[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

[Russtifinko]

To be more precise: esplain the part where you think JJJ will flip town, but you're happy to remove the doubt by lynching him. I recall Mac saying something very similar, I think about Sorsha. (Would quote, but have you seen that dude's post history?)

Nah you should quote it cos I don't like you dropping into the thread after no content and trying to drum up shit without context.

I'm not sure how I can further explain it. I think JJJ may be town and made the same mistaken judgement on mac as I did. I'm not confident enough to fight his lynch and can see benefit from him as a lynch contender being removed from further chatter. He has even said the same thing himself. Why is me thinking this so suspicious to you, specifically?

I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Fine. Found it. Not sure why you felt the need to have me do that. (It's near the top of page 9 of his post history, btw.)

This response is terrible imo. You're really debating the point that Mac expressed a willingness to vote Sorsha even if she was civ? It's right there in the thread! And then you say I'm "trying to drum up shit" when, again, Mac's point was well documented as a major point of suspicion that Day.

Finally, you double down on your "JJJ is civ, but we should still lynch him anyway" idea. It's this simple: lynching civs is NOT worth it. We're losing! Someone (Rico?) said we have 4 days to get at least one baddie, or game over. Wasting one of those days lynching someone you think is good should be repulsive to you. At least Mac made up some bullshit about wanting info! You don't even say we'd get anything out of JJJ being lynched. You want someone you say is civvie to die so that we can stop discussing him as a potential lynch candidate??? The POINT of the game is to discuss people as potential lynch candidates!

I am overreacting, or is this the least civ mindset all game? I'm down to vote motel room again, with Matt this time. I'm more sure about him than JJJ.

Great. Yes I knew what you were referring to, what I objected to was you coming in out of nowhere and pretending to be certain about something. Going and actually doing it now seems like busywork but ok do you see the difference between what I'm suggesting and what Mac was suggesting? Mac thinks lynching Sorsha will leave behind all these clues he's super eager to get into, I'm suggesting lynching JJJ crosses him off the list the end. No more bickering about whether he's scum or town or what because look it's happening again today "JJJ should still be on the table for a lynch", "what do we think about JJJ?" over and over.

I'm not debating anything about Mac's Sorsha thing, not sure why you think that.

"Pretending to be certain" about verifiable facts? I wasn't pretending, I was certain. I do see the difference, and Mac's reason is actually BETTER than your reason. Which is major point against you.

[motel room]

He's either Life During Wartime or Psycho Killer. Vote him immediately.

Which of these would you lean towards him being?

[motel room]

To be more precise: esplain the part where you think JJJ will flip town, but you're happy to remove the doubt by lynching him. I recall Mac saying something very similar, I think about Sorsha. (Would quote, but have you seen that dude's post history?)

Nah you should quote it cos I don't like you dropping into the thread after no content and trying to drum up shit without context.

I'm not sure how I can further explain it. I think JJJ may be town and made the same mistaken judgement on mac as I did. I'm not confident enough to fight his lynch and can see benefit from him as a lynch contender being removed from further chatter. He has even said the same thing himself. Why is me thinking this so suspicious to you, specifically?

I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Fine. Found it. Not sure why you felt the need to have me do that. (It's near the top of page 9 of his post history, btw.)

This response is terrible imo. You're really debating the point that Mac expressed a willingness to vote Sorsha even if she was civ? It's right there in the thread! And then you say I'm "trying to drum up shit" when, again, Mac's point was well documented as a major point of suspicion that Day.

Finally, you double down on your "JJJ is civ, but we should still lynch him anyway" idea. It's this simple: lynching civs is NOT worth it. We're losing! Someone (Rico?) said we have 4 days to get at least one baddie, or game over. Wasting one of those days lynching someone you think is good should be repulsive to you. At least Mac made up some bullshit about wanting info! You don't even say we'd get anything out of JJJ being lynched. You want someone you say is civvie to die so that we can stop discussing him as a potential lynch candidate??? The POINT of the game is to discuss people as potential lynch candidates!

I am overreacting, or is this the least civ mindset all game? I'm down to vote motel room again, with Matt this time. I'm more sure about him than JJJ.

