voting off the "bandwagons". I don't understand this strategy. If Jay will discuss all day on Day 8 the possibility of Cobalt being bad, and does the same thing with Bass on Day 9, why should he be calling these 5 players suspicious for their votes just because he decided to vote off?

I've explained the strategy numerous times in this game and again in this post. My votes off-wagon during the Cobalt lynch and Bass lynch weren't as much about trying to lynch someone else as they were about making the EOD a living breathing thing. I wanted any mafia players engaged in this thread during those situations to feel a little more pressure than they otherwise were filling. Cobalt was lynched too quietly, and I wanted to remedy that on the next day. Bass was winning the tally by a landslide, and I was able to generate enough attention for ninja to at least make it close -- and it was probably the most active EOD this game has seen since I joined it. Those situations are a lot more revealing and useful to townies who like to go digging like Sloonei and I than EODs in which nobody posts anything.

DAY 10 - Jay is silenced this day. He votes DFaraday, again voting off from the main lynch of Hedgeowl. Though in his defense, he did clear Hedgeowl from his suspect list on the previous night.

Hedgeowl was the lynch I criticized the most loudly because she was the only player I had labeled a town read. It felt like a waste to me. Oh well.

DAY 11 - Again, Jay mentions that several players should be seen as suspicious for their participation of civilian lynches. Again, the problem here is that Jay is looking at strictly vote patterns with this accusation.

Is that a problem? Aren't voting records a viable means of finding people suspicious? Of course they're not the only thing that matters, but they are important. Over the last couple phases I have shifted away from that mindset more, but it's not an invalid mindset. When four consecutive townies (at the time three when I was most vocal about it) are lynched, that's a cause to be suspicious of the participants in those lynches. This isn't some wild theory I'm espousing -- it's the most fundamental concept in mafia.

Upon closer inspection, Jay may not have voted on a single lynch of a player, but as I mentioned before, Jay lightly pushed the lynches of Cobalt and Bass on the respective days of their lynches. Jay should be held just as accountable.

If you wanted to, you could find things I've said to "lightly push" the lynches of everyone I've talked about in this entire game. When I analyze people, I tend to find at least something I don't like. That doesn't mean I'm pushing lynches, it means I'm being objective.

One more thing to add, and that is that Jay did not help with the lynch of Black Rock on Day 7. I realize that he had only joined the day before, but he still did state that he does not find her suspicious before she was lynched.

Again, if you're going to reference the post then you need to be fair about that reference. In that very post you've linked, I asserted I didn't find Black Rock suspicious because I didn't find anyone at all suspicious. I was too new to the game at that point to have any real opinion of anyone. Frankly it'd be more suspicious if I somehow pretended at that point to be capable of suspecting Black Rock. How was I supposed to know anything?

Jay later goes on to vote for Neverwhere, again voting off the main lynch of nutella (one of his previous, and actually still current suspicions). Jay states here that there is valid reason to vote for both players, and also that there is valid reason to suspect inactive players in the game (can someone point to me where Jay offers a strong point to suspect inactives aside from mere probabilit?).

When I said there are valid reasons to suspect inactive players, I was referring specifically the content you have generated on that front. You've paid the closest attention to night kill flavor and I've stated before this point that I am willing to trust your insights on those things. Moreover, if you're to assert that Neverwhere was my suspect merely because she was inactive, then you're misrepresenting me again. Remember the massive post I made explaining why I found Neverwhere suspicious for the things she did post? Reminder.

Again, Jay analyzes all of the players who voted for nutella, focusing the magnifying glass on them as if only the voters matter, and not the perpetrators.

You're misrepresenting me again. That "analysis" you're asserting I made to assert "only voters matter" -- Sloonei asked me exactly for that! He asked me how I'd rank the people who voted for nutella, so I answered him and explained why I ranked people the way I did. I absolutely did not suggest that they were the only suspects or that voting for nutella was the only possible suspicious act. For you to honestly make this assertion would require that you completely overlooked the question Sloonei asked me. I am quite skeptical.

