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

[nutella]

Bye G-Man

[DharmaHelper]

Later G-Man.

[reywaS]

Golden voters.

Rey: I've made my feelings here pretty clear. Rey voted for me on day one because I said that 'certainly epi wouldn't end up on my team' and didn't say to his satisfaction that I recognised this was not true (even though I did say it multiple times).

Golden, are you seriously going back to this? This is not why I voted for you. Your insistence that you wouldn't ever be team mates with Epi played a factor in my suspicion and vote for you, but it was not the reason. You know that. You even finally admitted that you understood where I was coming from. Remember this post?

Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.

I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.

Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.

I didn't perceive the events through Epig's point of view. I read it differently that he did. I drew the parallel to his argument because they are similar. Just because I read the two situations differently, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Fair enough.

You are wrong, but I feel way better about you than I do about epi. Having worked through your thought process, I can understand where things went wrong and I do not think it was any intent on your part to misrepresent.

On the other hand, I think you should read my posts again and recognise that my posts about epi were (and are) emotionally charged and that my primary meaning is that I don't think epi would be wanting me recruited to his team and I won't recruit him to mine, and for this reason it is no skin off my nose to see him lynched. I recognise this falls short of the 'certainty' I said yesterday. But lynching someone who is best case neutral who I don't think will ever be aligned with me makes sense to me.

So, why are you now reverting back to this strawman? I seriously do not understand why you are doing this IF you are really neutral. You are misrepresenting me in a very obvious way. Obvious to me because I know very well what I said and what I'm thinking...but other people that might not be paying especially close attention could be swayed by this bullshit.

I am not going to be dragged back into a potential thread derailment arguing with you when it's becoming apparent that what you are doing...but a blatant lie could not be ignored.

[bea]

Awe. Bye gman.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.

There are lots of things you coul have asked Bass. I don't think demanding reads on random people was productive at all. It just seemed mean.

I certainly didn't intend to be mean. I intended to generate meaningful information to further my own understanding of Bass. Bass, if you found my behavior distasteful then I apologize for that.

Did anyone else feel that way? I ask because if this perspective is a trend then I'll need to reassess my approach. I don't want to baddie hunt so hard that I become a jerk.

[Spacedaisy]

I did not find it mean at all.

[Golden]

@rey - the ultimate reason you said you voted for me was that you found me not to be genuine, I understand that and yes I found that to make sense at that time. But after day two where you found a similarly obscure reason to come back to suspecting me, my perspective on your behaviour both days has changed.

[Golden]

What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.

There are lots of things you coul have asked Bass. I don't think demanding reads on random people was productive at all. It just seemed mean.

I certainly didn't intend to be mean. I intended to generate meaningful information to further my own understanding of Bass. Bass, if you found my behavior distasteful then I apologize for that.

Did anyone else feel that way? I ask because if this perspective is a trend then I'll need to reassess my approach. I don't want to baddie hunt so hard that I become a jerk.

I disagree with the idea that it was mean entirely.

Can I see that it could be reasonably perceived as uniquely targeted and so a manipulative move from a baddie? Yes. (I don't think it was, but I can understand that perspective). But that doesn't make it mean to do it.

[Golden]

Also, RIP G-Man, I'm sorry to lose you, even though I know you need to focus on baby.

[Bubbles]

sorry to see you go Gman!

[Golden]

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.

What is the difference between seeing you as a threat and being afraid of you leading to my death? Do you think I am threatened that you might hug me too hard?

I'm getting to this, I really don't think you need to post it twice within a short period of time. Reminds me of LC who accused me of being bad in BoB because I didn't respond to him within 19 minutes.

I think you are playing a neutral game and you don't have any problem with getting rid of me because you know I will also play the game hard, and the epi death stuff is a convenient example of how I will do this. I don't think you felt any imminent threat to your life in the game.

Imagine this scenario - you are unable to be nightkilled or lynched but you die and lose if the rest of your team dies. You might perceive me as a threat to your chances of winning, despite knowing I wasn't going to be able to kill you.

If you are claiming that you legitimately think I might have been about to kill you, even though I had expressed hardly any suspicion on you and wasn't interested in you at all, on the basis of my epi stuff - well, I would find that to be incredibly disingenuous and my opinion of your vote for me would change considerably.

[DharmaHelper]

You didn't even answer my question.

[Golden]

You didn't even answer my question.

Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

[DharmaHelper]

You didn't even answer my question.

Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

Doesn't address the discrepancy in those quotes I mentioned.

