Dune [ENDGAME]

[a2thezebra]

Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Not quite. I was suggesting that he didn't actually find you suspicious but tried to make it appear as if you were to set up a potential mis(?)lynch for later.

Do you maintain that stance now?

Yes.

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

Here you go.

Hey, Mac, I've actually experienced a game where I went very deep, as a civilian, with MattF on my back the entire game.

You have only experienced a brief time in a game, when you were actually bad, when MattF tunnelled you to the advantage of the town for a very short period of the time.

So, I'm not sure why you would feel the need to be aggrieved? MattF, I have only ever seen tunnel because he has actual reasons he thinks you are bad. You just seem to be doing something personal.

Do you actually intend to follow it through, or are you just making a point?

OK. For me, saying you will pursue a policy lynch on day one is very different to saying you will pursue it endlessly until one of you two die, which is what I thought you were saying. I also have no problem with the aspect of you 'gaining reactions'.

I can't agree with the idea that Matt's approach is inherently unhelpful to the town, however. He comes up with some very good angles and lenses through which to examine the game. If I don't agree with his theories, I can happily discard them (no matter whether he does or not). They don't need to be 'distracting'. Sometimes he has very valid theories and his ability to correctly identify baddies should not be discounted because you found him frustrating in one game. In addition, I find MattF generally betrays whether or not his convictions are genuine, and so is readable in time.

If I was going to policy lynch someone who 'we might be better off having out of the way early', if you like, I'd sooner take out someone inscrutible, who rarely ever shows their hand when bad. But in reality, I believe there tends to be ways to catch baddies on day one, and as a matter of policy I don't really support policy lynches unless it comes to deadline and I really have no better idea.

Although I don't support the policy lynch, I actually think Zebra's point on MattF has a little merit.

Now I understand why these posts didn't strike out as suspicious to anyone else, because I assume everyone else took Golden's inquiries here to what exactly you were doing as genuine. I simply do not.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I disagree. There was not enough of a case to developed, so I think he backed out.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

I don't see how my back was up. I was honestly very baffled by Golden's reaction and saw no possible town motivation behind it, so I pounced at the opportunity to call out what I perceived to be a clearly disingenuous reaction to my suspicion. And that really hasn't changed even now, only now, as I've said before, I'm tired of the back-and-forth between us as I don't think it's going any where. I also fail to understand how you think that he was not guilty of what I pointed out, or how there were others to point at who were guilty of what I referenced. In my initial post I mentioned Golden, and, I quote, to a lesser extent BR. If there were others that I missed whose responses you felt appeared more disingenuous than theirs, by all means point them out to me.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

I really don't see it. If I could at least understand where you're coming from then I could probably give you a better defense, but, like with Golden's initial response and Eloh's echoing of it, I don't see how there is even a remotely decent case against me at all. And again, I also don't see how the issues I have with Golden are shared by virtually no one but myself.

[a2thezebra]

Another thing...

Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Since closely reviewing Golden's case seemed to have changed your mind, (if that is what changed your mind...I had the same thought as FZ that having the "civ vs. civ" people be called out may have influenced your opinion a bit) I would appreciate if you closely reviewed my case, especially since it seems like a lot of your more recent conclusions seemed to have originated from Golden's constant misrepresenting of what my actual points against him were.

Maybe then all of a sudden Golden will seem like the potential bad guy to you, who knows.

[Sorsha]

So.... Zebra implied something, golden didn't understand (or didn't believe) that it was an implication and picked zebra apart for it, zebra did over react a bit, golden found more things to dissect I zebras responses.

Is that basically the gist?

[a2thezebra]

Another thing.

When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.

I'm very ok with how good-looking that statement is. I know you won't be convincing anyone who knows me well. My meta is what it is.

Pointing out that you are actively copying your meta is not a valid defence.

While initially I responded well to this post of yours, in hindsight of how easily you changed your mind after taking a closer look at what Golden had to say, but not moi, it strikes me as a bit strange given that it's basically echoing what I said before here:

I see you're aware of your meta. When I'm scum, I never attempt to use my meta to my advantage.

And again here:

When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.

To which you immediately responded with:

Yak yak yak

I'm not sure if I should feel more confident about being blatantly ignored/dismissed by a town or the likelihood of you being scum trying to get others to ignore me. So, since you wanted me to ask you earlier, are you bad, Mac?

[Marmot]

Are you, metalmarsh?

I am not. I like your answer though.

[FZ.]

Are you, metalmarsh?

I am not. I like your answer though.

Who do you think is bad?

[Marmot]

Are you, metalmarsh?

I am not. I like your answer though.

Who do you think is bad?

