[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

[Marmot]

Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.

That's the fun part. It doesn't even have to be about his role! I bet that's been driving you nuts, eh?

But you trusted him too. You had him blue in your rainbow. You said he was showing things you recognized in your "RYM research" that made you feel good. Why did you trust your biggest foe in the game?

If it's not about his role, then what is it?

I think I know what his role is, and if I'm correct, then there is nothing for him implicate me, especially concerning his statement that I am Love during Wartime or Psycho Killer.

I did trust that he was civilian, and I thought it was clear even what role he was (that role being Take Me to the River). That doesn't mean he was correct. See seaside.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.

That's the fun part. It doesn't even have to be about his role! I bet that's been driving you nuts, eh?

But you trusted him too. You had him blue in your rainbow. You said he was showing things you recognized in your "RYM research" that made you feel good. Why did you trust your biggest foe in the game?

If it's not about his role, then what is it?

I think I know what his role is, and if I'm correct, then there is nothing for him implicate me, especially concerning his statement that I am Love during Wartime or Psycho Killer.

I did trust that he was civilian, and I thought it was clear even what role he was (that role being Take Me to the River). That doesn't mean he was correct. See seaside.

If you're right about his role then that means he had roleblock powers which would be perfectly applicable to his suspicion of you.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Moreover: I was absolutely not clear on what role Strawhenge was. I had some hunches and that one was among them (there were three of four viable candidates that I could think of). That you were clear on him being that specific role would seem to imply that you'd know his roleblocking power would be relevant to his read on you -- aka you knew why he suspected you.

[Marmot]

False.

Night 5: Nobody was removed from the poll on Day 6, so nobody could have been roleblocked. One of his powers wouldn't have gone through without the other one.

Night 7: Choutas was removed from the poll Day 8, meaning that somebody from the Syndicate was roleblocked. Remember that I am from RYM in this game.

Those were the two nights that Life during Wartime attempted and failed to perform a nightkill. The Night 7 one is more relevant because Strawhenge made his comment on Day 8, and Psycho Killer made a kill attempt that night (that also failed).

My point is that Strawhenge could not have targeted me on Night 7, as his roleblock would have had to gone to a Syndicate member.

[Marmot]

Moreover: I was absolutely not clear on what role Strawhenge was. I had some hunches and that one was among them (there were three of four viable candidates that I could think of). That you were clear on him being that specific role would seem to imply that you'd know his roleblocking power would be relevant to his read on you -- aka you knew why he suspected you.

That is my theory Jay. Do you oppose it?

Anyway, in my previous post, I address why Strawhenge would have been wrong.

[Marmot]

Also, yes Choutas is Seen but not Seen, which has the ability to change his face and homesite. But had he done that, he would not have been able to be removed from the poll anyway, so that power was not in play.

[Ricochet]

I don't see any foreseeable energy to reprofile everyone as potential SK, mainly because it involves deeper reading, instead of just searching for buzzwords, but I'll see what I can do.

I'm amused by what must be the fourth or fifth mention I'm hearing that "if we kill the SK, Mafia doesn't have a kill on this Night". The usual norm is that the kill is inherited and I don't see any main reason for this to not to be true in this game as well.

That being said, I said I am fed up with Psycho Killer's kill priviledges, enough to want him removed already.

Your conclusion as to why Strawy's legacy is credible is that he made it? How can a conclusion be the premise, with no explanation or elaboration in between? Granted, I also went along with trusting Strawy's call, during a particular Day phase, but since then I saw no signs of effort from Strawy to navigate around his alleged power read i.e. make a case; give a hint that it's a lock-on read; give anything...

Right now, I'd go for a Wilgy or MM lynch. Also, I for one endorse Russ' opposite read on motel and would even ask others not named JJJ if they have anything more to say on the subject of motel.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Attention Russtifinko: (this is not a vote)

There are the points I made about motel room that I thought worked in his favor -- primarily confirmed mafia members saying things that I thought reflected well on him as a non-team mate prospect. Please look these over and tell me where you disagree. I really need to be engaged on these specifically to have much chance of your very different perspective resonating with me.