Great. Yes I knew what you were referring to, what I objected to was you coming in out of nowhere and pretending to be certain about something. Going and actually doing it now seems like busywork but ok do you see the difference between what I'm suggesting and what Mac was suggesting? Mac thinks lynching Sorsha will leave behind all these clues he's super eager to get into, I'm suggesting lynching JJJ crosses him off the list the end. No more bickering about whether he's scum or town or what because look it's happening again today "JJJ should still be on the table for a lynch", "what do we think about JJJ?" over and over.

I'm not debating anything about Mac's Sorsha thing, not sure why you think that.

"Pretending to be certain" about verifiable facts? I wasn't pretending, I was certain. I do see the difference, and Mac's reason is actually BETTER than your reason. Which is major point against you.

how come there's no jack-off-hand-gesture smilie

[Marmot]

Okay.

Reasons to lynch Metalmarsh89:

1. Noncommittal posting nature through most of the thread.

2. Gets committal mostly in posts relating to himself, which is classic anti-town self-preservation behavior.

1) False

2) Partially true, partially false. But one can still expect to see a defense from a player who has been accused. That is not "classic anti-town self-preservation behavior". That is normal behavior.

[Strawhenge]

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

[Russtifinko]

"Tunnelly?"

Name the last time I voted you.

Name the last time I questioned you.

Name the last time I went after you.

You're about to all three wishes.

Never said you've been going after me (although you have lightly, on and off).

tunnelly (tə' nə lē) : lacking a sufficiently broad focus; being so set in an outdated mindset as to preclude assimilation of new information

You're on me because I said "deliberately" on Day 1. Which by the way is a NO U, since it was in response to me going after you that Day. You seem very concerned with the word-mincing.

Linki: Hmmm, how surprising the motel room suddenly agrees with Epi and MM that I look bad, now that my suspicion of him is gaining traction. Oh, wait, check that, it's not.

Double Linki: Strawhenge, what? Haha, you can't just hop into the thread, tell us to vote someone, and reasonably expect us to follow without giving us a reason why. What is going on with people? Is your reason "info dumping"? Because Choutas tried that yesterday, and it was a major factor in a civ being lynched.

I don't give a shit about what is and isn't a NO U. And here you are misrepresenting again what I said. I didn't go after you because you said "deliberately." I went after you because you said "deliberately misinterpreted," when I didn't do that.

I rest my case. You're on because of a Day 1 NO U. It looked deliberate to me at the time, but to be honest I don't see why we're debating this 7 days later. If you want me dead because you think I'm bad, ok cool, build a case. If you want me dead because you think I am a threat to you personally, then we have what I'd call irreconcilable differences. The latter seems to be the case to me.

[Russtifinko]

Linki that I clicked through: lol Strawhenge, you are absolutely info dumping by this point. Still not convinced why anyone should follow you though, when we have perfectly good leads on baddies.

motel room. I have two days to think it over, but for now he's far and away my biggest suspect.

[Epignosis]

"Tunnelly?"

Name the last time I voted you.

Name the last time I questioned you.

Name the last time I went after you.

You're about to all three wishes.

Never said you've been going after me (although you have lightly, on and off).

tunnelly (tə' nə lē) : lacking a sufficiently broad focus; being so set in an outdated mindset as to preclude assimilation of new information

You're on me because I said "deliberately" on Day 1. Which by the way is a NO U, since it was in response to me going after you that Day. You seem very concerned with the word-mincing.

Linki: Hmmm, how surprising the motel room suddenly agrees with Epi and MM that I look bad, now that my suspicion of him is gaining traction. Oh, wait, check that, it's not.

Double Linki: Strawhenge, what? Haha, you can't just hop into the thread, tell us to vote someone, and reasonably expect us to follow without giving us a reason why. What is going on with people? Is your reason "info dumping"? Because Choutas tried that yesterday, and it was a major factor in a civ being lynched.

I don't give a shit about what is and isn't a NO U. And here you are misrepresenting again what I said. I didn't go after you because you said "deliberately." I went after you because you said "deliberately misinterpreted," when I didn't do that.

