Bit of an overreaction from a list of reads where you're not the only scum.Devin the Omniscient wrote:Linki: You got me Matt. I'm scum. Go right ahead and lynch me.
o_o
Bit of an overreaction from a list of reads where you're not the only scum.Devin the Omniscient wrote:Linki: You got me Matt. I'm scum. Go right ahead and lynch me.
That was just a bad move on my part. I was working my ass off outside, came in for a refreshing beverage and to do a little bit of reading to catch up. What is the first thing I see? Something regarding "lynch me" or "why isn't anyone else trying to lynch me?" It just annoyed at the time, so I decided to oblige you.Golden wrote:I need to look into you a bit more, Devin. But, I'm inclined to think that someone who associated behaviour with their own civ game are less likely to suddenly vote for the person showing that behaviour. It felt like a major turn around for me, that you went from saying my behaviour reminded you of yourself as a civ, to voting for me. Can you explain how your thinking process on me changed to the point that you soured on seeing the behaviour as civ?Devin the Omniscient wrote:Well, I'm certainly feeling better about Golden. Sorry for the previous Day's vote. But you were asking for itAnything I can clear up for you? I see I'm in your top 3
I'm going back to voting for Sorsha. Because, reasons.
You'll note I chose to ditch the catch-up, abandoning my attempts to properly read through the events I missed out on. That was what had been holding me back. I decided that the circumstances surrounding the LC lynch would be of more relevance, and as I was already reading through/familiar with it, it was easier for me to get into the swing of things. Had I not decided to give up on getting caught up, I expect I'd still be lost now.Matt F wrote:
Bullzeye/sanmateo - san mateo doesn't play. Bullz replaces, randoms MetalMarsh Day 2, avoiding Long Con lynch in the process. Votes RussT Day 3, who I personally believe to be anti-Mafia. The running theme continues with Bullz getting annoyed at the thread length lol. Defends me against Sorsha, thanks Bullz. It's important to note that he randoms MM on Day 2, but then 12 hours later, seems to know exactly what's going on in the thread. Hmmm.
Because I didn't know what his cause was, had no reason to trust him to any great extent, and couldn't be 100% certain he wasn't bad. I didn't see any benefit to be gained from mindlessly following someone else. Never do.Matt F wrote: Bullz makes a VERY curious post, saying he doesn't think Golden is bad, but "won't take his bait" by voting for him. If you think he's civvie, why not help out his cause, bullz (and don't answer because Bea a civ was killed, this happened before the lynch result)?
Okay seriously like a third of the things you have to say are just that I don't agree with your suspicions. I think Russti is more likely to be bad than Sorsha, yes. I also think you and Roxy are stood on opposite sides of the wrong tree, barking furiously up it. We don't seem to share many of the same opinions. Not necessarily a bad thing.Matt F wrote:Votes RussT (bad bullz!).
I feel like I've properly explained the issue I have with Golden. If not allow me to restate: I think he willingly sacrificed a civ to further his own agenda and gain status. I do not like that style of play and I do not think that it was beneficial to anyone but Golden. If, later in the game, I think Golden makes a good point about something, I'm not going to ignore it. But as of right now in my opinion he may be a confirmed civ but I'm not going to get on my knees and worship him. If that makes me bad then so be it, I prefer to think it makes me not a sheep.Matt F wrote: Calls Golden a civvie but says he won't go along with Golden rest of game.
Of course not. Sarcasm or no, it was still a bit of an overreaction.Devin the Omniscient wrote:That was just a bad move on my part. I was working my ass off outside, came in for a refreshing beverage and to do a little bit of reading to catch up. What is the first thing I see? Something regarding "lynch me" or "why isn't anyone else trying to lynch me?" It just annoyed at the time, so I decided to oblige you.Golden wrote:I need to look into you a bit more, Devin. But, I'm inclined to think that someone who associated behaviour with their own civ game are less likely to suddenly vote for the person showing that behaviour. It felt like a major turn around for me, that you went from saying my behaviour reminded you of yourself as a civ, to voting for me. Can you explain how your thinking process on me changed to the point that you soured on seeing the behaviour as civ?Devin the Omniscient wrote:Well, I'm certainly feeling better about Golden. Sorry for the previous Day's vote. But you were asking for itAnything I can clear up for you? I see I'm in your top 3
I'm going back to voting for Sorsha. Because, reasons.