Mafia spew about motel room:

Long Con

Spoiler: show

As for the "2 out of 7 BWT voters are bad" idea... it's arbitrary and unhelpful. Maybe none of them are bad, and the people trying to push this idea as if it's a real, supported theory are hoping to milk it for 1 to 7 Civvie lynches. Maybe 4 out of the 7 are bad, and the baddie team decided to save one of their own who was getting up there in votes.

A more reasonable theory is that (Nothing But) Flowers is an RYM person who wanted to hide their vote in the biggest bandwagon. That, at least, makes some sense. Talking about that makes me think of someone (McDougal? motel room?) who brought up that role. When I read that post, it felt suspicious to me, like the reason for bringing it up was because they were that role, or at least a teammate. I want to go back and read it again.

Linki: RIP you guys.

This was the post that inspired me to get into this method of analysis. Long Con and Mac had their well-documented exchange about the Flowers role, and here we see LC involving motel room in that matter as well. This is curious because motel room never said anything about the Flowers role. LC forced motel's name into this post for no reason, and I think it's meant to be something that people like me come back and look at later. Anyone was capable of determining that it was Mac who brouhght up the Flowers role, so their mafia-mafia interaction can be easily discerned now. There's no reason for motel room to exist in this post and I think that's because LC attempted to shove a smear job in for good measure. Good look for motel room IMO.

Spoiler: show

Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

Ugh. It makes me want to lynch him, but not because I particularly believe he was handed a Mafia card at the start. It's ugly, and ugly is such a smelly word.

I just want to quote this so Long Con doesnt get to drop a vote on someone he's not sold as being scum later on by sewing the seeds for it now. Which is how this feels.

Thanks for keeping an eye on me, but my vote is more likely to go to someone I think is Mafia.

motel room cast suspicion on LC and LC responded with this sort of "whatever dude" incredulity -- a contrast from his mutual antagonism with Mac's criticisms.

Spoiler: show

I'm actually unvoting sorsha and changing my vote to MattF. Something about him is not what it seems my friends. And I aim to get to the bottom of it.

I don't get why you've switched from Sorsha, at one point saying you wont switch for anything less than someone saying "i am scum", to Matt F because of a few "pings". This is a significant bandwagon.

I switched to MattF to get a reaction out of him mate. Sorsha looks safely lynched so I'm pretty much free to throw my vote around to scare scum.

Unvote MattF, vote motel room.

See.

Well like

Now you're just hopping to muddy your intentions even further. Do you think Sorsha is scum or not?

No I'm not. I'm trying to upset you to see if you will break that super cautious posting style you've got there. Please don't state opinions as fact.

Yes gun to head I believe sorsha is scum. I had a bad feeling that there are scum on the wagon but now that a solid Devin wagon is being put together at the last minute in an attempt to get sorsha unlynched, the predictable has occurred when a scum is about be hung so I'm comfy again.

Changing my vote back to sorsha.

Mac claims he is prodding motel room to "break that super cautious posting style" motel room had been exhibiting. This reads to me like an attempt by Mac to simulate a townie mindset by using his vote as a scumhunting tool. This means motel room as the target is a circumstantial presence rather one deliberately sought for the purpose of distancing. I mildly like this for motel room too.

Spoiler: show

Not surprised with any of that.

Two SK kills, no nightkill?

You heard me.

still don't how to feel about this.

The scum don't kill every night ya fucken.

Reads to me as genuine oversight by motel room, and perhaps annoyance by Mac at the plight his team faces with semi-nightly kills. :P

Spoiler: show

"

"There's no alternate bandwagon, so Mac must be good. Let's make an alternate bandwagon"

Is this at someone? Is this suspicion?

It's what just happened.

, said Epignosis in the thread that contained the mafia game being played.", said motel room, implying that commentary is more arms-length distancing shit but whatever.

motel room asks epi a question that he sarcastically replies to and then motel room is starting to see just how not town epi really is itt right now.

Mashes motel room's face into Epi's posts. This doesn't look like team mate interaction to me.