I rest my case. You're on because of a Day 1 NO U. It looked deliberate to me at the time, but to be honest I don't see why we're debating this 7 days later. If you want me dead because you think I'm bad, ok cool, build a case. If you want me dead because you think I am a threat to you personally, then we have what I'd call irreconcilable differences. The latter seems to be the case to me.

A "Day 1 NO U?"

How about a Day 8 FUCK U

I don't think you're a civilian, dude.

[Marmot]

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

[Epignosis]

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

[Strawhenge]

Am I? I'm talking purely about observable things in the thread.

Linki Marsh: What about my suspicion isn't sincere? Why would I spitball at this point? I've been suspecting you for actual days.

[Epignosis]

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

[Epignosis]

*chance

[Marmot]

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

I can do anything I put my mind to.

Your answers have become short and succinct. Can you offer an explanation without me prying it out of you?

[Epignosis]

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

I can do anything I put my mind to.

Your answers have become short and succinct. Can you offer an explanation without me prying it out of you?

Answers to what?

[Marmot]

Am I? I'm talking purely about observable things in the thread.

Linki Marsh: What about my suspicion isn't sincere? Why would I spitball at this point? I've been suspecting you for actual days.

I know you have suspected me for days. However, as I've kept reminding you, your suspicion has not been justified. This is the first time that you gave me something to work with and defend.

I don't know if this is how you normally go after people, but it's really tough to defend against accusations that to me seem vague, and also have no evidence linked to it. You've explained what you perceived my behavior to be like, but offered no evidence to support these claims.

[motel room]

motel room. I have two days to think it over, but for now he's far and away my biggest suspect.

I know, you announced it when you tried to start a bandwagon on me at the end of yesterday when you drifted in out of the blue. You tried to Start a bandwagon with no prior knowledge or suspicion of me or where the thread was at.

Let's put your suspicion of me into words - motel room said he thinks jjj is town but doesn't oppose his lynch. Is there more? Who's your next "biggest suspect", MovingPictures?

[Marmot]

Here is our conversation from when you first explained why you thought I am the PSK.

You start out with an explanation of why I am the PSK. I explain to you that your actions are not in the greatest civilian interest. I also believe that you know this already. After this statement I make to you, your response continue to get shorter and shorter to the questions I ask, noticably after the point where I suggest that you are the serial killer and why you are. You think I'm the PSK, don't you? You want me to be lynched for it don't you? Why would you not explain why "my action makes sense for a serial killer" when I ask?

Anyways, as I've stated before, it is in the civilian interest to lynch mafia today to skip the night phase. Mafia will get the chance to kill tonight because of the failed kill last night (unless I misunderstand Life during Wartime). I believe you know this, and you are trying to get me lynched today because of this. You have offered no argument that I am mafia to this point, so you don't believe I am mafia. This move only makes sense to me from a PSK Epignosis, and that is what I believe you are.

Spoiler: show

Also, I hate you.

I think you're the SK though.

Funny, because I thought Mac was onto something about you.

That's good. Keep going with that.

You have a fluidity about your posts. "I'm voting seaside, but going to 3J if it doesn't work out." Bobbing and weaving. Going with the current. Now you're voting Russ. You don't sound bad. You sound cereal. Like Frosted Flakes.

Also, I hate you.

I think you're the SK though.

You're an intelligent man Epignosis. A civilian was lynched yesterday; why would you vote for someone you think to be the serial killer today?

Or is that your real plan?

A body has to go some time.

I have Mafia suspects, but all this time, I've been keeping an eye on serial killer prospects. You fit that portrait.

Oh really?

No. I think MacDougall is a co-conspirator with Long Con. I don't think serial killers can be caught in the first half of a game outside of luck, so I don't bother hunting them until Mafia are eliminated.

Are you sure you're not the PSK?

Second half. Second half.

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

I can do anything I put my mind to.

Your answers have become short and succinct. Can you offer an explanation without me prying it out of you?

Answers to what?

[Matt]

I'm down to vote motel room again, with Matt this time.