[Dom]

Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

I disagree 100%, have you been reading the same thread as me? Golden and I have been in hot seats for almost the entire game, and Golden barely made it out of the last lynch alive.

Meanwhile, we have TinyBubbles, timmer, and DisgruntledPorcupine, who are recently receiving a bit of heat, but have not come under near as much fire as those who have put their words on the line and posted much more.

I think your post here trying to further the divide, making this a hardcore v. non-hardcore fest, is troubling greatly. I think players with post counts of all sizes should be eyeballed with equal fervor, not lopsided, and it's entirely why I've been defending Golden because his posts have read completely reasonable as a neutral-aligned Golden. The only accusations against him legitimately fall into two categories: (1) fear mongering and (2) belief that neutral Golden would play like a civilian.

HE SAID HE WOULD

When did I ever say I would play "Like my civilian meta" - if anything, I've said the exact opposite - that I am neutral and don't know what team I'm on and am one of the few people overtly being clear that I am playing like that. I have literally never said I'm playing 'like a civilian'.

I am, however, saying that I do not believe epi was a civ, and I would not have made my move if I thought he was a civilian. I'm not playing anti-civilian.

You literally said you would have a hard time voting for someone who you didn't think was bad. How much more civilian can you get?
This is quite different than baiting a baddie to kill Epignosis because you don't think you'll end up on his team... but... if you are a civilian... you might not even know if you're on his team... or if he's on the other civilian team... like???? what????
No, it's because you got recruited and are bad.

Spoiler: show

Why the wishy-washy-ness on Bass?
When Epignosis pushed for his lynch, he had one vote, did he not? Golden was hardly in danger on Day 1.

This does not address Golden's change in tone. This does not address Golden's change in actions since Day 0.

Dom, I'm confused. What wishy-washyness are you talking about? I feel I've been consistent on Bass.

I don't discount that fact; you raise a good point. Nonetheless, I've been pursued by Epignosis before on Day 1, and Day 1 always unpredictable. I suppose it's so easy for me to understand Golden's perspective because I was just feeling everything he seemed to be feeling here on Day 1 of Economics when Epi relentlessly attacked me because he thought I was lying about RL.

Regarding Golden, I do believe his tone changed rapidly once Epi started going after him hard, and I can completely understand why. I do not think Golden's change in tone is indicative of anything other than being under intense emotional fire. What do you think?

I think he's been recruited.

Golden voters.

Dom: I feel is probably genuine, although I don't entirely understand why he suspects me. But it's been consistent and felt real. I'd like to understand what specific things I've done that have him suspecting me.

I don't understand your change in tone from Day 0 and wanting to find baddies to literally manipulating the thread to kill someone because you didn't want them going after you and you didn't think you'd be not he same team (with extremely flawed logic).

[Turnip Head]

So what's a rainbow post? Other than the thing DH posted

Some would say they are posts that are outwardly supportive of Gay rights.

Do you have any rainbow posts you would like to share with the class, aapje?

Oooh I know just the thing! I'm sure some people will appreciate this classic:

I will not be voting for aapje today. Thank you for this blast from the past

Rest in peace G-Man. Whoever's doing the killing so far doesn't like fun.

[Golden]

You didn't even answer my question.

Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

Doesn't address the discrepancy in those quotes I mentioned.

I think it does. I don't think I understand what else you want me to say.

I do not think you thought I was about to kill you (ie 'were scared'). I think you just voted for me because you thought it was in your interests as a neutral player (ie 'I was a threat').

[DharmaHelper]

Why would you be a threat if you weren't eventually going to kill me?

[Golden]

Why would you be a threat if you weren't eventually going to kill me?

Instead of you asking me the same question again and again and me getting increasingly frustrated with your answers, why don't you answer this simple question.

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

[DharmaHelper]

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

[Golden]

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

[Scotty]

So what's a rainbow post? Other than the thing DH posted

Some would say they are posts that are outwardly supportive of Gay rights.

Do you have any rainbow posts you would like to share with the class, aapje?

Oooh I know just the thing! I'm sure some people will appreciate this classic:

I will not be voting for aapje today. Thank you for this blast from the past

Rest in peace G-Man. Whoever's doing the killing so far doesn't like fun.

Are you not voting him today because he's pushed your nostalgia button or something else? If it's the former, then that's a pretty weak reason not to vote for aapje.

Also I voted for JJJ for the time being. Call it a placeholder vote for now, since he did the same to me yesterday.