Spoiler: show

I think with the Russ vote there's not much point trying to save me motel room, though I appreciate the effort.

lol. Bite if you want.

TheFloyd73

Spoiler: show

My first lack of inclusion was genuinely from stuff going on in my life that was messing with my head. And I will say AGAIN that if you wish to discuss this further, please PM me.

Has anyone PMed you?

No, not about that topic anyway. would you like to be the first?

Oh ok, like just from teammates?

I hope your head's ok now man.

Thanks, dude. Im feeling a little bit better, but the scars still remain

motel room was the one that prodded Floyd into the PMs scumslip. Floyd bit. It looks like an organic exchange to me.

Spoiler: show

So, which roles remain at the moment?

why are you interested?

I want to know how many Mafia remain. If I can work out who's scum, I could perhaps put roles on them.

Floyd employs one of the few distinct strategic moves he offered in this game. motel room asked him what he was doing, and he tried to explain himself. Again, doesn't look like team mate interaction to me.

~~~

I will look over your points against him now and state my perspectives, Russ.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Also Russ this post was relevant too, I couldn't include it in the prior post without the format exploding for some reason.

Spoiler: show

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p184571

Still thinking about this post actually. I'm just loving it, it's very helpful for me. Thank you.

Negative
Matt
finding his ping "phony" in joining sig's wording case

MacDougall
suspicious of motel room for bringing up Flowers tactics (although this seems like self-aware fake sussing, imo, since LC was Flowers)
voting MacDougall D2

Can the green part of this be explained more? Is this Macs suspicion or LC's?

Uhh pretty sure that's in LC's section, so it's LC's suspicion on MacDougall.

Basically both Mac and motel brought up some interpretations of what Flowers might have done with his D1 vote and then LC sussed them both for talking about it. I already pointed out this suspicion looks fake, since LC was of course Flowers himself. But it still counts as LC putting heat on Mac for this.

I was confused on where motel room fit in under Mac, that's all.

BR doesn't seem bothered about team mate Mac being implicated in Rico's analysis but sees fit to ask about motel room.

[Ricochet]

Also, yes Choutas is Seen but not Seen, which has the ability to change his face and homesite. But had he done that, he would not have been able to be removed from the poll anyway, so that power was not in play.

How would an already converted-to-Syndicatee Choutas NOT be able to be removed from the poll on Night 7? That's actually the part that literally would make sense (Choutas as Synner removed, you as Rymer blocked).

[Marmot]

Also, yes Choutas is Seen but not Seen, which has the ability to change his face and homesite. But had he done that, he would not have been able to be removed from the poll anyway, so that power was not in play.

How would an already converted-to-Syndicatee Choutas NOT be able to be removed from the poll on Night 7? That's actually the part that literally would make sense (Choutas as Synner removed, you as Rymer blocked).

This is why.

Seen and Not Seen – During any night, it may try to change its face. "Changing its face" effectively switches the forum this player is from when it comes to all forum-driven role powers, unbeknownst to everyone else. For example, if this player is actually from The Syndicate, it may elect to change its face, and thereafter it is secretly from RateYourMusic, and a power that would previously have affected it because it was from The Syndicate only no longer will do so. It takes two full cycles before this change takes effect.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

False.

Night 5: Nobody was removed from the poll on Day 6, so nobody could have been roleblocked. One of his powers wouldn't have gone through without the other one.

Night 7: Choutas was removed from the poll Day 8, meaning that somebody from the Syndicate was roleblocked. Remember that I am from RYM in this game.

Those were the two nights that Life during Wartime attempted and failed to perform a nightkill. The Night 7 one is more relevant because Strawhenge made his comment on Day 8, and Psycho Killer made a kill attempt that night (that also failed).

My point is that Strawhenge could not have targeted me on Night 7, as his roleblock would have had to gone to a Syndicate member.

You're right about that specific role not pertaining to this case then. You were paying much closer attention to the potential implications/causes of Strawhenge outing you than I was.

I'm still just as suspicious of you.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Now MM, how about instead of breaking your brain trying to understand how Strawhenge knew, you address the case.

[Ricochet]