I'd love to vote for him, but I'm not sold as of yet. 3J and Straw are also pretty high on my list. Does the underline mean what I think it means?

Epignosis, after reading Russ I can see where you're coming from, but I'd like Russ to answer this post before I go on.

LOL @ Straw's "If I answer about info dumping, is it info dumping?" Had me rolling.

I could be convinced to vote MM today, if only to crucify Straw the following day if he's wrong.

Russ - please answer this post when you get a chance.

[Marmot]

I'm down to vote motel room again, with Matt this time.

I'd love to vote for him, but I'm not sold as of yet. 3J and Straw are also pretty high on my list. Does the underline mean what I think it means?

Epignosis, after reading Russ I can see where you're coming from, but I'd like Russ to answer this post before I go on.

LOL @ Straw's "If I answer about info dumping, is it info dumping?" Had me rolling.

I could be convinced to vote MM today, if only to crucify Straw the following day if he's wrong.

Russ - please answer this post when you get a chance.

I'm glad you already know where you're voting for the next two day phases.

[Matt]

Haha.

Actually I have no idea who I'm voting for. Btw, my suspicion of you stemmed from more then your Dusk 0 vote, but at the moment, I'm forgetting why.

I'll check my own posts to figure that out. Sorry dude, so many suspicions, so little time...

[Epignosis]

Here is our conversation from when you first explained why you thought I am the PSK.

You start out with an explanation of why I am the PSK. I explain to you that your actions are not in the greatest civilian interest. I also believe that you know this already. After this statement I make to you, your response continue to get shorter and shorter to the questions I ask, noticably after the point where I suggest that you are the serial killer and why you are. You think I'm the PSK, don't you? You want me to be lynched for it don't you? Why would you not explain why "my action makes sense for a serial killer" when I ask?

Anyways, as I've stated before, it is in the civilian interest to lynch mafia today to skip the night phase. Mafia will get the chance to kill tonight because of the failed kill last night (unless I misunderstand Life during Wartime). I believe you know this, and you are trying to get me lynched today because of this. You have offered no argument that I am mafia to this point, so you don't believe I am mafia. This move only makes sense to me from a PSK Epignosis, and that is what I believe you are.

Spoiler: show

Also, I hate you.

I think you're the SK though.

Funny, because I thought Mac was onto something about you.

That's good. Keep going with that.

You have a fluidity about your posts. "I'm voting seaside, but going to 3J if it doesn't work out." Bobbing and weaving. Going with the current. Now you're voting Russ. You don't sound bad. You sound cereal. Like Frosted Flakes.

Also, I hate you.

I think you're the SK though.

You're an intelligent man Epignosis. A civilian was lynched yesterday; why would you vote for someone you think to be the serial killer today?

Or is that your real plan?

A body has to go some time.

I have Mafia suspects, but all this time, I've been keeping an eye on serial killer prospects. You fit that portrait.

Oh really?

No. I think MacDougall is a co-conspirator with Long Con. I don't think serial killers can be caught in the first half of a game outside of luck, so I don't bother hunting them until Mafia are eliminated.

Are you sure you're not the PSK?

Second half. Second half.

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

@ mo-ro: The more I look at his voting patterns, and the more I think about classic SK behaviors, I'm thinking Psycho Killer. But there's no way to be sure. I'm just more sure that he's anti-town.

I just find it amazing that you came upon this realization at the exact same time that Epignosis did. The same explanation. The same conclusion. The same thought process.

I don't find your suspicion sincere at all.

And, @ Epignosis. Let me ask you again. I had the chance to lynch JaggedJimmyJay on Day 7, but I moved my vote to seaside instead. If I am the PSK, does this seem like a logical move to you?

Yes, it does.

And YOU didn't have the change to lynch 3J. You can't do that by yourself. Can you?

I can do anything I put my mind to.

Your answers have become short and succinct. Can you offer an explanation without me prying it out of you?

Answers to what?

You're the Serial Killer.

[Epignosis]

MM sees the opportunity to make it, but he's not going to. He's Psycho Killer. He's banking on MacDougall's opinion of me (a Mafia member) to say I'm the Psycho Killer.