I don't have an answer for that question right now.

[Draconus]

I wish I had more time to catch up today, but I have so much to do at work. I got as far as Golden's "blind spot" paragraph. I'll discuss that briefly: I feel inclined to agree with Mac and FZ regarding the feeling that Golden and Zebra are civs locked in a headbutting match. Golden, I also agree with your "blind spot" explanation. However, I feel that this applies more accurately to later Day periods. I believe that on Day 1, more often than not, when 2 individuals go toe to toe seeing baddies in one another, they both turn out to be civs. This just feels like a distraction, really.

This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.

This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

I agree this is a slight ping to me can't give a good reason why it just is.

This is what pinged me the most so far. Why say this at all if you can't give a reason? Doesn't necessarily have to be a good reason. Any reason at all... You disappeared after your very next post, so I'll hold my vote for now.

[Golden]

I would be ok with putting your scumdar to the test here if not for two things. In the one game I have played with you your scumdar was not exactly amazing. Not to say it is always bad but my experience suggests you pick up a scent and push and push. You are adept at getting your targets lynched. Second thing is that I quite like Zebra as a contributer and I think through volume a player like Zebra is either going to be a fantastic town contributer here or will eventually expose himself through the voluminous web of lies a player replicating his meta will be forced to concoct

Hey, one thing you did NOT learn is that I am adept at getting my targets lynched. I'm not, at all. I try very hard, but the 'civ vs civ' thing is almost inevitably always levelled at people I suspect. It's like a curse that follows me around. The only thing I managed to do successfully in that game was get myself lynched, which allowed me to get a target of mine lynched, but only because I had an ability to do so.

I do concede the point that town zebra is a good contributor.

And no, I don't overreact as a townie, but I don't tend to overreact on day one.

[Golden]

Well, in his recent posts, zebra can't see ANY civ motivation for my questioning of Mac.

So there you have another plank for your thinking about this dispute. Have a look at my conversation with Mac. consider whether you think it looks like civ golden? Consider whether or not you think it is a reasonable town perspective for someone to see 'no civilian motivations' for my side of that conversation?

Then consider this post as well

Golden v Zebra looks like civ v civ to me. The aggression each of them is reacting with and the lengthy diatribes don't look day 1 scum to me. Day 1 scum would be more likely to softly dismiss cases in hopes of not making a scene. This is anxious cix behavior on both parts. I would humbly request you both take time ignoring each other's presence for at least 12 hours just to let the info settle in your minds and put that enthusiasm to use elsewhere in the game. Pretty please.

I wouldn't ask this of us, I would ask it of the other civilians. Look at what both of us said and see for yourselves who looks worse. I myself said that I'm not very confident that Golden's behavior here is alignment-indicative. Golden seems to have another idea.

There are really only two possibilities here.

Zebra is genuinely town, and is having a bit of flippy floppy about his thought processes. Her strategy about how to handle me has changed. At times it was by saying my behaviour wasn't alignment-indicative, but now she can't see any possible civ motivation for the same behaviour.

Secondly, zebra is bad, and feels the best way out of her current predicament is to double down and seem as genuine as possible, pushing ideas that don't truly check out because once she set them up, she couldn't easily back off and seem genuine.

Also, @zebra - apologies for any incorrect gender.

[Elohcin]

I don't find BR's post pingy. I just don't see it. However, I do agree with you about Zebra...wow what a suspicious reaction. And that he went in and changed all the "you"s to "I"s in the post Mac wrote about Matt is very disconcerting.

Why in the world is a joke disconcerting?

Maybe you should have used sarcastic orange.

Overall, I'm a bit alarmed that in general people seem to be more wary of my most definitely meta-supported "overreaction" than the incredibly fake and misleading arguments Golden has been making, regardless of whether that makes him a civvie that can't admit how hilariously hypocritical and unwarranted his initial suspicion was, or simply an opportunistic baddie. But on the bright side, this could help me and others get some leads on scummy folk. Maybe it is already.

Overreactions are a big scum tell imo. Unless you're MP, then its normal

This pinges me more than the whole golden/zebra thing.

First, Eloh is being more involved and opinionated than usual on day 1.
Second, I strongly disagree with the notion that overreaction is a baddie tell, especially on day 1.
Eloh just seems to be capitalizing on Golden's suspicion

Have you played with me lately? This is a speed game, I CAN be more involved on day 1. It is less overwhelming to me. Also, I am not capitalizing on Golden's suspicions as I haven't even paid much attention to Golden today.

[Turnip Head]

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

[FZ.]