Linki: Straw: It wasn't a serious post... Do you need sarcastic orange in order to read sarcasm?
If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please
What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).
Do you see merit?
I disagreeStrawhenge wrote:Of course not. Sarcasm or no, it was still a bit of an overreaction.Devin the Omniscient wrote:That was just a bad move on my part. I was working my ass off outside, came in for a refreshing beverage and to do a little bit of reading to catch up. What is the first thing I see? Something regarding "lynch me" or "why isn't anyone else trying to lynch me?" It just annoyed at the time, so I decided to oblige you.Golden wrote:I need to look into you a bit more, Devin. But, I'm inclined to think that someone who associated behaviour with their own civ game are less likely to suddenly vote for the person showing that behaviour. It felt like a major turn around for me, that you went from saying my behaviour reminded you of yourself as a civ, to voting for me. Can you explain how your thinking process on me changed to the point that you soured on seeing the behaviour as civ?Devin the Omniscient wrote:Well, I'm certainly feeling better about Golden. Sorry for the previous Day's vote. But you were asking for itAnything I can clear up for you? I see I'm in your top 3
I'm going back to voting for Sorsha. Because, reasons.
Linki: Straw: It wasn't a serious post... Do you need sarcastic orange in order to read sarcasm?
Tease. JJJ needs big posts about him too sometimes.Strawhenge wrote:Last night I typed up a big ol' case on JJJ, thought I hit Save Draft, but it turns out there's no trace of it at all.
why
why computer
Anyway, literally dang. My overall feel of JJJ was pretty townish with a couple scum pings. But said scum pings are very similar to scum pings I've gotten from him in several past games where he wound up being town. As of now I'm at ★★★½ for him.
Can you recall anything specific that Mac said in his posts that made you think "wait, maybe LC's case wasn't actually that strong..."?Devin the Omniscient wrote:I'll use yellow, as well. The yellow is what intrigued me the most in LCs post. At the time, when I had read this post, I skipped over Mac's quoted posts and just read LCs. It intrigued me because, 1). I have talked about my own role a couple of times as a baddie. And 2). If he was going to suggest stacking votes onto 1 person each day phase to avoid this role's power just seemed like a scum trying to lead the lynches.
When I went back and read Mac's posts surrounding this, I was underwhelmed and unconvinced of what LC was saying about him. Mac's posts did not sound to me like he was trying to lead lynches against the civs. It was simply a gut read. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. The fact that I didn't catch on to what LC was doing here... Just bad on my part. I blame my tunnel vision on Diiny.
Why does thids sentence exist in my Mafia thread? I know you've claimed it was sarcasm, but the presence of sarcasm in this context does not lend confidence about your mindset.Devin the Omniscient wrote:Linki: You got me Matt. I'm scum. Go right ahead and lynch me.
Don't you worry about satisfying my desire for attention, keep up with your task on everyone else. Nobody should ever have to look at my post history more than once unless it's a punishment for a misdemeanor or something.Strawhenge wrote:Linki: Jay, I can still do that for you, babe. Just, after I revisit Sorsha, check out Mr. Sarcasm over here (please know I'm just playing with you, Dev), and maybe take a look at one of the players I'm barely even conscious of insofar.
Like espers or Russti or Elohcin or Choutas. Who are those people anyway?
If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please
What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).
Do you see merit?
The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.
True. Get busy TSers.Golden wrote:If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please
What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).
Do you see merit?
The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.
I'm not going to go into hypotheticals about a role that I may or may not have.Strawhenge wrote:Hey Golden, I just noticed something while looking back at posts. You said you invited people to lynch for you. Skirting nervously around infodumping, say, purely hypothetically that you're Uh-Oh. If you were inviting a lynch, does that mean you would have had suspicions of the person you seduced and you wanted an opportunity to get them killed in your place?
Just a weird little snag I just noticed.
Just the tasty, buttery little morsel I needed. Thank you.Golden wrote:I'm not going to go into hypotheticals about a role that I may or may not have.Strawhenge wrote:Hey Golden, I just noticed something while looking back at posts. You said you invited people to lynch for you. Skirting nervously around infodumping, say, purely hypothetically that you're Uh-Oh. If you were inviting a lynch, does that mean you would have had suspicions of the person you seduced and you wanted an opportunity to get them killed in your place?