I believe MM is that role, and I would like to see him lynched. He is playing both sides against the middle.

[Marmot]

Try again.

Read my posts, maybe you can figure out who I am.

[Strawhenge]

I could be convinced to vote MM today, if only to crucify Straw the following day if he's wrong.

Only if you also crucify Jay for being wrong too. If that's enough to believe that someone's scum. Have you been right about everything this game? Should we lynch you if you haven't?

[Strawhenge]

Ah, geez, that sounded really mean-spirited of me, didn't it. Not my intention, Matt.

[Epignosis]

And before anyone says so, I'm aware that the parenthetical element was poorly placed.

MM sees the opportunity to make it, but he's not going to. He's Psycho Killer. He's banking on MacDougall's opinion of me (a Mafia member) to say I'm the Psycho Killer.

I believe MM is that role, and I would like to see him lynched. He is playing both sides against the middle.

[Marmot]

MM sees the opportunity to make it, but he's not going to. He's Psycho Killer. He's banking on MacDougall's opinion of me (a Mafia member) to say I'm the Psycho Killer.

I believe MM is that role, and I would like to see him lynched. He is playing both sides against the middle.

Mafia needs Psycho Killer dead as much as the civilians do. This is a moot point.

[Epignosis]

MM sees the opportunity to make it, but he's not going to. He's Psycho Killer. He's banking on MacDougall's opinion of me (a Mafia member) to say I'm the Psycho Killer.

I believe MM is that role, and I would like to see him lynched. He is playing both sides against the middle.

Mafia needs Psycho Killer dead as much as the civilians do. This is a moot point.

Am I Psycho Killer then?

[Matt]

Ah, geez, that sounded really mean-spirited of me, didn't it. Not my intention, Matt.

No prob dude. I didn't even take it that way, I just took it as you being in the spirit of the game.

However, what I meant about crucifying you, was that you came in here seriously implying that a MM lynch would guarantee good results, and if the town were to follow you, and if you were wrong, I'd be that more inclined to lynch you as I already am.

[Marmot]

7. Civilians win if they have eliminated the Mafia, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. Mafia win if they have eliminated the Civilians, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. The Serial Killer must be the Last Man Standing. The Independent wins by ????.

Linki: Epignosis, my point is, if MacDougall is convinced that you are the Psycho Killer, why should we assume he's wrong because he was mafia?

[Epignosis]

7. Civilians win if they have eliminated the Mafia, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. Mafia win if they have eliminated the Civilians, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. The Serial Killer must be the Last Man Standing. The Independent wins by ????.

Linki: Epignosis, my point is, if MacDougall is convinced that you are the Psycho Killer, why should we assume he's wrong because he was mafia?

Because he was bad. And dumb. And if you are pushing this, you will be lynched upon my passing.

[Strawhenge]

Apropos of nothing, for the record, I'm still really wary of people who are certain that none of Psycho Killer or MovingPictures's victims were scum. I don't know what that would implicate, but I think it's really weird that people are so sure that none of the considerable group of people who have not died by scum's hands were indeed scum.

Linki Matt: Understood.

[Epignosis]

I'm taking the night off. Vote stays for now.

[Marmot]

Apropos of nothing, for the record, I'm still really wary of people who are certain that none of Psycho Killer or MovingPictures's victims were scum. I don't know what that would implicate, but I think it's really weird that people are so sure that none of the considerable group of people who have not died by scum's hands were indeed scum.

Linki Matt: Understood.

Dude MovingPictures is the host.

[Marmot]

And the players he modkills have their roles revealed.

[Marmot]

7. Civilians win if they have eliminated the Mafia, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. Mafia win if they have eliminated the Civilians, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. The Serial Killer must be the Last Man Standing. The Independent wins by ????.

Linki: Epignosis, my point is, if MacDougall is convinced that you are the Psycho Killer, why should we assume he's wrong because he was mafia?

Because he was bad. And dumb. And if you are pushing this, you will be lynched upon my passing.

It is not just MacDougall's plan either. Your behavior today shows it. You've made multiple grammatical errors. Your pursuit was lagging until I called you on it. You're spinning now.