Also, yes Choutas is Seen but not Seen, which has the ability to change his face and homesite. But had he done that, he would not have been able to be removed from the poll anyway, so that power was not in play.

How would an already converted-to-Syndicatee Choutas NOT be able to be removed from the poll on Night 7? That's actually the part that literally would make sense (Choutas as Synner removed, you as Rymer blocked).

This is why.

Seen and Not Seen – During any night, it may try to change its face. "Changing its face" effectively switches the forum this player is from when it comes to all forum-driven role powers, unbeknownst to everyone else. For example, if this player is actually from The Syndicate, it may elect to change its face, and thereafter it is secretly from RateYourMusic, and a power that would previously have affected it because it was from The Syndicate only no longer will do so. It takes two full cycles before this change takes effect.

Oh.

[Marmot]

Ok Jay. But I've pointed out a good reason why Strawhenge, even if he is a civilian, can't inherently be trusted.

There is also the case he made on Day 10 against Choutas and his vendetta against him. I know I voted Choutas that day too, but Strawhenge was wrong there.

So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?

Linki: I'm going to Jay, I'm about to leave for a midterm, but I'll be home in a couple hours.

Will you answer my question?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm happy to see JJJ lynched to remove the doubt but I think he did the same thing I did w/r/t mac.

I actually feel like JJJ and Floyd will flip town.

Please esplain.

Which part? I wont be surprised if they were both town, but I'm not sold so hard as to defend them and they are both potential distractions now at this point and if not lynched now will probably ride on as lynch contenders until the end of the game is all.

Hopefully you all recognize this by now. motel room says lynching a civ JJJ would be ok, so we can stop debating whether to lynch a civ JJJ. This is when he popped up heavily on my radar. I said Mac did the same thing, and his explanation did not satisfy:

do you see the difference between what I'm suggesting and what Mac was suggesting? Mac thinks lynching Sorsha will leave behind all these clues he's super eager to get into, I'm suggesting lynching JJJ crosses him off the list the end. No more bickering about whether he's scum or town or what because look it's happening again today "JJJ should still be on the table for a lynch", "what do we think about JJJ?" over and over.

There's one significant reason these posts by motel room don't ping me that much:

I was saying the same thing.

On Day 7 I was openly lamenting that my continued survival might be worse for town just because at that point it seemed like my eventual lynch was inevitable and my presence would be an immense distraction. That hasn't quite proven accurate but it's how I felt at the time -- part of me wanted to outright encourage my own lynch. When the seaside mislynch developed at light speed to "save" me I thought that would make it even worse.

Because of the way I play Mafia games, my name tends to come up a lot just by default. When I am alive and considered a consensus suspect, that has the potential to completely devour the game thread. I've seen it before. It's a poison unless it's well-placed (in this game it wasn't). I can understand why a town motel room might genuinely want to progress the game beyond that issue especially if he wasn't completely convinced of his read on me (as he wouldn't likely be after having been so wrong about Mac as I was).

The possibility exists that he saw me expressing those lamentations and decided to take advantage, but that's the gist of it -- it's difficult for me to objectively make that call.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?

Guess what time it is? It's time for this emoticon!







You're seething.

Actually the perfect emoticon right now would be that shrug with the grinface.

Maybe DrWilgy has some thoughts about this.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Russ, continuing thoughts on motel room as they come to me...

I think this most recent exchange between motel room and RadicalFuzz might be telling:

Spoiler: show

MM can you reiterate your answer to my question, I don't understand the linki.

I don't know about Bullzeye's meta, but publicly giving up reads anything but SK. In the meta I'm used to it's usually a scum-oriented thing to do, but I'm not sure about here, particularly with the record-setting post count. I'd prefer Wilgy or MM because I've been following them for longer, but if Bullzeye isn't going to play then that ties our hands somewhat. It's the objectively worst choice as civilian, so for that alone I'd have to assume he's scum.

There's a technician here so it's possible my internet will cut at some point. I'll vote Bullseye to remove the tie.

Bullzeye

