Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

[a2thezebra]

I am fluent in Eyeballese. It is my native language.

[TheFloyd73]

I am fluent in Eyeballese. It is my native language.

[a2thezebra]

, , , ; : . .

[Epignosis]

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

You did not want to lynch Dom over a small thing- excellent. Instead you lynched Banana, a civilian, over a small thing.

Also, Epi, people change their attitudes. While I do not want to lynch nubs, if people are not even trying, meh. If they try, I want to give them a chance. You know my feelings regarding participation; perhaps Llama is right and players need to step up and police the thread more.

Did you change your attitude about new people? Low posters? When did this change come about, because I don't recall it happening.

You voted for a new person / low poster for the vaguest possible reason, while accusing your lynch victim of voting for the vaguest possible reason.

I cannot fathom you being a civilian in all of this.

[a2thezebra]

What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

[Epignosis]

What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.

[a2thezebra]

In that order?

[Epignosis]

In that order?

Dom
S~V~S
...
nutella

nutella is a distant tertiary suspect.

[S~V~S]

Epi, It happened becasue of how I feel about the P scores, and has been evolving for some time. I would think you know this, you were the one who pointed out the game where I killed only low posters. Also playing with aapje in Recruitment, and being more realistic, I think, made me think more about low posters. You can try to twist an evolving mindset into something it isn't if you like, but my change of heart is a real one. I have seen you poke fingers at people for ludicrous reasons, and need more than what you said to lynch someone. Having reread him at your behest, I saw typical Dom. I did not paticularly think you were right about Dom. I did not want to see him lynched, so I voted to save him. I am sorry Nananana was a civ, but he was not posting, he made what I felt was a very opportunistic vote in one of his two posts. Plus Mac trying to manhandle the thread into the direction he wanted it to go, as I said, freaked me a bit.

I don;t think I will ever lynch someone just because they are a low poster, but I am done coddling them.

I made a decision and I stick by it, and am not particularly concerned with your opinion of it.

[a2thezebra]

When nutella responded well to pressure vote, I backed off my suspicion. Maybe I should revisit some of the lower posters.

linki@SVS - I am on the fence about this conflict between you and Epi, (at the moment it looks like civ vs. civ to me) but I feel that I should clarify that I also will never lynch someone just because they are a low poster, but that does not mean that lurkers should not be lynched. There is less to go on, sure, but the few content that can be analyzed can also provide a lot of accurate insight.

[Epignosis]

Epi, It happened becasue of how I feel about the P scores, and has been evolving for some time. I would think you know this, you were the one who pointed out the game where I killed only low posters. Also playing with aapje in Recruitment, and being more realistic, I think, made me think more about low posters. You can try to twist an evolving mindset into something it isn't if you like, but my change of heart is a real one. I have seen you poke fingers at people for ludicrous reasons, and need more than what you said to lynch someone. Having reread him at your behest, I saw typical Dom. I did not paticularly think you were right about Dom. I did not want to see him lynched, so I voted to save him. I am sorry Nananana was a civ, but he was not posting, he made what I felt was a very opportunistic vote in one of his two posts. Plus Mac trying to manhandle the thread into the direction he wanted it to go, as I said, freaked me a bit.

I don;t think I will ever lynch someone just because they are a low poster, but I am done coddling them.

I made a decision and I stick by it, and am not particularly concerned with your opinion of it.

I see nothing in this post about new players, which is the larger basis for my suspicion (that, and the fact that you saved Dom, whom I suspect, and who is now mathematically more likely not civilian than is).

[Long Con]

I'm leaving work now. I'm going to lock the thread and put up a placeholder poll, and I will take care of business when I get home.

[S~V~S]

Thats the point, I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs.

But I have decided i would prefer to return to how we used to do it. It worked well, and the thread policed itself.

So death to lurkers, and people who make 2 posts~ one that says "I vote for X who already has 2 votes just becasue" and the other that says "Get a sense of humor".

Linki, I thought your case on Dom was bullshit. To not lynch him I had to cote for one of two low posters, both of whom happened to also be nubs. I am not going to save a non posting nub to save someone that Mac is screaming in the corner must die for no freaking reason whatsoever.

Dom>low posters when i am not sure he is bad. YOU > low posters when I am not sure you are bad. I did not think Nanana was going to start contributing at a higher level. I am sure he is a nice guy, but I don;t think he was committed to the game.