[Strawhenge]

Apropos of nothing, for the record, I'm still really wary of people who are certain that none of Psycho Killer or MovingPictures's victims were scum. I don't know what that would implicate, but I think it's really weird that people are so sure that none of the considerable group of people who have not died by scum's hands were indeed scum.

Linki Matt: Understood.

Dude MovingPictures is the host.

I know. I was being cute.

And the players he modkills have their roles revealed.

I forgot. I was being dumb.

[Marmot]

7. Civilians win if they have eliminated the Mafia, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. Mafia win if they have eliminated the Civilians, Serial Killer, and possibly (?) the Independent. The Serial Killer must be the Last Man Standing. The Independent wins by ????.

Linki: Epignosis, my point is, if MacDougall is convinced that you are the Psycho Killer, why should we assume he's wrong because he was mafia?

Because he was bad. And dumb. And if you are pushing this, you will be lynched upon my passing.

It is not just MacDougall's plan either. Your behavior today shows it. You've made multiple grammatical errors. Your pursuit was lagging until I called you on it. You're spinning now.

EBWOP: case, not plan.

[Marmot]

Apropos of nothing, for the record, I'm still really wary of people who are certain that none of Psycho Killer or MovingPictures's victims were scum. I don't know what that would implicate, but I think it's really weird that people are so sure that none of the considerable group of people who have not died by scum's hands were indeed scum.

Linki Matt: Understood.

Dude MovingPictures is the host.

I know. I was being cute.

And the players he modkills have their roles revealed.

I forgot. I was being dumb.

Gotcha. :P

[Matt]

Grammatical errors

Best reason I've ever heard to lynch someone.

Where you at Russ? Remember to answer my question I asked when you come back.

[Marmot]

He's an English teacher. I think it's a valid argument.

And maybe Elohcin will even get a kick out of it. :P

[Matt]

Yo Russ, I see you in the thread! Answer me, man, answer! Gaaah

[Matt]

It's been real peeps. Just spent the whole day Mafiaing, good times. Now it's time for the newest Batman Arkham game with friends. Yippee (to quote Darth Vader episode 1) !!!!

Peace

[bcornett24]

DrWilgy Analysis

I am looking for anything that I find to be suspicious or that I may need to reply to; hopefully something juicy.
Content is snipped slightly, I will not be pulling anything out of context, DrWilgy replies in blocks to multiple people and it is very hard to make this readable without some snipping. If you have concerns about the content please ask.

Day 0

Role playing

Day 1

Comments on a few posts, apologizes for being mostly inactive.

Day 2

Out of all the BWT votes I think Wilgy's is one of the worst. Guy's a scum lean for me, now. Basing a vote on day 0 shit and sticking with it and not grappling with anything else for the rest of the day is bad stuff in my book.

Sounds pretty normal to me. I wasn't here. I specifically addressed how I play earlier, and those who I played recruitment with at least know a little bit about how I play. If you would like a recap of that game from my perspective I'd gladly give one.

I Think he makes a fair point here it is kind of hard to base votes on anything if you haven't been around, based on the content. or lack-there-of for days 1 and 2 I think this is fine even if not the best.

Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

Makes a good point highlighting some points on long cons vote for bea agreeing with others assessments.

Now that I've gone and looked like a dummy...

ACTUAL Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

1. This is the problem. I believe it wasn't that hard for you to find relevant posts by bea, because I suspect you really did see those posts on first review and perceive a reason to bring them up -- either as a genuine expression of suspicion (now doubtful given your current stance), or as a means of unjustly smearing a Day 1 target. If I follow your posts during the incident in question and try to formulate a perspective of your mindset, I find it much easier to believe that you truly did invest yourself in an anti-bea agenda for whatever reason and expanded on your misgivings when so prompted than you made it up as a gambit to expose bandwagoners.

If you find it easy to believe, then good. It was supposed to be believable. I wasn't planning on "expanding on my misgivings" so much, but I got questioned hard (by you if I recall correctly), so I shrugged and gave it the ol' college try, bringing up bea's posts and going through them one by one to find scraps that would support my "case". You both led my posts in that direction, and then followed them now. My posts weren't made in isolation; they were prompted by you yourself. Don't ask for something and then bring it up a day later that I provided what you asked for as suspicious.