[DharmaHelper]

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ, do you feel like you would be a good candidate to be recruited? Why or why not?

I suppose that depends on what a recruiter is looking for.

Would I be a good candidate for someone seeking consistent effort? Yes.

Would I be a good candidate for someone seeking a specific skillset related to this setup? Iffy.'

Would I be a good candidate for someone seeking a player under the radar? Absolutely not.

Would I be a good candidate for someone wanting to have a little fun? I like to think so.

I think civilian recruiters might fear picking me because I bear the appearance of a night kill target. Baddies might not be inclined to pick me because I bring the spotlight upon myself deliberately. I dunno though. This assumes they even have much of a choice in the matter.

[Golden]

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

[Golden]

Is the day actually ending in only 24 hours?

[Turnip Head]

I will not be voting for aapje today. Thank you for this blast from the past

Rest in peace G-Man. Whoever's doing the killing so far doesn't like fun.

Are you not voting him today because he's pushed your nostalgia button or something else? If it's the former, then that's a pretty weak reason not to vote for aapje.

Are you the murderer? Because it feels like you hate fun right now.

My post re: aapje probably should have been in tongue-in-cheek teal.

[Black Rock]

Is the day actually ending in only 24 hours?

No, someone.. not naming names... anyways I will edited it tomorrow night to fit in with a decent time ending Thursday.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Scotty pings:

Spoiler: show

I'm also in the mindset of not saddened at all to see him gone. Not as a person, but as a role. You guys remember Disney's Fantasia?? Remember how much of a bully and meanie that Sorcerer was when Mickey futzed with the magic brooms? Who wants that in this game? Sorcerers can be badddd in this game.

As for Golden, I feel like if he were to stop responding to every little thing said about him his heat would die down a bit, but he has kept going, much to people's chagrin, and people are finding that even more suspicious. I feel that he's probably gonna have that monkey on his back all game until we can get a better picture of who actually killed Epi (we may never).
I have no reason to believe he is anything more than neutral right now.

I give MP credit for drawing even more attention to himself by taking a controversial stance -- that there's reason for civilian-inclined players to celebrate the death of neutral Bass. However, the people who tagged along on that notion (which might actually just be Scotty, I'm not sure) are a little more suspicious for it. MP's stance provided an opportunity for people to espouse a potentially damaging perspective: that killing off unaligned sorcerers is a worthy objective.

The more significant ping here is in the second paragraph though. I don't like any of these sentences. Scotty echoes my own sentiment that Golden could stand to benefit from dropping the self-defense agenda for a while, but he does so in the third person as a detached commentator. He is calling the plays on a delay:

Golden is making life worse for himself by continuing to defend himself so much. He's probably going to keep doing that, and that is why he's going to remain a big suspect. This won't change until the Epignosis kill is resolved if ever. I read Golden as neutral.

His post prior to this was largely about Golden and his detractors in the thread, and he really had a lot to say. He even specifically stated that he doesn't believe Golden killed Epignosis (I agree). I feel like this mindset should appear in this post too, as a component of what becomes a developed and nuanced read on Golden. Instead he offers a summary of everyone else's take on Golden and Golden's behavior in response without putting forth an original thought. This troubles me.

I admit that this is a complex read by me, so I invite Scotty to talk about it.

[Black Rock]

Public Recruitment

Team Caelia and Team Ahriman would like to recruit another member. It is very important to band together as good forces to keep evil dictators at bay. This will be a NON-BTSC recruitment. Tell them a story about the war and why you need to join them against the others. Please do not refer to your user name or role name. You have 24 hours to submit your story.

[DharmaHelper]

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Were you legitimately scared that if you didn't put the hit out on Epi he would have A) Not ended up on your team eventually and B) Killed you.

[Golden]

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Were you legitimately scared that if you didn't put the hit out on Epi he would have A) Not ended up on your team eventually and B) Killed you.

A - yes. B - no (why would you NK someone you think you can lynch), but he would have been a threat to me, because he would have been pursuing my lynch.

[Golden]

Now answer mine.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Man, looks like we had very similar days. Glad we both stayed in.

You are forgetting that BWT had no votes in the abbreviated lynch so he was a non-factor after all. What about BWT's presence do you like? What does tenacity mean in this context?

I like that BWT emerged early in Day 2 with a bone to pick. He put the work in to lend confidence that the attempt at lynching him might have been ill-advised and that he has something to offer. I thought he seemed genuine in his conduct post-lynch and didn't strike me as a baddie trying to recover in the face of immense suspicion.