[S~V~S]

I wish Llama was here, he would be so pleased with me

[Epignosis]

can someone please print screen on that poll for me?

Sent.

[Epignosis]

Thats the point, I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs.

But I have decided i would prefer to return to how we used to do it. It worked well, and the thread policed itself.

So death to lurkers, and people who make 2 posts~ one that says "I vote for X who already has 2 votes just becasue" and the other that says "Get a sense of humor".

Linki, I thought your case on Dom was bullshit. To not lynch him I had to cote for one of two low posters, both of whom happened to also be nubs. I am not going to save a non posting nub to save someone that Mac is screaming in the corner must die for no freaking reason whatsoever.

Why was my case on Dom bullshit? Was it more substantial than your case on bananas?

Dom>low posters when i am not sure he is bad. YOU > low posters when I am not sure you are bad. I did not think Nanana was going to start contributing at a higher level. I am sure he is a nice guy, but I don;t think he was committed to the game.

Civilian > Committed to the game

I got the win condition to lynch Mafia, not lynch people who I don't think are committed to the game. What you just said in this post is that you are not trying to lynch Mafia. You are down for lynching non-contributors.

I hope your role slips on a banana peel. Poetic justice.

[Long Con]

-= The Circle Strikes =-

Timmer shivered, looking around his square. It was a bad place, and it went without saying that he shouldn't have come here at all. He could feel eyes on him everywhere he went, but he could never find anyone actually watching him. Not that he could see anyway. He thought of all the awful things that must be happening in the realm - darkness spreading, overtaking souls in despair... malevolent goblins poisoning good folk, and laughing while they choked and their skin turned blotchy and black... there were even tales of a shadow that could whisper your own deepest secrets into your ear, and use them to drive men to do things they would never consider.

When he was clubbed on the head from behind and left for dead, he was barely surprised at all.

timmer has been killed by the Circle of Decay. It is now Day 2. PMs will be sent out over the next hour or so - there's a lot of them so please be patient.

[Long Con]

Ok, the thread is open. I deleted the placeholder poll, so there is no timer again. Sorry I fucked up. 10pm EST Sunday is the end.

[Epignosis]

RIP timmer.

[timmer]

Fuck y'all

[Epignosis]

Fuck y'all

I agree.

Who the fuck killed timmer?

[Marmot]

Epignosis

[Epignosis]

Epignosis

Herro.

[a2thezebra]

Why is Canucklehead, who made the most poorly-justified vote in the history of Mafia yesterday, (the third one for Banana no less) not on the poll today?

[a2thezebra]

Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

Dom's not playing the other game that bea's playing, so this post couldn't have gone there.

That's why I'm intrigued.

Don't do drugs, kids.

[Marmot]

24 players on the poll.

This means there are 3 others missing.

[Marmot]

Epignosis

Herro.

Where are my manners.

Good evening.

[HamburgerBoy]

Typhoony, Tiny Bubbles, and myself are missing as well.

[Turnip Head]

Rest in peace timmer.

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

I feel like you're putting the responsibility for your Nanners vote onto Mac because of something Mac said about Dom. Mac was also vehemently against voting for the low posters, so I'm not following your thought process here. How do you feel about Mac in all of this?

[HamburgerBoy]

Looks like we were cut entirely from it.

[a2thezebra]

Looks like we were cut entirely from it.

[Marmot]

Rest in peace timmer.

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

I feel like you're putting the responsibility for your Nanners vote onto Mac because of something Mac said about Dom. Mac was also vehemently against voting for the low posters, so I'm not following your thought process here. How do you feel about Mac in all of this?

The last time I went against the lynching of low posters, I was mafia.

[Turnip Head]

Also @ SVS what made you vote for Banana over someone like Bugla? Bugla had the same amount of votes and was a more focal point of discussion at the time IIRC.

[Turnip Head]

Rest in peace timmer.

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

I feel like you're putting the responsibility for your Nanners vote onto Mac because of something Mac said about Dom. Mac was also vehemently against voting for the low posters, so I'm not following your thought process here. How do you feel about Mac in all of this?

The last time I went against the lynching of low posters, I was mafia.

You're always mafia.

[HamburgerBoy]

The last time I went against the lynching of low posters, I was mafia.

To be fair I think there's an exception to make for day 1 lynches. Pursuing low posters (low-hanging fruit) for an entire game, yes, scummy as heck. Day 1 lynches, maybe, maybe not, when there are often no clear scum candidates it can be viable to remove them before they are used as fodder during more important days.

