Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

#1951

Where is Russti? He has been quiet for a while. Did we have a silencer in position last night or something?

**http://www.last.fm/user/nutella23** · #1952

Rico, what would be the point of the secrets if we would clearly be able to tell that they weren't messaging? I'm pretty sure the idea is that we get a message to the thread regardless of the position but we don't know how they differ.

**http://www.last.fm/user/nutella23** · #1953

The only thing I see in Position 1 that might possibly be a silencer is the Keeper of Order "Pull a player over"

#1954

Sorsha wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I've moved my vote to Turnip Head per Serenity's request.
Do you think TH is actually deserving of a lynch? What makes you so confident to follow the speaker?

Same question for tinybubbles. Is it normal for her to post without explanation? I haven't played with her before.

She is new to me as well. And people seem to think the Speaker has info, and I don't see how that would be the case. Gossips usually don't, or if they do it is flawed.

Someone mentioned the whole thing about the other gossips post today, about looking north. I thought that was a Lost reference. It's on the Eko stick, it's a Biblical quote. I kinda skimmed at work today, but need to actually read.

Linki, that sounds like a potential silencing.

#1955

unfurl wrote:
unfurl wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.
So what are you thoughts for this lynch? you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything?
What do you think of the people that voted for you? do you think they still looking at you?

For now Im placing my vote on birdwithteeth11 I gonna try to pop up later to see if his afternoon promised is fullfilled

Im gonna keep an open mind about MP, but Im also not joining The save MP party by votting Bass, Im actually intersting to see if any more guesses will be joining eitheir one

birdwithteeth11 wrote: - Unfurl, why did you throw a vote on me out of curiosity? Was it because I hadn't come back to post yet or were there other reasons? Do tell. And on that note, what else have you actually contributed to this game since receiving MP's vote on Day 1? Because I feel like you've still said a lot without saying a lot.

Aparently you have missed a lot of my previous questions
I wanted to get answers/reactions from you, to decide if to change my vote from you, instead you asking me why I voted for you and go, and are using the same words MP said about be Day 1
and now you are saying the underline part which was what MP was saying, and actually you never said that about me during day 1
aparently you are a copy cat of MP cause day 1 you also agreed with him about votting for a low poster
my vote is staying in you, cause you are quick to agree about low posters but you are pretty much just copying MP

#1956

nutella wrote:Rico, what would be the point of the secrets if we would clearly be able to tell that they weren't messaging? I'm pretty sure the idea is that we get a message to the thread regardless of the position but we don't know how they differ.

Uhm, the point of secrets would be the secrets.

What would the implication that positions 2-5 would not be messaging detract from the mystery about what position 2-5 really are, if they're secret to the anyone but the Speaker?

I'm all for waiting to see if after N2 the Speaker will also send a message, but so far that's my interpretation of it. The positions seem to be only messaging itself, not seem to be the same kind of messaging. We already have the Keeper having different kinds of messaging, for that matter.

#1957

Golden wrote:I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.

I can see why people could be suspicious of TH.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't want to be recruited. Y'all better leave me alone.

Could it be he doesn't want people to try and recruit him because he's already on a team?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Doesn't sound very civvie minded either.

All in all not a whole lot to go on but I can see why people would consider voting for him.

I had to manually create linkbacks for this post like some kind of peasant

**http://www.last.fm/user/nutella23** · #1958

Well, the Keeper has one position for messaging to the thread, the others are for messaging people. The Speaker always messages to the thread, but it is different each time. I really don't think your interpretation would make much sense at all. The way it is worded, it's clear to me that the positions are meant to appear the same to the rest of us in thread, meaning the result will always appear as a message to the thread, and only the Speaker knows the "truth behind it".

#1959

Aapje, for clarity. I can't see why people would vote TH because the speaker told them to. I can see why they might for other reasons.

#1960

I had a gossip role in an LC game once, Sandman, and that role was a "get some info maybe true maybe false" type of thing, and I could add to it, iirc. There were three items to go into the post. This was only one. So I think it is the Speakers opinion. If it was more than one, I might think it was a true/false kind of thing. But with only one item in the post, I doubt it.