What kind of content did you see? Less? Because I'll give you that much. How am I different now? How is my driving? Call 1-800-4-SCOTTY

What I hadn't seen much of at the time I posted that was what some Mafia communities call "WIM" (want it more). In Broadway your effort was fantastic and constant, and I wasn't seeing the same level of dedication early in this game. I actually hadn't realized you've been faced with time constraints until now, so I am willing to relax on that front some.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

EBWOP: That last quote should be Scotty's, not mine.

[DharmaHelper]

Now answer mine.

If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?

[Golden]

Now answer mine.

If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?

OK, so you were scared of me on the offchance that I would pull the same ploy a second time and on the offchance it would work twice (note, even after I had stated I don't think I would possibly be able to replicate it) and on the offchance that if I tried it again I would choose you as the target...

What has 'in good faith' got to do with it?

What I see in your answer to my question is exactly the same as what I thought of your suspicion all along.... you are not particularly scared of me killing you, you just see me, generically, as a threat.

And no, I did not think I could lynch epi (at least not before he lynched me). As I said, when epi has done what he did in this game in the past, it has not worked out well for me. Everything I did to epi was specifically about epi, and the impact he has on games, and I don't think anyone who claims they legitimately think I might do the same to them without any reason to think it is being genuine.

Oh, btw, you didn't actually directly answer my question. I thought I should point that out, since it seemed you had a problem with that when I did it. You've actually been avoiding it all afternoon.

Were you legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

[DharmaHelper]

Now answer mine.

If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?

OK, so you were scared of me on the offchance that I would pull the same ploy a second time and on the offchance it would work twice (note, even after I had stated I don't think I would possibly be able to replicate it) and on the offchance that if I tried it again I would choose you as the target...

What has 'in good faith' got to do with it?

What I see in your answer to my question is exactly the same as what I thought of your suspicion all along.... you are not particularly scared of me killing you, you just see me, generically, as a threat.

And no, I did not think I could lynch epi (at least not before he lynched me). As I said, when epi has done what he did in this game in the past, it has not worked out well for me. Everything I did to epi was specifically about epi, and the impact he has on games, and I don't think anyone who claims they legitimately think I might do the same to them without any reason to think it is being genuine.

Oh, btw, you didn't actually directly answer my question. I thought I should point that out, since it seemed you had a problem with that when I did it. You've actually been avoiding it all afternoon.

Were you legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Of course I am

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list. Let me tell you why your Epi plan was good:

It was good because it got rid of someone you needed to get rid of in order to make it farther into the game. Now let me tell you why your Epi move was the worst possible thing you could have done:

You came up with a solution to a temporary problem that created a problem much bigger, and more difficult to solve. Namely, now you are unrecruitable. No one in their right mind would want you on their team, because of the big fuckin' red X on your forehead right now. You also presented at least one opportunity for the killer(s) to avoid accountability for their kill. Accountability is the most dangerous thing in mafia, and you basically gave whoever killed Epi a free pass.

So either you are a baddie and cooked up the whole "baited" kill as a smokescreen, or you are fine with not being recruited. Which of those do you think is more likely?

[Scotty]

Scotty pings:

Spoiler: show

I'm also in the mindset of not saddened at all to see him gone. Not as a person, but as a role. You guys remember Disney's Fantasia?? Remember how much of a bully and meanie that Sorcerer was when Mickey futzed with the magic brooms? Who wants that in this game? Sorcerers can be badddd in this game.

As for Golden, I feel like if he were to stop responding to every little thing said about him his heat would die down a bit, but he has kept going, much to people's chagrin, and people are finding that even more suspicious. I feel that he's probably gonna have that monkey on his back all game until we can get a better picture of who actually killed Epi (we may never).
I have no reason to believe he is anything more than neutral right now.

I give MP credit for drawing even more attention to himself by taking a controversial stance -- that there's reason for civilian-inclined players to celebrate the death of neutral Bass. However, the people who tagged along on that notion (which might actually just be Scotty, I'm not sure) are a little more suspicious for it. MP's stance provided an opportunity for people to espouse a potentially damaging perspective: that killing off unaligned sorcerers is a worthy objective. You're putting me on a pedestal for agreeing with a position that you said you see a reason for? Grasping. At straws. You're grasping at straws. And you're also hypocritical for it. Could Bass be a potentially powerful role for the civilians? Yes. But the same could be said for baddies. If there were a gun in a field equidistantly between you and a Nazi, both being unarmed, and you had the option of attempting to beat him to the line or destroying the gun so neither could wield it, what would you do? I know what I would do.