I don't find BR's post pingy. I just don't see it. However, I do agree with you about Zebra...wow what a suspicious reaction. And that he went in and changed all the "you"s to "I"s in the post Mac wrote about Matt is very disconcerting.

Why in the world is a joke disconcerting?

Maybe you should have used sarcastic orange.

Overall, I'm a bit alarmed that in general people seem to be more wary of my most definitely meta-supported "overreaction" than the incredibly fake and misleading arguments Golden has been making, regardless of whether that makes him a civvie that can't admit how hilariously hypocritical and unwarranted his initial suspicion was, or simply an opportunistic baddie. But on the bright side, this could help me and others get some leads on scummy folk. Maybe it is already.

Overreactions are a big scum tell imo. Unless you're MP, then its normal

This pinges me more than the whole golden/zebra thing.

First, Eloh is being more involved and opinionated than usual on day 1.
Second, I strongly disagree with the notion that overreaction is a baddie tell, especially on day 1.
Eloh just seems to be capitalizing on Golden's suspicion

Have you played with me lately? This is a speed game, I CAN be more involved on day 1. It is less overwhelming to me. Also, I am not capitalizing on Golden's suspicions as I haven't even paid much attention to Golden today.

I don't understand why a speed game (which this is not, by the way, because we have 48 hour days) would enable you to be more involved.
I have played with you lately, but it was a big game. But from all the games I've played with you in the past, my memory of civ Eloh is of a player that is quite non-committal in the early stages and takes her time to get into the game, and usually has more solid opinions later in the game, not on day 1.

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong

[FZ.]

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

That's a solid point

[FZ.]

But even though it's a solid point, when I recall back to the situation, it felt like a genuine reaction to what was going on.

And I also have to wonder if you're not looking for a reason to cast a vote on a person that already has 2 votes.

[Turnip Head]

Have you played with me lately? This is a speed game, I CAN be more involved on day 1. It is less overwhelming to me. Also, I am not capitalizing on Golden's suspicions as I haven't even paid much attention to Golden today.

I don't understand why a speed game (which this is not, by the way, because we have 48 hour days) would enable you to be more involved.
I have played with you lately, but it was a big game. But from all the games I've played with you in the past, my memory of civ Eloh is of a player that is quite non-committal in the early stages and takes her time to get into the game, and usually has more solid opinions later in the game, not on day 1.

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong

I think that might be too strong of a generalization, but in general I would agree that Elo gets more involved as the game moves along. I've seen her have strong opinions early in games before though. And I think she meant that speed games are less overwhelming because there's fewer players to keep track of, and 48 hour lynches gives more time to process everything in this game specifically. I'm not sure how I feel about Elo yet, I haven't paid her much attention, but I'll try to reread her.

[Turnip Head]

But even though it's a solid point, when I recall back to the situation, it felt like a genuine reaction to what was going on.

And I also have to wonder if you're not looking for a reason to cast a vote on a person that already has 2 votes.

What I'm looking for is for Matt to explain his actions to me. And I hate to drag another game into this, but I see Matt participating at a high level in the other game that's going on where Mac pulled the same stunt on him, but he's not even trying in this one.

[sig]

I've read over Elohcin's posts I don't see anything pingy in them she is null to me right know.

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

That's a solid point

This is interesting, true the mafia can hid better in day 1 but I disagree that Matt's behavior is suspicious, if he doesn't start scum hunting after today then yes he would be put higher on my list, but these posts don't strike me as odd when he could be lynched for no reason day 1.

[Matt]

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

As much as the hosts may not like referencing other games, this is actually relevant I think and I need it to defend.

Frankly, Turnip, I was entirely put off by Mac's policy lynch idea in both games. So i decided (rashly unfortunately) that I would just self vote and let the chips fall where they may. Luckily for me in the other game, the poll is changeable, and once I came to my senses, voted elsewhere. I can't do that in this game.

Speaking of "stepping up my game", this is actually funny, because less then an hour ago, I had a post all laid out questioning Golden on why he would so easily give up on his Zebra suspish if it didn't take today, after saying things like "If I had a lynch switch I'd use it on you today" and "My gut is screaming!" ? Then I doubted myself and wondered if I should just scrap the post because perhaps it was too "delusional" for some. But enough with the self-doubting, believe me, if I find anyone suspicious in this game, I'll let it be known from here on out.

Golden - Do you really plan on dropping this "day one aspect" from your suspish of Zebes after suspecting her quite strongly for it, or did you just feel like since nobody was buying her as Mafia, you felt you should publicly talk about backing off of her?

[Epignosis]

T-minus four hours and counting.