Linki @aapje~ A) I had forgotten TH said that about how the civvie recruiters are bad. B) quit whining, lol. Rome wasn't built in a day, so make more bricks

In srsness, sometimes if I think the quote in context is important, I will put the link in the post, but i don't bother with linkbacks.

#1961

G-Man's vote for TH seems a bit weak sauce for me, especially given that it's relatively fixed for the day, since he might have return. I get the "he's on my no-read list from which I intended to vote someone" more than the "let's test out if Speaker is genuine or ignorable". I've mentioned that it's highly unlikely the Speaker got to check and inform on his check in the same first Night of the game. When do we really test out what a messenger suspects? If he's spot on about TH being, let's say, a recruited baddie (aka the purest form of baddie at this point), he passes the test and receive eternal cred, and if he's wrong about TH being anything, we discret him, after just one night, for the rest of the game? This is even more interesting coming from G-Man who was Messenger in his last game.

All of the votes so far for him have pretty weak reasonings. Bubbles said nothing whatosever on the matter. MM also acts like the Speaker was sent from Heavens. Also @linki: aapje just came in fact with way better reads for suspecting TH, nevertheless all those were not reasons any of TH's voters brought up so far for voting him.

#1962

Roxy wrote:
nutella wrote:Dom, thanks for clarifying -- I was indeed the second player to vote for Bass today, after MP, but I still don't get why that is suspicious. Can you elaborate on why my vote warranted an ? And no I wasn't upset about you eyeing me specifically, it's more that your general pattern of opportunistically badgering people about little things is bothersome and imo unproductive. Maybe you have some success rate of catching baddies with stuff like that, I don't know, but to me it really seems like fluffing up your posts with trivial "pings" rather than discussing more substantial thoughts.

I'm still not understanding the BWT votes. On Day 1 I think several people voted for him for several different reasons, rather than a single case that gained any kind of momentum. Now Roxy votes for him without any kind of explanation that I see, and Lorab repeats her vote for him despite the fact that it seemed to me that her previous reasons for suspecting him were mostly resolved (primarily the list of low posters taken from G-man being inaccurate). Lorab, am I wrong -- did you have other qualms with BWT that he has not responded to?
Before you repeat things like I voted "with no explanation" maybe you should read my posts to find the explanation.
Also I will add that Teeth COMPLETELY ignored my suspicion of him for the entire day period.

What suspicion are you referring to from today?

Because I must have missed it.

#1963

EBWOP: since he might not return*, my proofreading is at 0% right now at 1:30am

Also, I'm intrigued that basically all the votes for BWT so far are coming from new players, except for LoRab, who kept it consistent. Checking what his D1 voters think since might actually be a good place to scan, since my feeling is that most have scattered, after that lynch failed.

#1964

unfurl wrote:
unfurl wrote:
unfurl wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.
So what are you thoughts for this lynch? you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything?
What do you think of the people that voted for you? do you think they still looking at you?

For now Im placing my vote on birdwithteeth11 I gonna try to pop up later to see if his afternoon promised is fullfilled

Im gonna keep an open mind about MP, but Im also not joining The save MP party by votting Bass, Im actually intersting to see if any more guesses will be joining eitheir one

birdwithteeth11 wrote: - Unfurl, why did you throw a vote on me out of curiosity? Was it because I hadn't come back to post yet or were there other reasons? Do tell. And on that note, what else have you actually contributed to this game since receiving MP's vote on Day 1? Because I feel like you've still said a lot without saying a lot.
Aparently you have missed a lot of my previous questions
I wanted to get answers/reactions from you, to decide if to change my vote from you, instead you asking me why I voted for you and go, and are using the same words MP said about be Day 1
and now you are saying the underline part which was what MP was saying, and actually you never said that about me during day 1
aparently you are a copy cat of MP cause day 1 you also agreed with him about votting for a low poster
my vote is staying in you, cause you are quick to agree about low posters but you are pretty much just copying MP

Well, it's not Day 1 anymore. It's Day 2. And I plan on voting with a better reason than just "Player X is a low poster.". So I don't see how that's relevant yet.