2. Do you have any other thoughts at all about the people who interacted with you relative to your stated suspicion of bea? That is: anyone who expressed faith in bea, doubt in your case, or suspicion of you for your case?

I'd like to know bea's alignment before jumping to any conclusions about those people. Any pings or nods in that direction would be tenuous at best for now.

3. It appears a convenient explanation because you were drawing heat from multiple players specifically for your treamtent of bea. To suggest that the very conduct that was getting you in trouble was actually some manner of test is inherently convenient. That doesn't imply that you must be lying, but I think it's fair to think you might have been lying given the context I'm pointing to now.

I have never been afraid to draw heat. Most games, I'm more than happy to draw just the right amount of heat in order to stay alive on those cold, murderous nights.

In fact, I'm going to revisit the entire scenario and illustrate what my doubts are:

This is a specific accusation of bea which can be supported, whether it's correct or not, with content in her post history. This was the first expressed suspicion of bea to my knowledge by anyone in the thread. Given your current explanation, I am forced to observe this post through two lenses and decide which one is more believable:

1. Long Con was not suspicious of bea at all, and placed this post here with supportable assertions against her and a vote as a tactic to expose anyone who might follow his lead.

2. Long Con was genuinely suspicious of bea and stated his genuine misgivings.

3. Long Con was not suspicious of bea, but claimed to be with supportable assertions because he stood to gain from the appearance of his mafia hunting and the resulting pressure on bea.

You've taken away #2. We cannot work on that assumption anymore. When I compare #1 with #3 while looking at the post you made, #3 speaks to me more. I don't see a test. I see a real move against bea. I think the hangup here is that your initial points against bea were valid (not necessarily indicative of her alignment, but valid). I have my doubts that you brought attention to real, verifiable content in bea's posts which can validly be called suspicious independent of meta without wholly intending the resulting pressure to land on bea herself.

I am not suspicious of bea. That doesn't mean she's not a baddie. I don't think that her actions on Day 1 constitute enough evidence to conclusively say she's bad, like I did. But she might be! Maybe it will turn out that my "case" was exactly right and now we have a scum tell for bea that we can carry through the ages. I didn't make any attempts to prevent some pressure landing on bea, and I wouldn't try to prevent it in hindsight. From my perspective, that's a good side effect. You of all people should be able to appreciate some added pressure on a player.

Now, I saw that others had addressed this fact, but here are my highlights (follow the colors and underlined).
I feel that this is a good example as to why I believe this is well... unbelievable. The fact that Long Con saw the Roxy + Bea (and other players) correlation and pointed them out, but somehow isn't suspicious of bea bothers me immensely. It feels like a contradiction in logic, at least civ logic. Civ logic would've meant that upon making this statement, there was some momentum to be gained towards finding the solution, regardless if it was a "false case" or not. Plus I don't understand how you can see that create a "false case" and not walk away with any suspicion towards the person unless you knew their alignment. I'm suspicious of everyone, all civ thinking players should be. Some more than others, sure, but not suspicious at all?

This is a contridiction, unless something between these two posts convinced you that she wasn't suspicious.

This doesn't make sense either. If you were looking for a scumslip why did you let up pressure? Also, why list so many routes? why list so many goals? why look for Civvie accolades? It was simple, you were looking for day one intel (if you are civ). These goals feel forced.

This line bothers me. It feels like LC is saying, If I look scum, it's because I'm totally not scum, I just look scum because I like to. Also, doesn't this contradict the "most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful" line? It continues the question why let the pressure off of bea

A proper sum of my thoughts on LC can be described in one word: "Why" There's too much senselessness in this whole charade, and I don't see what was gained out of it by the time of the "teehee it was all fake" reveal.

Now, I'm not done with LC yet, but I wanted to get this part to you so you can at least see my efforts.

Cases Long Con, which looks pretty good for Dr

Day 3

Wilgy scratches his head... papers are thrown everywere... "I don't get it!" he exclaims... there's too much info to process... It may be impossible...