[Marmot]

Rest in peace timmer.

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

I feel like you're putting the responsibility for your Nanners vote onto Mac because of something Mac said about Dom. Mac was also vehemently against voting for the low posters, so I'm not following your thought process here. How do you feel about Mac in all of this?

The last time I went against the lynching of low posters, I was mafia.

You're always mafia.

That's... debatable.

[Long Con]

Hello, players. It's good to see you all here in Day 2. That was the first real night in the game, so please let me know if there's anything I have missed.

[a2thezebra]

Based entirely on the voting of Banana and nothing else, here is an analysis of every final vote on Banana from the first to the last.

juliets

I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

Banana, I dont understand. What has he done exactly to cause an argument? What arguments are you talking about?

I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

Banana, I dont understand. What has he done exactly to cause an argument? What arguments are you talking about?

Banana you were just here but didnt answer my questions so here is a reminder in case you're still around. I persevere when people don't answer my questions so might as well do it now.

Banana, speaking of asking questions you still have not answered my question from yesterday even though you were here to make fun of Mac's post and could have answered it then. Are you just going to ignore me and try to make the question about your vote go away? I think I'll throw a vote your way until you answer me and then I'll see if the answer explains things for me.

Alright, so the first vote that contributed to Banana's mislynch was actually just a pressure vote for the most part. My issue is, I don't think Banana's vote for Matt F was hard to understand, and I never did, which is why I didn't give it much attention at all until the enormous out-of-nowhere bandwagon appeared to mislynch him. I interpret it as Banana holding Matt F responsible for the nonsense back-and-forth between him and Mac, which he felt distracted from any legitimate scumhunting that would've been easier to focus on had it not been for Matt F. Part of this may have been because of Matt F's self-vote as well. I strongly disagree, but I don't think the reasoning is that difficult to understand. So the question I must answer with each of the Banana voters is: are they genuine with not understanding what Banana meant with his vote? In juliets' case, I think she was. I think she seemed dissatisfied with not getting an answer from Banana and not seeing any other pings, (she made it clear in one post that she did not share/understand the case against Dom) she left her vote on Banana who to be fair, didn't meet her conditions of changing her vote, which was simply to respond to her. Also, when Floyd considered a vote for Matt F, she didn't understand why with him either.

Ugh, I'm finding it hard choosing between Matt and Mac.

Why would you vote for Matt? Why would you vote for Mac?

Floyd's post that was quoted by juliets there also demonstrates to me why Banana's vote on Matt shouldn't be that hard to interpret. The conflict between Matt and Mac was preventing focus on progressing through the game, and if Matt hadn't removed his self-vote then I might actually have shared the suspicion that he was doing it to present town with WIFOM that would put a dent in the chances of a rational lynch. So again, I don't think Banana's vote for Matt is difficult to understand, but that being said, again, I don't think juliets was disingenous with her vote. Being the first vote it couldn't have been part of a bandwagon and being a pressure vote I doubt it was intended to start one with such magnitude. juliets looks good here.

sig

For the time I will be placing my vote on BANANA, He didn't answer the questions in regard to his vote and his second and only other post was nonsensical.

I also find the reasoning for his Matt vote to be strange so for know
NANANANANANA_BANANA

I'll be around for awhile longer, but will then be off until later tonight. However, unless Banana posts I'll most likely keep my vote on him.

I don't trust Epi enough to follow him on the Dom lynch. Could others who have played with Dom tell me if he is playing scummy right know?

sig looks a lot worse here than juliets IMO. It would be fine if he echoed juliets' reasons for the vote provided he acknowledged that it was an echoing of juliets' reasons, but he seems to imply here that his reasons for voting Banana are original. He even references the questions that juliets proposed to Banana that Banana did not answer, but fails to mention juliets' name regardless. It seems too careful to me to leave her name out of this post when it is a carbon copy of her vote. The only redeeming quality of this post is that it also has the pressure vote acknowledgement that the vote could change if Banana responds. But that's it. sig looks bad here, but not irredeemably so.

Canucklehead

I'm looking through ISOs to try and find some pings to actually work off and I'm getting a really clear picture.... so many people are not giving much, it's no wonder there is little to go on.

So, I'm going to ask some specific people some specific questions, and I really want these people to answer these questions. It's time to start generating content.

Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?

Where are you guys? Are you civilian-aligned? Do you have any opinions on people you think are town? Do you have any opinions on who you think are bad?

I'm here on my couch with my dog, about to leave for curling in about 10 minutes. I support the civ cause. I do not. I do not.

I'm voting banana for having an obnoxious username.

I've said it before but it really needs saying again. This is the most poorly-justified vote in the history of mafia. I can understand a throwaway vote from someone with no reads if that throwaway vote isn't on a bandwagon with already increasing momentum, but for someone who claims to "support the civ cause" not having any opinions on who is good and who is bad and then to throw a vote on someone with two votes already on them for a joke reason, I think I can safely say that this post alone makes Canucklehead a reasonable lynch candidate as soon as possible. And I know I'm only supposed to be basing these analyses off the context of the vote on Banana, but the fact that Canuck's next post features no mention of Banana and consists entirely of a vote for scissors which took her off today's poll and yeah, lynch Canuck lynch Canuck lynch Canuck. ASAP.

Elohcin

I voted for Banana. His/her vote on Matt is simply false, weird, and suspicious.

I don't buy this. This goes back to the question I initially posed with juliets: Is the lack of understanding of Banana's vote on Matt genuine? In Eloh's case, I don't think it is. At all. "False, weird, and suspicious?" From a newbie no less, when there are other lurker newbie candidates (*cough* BUGLA *cough) whose behavior was/is far more damning of their alignment? It also doesn't help that this is the fourth vote for Banana following Canuck's. Elohcin looks bad here. Not as bad as Canuck, but a little bit worse than sig.

S~V~S

Yeah, I don't think Dom would set me up like that if he were actually bad, so no way am I voting for him.

I would prefer not to vote for a nub on day one, but I don't want to lynch Dom and I think that Nanananas vote was bogus as well. So I am going to put my vote there.

And if you're the SK again Dom, seriously, never talking to you again.

linki linki linki STOP POSTING YOU GUYS

On the one hand I understand saving a person who you think is innocent by contributing to the lynch of someone who has pinged you, but on the other hand I'm not sure that I buy that SVS was actually pinged by Banana. She did mention earlier that she was pinged by him which helps, but in that same post she also expressed hesitation to vote for him:

My bad then, Epi, I am sorry that I missed it.

That does make sense, i will read Doms posts, from what you say there will not be many.

I had not particularly intended to vote for Bugla or even Nananan, who struck me more with his early vote. I would rather give them a chance to settle in, this being their first game.

Overall, I think in SVS' case, this is up in the air. But, gun to my head, if she's good or bad based on her Banana vote and the context behind it, I would have to go with bad, even though I think she has defended herself against Epi pretty well.

Dom

i'm throwing a vote on Banana bc i dont' want to die

I think this looks good for Dom, honestly. A baddie might have at least tried to make it look like their vote was for any other reason besides saving their own skin, and I also read Dom's reaction to Banana's flip as genuine. I think with this final vote there were a lot of opportunities for a baddie to give some BS reasoning but Dom doesn't. Even though it's the final vote on one of the most disagreeable bandwagons I've come across in a while, it doesn't ping me in the slightest. Based on this, I think Dom is a civvie with his priorities straight, that being survival of the fittest.



So to recap, here is a ranking of who I think looks most to least scummy of the final votes for Banana:

Canucklehead
Elohcin
sig

SVS


Dom

juliets

[a2thezebra]

By the way, hi Elohcin.

[Long Con]

[Golden]

On the subject of SVS and epi, I don't see anything that makes me think either of them are bad, but if I knew one of them was bad my money would be on epi.

Also, I find the timmer kill very odd.

[Dom]

What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.

So anyone who disagrees with you?


TBH, Epig, your suspicion of me boils down to the fact that you like to suspect people and you needed someone to latch onto-- and it hasn't been me for awhile. I'm not bad and you STILL haven't told me if you are or not.

Llama would be rolling in his grave (as should you).

[Dom]

If I voted right now, I would vote for MacDoughall or Sorsahl

[nutella]

RIP Timmer.

a2, I disagree with your strong condemnation of Canuck. Idk if you've played with her before but she generally plays pretty lightheartedly and that looks to me like a typical pseudo-random day 1 vote. I can understand finding it a little suspicious but your guns-ablazing, number-one-suspect reaction is surprising to me.