What questions did you have? If you link back to them or re-post them, I'll answer them.

How in the world am I copying MP? He wasn't even the first person to mention the idea of voting for a low poster on Day 1, albeit I wasn't either. But given I didn't have a good grasp on the game at that point in time, it seemed like the best option to me then.

#1965

Ricochet wrote:EBWOP: since he might not return*, my proofreading is at 0% right now at 1:30am

Also, I'm intrigued that basically all the votes for BWT so far are coming from new players, except for LoRab, who kept it consistent. Checking what his D1 voters think since might actually be a good place to scan, since my feeling is that most have scattered, after that lynch failed.

I just want to know where I'm still getting all these votes from. The only one that seems to have any backing or strong reasoning behind it is Lorab's.

#1966

Daisy: thanks for that explanation. Makes a lot of sense. You are Off Notice......for now

:P

I am terrified of missing the vote again today (I have a really, really bad record of missing votes), and I'm going to be in and out all evening and don't trust myself to remember, so I'm putting a placeholder vote on TinyBubbles for now, since she doesn't seem interested in/able to play or post much. If something better comes up and I remember, I will change my vote.....but I'm also not going to be too chuffed if it stays on Tiny.

Word.

#1967

Nevermind, Unfurl. I found your questions.

unfurl wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.
So what are you thoughts for this lynch? Well for right now, I have a couple of ideas of where to vote. I could see myself going for Bass, both because I think the cases against MP are bogus right now, and I think the way he was questioned by Golden, then turned it around on him feels like a baddie move to me. DFaraday is a slight maybe, but at this point, I feel like my original vote was to bring him around to chat some more. So doing that for 2 days in a row feels like I'd just be throwing away/wasting my vote. you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything? See previous answer.
What do you think of the people that voted for you? To be honest, I'm not really sure. The bandwagon seemed to come from out of nowhere, and to me, it felt like it was because: 1) It's Day 1 and there are very few strong reasons to be found in Day 1 votes, as well as 2) It was an easy case on me being "blendy/waffle-y" (my paraphrasing of it) when I get voted/lynched a lot for those same reasons. do you think they still looking at you? Well apparently Lorab, SVS, and you are so far. :P And Lorab's vote is the only one that makes any sense to me.

#1968

The tally currently smells like chaos, considering Ahriman has a triple vote, Azura might force 3 voters (unless it's a Night Power and it will count for tomorrow...?) and Magnetarch might reduce everyone's vote count to half...

#1969

Ricochet wrote:G-Man's vote for TH seems a bit weak sauce for me, especially given that it's relatively fixed for the day, since he might have return. I get the "he's on my no-read list from which I intended to vote someone" more than the "let's test out if Speaker is genuine or ignorable". I've mentioned that it's highly unlikely the Speaker got to check and inform on his check in the same first Night of the game. When do we really test out what a messenger suspects? If he's spot on about TH being, let's say, a recruited baddie (aka the purest form of baddie at this point), he passes the test and receive eternal cred, and if he's wrong about TH being anything, we discret him, after just one night, for the rest of the game? This is even more interesting coming from G-Man who was Messenger in his last game.

All of the votes so far for him have pretty weak reasonings. Bubbles said nothing whatosever on the matter. MM also acts like the Speaker was sent from Heavens. Also @linki: aapje just came in fact with way better reads for suspecting TH, nevertheless all those were not reasons any of TH's voters brought up so far for voting him.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I think I will reread some of these peoples posts, but I am still really highly disturbed by Golden, tbh. It is like he's a pod person Golden, lol.

Linki @BWT, I did not vote for you, or particularly think you were bad Day One; why do you think I did?

#1970

VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

#1971

S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:G-Man's vote for TH seems a bit weak sauce for me, especially given that it's relatively fixed for the day, since he might have return. I get the "he's on my no-read list from which I intended to vote someone" more than the "let's test out if Speaker is genuine or ignorable". I've mentioned that it's highly unlikely the Speaker got to check and inform on his check in the same first Night of the game. When do we really test out what a messenger suspects? If he's spot on about TH being, let's say, a recruited baddie (aka the purest form of baddie at this point), he passes the test and receive eternal cred, and if he's wrong about TH being anything, we discret him, after just one night, for the rest of the game? This is even more interesting coming from G-Man who was Messenger in his last game.