[Draconus]

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

Interesting. I considered this briefly, then brushed it off as something that I would do (regardless of alignment). It does take away a certain responsibility and a bit of pressure from Day 1. What do you think about it considering Matt F currently has 2 votes in A World Reborn, TH? I haven't been following that game at all, but I can understand needing to focus all of your efforts on 1 game when the pressure is on. Not defending him, btw. Just trying to find a justification for a vote for him for the reasons you gave.

Linki: I spent a lot longer typing this up and working than I thought

[Draconus]

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

As much as the hosts may not like referencing other games, this is actually relevant I think and I need it to defend.

Frankly, Turnip, I was entirely put off by Mac's policy lynch idea in both games. So i decided (rashly unfortunately) that I would just self vote and let the chips fall where they may. Luckily for me in the other game, the poll is changeable, and once I came to my senses, voted elsewhere. I can't do that in this game.

Speaking of "stepping up my game", this is actually funny, because less then an hour ago, I had a post all laid out questioning Golden on why he would so easily give up on his Zebra suspish if it didn't take today, after saying things like "If I had a lynch switch I'd use it on you today" and "My gut is screaming!" ? Then I doubted myself and wondered if I should just scrap the post because perhaps it was too "delusional" for some. But enough with the self-doubting, believe me, if I find anyone suspicious in this game, I'll let it be known from here on out.

Golden - Do you really plan on dropping this "day one aspect" from your suspish of Zebes after suspecting her quite strongly for it, or did you just feel like since nobody was buying her as Mafia, you felt you should publicly talk about backing off of her?

Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't realize. This makes me feel better about the situation.

[Turnip Head]

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

Interesting. I considered this briefly, then brushed it off as something that I would do (regardless of alignment). It does take away a certain responsibility and a bit of pressure from Day 1. What do you think about it considering Matt F currently has 2 votes in A World Reborn, TH? I haven't been following that game at all, but I can understand needing to focus all of your efforts on 1 game when the pressure is on. Not defending him, btw. Just trying to find a justification for a vote for him for the reasons you gave.

Linki: I spent a lot longer typing this up and working than I thought

I'm not sure, but I don't consider him to be in any more danger there than he is here. And he's not spending his time defending himself there, he's just participating as normal. I just feel like he's playing more carefully here.

Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

As much as the hosts may not like referencing other games, this is actually relevant I think and I need it to defend.

Frankly, Turnip, I was entirely put off by Mac's policy lynch idea in both games. So i decided (rashly unfortunately) that I would just self vote and let the chips fall where they may. Luckily for me in the other game, the poll is changeable, and once I came to my senses, voted elsewhere. I can't do that in this game.

Speaking of "stepping up my game", this is actually funny, because less then an hour ago, I had a post all laid out questioning Golden on why he would so easily give up on his Zebra suspish if it didn't take today, after saying things like "If I had a lynch switch I'd use it on you today" and "My gut is screaming!" ? Then I doubted myself and wondered if I should just scrap the post because perhaps it was too "delusional" for some. But enough with the self-doubting, believe me, if I find anyone suspicious in this game, I'll let it be known from here on out.

Golden - Do you really plan on dropping this "day one aspect" from your suspish of Zebes after suspecting her quite strongly for it, or did you just feel like since nobody was buying her as Mafia, you felt you should publicly talk about backing off of her?

I'll take this into consideration. And I was puzzled by that statement from Golden as well. If he feels strongly about zebra, why wouldn't he pursue that suspicion as strongly tomorrow?

[sig]

I was very confident of placing a lynch on zebra, however, after some review I'm not so sure about her. This is based around a few things.
Golden statement which others have pointed out and this by Mac.
quote="MacDougall"]Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.[/quote]

This post just rubs be the wrong way, I don't like that Mac is agreeing with Golden about Zebra. Know quick question for those who have played with Zebra before. IS she likely to defend a fellow teammate in the manner she did on day 1, re the post I mentioned earlier with her defending Mac's vote.

Zebra is still my top read, but I would like peoples opinion on this before I vote. Since this seems like a slightly sloppy think for a mafia member to do, and as I said I don't like the fact golden seems to be backing away from his case on Zebra.

[Golden]

Golden - Do you really plan on dropping this "day one aspect" from your suspish of Zebes after suspecting her quite strongly for it, or did you just feel like since nobody was buying her as Mafia, you felt you should publicly talk about backing off of her?

Yeah, I just don't see the value to the town in me getting such tunnel vision that I continue to pursue the same thing until the end of time. I don't want to derail the game, which never letting up on someone can do. Even if I'm right, I'd be missing the big picture if I did nothing but stick on one person until it ended.