I'm interested in keeping an eye on Bullz, Sorsha, and Bubbles today, and after how yesterday's lynch ended I am open to looking more at Dom and Bugla as well. And if one or both of them is bad, I'd peg SVS as a teamie.

[a2thezebra]

nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

[TheFloyd73]

I agree with Zebra's observations on the voters on Banana. Canuckle and Elo's reasons are extremely poor and unexplanitory. If those two could give a more in depth reason behind their vote, it would be greatly appreciated.

[MacDougall]

BUGLABUSH is too scared to fake scumhunting, hence the silly approach. I don't buy it for a second. If you have original reasons for voting Dom why didn't you state them when voting for Dom? I am not sure whether your glaring inconsistencies are weak town play or revolutionary scum play.

linki@Mac 1 - See, you've got some nerve insinuating that I'm protecting Dom when really I'm just attacking your poorly justified vote. Dom is one of my suspicions based on his recent content, but I don't think he is more likely to be scum than BUGLA and I think if he's not then he could provide us with some good content later on. I have given more reasons to be suspicious of him but not vote for him than you given reasons to vote for him at all. Good reasons, I should clarify.

linki@Mac 2 - Others have voted for Banana instead of Bug, why not call them out? My imaginary protecting of Dom is less apparent than your irrational singling out of him to justify your anti-vote.

linki@Mac 3 - I'm not going to vote for you for not liking your play, I'm going to vote for you if I think you're scum. Defensive much?

Re: paragraph one. How do you know that? I can show you many examples of townies posting silly shit. I'm guilty of it myself all the time. If he's a friend of Floyd's he might have just got roped into this and doesn't give half a fuck.

Re: paragraph two. See I don't think the statement "you've got some nerve" is really fair at all because I don't think my vote was poorly justified at all. I placed my vote on Dom because I have a town read on Epignosis and my preferable candidates were off the poll. Do you even read my posts? OMG LAZY ZEBRA NOT EVEN READING POSTS. I already said that I am on vacation, I am on a road trip. This right now is the first chance I've had to use a computer in days. I could have done better at the end of the day with his flailing but I'm very happy with where my vote was. Now, if you also have suspicions of Dom, why bother even making this post Zebra? If you have suspicions of Dom why look to discredit me for my vote on him?

Re: para three. You will note I was in the middle of making just that very post.

Re: para four. Not defensive, just annoyed that such an obvious mislynch was being put together to protect Dom.

Dom vote for me. Surely you must think I am scummier than Banana.

Do you have a vote manip on your team?

I'm not sure what roles the other townies have Dom.

How the fuck after this is Banana the lynch leader. Holy shit that is such an obvious counterwagon. Town plz.

A counterwagon of what? You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom? Sounds like town still did well then.

What a strange strange post. How would I make the conclusion that a guy I thought was a good shot at being scum getting spared and a civ lynched in his place is good for the town? I don't give a flying fuck about breadcrumbs. The guy was there to be lynched and through reasons unbeknownst to me a guy who barely had a case made against him got lynched in his place. It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

What a travesty.

No, it was kind of a Policy Lynch, wasn't it? Lynching a civview who WAS participating, now THAT would have been a travesty, Mr. Hyperbole Words.

He made two posts, one of them an incredibly opportunistic vote.

And feel free to not validate me~ I am self validating

This post reeks of victorious scum gloating. I can feel the quivering fingers typing it out coming down off the adrenaline high of being responsible for sparing a teammate.

No SVS. The banana lynch was not a policy lynch. There was no policy set out. There were just a series of very suspicious low reason votes cast at intervals throughout the day.

Now, if Dom was town. Do you think he would have been lynched? I do. I think if Dom was town, the scum would have hit his wagon hard. Of the three opportunities there he was clearly the more experienced player. Considering there were various votes made late day for very skewiff reasons they could have easily just thrown a vote on there and been done with it.

I thought you liked policy lynches?

You are scum.

Um, no.

And I don't recall you saying why. Is it becasue Epi thought I was always bad in LC/BR games and you value his (incorrect) opinion so highly? Which reminds me, I was also a civ in Sandman at RM. And I started out as a vanilla civ in RM3.

Or is it becasue Lorab & I don't think each other is bad? Why exactly did you think that only one of us might be bad? How does that work?

Or is it becasue I voted for Prog in 2 posts instead of one like everyone else?

There are two theories.