The more significant ping here is in the second paragraph though. I don't like any of these sentences. Scotty echoes my own sentiment that Golden could stand to benefit from dropping the self-defense agenda for a while, but he does so in the third person as a detached commentator. He is calling the plays on a delay:

Golden is making life worse for himself by continuing to defend himself so much. He's probably going to keep doing that, and that is why he's going to remain a big suspect. This won't change until the Epignosis kill is resolved if ever. I read Golden as neutral. So you're calling me out on something you, again, agree with, because you don't like how Scotty is talking in third person? Scotty doesn't understand the beef with this statement either.

His post prior to this was largely about Golden and his detractors in the thread, and he really had a lot to say. He even specifically stated that he doesn't believe Golden killed Epignosis (I agree). I feel like this mindset should appear in this post too, as a component of what becomes a developed and nuanced read on Golden. Instead he offers a summary of everyone else's take on Golden and Golden's behavior in response without putting forth an original thought. This troubles me.You agreed with me once more- that's thrice in the same post- and yet I'm the one being ragged on for not having an original thought?! And if I don't repeat my thoughts that I already said in a previous post, that doesn't mean I'm inconsistent with my overall thoughts, JJJ. You remember that old Dr. Seuss book: One Fish Two Fish Red Fish One Fish? No? Well it's because that's not how that book goes. It doesn't double back.

And even if someone else stated an opinion before, why is that suspicious to agree with the thought if a) it's makes logical sense and b) I happen to agree with it? I know about bandwagoning, I know about opportunism. I can't say that I would even objectively see my opinion of Golden's innocence in the Epi kill as opportunistic. I could be very wrong about Golden- I dunno, I've never seen him mafia. But on the surface, this much effort, and this much back-against-the-wall effort he's made, including the admittance of being responsible for Epi's death, doesn't look bad, but neutral. I'd reckon he's a recruit at best, but I also don't see anyone wanting to recruit him...right now anyway.

I still have reason to believe that you would make a good recruit however

I admit that this is a complex read by me, so I invite Scotty to talk about it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Scotty, my concern wasn't the stances you took -- it was the language you employed in taking them. I saw a detached observer more than a person making reads he can be held accountable for, something I view as suspicious. You shouldn't reduce my discussion of language merely to my mention of you speaking in the third person; that was hardly my only point of interest (indeed it wasn't actually one of them at all, it was a contextual observation within a more relevant read).

[Golden]

Aha, DH brings out honest talk which he has so far very carefully avoided saying.

Being unrecruitable is not a problem. I do think my actions would make it less likely for a baddie to intentionally recruit me. You think I see that as a downside? It gives me more control over my destiny. Also, if I am unrecruitable, I am by definition not a threat. For me it serves two very good purposes off the bat.

I don't think it makes me unrecruitable for the civs, but in any event as long as their are civ contests I will enter them and they might get me anyway. And if they don't get me, I still only have to survive to win. Again, where is the downside?

I did the whole thing in part because I suspected epi was bad AND that he wanted to recruit me, after having thrown sufficient shade at me that it would make the other of us look good should one of us be lynched. (And before anyone goes saying this is new information and why didn't I say it before, when people asked what epi's baddie motivation was for going after me, I already gave that answer, ages ago).

You could have gone in another direction entirely, though, because I did create a much bigger problem for myself - namely, the number of people who want to lynch me.

I honestly have trouble perceiving why anyone would think I was legitimately bad (or at least, legitimately on the team that killed epi). It's like a rinse and repeat of watchmen, where I got lynched essentially for doing something which would have been an obvious thing for a baddie to do. Newsflash - not one of my baddie games has EVER been characterised by that kind of play. I'm amazed at how many people have focussed on my civ-meta (which, as I consistently say, I think I am actually playing to INCLUDING the move on epi) and ignoring entirely my baddie-meta.

So which do I think is more likely? Obviously, I know which is true and my answer is biased. I am neutral and I have no problem staying that way, especially over being recruited bad. I still have to play smart while neutral, because despite best intentions I may be recruited bad. But I think that anyone who knows me should also objectively recognise the second as being more likely, and for that matter anyone who thinks that I actually know how to play the game and wouldn't be stupid enough to do whats its claimed I did - kill epi, and then play some massive wifom when there would have been literally no reason for me to do it.