Just a weird little snag I just noticed.
I will say, though, that I was pretty strongly on record that I had a theory that the baddie team was LC/bea/JJJ/rico just before bea was lynched.
Will anyone else get behind my epithet Syndicat? Come on, that's adorable. Newbies, like myself, would then be Syndikittens. And oh my god kittens.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???
Hmm... I wonder when my 2000th post was... was it three months or more ago?JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???
I'm sad that I'm not a drug dealer anymoreJaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???
You've made my day! Keep 'em coming!Matt F wrote:Yes, but not because of my initial suspicion of both you and her. I believe it's entirely possible she voted every option you did in Day 0 as a "just in case I get lynched, they can see who I voted with", her connections to Long Con, her NOU to me, her initial responses to being voted for on Day 2 (I believe?)...just a lot of stuff there.Elohcin wrote:I definitely see where you are coming from. I can get behind a Floyd vote. Is Sorsha still under your radar as well, Matt?
BTW, make haste with the laughter. Remember all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
Elohcin, old people at weddings always poke me and say "You're next". So I started doing the same to them at funerals.
I also understand this. But...would she involve herself in killing those from RYM since even though they are new to this site, they have played mafia multiple times?fingersplints wrote:I need to look back and find out why Roxy voted Matt f. Looking at who is killed I am fairly confident she is a civvie. With how she is (perhaps I should say how we are lol) about new/returning players there is no way she is involved in any of those kills.
I feel like a lost little puppybcornett24 wrote:Sorsha seems very confused especially in her most recent posting...the behavior reminds me of a lost puppy. By no means is sorsha a new player to mafia, is this behavior normal for her? Is it more akin to mafia sorsha or town sorsha? To be fair, I rather feel like this as well due to the depth of content is this thread.
Yes, it would. And also the TIMING of when I defended LC. Sure I voted for him to be CEO but that was before he did his bea ploy. Once he did that I was leaning bad on him until the very end (take a look at jjj’s iso it shows this more clearly) There is just no way that I'd try that being his teammate.(I wish The Piano mafia was still up so I could go find the quote (from LC himself) basically calling me an ice hearted mafia who will throw her btsc mafia mates under the bus in the blink of an eye.)This looks favorable to me, though in this case specifically little is provided to back up her opinions which could mean that she is piggy backing off of other's reads.Sorsha wrote:Elo why don't you just ask to be replaced?
Here you go sig and whoever else wants it:
Bad:
bea- Like I said earlier, I wouldn’t be surprised if LC got the go ahead btc from bea to use her for his ruse.
Epignosis- Completely avoided the LC/bea posts, tried to steer the lynch away from LC. Placed a vote temporarily on seaside then switched it to bcornet at the end which helped out with LC’s x3 vote.
Devin- Until today hadn’t contributed much. The rainbow list I started yesterday I had “Leaning bad on Devin. He’s keeping up with the thread and posting answers to game mechanics and various questions but little in the way of suspicions except for Diiny.” Today he has defended Epi so that doesn’t look good to me either.
Probably good:
Golden- The only thing I find sus about his is his vote for bcornet at the end of the lynch, especially paired with LC’s x3. But….. I only skimmed over the golden v jjj posts, those I see him coming from a civ pov and, like me, I don’t see him defending LC like that if they were teammates.
Good:
My two biggest civ reads are Zebra and Mac, thinking bullz is civ so far and Strawhenge. I doubt that Black Rock is bad, I don’t think that role would be on its 2nd replacement by the 3rd day if it was a btsc baddie role and I don’t think Bubbles would have dropped out if she were bad either. (she has a history of never getting a baddie role so I think she’d stick it out if she did)
bcornet- I suspected him enough to vote for him yesterday but I don’t think that LC would have voted for him/tied it/nearly gotten him lynched if he was a teammate. I don't see him being bad with the way yesterdays lynch went down.
I agree with this and by no means is she a new player. I can't see her purposefully attempting to get herself lynched by defending LC and then being wrong about if she knew he was mafia, this would be rather counter intuitive.Sorsha wrote:You guys already have you mind made up about me.