I want everyone to know that is my plan, and exactly why, so that people would understand tomorrow that me letting the zebra thing go is not me thinking that the day one stuff isn't suspicious, it's just me recognising that it's played out and no-one needs to hear more of it.

[Golden]

Also @Turnip - I'm willing to give Matt a pass for whatever he's posted today, because if Mac had come at me as strong across two games at the same time, I probably would have done the same... put up my hands and surrendered.

[Elohcin]

@ FZ - I say speed game, I mean a side mission game...less players. When less players are involved, I can dive in a little easier.

[FZ.]

@ FZ - I say speed game, I mean a side mission game...less players. When less players are involved, I can dive in a little easier.

So do you really find zebra suspicious for her overreaction? Is that the only reason?

[FZ.]

Turnip, you haven't said anything about the Golden/zebra issue. What's your stance on that, and how come you haven't even mentioned it? If you did, I must have missed it

[Turnip Head]

Turnip, you haven't said anything about the Golden/zebra issue. What's your stance on that, and how come you haven't even mentioned it? If you did, I must have missed it

I feel pretty good about both of them atm.

[sig]

Golden's answer was satisfactory, and know I must be off so I will be placing by vote on zebra today, I don't like her reactions to Golden whatsoever and more importantly what I see as her defense of Mac over his vote.

a2thezebra

[FZ.]

I don't know if this is a legitimate question, but where did Mac first start with the policy vote? Here, or in the other game? Or was it just going on simultaneously in both games?

[Turnip Head]

I don't know if this is a legitimate question, but where did Mac first start with the policy vote? Here, or in the other game? Or was it just going on simultaneously in both games?

Simultaneously.

[FZ.]

I don't know if this is a legitimate question, but where did Mac first start with the policy vote? Here, or in the other game? Or was it just going on simultaneously in both games?

Simultaneously.

Okay, never mind, thanks.


I'm going to bed soon, so I only have a few minutes to vote. I don't really know who to vote for. Only option at the moment is Eloh, and that's only a small pinge

[FZ.]

Can't keep my eyes open, so I'm just going to vote. Out of the people who have posted this day, Eloh is the one that pinged me the most. It's just a light pinge but it's all I have.

[MacDougall]

Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Not quite. I was suggesting that he didn't actually find you suspicious but tried to make it appear as if you were to set up a potential mis(?)lynch for later.

Do you maintain that stance now?

Yes.

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

Here you go.

Hey, Mac, I've actually experienced a game where I went very deep, as a civilian, with MattF on my back the entire game.

You have only experienced a brief time in a game, when you were actually bad, when MattF tunnelled you to the advantage of the town for a very short period of the time.

So, I'm not sure why you would feel the need to be aggrieved? MattF, I have only ever seen tunnel because he has actual reasons he thinks you are bad. You just seem to be doing something personal.

Do you actually intend to follow it through, or are you just making a point?

OK. For me, saying you will pursue a policy lynch on day one is very different to saying you will pursue it endlessly until one of you two die, which is what I thought you were saying. I also have no problem with the aspect of you 'gaining reactions'.

I can't agree with the idea that Matt's approach is inherently unhelpful to the town, however. He comes up with some very good angles and lenses through which to examine the game. If I don't agree with his theories, I can happily discard them (no matter whether he does or not). They don't need to be 'distracting'. Sometimes he has very valid theories and his ability to correctly identify baddies should not be discounted because you found him frustrating in one game. In addition, I find MattF generally betrays whether or not his convictions are genuine, and so is readable in time.

If I was going to policy lynch someone who 'we might be better off having out of the way early', if you like, I'd sooner take out someone inscrutible, who rarely ever shows their hand when bad. But in reality, I believe there tends to be ways to catch baddies on day one, and as a matter of policy I don't really support policy lynches unless it comes to deadline and I really have no better idea.

Although I don't support the policy lynch, I actually think Zebra's point on MattF has a little merit.

Now I understand why these posts didn't strike out as suspicious to anyone else, because I assume everyone else took Golden's inquiries here to what exactly you were doing as genuine. I simply do not.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I disagree. There was not enough of a case to developed, so I think he backed out.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

I don't see how my back was up. I was honestly very baffled by Golden's reaction and saw no possible town motivation behind it, so I pounced at the opportunity to call out what I perceived to be a clearly disingenuous reaction to my suspicion. And that really hasn't changed even now, only now, as I've said before, I'm tired of the back-and-forth between us as I don't think it's going any where. I also fail to understand how you think that he was not guilty of what I pointed out, or how there were others to point at who were guilty of what I referenced. In my initial post I mentioned Golden, and, I quote, to a lesser extent BR. If there were others that I missed whose responses you felt appeared more disingenuous than theirs, by all means point them out to me.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

I really don't see it. If I could at least understand where you're coming from then I could probably give you a better defense, but, like with Golden's initial response and Eloh's echoing of it, I don't see how there is even a remotely decent case against me at all. And again, I also don't see how the issues I have with Golden are shared by virtually no one but myself.