All of the votes so far for him have pretty weak reasonings. Bubbles said nothing whatosever on the matter. MM also acts like the Speaker was sent from Heavens. Also @linki: aapje just came in fact with way better reads for suspecting TH, nevertheless all those were not reasons any of TH's voters brought up so far for voting him.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I think I will reread some of these peoples posts, but I am still really highly disturbed by Golden, tbh. It is like he's a pod person Golden, lol.

Linki @BWT, I did not vote for you, or particularly think you were bad Day One; why do you think I did?

Sorry, that was a typo. My post should say unfurl, Roxy, and Lorab. I was referring to the ones who voted for me today, not on Day 1.

#1972

S~V~S wrote: This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I don't think I've played a seamless game my entire life! Lost Revolution was like the biggest fluke ever.

#1973

S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:G-Man's vote for TH seems a bit weak sauce for me, especially given that it's relatively fixed for the day, since he might have return. I get the "he's on my no-read list from which I intended to vote someone" more than the "let's test out if Speaker is genuine or ignorable". I've mentioned that it's highly unlikely the Speaker got to check and inform on his check in the same first Night of the game. When do we really test out what a messenger suspects? If he's spot on about TH being, let's say, a recruited baddie (aka the purest form of baddie at this point), he passes the test and receive eternal cred, and if he's wrong about TH being anything, we discret him, after just one night, for the rest of the game? This is even more interesting coming from G-Man who was Messenger in his last game.

All of the votes so far for him have pretty weak reasonings. Bubbles said nothing whatosever on the matter. MM also acts like the Speaker was sent from Heavens. Also @linki: aapje just came in fact with way better reads for suspecting TH, nevertheless all those were not reasons any of TH's voters brought up so far for voting him.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I think I will reread some of these peoples posts, but I am still really highly disturbed by Golden, tbh. It is like he's a pod person Golden, lol.

Linki @BWT, I did not vote for you, or particularly think you were bad Day One; why do you think I did?

What do you mean by "gossip (or not)"? Also, I assume you mean TH's remark, but what do you make of G-Man leaving it at that?

#1974

@BWT, ok, that makes sense. I was like

Bullzeye wrote:
S~V~S wrote: This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.
I don't think I've played a seamless game my entire life! Lost Revolution was like the biggest fluke ever.

Ha ha ha, well, you were a seamless recruit there. So it was an awesome fluke. I was so impressed!

DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

Yeah, this. I find the whole nonchalance about the whole thing to be almost chilling, tbh. Everything else I have seen seems like a little ping next to it.

VOTING FOR GOLDEN

#1975

Alright I'm finally back for real. I'm just gonna ctrl+F my name first and be a narcissist. Then I'll catch up on the rest of thangs.

#1976

Ricochet wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:G-Man's vote for TH seems a bit weak sauce for me, especially given that it's relatively fixed for the day, since he might have return. I get the "he's on my no-read list from which I intended to vote someone" more than the "let's test out if Speaker is genuine or ignorable". I've mentioned that it's highly unlikely the Speaker got to check and inform on his check in the same first Night of the game. When do we really test out what a messenger suspects? If he's spot on about TH being, let's say, a recruited baddie (aka the purest form of baddie at this point), he passes the test and receive eternal cred, and if he's wrong about TH being anything, we discret him, after just one night, for the rest of the game? This is even more interesting coming from G-Man who was Messenger in his last game.

All of the votes so far for him have pretty weak reasonings. Bubbles said nothing whatosever on the matter. MM also acts like the Speaker was sent from Heavens. Also @linki: aapje just came in fact with way better reads for suspecting TH, nevertheless all those were not reasons any of TH's voters brought up so far for voting him.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I think I will reread some of these peoples posts, but I am still really highly disturbed by Golden, tbh. It is like he's a pod person Golden, lol.