I'd literally be the worst baddie ever to defend LC like I did though. But what can I really say? I can't take back the fact that I defended him
There was another post in there too that went with this thread but wasn’t quoted by me:I think this is the worst post due to language used "I think Epi singled out the seven of us to." but taking this as an iso might remove the context in which she was referring to. And if the context isn't removed this would then be a huge scumslip which makes even less sense for a veteran player.Sorsha wrote:I think Epi singled out the seven of us to. He did make posts on a couple of us but I don't remember which ones. (and I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time to check myself)Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yep, it was Zebra.
Rbzmncaeaei wrote:I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.
We were discussing the players who had chosen just 2 of the 7 bwt voters as suspicious. I was saying that Epi had as well.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I disagree with the first statement, and with whoever said almost these exact same words before (I think it was Zebra).seaside wrote:DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)
i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?
The number selected is seems arbitrary and unfounded. Picking suspects based on that is illogical in my opinion.
Why those two?
The playful response was to Strawhenge who said this between those ^ two posts:Sorsha wrote:Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?Strawhenge wrote:So, did you kill him?Epignosis wrote:k4j talked about me.
Save you all the trouble on that number.I don't understand Sorsha's response to the question here, the topic was really serious while the reply was quite playful, or at least that is how it seems.Sorsha wrote:No. I didn't.
Strawhenge wrote:Why, did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who came into the thread today to start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?Sorsha wrote:Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?Strawhenge wrote:So, did you kill him?Epignosis wrote:k4j talked about me.
Save you all the trouble on that number.
Sorsha is civvie and she’s still having a very bad game now.Something else I noticed is that much of her content end swith questions which redirects content away from herself. This could also be telling, or it could be normal for her, IDK.
If sorsha is mafia she has to be having one bad game right now and people are taking an easy vote trying to focus on her. This is why I feel that she is potentially being setup. By no means am I saying that I'm 100% right, based on the above content, it just feels off to me. You will not see me voting for her without more evidence. This will move her down to a far less suspicious place for me. I want to go back and look at her interactions with other players and see if something strikes me but, that will have to wait until after work, as will my opinions regarding diiny.
Your responses are acknowledged. I'm going to pour them into my brain cauldron and swirl them around for a while with my brain ladle. Whether they'll coagulate into an acceptably solid goop or bubble up into an unappealing froth will be determined in due time.Devin the Omniscient wrote:@JJJ - Nothing specific made me feel better about Mac. It was his tone and the way he laid out his plan/suggestion. 99% of the time I'm a tone/vibe reader early on in games, and that's what I based my decision to disagree with LC on.
@JJJ and Straw - That line exists in your thread because I'm feeling outnumbered and overwhelmed, atm, and I get sarcastic/zany when I start feeling that way. The zany side is staying locked up for now, though, because both work and mafia are giving me a migraine.
Your point is well received and understood, though, Straw. I am only apologizing for the sarcastic orange comment towards you, though.
Appropriate choice of words for the month of OctoberJaggedJimmyJay wrote:Your responses are acknowledged. I'm going to pour them into my brain cauldron and swirl them around for a while with my brain ladle. Whether they'll coagulate into an acceptably solid goop or bubble up into an unappealing froth will be determined in due time.Devin the Omniscient wrote:@JJJ - Nothing specific made me feel better about Mac. It was his tone and the way he laid out his plan/suggestion. 99% of the time I'm a tone/vibe reader early on in games, and that's what I based my decision to disagree with LC on.
@JJJ and Straw - That line exists in your thread because I'm feeling outnumbered and overwhelmed, atm, and I get sarcastic/zany when I start feeling that way. The zany side is staying locked up for now, though, because both work and mafia are giving me a migraine.
Your point is well received and understood, though, Straw. I am only apologizing for the sarcastic orange comment towards you, though.
- | LC with others | others on LC |
TB/Ace/Br | - | Neutral |
b24 | - | Neutral |
Bullz | - | Neutral |
Choutas | - | Mixed |
Devin | - | Mixed |
Diiny | Neutral | Positive |
Wilgy | Neutral | Negative |
Elohcin | - | Neutral |
Epignosis | Positive | Neutral |
espers | - | Neutral |
Golden | Neutral | Mixed |
JJJ | Neutral | Mixed |
Mac | Negative | Negative |
Matt | Negative | Neutral |
MM | - | - |
motel room | Mixed | Negative |
RDW | Neutral | - |
rey/RF | - | - |
Rico | Mixed | Positive |
Russ | Positive | Positive |
seaside | - | Negative |
sig | Mixed | Positive |
Sorsha | Positive | Mixed |
Straw | - | Negative |
Floyd | - | - |
Llama | - | - |
So all TSers should place a vote for the player you have voted for, even if only temporary.Golden wrote:If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please
What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).