Interesting.

So you are basing your aggressive rebuttal on the idea that Golden's initial posts around the policy lynch were not genuine.

Of course that's possible but his posts on the matter and all subsequent read logical and sensible. Your posts are hard to follow. Your thought lines are more difficult to comprehend to me.

What is the allusion you are drawing between Elohcin echoing and this situtation? You have lost me here.

I thoughy I framed my read of the play quite simply and you can't understand it? Can't or won't?

The fact is your initial post did not ping me. What has pinged me is your maintaining that it is a case against Golden when I feel a civ would not be pinged by him in this situation.

I have read the interractions. Your case is based on the idea that Golden was trying to set me up with a couple of soft posts and backed down when he couldn't put enough content into it. I think the very thing you are saying makes him look scum makes him look ok.

[MacDougall]

Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Not quite. I was suggesting that he didn't actually find you suspicious but tried to make it appear as if you were to set up a potential mis(?)lynch for later.

Do you maintain that stance now?

Yes.

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

Here you go.

Hey, Mac, I've actually experienced a game where I went very deep, as a civilian, with MattF on my back the entire game.

You have only experienced a brief time in a game, when you were actually bad, when MattF tunnelled you to the advantage of the town for a very short period of the time.

So, I'm not sure why you would feel the need to be aggrieved? MattF, I have only ever seen tunnel because he has actual reasons he thinks you are bad. You just seem to be doing something personal.

Do you actually intend to follow it through, or are you just making a point?

OK. For me, saying you will pursue a policy lynch on day one is very different to saying you will pursue it endlessly until one of you two die, which is what I thought you were saying. I also have no problem with the aspect of you 'gaining reactions'.

I can't agree with the idea that Matt's approach is inherently unhelpful to the town, however. He comes up with some very good angles and lenses through which to examine the game. If I don't agree with his theories, I can happily discard them (no matter whether he does or not). They don't need to be 'distracting'. Sometimes he has very valid theories and his ability to correctly identify baddies should not be discounted because you found him frustrating in one game. In addition, I find MattF generally betrays whether or not his convictions are genuine, and so is readable in time.

If I was going to policy lynch someone who 'we might be better off having out of the way early', if you like, I'd sooner take out someone inscrutible, who rarely ever shows their hand when bad. But in reality, I believe there tends to be ways to catch baddies on day one, and as a matter of policy I don't really support policy lynches unless it comes to deadline and I really have no better idea.

Although I don't support the policy lynch, I actually think Zebra's point on MattF has a little merit.

Now I understand why these posts didn't strike out as suspicious to anyone else, because I assume everyone else took Golden's inquiries here to what exactly you were doing as genuine. I simply do not.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I disagree. There was not enough of a case to developed, so I think he backed out.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

I don't see how my back was up. I was honestly very baffled by Golden's reaction and saw no possible town motivation behind it, so I pounced at the opportunity to call out what I perceived to be a clearly disingenuous reaction to my suspicion. And that really hasn't changed even now, only now, as I've said before, I'm tired of the back-and-forth between us as I don't think it's going any where. I also fail to understand how you think that he was not guilty of what I pointed out, or how there were others to point at who were guilty of what I referenced. In my initial post I mentioned Golden, and, I quote, to a lesser extent BR. If there were others that I missed whose responses you felt appeared more disingenuous than theirs, by all means point them out to me.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

I really don't see it. If I could at least understand where you're coming from then I could probably give you a better defense, but, like with Golden's initial response and Eloh's echoing of it, I don't see how there is even a remotely decent case against me at all. And again, I also don't see how the issues I have with Golden are shared by virtually no one but myself.

Did you really mentiom Golden in your initial post on the subject?

[Draconus]

Dropping a vote now on Sig. I have an appointment immediately after work, and he's my only ping right now. It's a really weak ping at that. Sorry bud.

[MacDougall]

Okay Zebs I can see that you did. Look I am struggling to comprehend your reaction because it reads like a rage out wall of text. Could you please try explaining your case for us plebs in simpler terms?

[MacDougall]

Another thing.

When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.

I'm very ok with how good-looking that statement is. I know you won't be convincing anyone who knows me well. My meta is what it is.

Pointing out that you are actively copying your meta is not a valid defence.