Linki @BWT, I did not vote for you, or particularly think you were bad Day One; why do you think I did?
What do you mean by "gossip (or not)"? Also, I assume you mean TH's remark, but what do you make of G-Man leaving it at that?

I missed this Rico.

Gossip or not is just a turn of phrase, shorthand for "regardless of what the gossip says". I don't put great stock in gossip, I have been it's victim one time too many. The tradtional term is a Gossip role, "Messenger" is newer. I prefer Gossip since it puts what they say in perspective. And yes, "remark" the point aapje made about TH saying all the recruiters were bad.

As I said, your points pretty much summed up my feeling about all of those voters, including G Man. But as I also said, I find Golden to alarm me the most. He's like a Rogue, and rogues are scary.

#1977

LoRab wrote:Which, earlier statement about Judge having nefarious purposes (I like the word nefarious these days), makes this post ping my suspiciometer.

It was made at 6:06. Just 20 minutes after day was ended prematurely. Trying to sound innocent and remove oneself from the idea by encouraging people to vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.
Also, who is the "us" of whom you are speaking?

Are you asserting I might have been the one to force the day's end? I'm honestly not sure, this post confuses me. If so, I would ask you why you think I put a concerted effort into moving the votes off of DFaraday and onto either BWT or Bass at the end of the day -- well after its early end.

"Us" referred to the people who had already placed votes including myself. Securing a lynch is paramount to learning something from late-day proceeding, so I called for everyone else (civilian, baddie, and neutral alike) to aid me in the process of murdering somebody.

#1978

aapje wrote:
Golden wrote:I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.
I can see why people could be suspicious of TH.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't want to be recruited. Y'all better leave me alone.
Could it be he doesn't want people to try and recruit him because he's already on a team?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.
Doesn't sound very civvie minded either.

All in all not a whole lot to go on but I can see why people would consider voting for him.

I had to manually create linkbacks for this post like some kind of peasant

You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

#1979

MovingPictures07 wrote:JaggedJimmyJay, how do you feel about Russ now?

In fact, would you be able to provide a Rainbow List? Maybe we can swap rainbows even.

My immediate perception of Russ is still positive. The only slightly off-putting thing about him is that his post count has remained low despite each of them being pretty thick with content (shades of Alpha and coolkid from the champs tournament), but that's not a significant enough observation to worry me much.

I don't know if a rainbow list makes much sense in this unique setup, at least this early in it. The presence of so much neutrality makes me think any rainbow would be 90% gray. If you're inclined to produce one then I'm game though.

#1980

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:Which, earlier statement about Judge having nefarious purposes (I like the word nefarious these days), makes this post ping my suspiciometer.

It was made at 6:06. Just 20 minutes after day was ended prematurely. Trying to sound innocent and remove oneself from the idea by encouraging people to vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.
Also, who is the "us" of whom you are speaking?
Are you asserting I might have been the one to force the day's end? I'm honestly not sure, this post confuses me. If so, I would ask you why you think I put a concerted effort into moving the votes off of DFaraday and onto either BWT or Bass at the end of the day -- well after its early end.

"Us" referred to the people who had already placed votes including myself. Securing a lynch is paramount to learning something from late-day proceeding, so I called for everyone else (civilian, baddie, and neutral alike) to aid me in the process of murdering somebody.

You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.

#1981

LoRab wrote:But the timing of JJJ's post pings me.

Is this a reference to the same post?

#1982

Voting DP
Don't think he has posted anything of value yet.

#1983

Turnip Head wrote:You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

Fair enough. Wasn't planning on voting for you over it anyway. Was just checking what you actually said when people were voting for you.

#1984

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:But the timing of JJJ's post pings me.
Is this a reference to the same post?

yes

#1985

LoRab wrote:You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.

So you're inclined to believe that the person who ended the day early was not aligned with Team Good Guys, or still among the neutral pile?

I think you could select a large number of posts from about the same area of the thread and find a "could have been..." description for them that suits your theory in a similar fashion. You're already reaching quite a bit -- not only to peg this role on me, but beyond that to assert it'd even warrant a vote if you were right.