Do you see merit?
The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.
Golden wrote:I didn't get a skittleRico, if my blood sugar gets low, it's on you.
I don't want to get into anything about what my role might or might not be.Sorsha wrote:So all TSers should place a vote for the player you have voted for, even if only temporary.Golden wrote:If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please
What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).
Do you see merit?
The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.
This would make your seductee (that's not a word) susceptible to night actions directed at you also, right? And vice-versa?
I think I've earned a better skittle than this.Ricochet wrote:JJJ - call me crazy, but I am quite freaked out by how neutral LC treated a player like JJJ, compared to which everything JJJ did can be tin foiled as a very perceptive, quick to act, distancing
I told you I'm very bad at dissecting your volume of postsJaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think I've earned a better skittle than this.Ricochet wrote:JJJ - call me crazy, but I am quite freaked out by how neutral LC treated a player like JJJ, compared to which everything JJJ did can be tin foiled as a very perceptive, quick to act, distancing
I can understand why one might tinfoil my loudly anti-LC content in the wake of his claimed ruse as distancing, but it needs to be acknowledged that "tinfoiling" is by nature a mindset that reaches into the realm of the improbable. I took LC's claimed ruse and dissected it point by point -- and then again when he responded to that -- to illustrate why it was dubious. If he's my team mate, then he hates my guts right now for completely disallowing him from employing his strategy without interference.
That he seemed "neutral" in his treatment of me is likely the result of his steadfast desire to change my mind (I always give people the opportunity after all). That requires calm, logical language and he did an admirable job of that. As you noted, I was at least a little moved even though I did eventually place my vote on him anyway. If he had OMGUSed/No U'd and tried to turn the suspicion against me, I think it would have been a miserable failure and I suspect he felt the same way.
I'm a scary guy.Ricochet wrote:Again, it's not the most sane vibe you could come up with, but it gave me the heebie jeebies when I compiled and compared this.
Well whatever. Can't hurt me more than what I've done to myself already.Golden wrote:I don't want to get into anything about what my role might or might not be.Sorsha wrote:So all TSers should place a vote for the player you have voted for, even if only temporary.Golden wrote:If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please
What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).
Do you see merit?
The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.
This would make your seductee (that's not a word) susceptible to night actions directed at you also, right? And vice-versa?
But I do think it is worth others thinking about and putting in the thread the reasons why following my vote might be beneficial if you are a civ. You have correctly stated what I am suggesting people do.
I think they're very cogent responses, for sure. However some of the reasons she gives are based on some pretty loose conjecture. Her supposing of Floyd's innocence is based on the fact that if he were scum, he'd be replaced by now. We don't know that. (I in fact kinda think the opposite; Floyd could be chatting up a storm in scum BTSC and masterminding the whole operation, for all we know.) The other point about Mac/Seaside seems like a double-down on noncommittal. 'I was noncommittal about Seaside because I'm noncommittal about both of them because I've never played with them before.' To me that says absolutely nothing.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Architecturally Problematic Version of Ancient Landmark, I think you ought to check out Sorsha's more substantive defenses of herself (sorry if you already did and I overlooked that). Tell me what you think about this sucker.
It stems directly from your original case on her and my questions about her responses to it.
I don't get your meaning. Are you saying bea died for some other reason than what's currently believed?Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...
No. I'm saying that Golden asking people to follow his vote, even temporarily, gives baddies the perfect excuse to bandwagon me. They can just say they forgot to/didn't know they could move their vote off me. Then they just blame Golden when I die. Not saying it will happen, I just really don't like this plan since it involves making people vote for me.Strawhenge wrote:I don't get your meaning. Are you saying bea died for some other reason than what's currently believed?Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...
What do you feel about Devin?Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...
I could probably be swayed into a vote for him. Have seen some decent cases put forth.Sorsha wrote:What do you feel about Devin?Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...