While initially I responded well to this post of yours, in hindsight of how easily you changed your mind after taking a closer look at what Golden had to say, but not moi, it strikes me as a bit strange given that it's basically echoing what I said before here:

I see you're aware of your meta. When I'm scum, I never attempt to use my meta to my advantage.

And again here:

When IM scum, I'm never a hurricane of self-assurance.

I am not you.

This is not making you look any better lmao.

"When I'm scum, I'm never whatever I'm doing at the moment" is never a good-looking statement.

To which you immediately responded with:

Yak yak yak

I'm not sure if I should feel more confident about being blatantly ignored/dismissed by a town or the likelihood of you being scum trying to get others to ignore me. So, since you wanted me to ask you earlier, are you bad, Mac?

Nope.

Also I am a fair person. If Golden is making irrelevant posts to lend himself credibility I will point it out. At the point I posted the yak yak yak thing I was tired and over the squabble with a civ v civ read but I got a second wind and decided to read it with clean eyes afterwards.

Making irrelevant posts to lend yourself credibility doesn't scum ping me.

[Black Rock]

I'm likely voting for sig today. I didn't like he just tried to jump aboard a possible train, I am also working on my own theory that I will expand on later. I'm going to go have dinner and see how I feel after that.

[MacDougall]

I was very confident of placing a lynch on zebra, however, after some review I'm not so sure about her. This is based around a few things.
Golden statement which others have pointed out and this by Mac.
quote="MacDougall"]Golden I have closely reviewed your case.

Zebra were you insinuating that Golden found me suspicious and that him doing so makes him suspicious?

Do you maintain that stance now?

If so please provide the posts that Golden made to give you this opinion.

I will state that I in no way was pinged by Golden questioning my motivation on that subject. I feel like he justifiably tried to ascertain my agenda. I feel like if he were scum he could have easily pushed through and developed his read into a scum case.

I can see you quite simply making a general statement towards more than 1 player who did do what you claim and this has occurred in low content posts across two games so it is understandable that you may feel like this occurred more than it actually has. Your statement itself does not read bad. Your reaction to his defensive assumption that you were referring directly to him when it is quite apparent that he was not guilty of what you pointed out is a valid point of contention. I feel a civ minded individual would have pointed at others genuinely guilty of what you referenced and said as much to Golden rather than getting their back up over Goldens initial rebuttal. You genuinely are reacting like fluke caught scum.

Golden I apologise I think you might have a case here upon revision.

This post just rubs be the wrong way, I don't like that Mac is agreeing with Golden about Zebra. Know quick question for those who have played with Zebra before. IS she likely to defend a fellow teammate in the manner she did on day 1, re the post I mentioned earlier with her defending Mac's vote.

Zebra is still my top read, but I would like peoples opinion on this before I vote. Since this seems like a slightly sloppy think for a mafia member to do, and as I said I don't like the fact golden seems to be backing away from his case on Zebra.[/quote]

My reasoned view on the situation rubs you the wrong way?

You simply don't like that I agree yet you make absolutely no effort to comment on what I am agreeing with.

Golden does not appear to be backing down either where did you get that idea?

Your question of whether Zebra would defend scum as scum is highly interesting. Sounds like a scum preparing to bus and chaining my lynch to it. I would assume civ Sig is smarter than this.

[MacDougall]

I also don't like Draconus's recent posts simply because they read as effort posts.

If I could encourage votes they would go to sig. Golden, Zebra your squabble pales in comparison to what I am seeing there. Can you please put down your guns and observe his posts.

[nijuukyugou]

More thoughts.

I'm torn, frankly. I said before that I believed Zebra's reaction to be genuine and didn't agree with the suspicion, but I liked Golden's long post regarding both the reasons for going after an overreactor, and also reiterating the specific reasons why Zebra should be voted. As Zebra's suspicion of Golden was broken down in the thread, I disagree that Golden would have "no civ reason" to suspect and question Mac's behavior, and think that Golden's initial suspicion of Mac was sound until he was questioned further (in other words, I either see Zebra's suspicion of Golden at this point as very misguided or fabricated). That, to me, was questioning a suspicion as it should be, then changing one's mind based on the responses. People don't do that often enough. So, based on the big post and these thoughts, part of me is inclined to vote Zebra, despite my initial reaction.

BUT.

Too often, I see, as others are saying, one big argument between two people, often civs, that distracts everyone from the baddies' hiding, so the baddies don't even have to discuss any of their teammates. Like FZ, I'm also pinged by Eloh, especially what appeared to me to be an immediate jumping on Zebra's reaction, and her responses to suspicion aren't making me feel any better (except that I totally believe her regarding comfort level in speed/side games, because I'm the same way and feel I can get involved earlier). sig's jumping on the Zebra suspicion pings me in the same way, like a baddie just waiting for something to jump on.