[Golden]

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list.

Well I disagree with SVS view that rainbow lists make the slightest bit of difference as to who baddies kill anyway.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list.

Well I disagree with SVS view that rainbow lists make the slightest bit of difference as to who baddies kill anyway.

I wish we could literally tell the mafia who to kill every night merely by giving them a favorable color.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I want Boomslang to awaken with a vote on him. There you go.

[Scotty]

Man, looks like we had very similar days. Glad we both stayed in.

You are forgetting that BWT had no votes in the abbreviated lynch so he was a non-factor after all. What about BWT's presence do you like? What does tenacity mean in this context?

I like that BWT emerged early in Day 2 with a bone to pick. He put the work in to lend confidence that the attempt at lynching him might have been ill-advised and that he has something to offer. I thought he seemed genuine in his conduct post-lynch and didn't strike me as a baddie trying to recover in the face of immense suspicion. Fair enough. BWT seems to me as an intriguing character in that he seemed rather non-chalant immediately after the lynch, and even through Night 1, but got back into a groove, especially with that long post detailing unfurl. With knowledge that I'm agreeing with you, I like the content he's been giving of late.

What kind of content did you see? Less? Because I'll give you that much. How am I different now? How is my driving? Call 1-800-4-SCOTTY

What I hadn't seen much of at the time I posted that was what some Mafia communities call "WIM" (want it more). In Broadway your effort was fantastic and constant, and I wasn't seeing the same level of dedication early in this game. I actually hadn't realized you've been faced with time constraints until now, so I am willing to relax on that front some.

Yup. The last week really beat me to a pulp. I do hope to contribute as much as I can for the time being until it gets busy again.
But at the same time, this concept where I'm expected to churn out as much as another game really sucks. I guess I should've set me bar lower and posted half the content I did in that game so that I could come in here, get acquainted with the new gameplay theme/style, and not have someone breathing down my back for more. Real life sucks man. If I could just Polly Wolly Mafia all the live-long day I would. But my dad Polly Wolly'd for a few years, couldn't get a job, couldn't raise his son, and ultimately left. And I ultimately don't want to end up doing the same when I have kids, ya get me? I gotta be real with you man. I had a lot happen this past week that I'm not even going to discuss, but RL ALWAYS comes first. I forget it sometimes and I have been losing my livlihood in the process.

[Golden]

I do not perceive any of Scotty's posts as suspicious this game.

[Scotty]

Scotty, my concern wasn't the stances you took -- it was the language you employed in taking them. I saw a detached observer more than a person making reads he can be held accountable for, something I view as suspicious. You shouldn't reduce my discussion of language merely to my mention of you speaking in the third person; that was hardly my only point of interest (indeed it wasn't actually one of them at all, it was a contextual observation within a more relevant read).

Ah ok. I understand~~well English is my 4th language.

I mean, it's my 2nd, 3rd and 1st language too, but that's not important.

[Spacedaisy]

I agree. I think that the only people who benefit from the civs not communicating are the baddies. Rainbow lists are no better or worse than back and forth conversation about suspicions or lists of people's reads on others, etc. I don't do them, but I don't mind them either.

Scotty, you take care of RL first and I cannot and will not fault you for that. Also, you are a lot of fun to play with, if you ask me.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Yup. The last week really beat me to a pulp. I do hope to contribute as much as I can for the time being until it gets busy again.
But at the same time, this concept where I'm expected to churn out as much as another game really sucks. I guess I should've set me bar lower and posted half the content I did in that game so that I could come in here, get acquainted with the new gameplay theme/style, and not have someone breathing down my back for more. Real life sucks man. If I could just Polly Wolly Mafia all the live-long day I would. But my dad Polly Wolly'd for a few years, couldn't get a job, couldn't raise his son, and ultimately left. And I ultimately don't want to end up doing the same when I have kids, ya get me? I gotta be real with you man. I had a lot happen this past week that I'm not even going to discuss, but RL ALWAYS comes first. I forget it sometimes and I have been losing my livlihood in the process.

I won't press the issue. I definitely know external forces can affect a mafia performance. You just do your thing as well as you can with the time you have and that's good enough for me. I'll judge your content for what it is.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I do not perceive any of Scotty's posts as suspicious this game.

I felt more strongly about calling him suspicious when I was at work and expected to have more to say now. I'll consider the possibility that my perspective is unreasonably affected by my memory of our first game together.