#1986

Bold assertion:

MP is an unlikely recruiter because his behavior on Day 1 was spotlight-oriented. MP is an unlikely recruitee because people were and still are quick to suspect him for so many bad reasons. I don't think many recruiters would want to take that on.

#1987

Golden wrote:
Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?
I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.

Really? Why?

#1988

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.
So you're inclined to believe that the person who ended the day early was not aligned with Team Good Guys, or still among the neutral pile?

I think you could select a large number of posts from about the same area of the thread and find a "could have been..." description for them that suits your theory in a similar fashion. You're already reaching quite a bit -- not only to peg this role on me, but beyond that to assert it'd even warrant a vote if you were right.

I noticed something and brought it up, partly to see your reaction, partly because I thought it worthy of bringing up. Yours was the only vote within a time frame close to the vote end time that talked about people being sure to vote. It stood out to me. I pointed it out. It's what I do.

I do not the the person who ended day early is civ aligned, for sure. I think they may have been bad alligned--but they may be neutral. But their action does not feel neutral. So I feel it is worth discussing.

And I don't think I said I was going to vote for you, just that I suspected you and had/have an eye on you. Your reaction to that seems a bit over the top, tbh, and didn't make me feel better. But still just keeping an

for the time being.

#1989

So sorry it took me so long to get back here. Yesterday was a 16 hour work day, had to go in for an interview today who didn't show and tomorrow is evaluation day so um...yea. Work. Woot.

A few things:

G-Man (or was it RIco- I keep thinking that I saw something in my phone read from Rico that addressed me but I can't find it now.) - I saw you said something along the lines of "people probably didn't do their homework to be sad to see a sorcerer Tranq die" I gotta say,that's exactly where my head space was when I responded to the Night Post. It was bed time, I'd had a few drinks, and reacted to the loss of the players as opposed to actually going back to page 1 and looking to see who or why any of the killing had happened. But yea - those sorcerer rolls are pretty skerry. I'm sorry you don't have a read on me yet. I hope that changes soon. I'm pretty rad really.

DrWiggly - cute post! I addressed DH specifically because he was around at the time and said he wanted to discuss things so I picked a thing to try to generate discussion.

As to my general thoughts of the thread:

Golden: So, I read Golden's post and didn't really vibe the same vibe SVS had. That's not suprising to me at all, given that SVS and I don't always see things the same way even when we think we do. I totes get where she is coming from. When she posts about the tone seeming off and "pod peopley." I think, I can see how she sees that. For me, I read his posts initially as just very mater of fact. LIke they read cold and without feeling because the decisions he made were cold and without feeling they were made from a place of logic and reason. LIke lawyer brain kicked in. Does that make sense? In any case, while the game play certainly isn't civ Golden meta, I don't think it's enough yet for a a vote. And I see where SVS is coming from. It's worth keeping in mind as the game continues for sure.

MP/Llama: Neither of them seemed weird to me, not sure at all why they have votes.

Bass: My general meta for Bass is kinda like DF's - he's slow to get into games but tends to post stuff with substance the more the game progresses. I've seen it hurt him as a civ and help him as a baddie. He's obviously missed the finer points of discussion based on his suspicions of MP and I know how hard it is to keep up with a super busy thread when life is crazy. (FWIW - I completely believe that if MP were a recruiter Daisy would not be on his recruiting "wish list." No offense meant toward Daisy at all she is indeed an amazing player, but I think he would look for other player skills than hers.)

Tiny Bubbles: Has she posted at all this phase? Is she behind too? IDK. All I remember her posting is her response to llama's suspicion. That's concerning to me. I'm tempted to vote here soley to prod her into posting more.

This feels very much like D1 Redux to me.

#1990

LoRab wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
LoRab wrote:You could have posted to try to detach from seeming like the person who stopped day. You also might not have nkown that the hosts would announce when day was stopped. I'm not ready to vote for you for this, but it does raise an eyebrow.
So you're inclined to believe that the person who ended the day early was not aligned with Team Good Guys, or still among the neutral pile?