J3 in this case, Bullzeye choosing to stop playing does nothing bit hurt town by a large margin. If he is town he removes one townie from the game, which we can't afford at this point. If he's scum he skates by silently. Lynching him fixes both potential problems. I think him being town is unlikely due to the sheer strength of this action. If it was minor and there were counterweights, then there would be conflict present. But as it is, what is the alternative?

I know there has been chatter about these since but yes eww these read as trying really hard to rationalise the appearance of your vote Fuzz.

Fuzz, the posts I quoted were before and during you casting the vote. Like remember Long Con's eventual vote for Sig early on where he had to backpedal the Bea thing and find a more compelling reason to place his final vote? Reminds me of that. Too-heavy display of reasoning.

Fuzz, the posts I quoted were before and during you casting the vote. Like remember Long Con's eventual vote for Sig early on where he had to backpedal the Bea thing and find a more compelling reason to place his final vote? Reminds me of that. Too-heavy display of reasoning.

I wasn't around then and haven't read it. My vote was more complex than a simple "He said X, X is scum talk, lynch him" so that's why I had exposition about my vote. Would you have preferred me gloss over my reasoning?

MM as I've said all game I have done scummy things. Soft defense of Mac, illogical reasons for not voting Floyd, I'm aware of this. There is no defense to what I did, simply put. What could I possibly say that would make me look better with those moves?

Eh don't worry, he flipped scum. I was concerned you were fluffing "sensible" reasoning to fall back on in case he flipped town.

I'm going back to bed.

I think this progression evidences that motel room did not know what alignment Bullzeye would flip to me. He saw reason to interrogate Fuzz (as did Diiny and I) about his justification for placing a Bullzeye vote which seemed to be a belabored justification for making his vote. The reason this means anything to me is that this line of criticism only survives if Bullzeye flips town, meaning all three of us attacking Fuzz would be hardpressed to maintain that attack in the event of a mafia flip.

Which makes the attack generally pointless, because Bullzeye flipped mafia. This can be seen in the last of these posts in which motel room grants that his prior line of questioning was no longer applicable. It's possible to fake this, but I'm not sure that's the assumption we should make.

[motel room]

Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.

That's the fun part. It doesn't even have to be about his role! I bet that's been driving you nuts, eh?

But you trusted him too. You had him blue in your rainbow. You said he was showing things you recognized in your "RYM research" that made you feel good. Why did you trust your biggest foe in the game?

If it's not about his role, then what is it?

I think I know what his role is, and if I'm correct, then there is nothing for him implicate me, especially concerning his statement that I am Love during Wartime or Psycho Killer.

I did trust that he was civilian, and I thought it was clear even what role he was (that role being Take Me to the River). That doesn't mean he was correct. See seaside.

we don't know seaside wasn't correct.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.

That's the fun part. It doesn't even have to be about his role! I bet that's been driving you nuts, eh?

But you trusted him too. You had him blue in your rainbow. You said he was showing things you recognized in your "RYM research" that made you feel good. Why did you trust your biggest foe in the game?

If it's not about his role, then what is it?

I think I know what his role is, and if I'm correct, then there is nothing for him implicate me, especially concerning his statement that I am Love during Wartime or Psycho Killer.

I did trust that he was civilian, and I thought it was clear even what role he was (that role being Take Me to the River). That doesn't mean he was correct. See seaside.

we don't know seaside wasn't correct.

This reminded me of something.

If D3 manipulation could be viable - albeit meaning I should have been dead - then yes, I would lean on him having seen civ manipulation rather than Drugs, so something working in your favour. But the only civ manipulation with negatives is Blind's, I think? And if so, why would seaside suss one of you out at all?

I honestly think seaside just saw that your vote total was not what it was supposed to be and then suspected everyone on the wagon as a result. I acknowledge this would mean that he never thoroughly read the roles in the game, but I don't see any other explanation.

I would actually agree with this.