Addendum: Jay has pushed the lynch of 3 of the last 4 civvies lynched, not voted in their lynches (nor has he voted on a single lynchee's wagon this game), and lightly pushed suspicion in the directions of the players who have voted on these wagons. Thoughts?

Linki: Whoa, that's a lot...

I absolutely tried to get Neverwhere lynched. If Epignosis had chosen her to break the tie, then I'd been on the wagon of the lynchee. I clearly wanted it too. You've accused me of stating some degree of suspicion both for the players lynched and for the players who voted in those lynches.

You're right. Because I've stated some degree of suspicion about everyone save maybe for Sloonei.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

URL code fail in there. Should be:

Reminder.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I think I addressed everything. If not, or if clarification is desired, please say so. Anyone.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What are you thinking about Golden?

I'm thinking about whether or not JJ is going to turn up and talk about whether he really thinks you could be bad and setting him up or not. I'm very interested in what he has to say about that.

It's a possibility I've mulled over. There's no good way to evidence the notion, so it really must remain speculative -- that doesn't mean it's wrong. Like I said earlier: my argument with Epi presented a pretty easy opportunity to frame me by killing him. So when I perceive the game now with that notion in my head, it has to be a consideration for the only player to bring it up -- Marsh.

I do think it's believable that he is employing his death-post flavor to describe his theory (chandelier dropping being under my control), that's consistent with his mindset in recent phases. I do think he has misrepresented me quite a lot in this discussion though which would support a deliberate smear theory.

I want him to answer to my points before I pursue this notion further. I'd rather lynch Neverwhere first or DFaraday second.

I'm also thinking that one thing I did in economics was make a case on TinyBubbles when I was nightkilling her, because that kind of thing can be a decent play for cred.

In that game you perceived Bubbles as a threat (theories about her role). Not long before my argument with Epi I had listed him as a town read and had generally left him alone. If I'm mafia, that should indicate that I'm trying to pocket him -- not set him up for this awkward argument-then-kill strategy. He didn't do anything in recent phases to suggest he's the sort of threat that Bubbles was in Economics. It's all WIFOM though so I understand your suspicion.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I voted for Neverwhere. This thread is dead, maybe someone will care.

[nijuukyugou]

There are so many names being tossed in as possibilities and with so few people left

Read Marsh's case on JJJ. Found points of it sound, especially about avoiding civ lynches while also pushing for them. I've done that as a baddie. But I also like JJJ's defense, mostly the tone. Seemed genuine.

Somewhat like the Neverwhere cases being thrown around. Already mentioned this in a previous post.

I like my previous findings and feelings about splints, and am likely to vote there, as I have been for a few days now. Others have been dissuaded from doing so, so I'll ask before I jump the gun - why not splints? I'm also hesitant because while I usually like what my gut says, it hasn't been as great in the latter half of this game as I'd like.

It seems I'm inadvertently channeling Rorschach in this post

Linki - I care! Hi JJJ!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hi niju!

I like my previous findings and feelings about splints, and am likely to vote there, as I have been for a few days now. Others have been dissuaded from doing so, so I'll ask before I jump the gun - why not splints? I'm also hesitant because while I usually like what my gut says, it hasn't been as great in the latter half of this game as I'd like.

The easiest response would be that for me, splints boasts a similar attribute to you -- she performs well on the tone test. The deeper into the game we go, particularly after so many bad lynches, the less confident such a read should be. If you could summarize your suspicion of splints in a couple sentences, how would you do so?

[nijuukyugou]

Hi niju!

I like my previous findings and feelings about splints, and am likely to vote there, as I have been for a few days now. Others have been dissuaded from doing so, so I'll ask before I jump the gun - why not splints? I'm also hesitant because while I usually like what my gut says, it hasn't been as great in the latter half of this game as I'd like.

The easiest response would be that for me, splints boasts a similar attribute to you -- she performs well on the tone test. The deeper into the game we go, particularly after so many bad lynches, the less confident such a read should be. If you could summarize your suspicion of splints in a couple sentences, how would you do so?