I think you could select a large number of posts from about the same area of the thread and find a "could have been..." description for them that suits your theory in a similar fashion. You're already reaching quite a bit -- not only to peg this role on me, but beyond that to assert it'd even warrant a vote if you were right.
I noticed something and brought it up, partly to see your reaction, partly because I thought it worthy of bringing up. Yours was the only vote within a time frame close to the vote end time that talked about people being sure to vote. It stood out to me. I pointed it out. It's what I do.

I do not the the person who ended day early is civ aligned, for sure. I think they may have been bad alligned--but they may be neutral. But their action does not feel neutral. So I feel it is worth discussing.

And I don't think I said I was going to vote for you, just that I suspected you and had/have an eye on you. Your reaction to that seems a bit over the top, tbh, and didn't make me feel better. But still just keeping an for the time being.

Sure. I encourage you to bring things up and discuss them whether I'm involved or not. It's my job to ask you questions about your own thought process to give me a little assurance that you're not being manipulative -- or worse yet capitalizing on my slow Day 2.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what else one can do with an accusation other than answer to it and attempt to express why it isn't suitable. If you remain suspicious then oh well that's Mafia.

#1991

I have to get heading to work in a few minutes and likely won't be able to check the thread anymore tonight. I'm going to put another vote on tinybubbles for the voting without an explanation.

#1992

Pretty sure it was before day 2, and certainly before you said anything in the thread about your day, that I brought it up. And if I reamin suspish, then so be it. Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide.

#1993

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?
I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.
Really? Why?

To be more specific, why do you think it more possible that BWT was speaking as a civvie than as a baddie that knew he would not be lynched?

#1994

unfurl wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
unfurl wrote: BWT, got a lot votes, maybe is worth lo look at him or his voters, some manipulation may be going on in that situation something I may look into later on
I agree re-reading the BWT voters might be a traditional way to spot some potential bandwagoning, but what manipulation do you plan to unearth, considering the Day officially ended before BWT received 7 out of his 8 total votes?

Mearly that Im curious as to he received 8 votes (looking at the image poll) from Devin-Lorab-TurnipHead-jaggedjimmy -DrWiggly-Golden-Typh-Tranq
More toward the end of the lynch poll
And even if the day ended early, and we have no clue to bwt alliance, I think is intersting to see if people still feel the same about him or if something changed?

I voted for BWT for two primary reasons:

1.) I thought he'd make a better lynch than DFaraday, who was leading the tally.

2.) He had the highest quantity of posts that pinged me in some way.

#2 can be tempered some by the fact that BWT simply has a decent number of posts and thus more opportunities to be perceived as suspicious. This also seems to be happening to MP and Golden as far as I can tell. Right now I find BWT a little less suspicious than I did on Day 1. I admire his tenacity; he's been a consistent and important presence since surviving the lynch -- and not to such a degree that there should be concern of overcompensation.

#1995

Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

#1996

LoRab wrote:Pretty sure it was before day 2, and certainly before you said anything in the thread about your day, that I brought it up. And if I reamin suspish, then so be it. Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide.

I don't think I find you terribly suspicious. You've espoused your perspective believably enough that I'm not inclined to "no u" about it. You saw something in my posts that bore specific contextual meaning to you, and you pursued that avenue in the thread -- and answered correctly by my measure when I prodded you to expand.

#1997

Turnip Head wrote:Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

Probably not, I think baddies put more thought into their votes than civvies do a lot of the time because they're more concerned with appearing good and not having their intentions questioned. Also has nobody considered she could be silenced? I am surprised MM was so willing to follow the Speaker though after seemingly putting so much thought into his vote yesterday only to follow the whims of an unknown player today. G-Man too to a lesser extent since he did offer a little more elaboration from his vote.

#1998

Turnip Head wrote:Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

Maybe she's silenced? I don't remember her posting at all during Day 2.

#1999

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?
Maybe she's silenced? I don't remember her posting at all during Day 2.

Looks like she posted once this phase.

TinyBubbles wrote:I did not expect to see Epi go so soon, RIP, and Typhoony too

#2000

Bubbles would seem to be a strange choice for silencing; she is rarely the most talkative sort. I'm arriving late to this conversation -- what's the beef with Bubbles exactly?

Game End!