1. LoRab as a civ defended you and you fled and left LoRab to answer for you, rather than answering and then putting the pressure back on me.
2. LoRab is scum and defended you, a civ, to buddy you.

Not the best theories, but it's day 2. I'll work on it.

I would agree that the case against you is BS, Dom, but that might because I'm less familiar with your meta than some of the people that are on it. Could you give us some more of your reads, perhaps? Such as who you most likely will be voting for?

I'll likely be voting in self preservation.
I think Sorsha's vote on me was suspect AF.

Yeah, but like, maybe other reads that you hadn't already mentioned? Oh dear.

Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

That moment when the accused makes a better case for themselves to be voted for than the person who accused them.

Linki, Bye Banana

You found it funny that Zebra thought you made yourself sound scummy, but not valid enough to actually respond to? Unusual.

I'm so sorry I missed the vote! Thursdays are utterly horrible for me.

I'm trying to catch up on all the wacky shenanigans so far, but this game's posts feel a lot more chaotic than usual. So far all I have is that I think Dom is reading civ, but the votes for Banana were kind of pingy. Also I do think it odd that Bubbles didn't say she's a civ, since it's her trademark at this point.

Pingy as fuck.

I'm not suspicious of anyone with votes, but Buglabush seems not interested at all in playing the game, even less than people who haven't posted at all.
*votes*

Dom wasn't interested either until he got votes on him. If buglabush was scum I would imagine his team would be screaming at him to contribute, probably even post coaching.

Bug looks like an island to me.

Did you actually read what I said?

I found none of the people with votes suspicious = they were all on an equal level of suspicion to me.
So I looked at other criteria. Buglabush acts like the kind of guy who goes to school, sits in the back while listening to music and randomly says words from time to time without actually saying anything just to annoy other people. Dom atleast seems willing to contribute.

Scissors.

What, of course I did? You said you voted for him because he wasn't interested in playing the game. You didn't say any of what you then said in this post I am quoting. Fuck, ping! How am I supposed to deduce all of what you said there from the post I quoted initially?

Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

This actually intrigues me.


MacDougall-- what is this a list of?

It's a list of scum reads I have that I mixed up between the games because it was late and I'd been trying hard to follow two games, so fucking sue me.

Your post is an opportunistic attempt to discredit me.

Considering how day one Epi operates, I did not think of that as a joke, and I am still not sure that I believe you.

I did not want to lynch Dom over such a small thing. The more frantic Mac got about it, the less I wanted to do it, tbh. He was freaking me out, and I am kind of surprised that he was not freaking YOU out. But I chose to vote for someone I thought had placed a suspect vote, even though he was a noob. Had that whole weird "OMG DOMS GOTTA DIE BECAUSE EPIGNOSIS SCUMDAR" from Mac, I would not have voted for Nanana.

Please don't paraphrase me. I was doing my absolute best to calmly explain why I was casting a vote based on someone else's read, because I am aware it would be an easy target for scum to use to discredit said vote. You did exactly this.

When nutella responded well to pressure vote, I backed off my suspicion. Maybe I should revisit some of the lower posters.

linki@SVS - I am on the fence about this conflict between you and Epi, (at the moment it looks like civ vs. civ to me) but I feel that I should clarify that I also will never lynch someone just because they are a low poster, but that does not mean that lurkers should not be lynched. There is less to go on, sure, but the few content that can be analyzed can also provide a lot of accurate insight.

What has SVS posted exactly to give you the impression that she is a civ? Show me the town posts.

If I voted right now, I would vote for MacDoughall or Sorsahl

And why aren't you?

[MacDougall]

Thats the point, I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs.

But I have decided i would prefer to return to how we used to do it. It worked well, and the thread policed itself.

So death to lurkers, and people who make 2 posts~ one that says "I vote for X who already has 2 votes just becasue" and the other that says "Get a sense of humor".

Linki, I thought your case on Dom was bullshit. To not lynch him I had to cote for one of two low posters, both of whom happened to also be nubs. I am not going to save a non posting nub to save someone that Mac is screaming in the corner must die for no freaking reason whatsoever.

Dom>low posters when i am not sure he is bad. YOU > low posters when I am not sure you are bad. I did not think Nanana was going to start contributing at a higher level. I am sure he is a nice guy, but I don;t think he was committed to the game.