BUT. DAMMIT.

I am suspecting both a suspicious individual, based on a big argument and Day 1 case, and the people "suspecting" her (in quotations depending on what happens today, I suppose), and god that's making my head hurt. I find Golden's points compelling, there's more info to go on for Zebra than for my other suspicions at this point, and I think it will be telling if the lynch goes through in many ways. I've literally got to run (while the sun's still out ), and I don't want to agonize over this choice for any longer. Voting Zebra.

[Golden]

@Mac - the case on sig is good, the one reservation I have is that it is what I perceive as normal from sig. I've seen this stuff from sig on day one as a baddie, and as a civilian. I think sig's 'genuine' reads as shady. I cannot complain about a sig lynch, he could well be bad. I just have personally come to the view that I need to give sig two or three days to breathe before I can figure out if his content is good or bad. I've voted for him on day one and he has been civ a couple of times now.

[S~V~S]

I don't find BR's post pingy. I just don't see it. However, I do agree with you about Zebra...wow what a suspicious reaction. And that he went in and changed all the "you"s to "I"s in the post Mac wrote about Matt is very disconcerting.

Why in the world is a joke disconcerting?

Maybe you should have used sarcastic orange.

Overall, I'm a bit alarmed that in general people seem to be more wary of my most definitely meta-supported "overreaction" than the incredibly fake and misleading arguments Golden has been making, regardless of whether that makes him a civvie that can't admit how hilariously hypocritical and unwarranted his initial suspicion was, or simply an opportunistic baddie. But on the bright side, this could help me and others get some leads on scummy folk. Maybe it is already.

Overreactions are a big scum tell imo. Unless you're MP, then its normal

I totally totally disagree. Some people use excessive reaction for emphasis. How many baddies have you caught by gauging their reactions and determining that they overreacted?

[MacDougall]

Draconus voting sig seems like a scum voting scum on day 1 for later gain.

I have to go for a while. Back later.

[Golden]

Also @Mac - it's going to be very interesting to see how this vote ends up playing out. There has been so much content and so much indecision about the best person to vote, that no matter who is lynched, and no matter whether they are civ or bad, I think the vote itself is going to contain plenty of information.

I don't have any info on zebra - just a screaming gut. I really hope that if zebra ends up being the lynch, she is bad.

linki @SVS - quite a number. I've found it to be one of the most reliable scum tells.

[Turnip Head]

My thoughts on sig closely resemble Golden's thoughts.

I'm not a fan of Blooper's post or vote. It feels like she's just discussing the thread's talking points and not necessarily her own.

But I'm going with Black Rock, I just have a gut feeling about her. I'm interested to hear the theory she's working on though.

[a2thezebra]

Golden v Zebra looks like civ v civ to me. The aggression each of them is reacting with and the lengthy diatribes don't look day 1 scum to me. Day 1 scum would be more likely to softly dismiss cases in hopes of not making a scene. This is anxious cix behavior on both parts. I would humbly request you both take time ignoring each other's presence for at least 12 hours just to let the info settle in your minds and put that enthusiasm to use elsewhere in the game. Pretty please.

I wouldn't ask this of us, I would ask it of the other civilians. Look at what both of us said and see for yourselves who looks worse. I myself said that I'm not very confident that Golden's behavior here is alignment-indicative. Golden seems to have another idea.

There are really only two possibilities here.

Zebra is genuinely town, and is having a bit of flippy floppy about his thought processes. Her strategy about how to handle me has changed. At times it was by saying my behaviour wasn't alignment-indicative, but now she can't see any possible civ motivation for the same behaviour.

Secondly, zebra is bad, and feels the best way out of her current predicament is to double down and seem as genuine as possible, pushing ideas that don't truly check out because once she set them up, she couldn't easily back off and seem genuine.

You're making this look like a flip-flop on my part when it's not. When I say that your behavior isn't alignment-indicative, I'm referring to this ridiculously drawn-out argument that could just as easily be town tunneling or scum trying harder than I would normally have expected to make this look like "civ vs. civ". The behavior that sparked my initial suspicion, that being your disingenuous inquries to Mac earlier, still seems to me to be more likely scum-motivated than town-motivated. There is yet to be a change in my opinion on my part of any one of your particular actions, the only thing I'm less sure about is my read on you as a whole.

Also, @zebra - apologies for any incorrect gender.

It's all good

I'd like to be able to respond to all other inquiries before the poll is over. Host, could I get an exact time on that?