I've been looking over the final vote tally, taking into account everyone this time. In doing so, I realized that Long Con was not put into a state of possible death UNTIL Russ's vote. I'm no longer feeling the Sorsha vote, and will post my work and change my vote as soon as it's compiled correctly.

also strictly based on my grand analysis, the most civvie players are russ and golden. The only situations where this is wrong are:

• 1. Bcornett is not Civ.
  2. Next level mind games, like 10 steps ahead mind games.

Backs off of voting for sorhsa, I am not sure if hi vote actually followed this as Dr does not highlight has vote in the forum, or has not thus far.

[bcornett24]

Still working on this accidentally hit submit.

[Russtifinko]

motel room. I have two days to think it over, but for now he's far and away my biggest suspect.

I know, you announced it when you tried to start a bandwagon on me at the end of yesterday when you drifted in out of the blue. You tried to Start a bandwagon with no prior knowledge or suspicion of me or where the thread was at.

Let's put your suspicion of me into words - motel room said he thinks jjj is town but doesn't oppose his lynch. Is there more? Who's your next "biggest suspect", MovingPictures?

Your responses make me feel worse and worse, two. You're throwing out wild insinuations against me with nothing to back them up and ridiculing me for bringing up that lynching civs might not be the best idea ever.

First off, the entire classification that comprises your first paragraph is just plain wrong. As I've said numerous times, I play when I can. I came in yesterday at the end of a long work day and hopped right onto the thread. If you don't like it, too bad. I can't skip work for mafia. I did know what was going on in the thread at the time, because I read it before posting my suspicion of you.

Of course i hadn't suspected you before - you hadn't said lynching civs is a good idea. What, am I only allowed to suspect people I've been on since Day 1, like Epi does? Sorry, didn't see that in the rules.

There is more, http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=734&p=187911#p187911. However, even if there wasn't more to it, that single point I made would be enough. I have only ever seen baddies say lynching civs for any reason, and your reason is literally that there will be a dead civ if we lynch a civ. After the way the Mac thing went today, I'm pretty damn confident.

REST OF THREAD: Please, check me here. I feel like this is the most obvious baddie thing that has happened all game long, but it's not getting much notice from people outside of me, motel, and Matt (hah, alliteration!). Am I way off base, or does motel room actually look bad for the reasons Matt and I enumerated?

[Russtifinko]

I'm down to vote motel room again, with Matt this time.

I'd love to vote for him, but I'm not sold as of yet. 3J and Straw are also pretty high on my list. Does the underline mean what I think it means?

Epignosis, after reading Russ I can see where you're coming from, but I'd like Russ to answer this post before I go on.

LOL @ Straw's "If I answer about info dumping, is it info dumping?" Had me rolling.

I could be convinced to vote MM today, if only to crucify Straw the following day if he's wrong.

Russ - please answer this post when you get a chance.

I'm glad you already know where you're voting for the next two day phases.

Yo Russ, I see you in the thread! Answer me, man, answer! Gaaah

Chill, man! Had the browser up while I Skyped my girlfriend. We do have nearly 48 hours haha.

I don't catch what you're implying with the underlined. I am very bad at hinting at things and catching hints, as others can attest. I also have a personal policy of not hinting at non-thread info in the thread. So whatever you think you see probably isn't there, sorry.

I also don't love your rationale for wanting to lynch MM. It reads to me as uncomfortably close to the idea of lynching civs just to do it, which I am currently ripping motel room for. Please explain yourself.

[Russtifinko]

Floyd, I see you're in thread. Any thoughts on the events of recent days? You nearly got lynched but didn't; what do you think of your voters? JJJ? The last-minute seaside lynch?

And bcornett, I can already tell that post will be real long. Please be so kind as to include a tl;dr when you're done.

[bcornett24]

Floyd, I see you're in thread. Any thoughts on the events of recent days? You nearly got lynched but didn't; what do you think of your voters? JJJ? The last-minute seaside lynch?

And bcornett, I can already tell that post will be real long. Please be so kind as to include a tl;dr when you're done.

What is that and what does it do?