Epi's case was bullshit? That's your answer. No analysis of what is inherently wrong with his case? Just that his was bullshit. For someone who was criticising my policy against Matt for being mean this whole post rings false. Now you are saying you voted for Banana because it was a choice between three players and you didn't think he would begin contributing at a higher level... but the truth is...

Yeah, I don't think Dom would set me up like that if he were actually bad, so no way am I voting for him.

I would prefer not to vote for a nub on day one, but I don't want to lynch Dom and I think that Nanananas vote was bogus as well. So I am going to put my vote there.

And if you're the SK again Dom, seriously, never talking to you again.

linki linki linki STOP POSTING YOU GUYS

You voted for him because you felt his vote was bogus?

Not the same reasons. Stick to your story?

Voting S_V_S

[Matt]

Okay Mac cover your eyes because...here...we...go...

At the time of nutella's vote, all three top contenders (Bug, Dom, Nana) had four votes a piece, yet she voted for Sorsha. The whole exchange between nutella and sorsha after nutella's vote was quite curious...because there was none.

6:29 PM

Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

6:37 PM

Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

After contributing throughout the Day phase with her thoughts, it takes a span of eight minutes for nutella to suddenly throw a vote on Sorsha, avoiding completely the 4-4-4 tie between Bug, Dom, and Nana.

Her next post, a minute later, says this

Voted for Sorsha.

The Bubbles catch is interesting indeed. I don't feel like it merits a vote yet -- I'd like to see her response first.

In the same post saying she'd like a response from Bubbles first, she votes Sorsha. I think it's weird because during that eight minute window, nutella never asked or gave Sorsha a chance to respond.

But THAT'S okay, because there's still 22 minutes left in the poll. So Sorsha can still respond and maybe get nutella to put her vote where it matters! Right?

Here are Sorsha's posts after nutella votes her literally out of nowhere

6:40 PM (3 Minutes after nutella's vote on Sorsha)

I could also go for a BUG lynch, wasn't fond of his comment to zebra mostly. Also if he's getting tips from Floyd or some bad btsc partner he could just be playing the noob card, it worked for quite a while when Floyd did it and was bad. If Dom is going to be around and contribute like he is now I would likely think better of him. I'm also reminded of his play in the gentlemans guide game when he was a low laying baddie who ended up winning.

6:48 PM (11 Minutes after nutella's vote on Sorsha)

I could also go for a BUG lynch, wasn't fond of his comment to zebra mostly. Also if he's getting tips from Floyd or some bad btsc partner he could just be playing the noob card, it worked for quite a while when Floyd did it and was bad. If Dom is going to be around and contribute like he is now I would likely think better of him. I'm also reminded of his play in the gentlemans guide game when he was a low laying baddie who ended up winning.

Can this opinion become unanimous please? I don't see how it isn't obvious that that's what's going on.

I guess I still just feel bad voting a new player out on the first day....

So...

At the time of nutella's vote, the top three contenders (Bug, Dom, Nana) are tied at 4-4-4. Nutella, after contributing throughout the day, within an 8 minute timespan, throws her vote on Sorsha and completely avoids being a tiebreaker. Same post she votes for Sorsha, she makes an ironic statement about waiting for a response from Bubbles before placing a vote on her.

Then, the two posts that Sorsha make following nutella's vote...do not address the vote on her, do not address nutella. I would think nutella's vote would merit a reaction, something, even to say "Seriously? Put your vote where it matters", but nothing.

[nutella]

nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

Well, for one thing it's possible that she didn't realize that Banana was actually a candidate at that point. I know that if I'm catching up I don't always keep track of votes or bring up the poll results very much, and I doubt that she would have. Possibly she saw Banana's name mentioned a couple times and the name simply stuck out to her a bit more than the others, and the jokey reason is "pseudo-random" by which I meant a very common day 1 phenomenon -- you don't have much material with which to make real judgments/have suspicions yet, so you place your vote on someone with some reason to justify it because nothing else really jumps out. (I'm distinguishing this from actual randomizing, which people also do sometimes, but I'm against that and much prefer to have some justification, however weak. Thus "pseudo-random.")
Anyway, even if she did consciously decide to vote for someone who was already on the table, I honestly don't necessarily find that suspicious. Bandwagons can be dangerous but it's not always bad to go with the flow, especially on day 1 when the votes tend to be pretty spread out and vulnerable. I can definitely see why you're suspicious of Canuck for her vote. I'm just skeptical of how completely convinced of her baddieness you appear to be. I look forward to seeing her response though.