Yes, that was my hesitance, too - when I went back and read her defenses, they do sound a lot like mine, especially where she says that she's "not that shitty of a mafia player" (which made me actually laugh out loud because I've said and would say almost the exact same thing in the future). My main suspicion relies on her opportunism, as stated in my previous case against her. There are several instances of votes for people she suddenly suspects with little to no prior mention of them, and making it so she can talk her way out of just about any lynch result (the case is a lot more specific than that, but you wanted a summary). Funny thing is, I don't see this as shitty mafia playing at all

[Golden]

I voted for Neverwhere. This thread is dead, maybe someone will care.

Disappointed that you already voted. Understand why, I was away for a while.

I really wanted to read through all of this and discuss it with you first.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I voted for Neverwhere. This thread is dead, maybe someone will care.

Disappointed that you already voted. Understand why, I was away for a while.

I really wanted to read through all of this and discuss it with you first.

Unfortunately I can't be awake for the rest of the phase. I have to get up early and host a philosophy society meeting (I'm a nerd). So the vote had to come soon anyway. I'll be here for another half hour or so; discussion is still plausible even if a vote change isn't.

[Golden]

Basic truth. I do not think JJ is on team webber. I don't think bullzeye's activity lines up with JJ being the phantom. My vibe is that JJ is good full stop, but I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate he is not the phantom.

I think there are literally only three players left in the game who can be the phantom. DF, splints, MM. I believe I have legitimately logically excluded all other candidates, no other possibilities. I believe it must be one of those three.

DF - there is your answer about why you. But given MM went out against JJ, it had me legitimately thinking maybe MM is the real culprit.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

But given MM went out against JJ, it had me legitimately thinking maybe MM is the real culprit.

I think this possibility can be reduced to a pretty simple question:

Marsh suggested I might have control of the chandelier and thus be the phantom. With this in mind, which is more believable?

1.) Marsh's continued focus on death-post flavor is indicative that he is town and is employing a distinct strategy to explain night kill trends and build theories about them (including the one about me).

2.) Marsh is mafia, thus giving him default knowledge of when his team gets night kills, and took advantage of the JJJ/Epi argument to set up a frame attempt in-line with his proposed death-post flavor theories.

[Marmot]

I'm on my phone now, but I will address everything I can when I get home.

Linki: Golden, have you introduced why you have ruled out so many other players? There could be two members of each team left, so the inactivity of one team member might not relate to the activity of another.

[Golden]

But given MM went out against JJ, it had me legitimately thinking maybe MM is the real culprit.

I think this possibility can be reduced to a pretty simple question:

Marsh suggested I might have control of the chandelier and thus be the phantom. With this in mind, which is more believable?

1.) Marsh's continued focus on death-post flavor is indicative that he is town and is employing a distinct strategy to explain night kill trends and build theories about them (including the one about me).

2.) Marsh is mafia, thus giving him default knowledge of when his team gets night kills, and took advantage of the JJJ/Epi argument to set up a frame attempt in-line with his proposed death-post flavor theories.

Umm... I think you are reading in more than I am either way.

Everyone around here has default knowledge of when you can expect kills to come in and flavour text to prove it is common. I don't think any of that stuff is particularly useful or relevant one way or the other, I think it's just you being new to flavour text customs and this kind of set up.

What I ask is, whats more likely.

1) MM is civilian, legitimately thought you were the phantom.

2) Marsh is mafia, was trying to set you up.

I think two, because as I say - as a civilian trying to actually solve this game, and someone who has been recording the flavour text (thus who is the baddie) for each kill, I find it difficult to believe MM would miss a gaping hole such as absenteeism in his analysis.

[Golden]

@MM - thats why I said specifically the phantom. Webber himself could be anyone.

The phantom has been around on every odd night. In my view that counts out SVS, neverwhere, daisy, gumshoe, JJ, sloonei, devin. Counting myself and ninja out for other reasons.

And MM, I remain very persuadable. I think it could be DF. I think it could be splints. I think it could be you.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Another question about Syndicate norms: When mafia issue a kill, is a specific killer supposed to be given to the mod by the team?

i.e., could Webber simply tell Dom: "[Phantom] kills Player X"?