This was on Day 8. I had a reason to make this assertion about seaside since I was one of the people implicated by his claims about the Ricochet wagon of Day 3. Marsh did not have this reason, so for him to agree with this assertion is a surprising thing.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Another idea for SK-hunting for those who have more time than I do:

Interactive analyses between living players and players killed by the SK

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Oh shit I forgot my shift starts two hours later tonight, I have more time to spend destroying evil.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

3) His reactions to points raised against him have, the majority of the time (although to be fair, not all the time), been to dismiss, ridicule, or NO U his case makers, primarily Matt F, sig, and myself.

This is, as far as I can tell, a fair beef. motel room, if you're town then you're going to really need to stop blowing off accusations and treat them like they have the potential to get you lynched and cost your team the game.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

4) MM's vote two day periods ago killed Choutas, the only confirmed civvie (and, I would argue, the only civvie) on the block that day. It also saved motel from a 1/3 chance of dying (assuming MP randomizes ties, as he has done in the past). You might say this is far-fetched, but keep in mind that there were 11 players alive at this point. As JJJ said, the worst case for us there is 7-3-1, with their kill coming up and at least one from the SK, so that lynch was absolutely huge.

The next day, he asked MM about it, but didn't apply any real pressure or follow up. Then yesterday, MM spent all day trying to get Fuzz dead instead of Bullz. My suspicion is that Fuzz was drugged, and that if even a single civ had joined him, motel would've hopped on and they'd have taken their chances with the SK, knowing the civs were done.

I want to keep this by itself, but post support (lots of it, sorry) coming.

This is where I think you might be stretching into an overly theoretical realm, Russ. If MM is mafia, then his vote for Choutas can be reasoned more simply as "saved Bullzeye" without needing to implement all of these other motel room-relevant possibilities into the thought process. If you're right, then that means the SK has failed to kill even a single mafioso throughout the entire game. Do you have conviction in making that statement?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Doc, I understand you've been busy, but I'm going to need something from you ASAP. Your most recent ordering of suspicions featured the following:

JJJ is the SK

Bullzeye is kinda suspicious (after he was already dead and confirmed mafia)

RadicalFuzz is neutral (now he's dead anyway)

"Everyone else I have no opinion on."

This means that your only surviving read is to call me the SK, without explaining why, and that's it. This is inadequate.

[Marmot]

So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?

Guess what time it is? It's time for this emoticon!







You're seething.

Actually the perfect emoticon right now would be that shrug with the grinface.

Maybe DrWilgy has some thoughts about this.

Jay, after all the effort and "cheerleading" you put forth toward Strawhenge to come up with a logical and apparent reason for everyone to trust him, you're behaving the exact same way.

Your progression is illogical.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

So I ask you again, why are you putting stock into what Strawhenge had to say?

Guess what time it is? It's time for this emoticon!







You're seething.

Actually the perfect emoticon right now would be that shrug with the grinface.

Maybe DrWilgy has some thoughts about this.

Jay, after all the effort and "cheerleading" you put forth toward Strawhenge to come up with a logical and apparent reason for everyone to trust him, you're behaving the exact same way.

Your progression is illogical.

Bullcrap.

I just put up nineteen page cases for you as a mafioso and as a serial killer. I did exactly what I begged Strawhenge to do.

[motel room]

3) His reactions to points raised against him have, the majority of the time (although to be fair, not all the time), been to dismiss, ridicule, or NO U his case makers, primarily Matt F, sig, and myself.

This is, as far as I can tell, a fair beef. motel room, if you're town then you're going to really need to stop blowing off accusations and treat them like they have the potential to get you lynched and cost your team the game.

Except that its not true - I responded to Matt F's issues with me and only when he completely fucking ignored my responses did I start ridiculing him. So did Epi, after me, when Matt was so confident with his out-there theories that it was driving everybody nuts. And it wasn't a "no u" because I felt that he was genuine.

Sig, I can't really remember right now, but I know I found it suspicious that after not mentioning me all game he jumped on board with Matt. Pretty sure Sig was a "no u" on me ffs.

And Russ has, up until recently, only had one fucking point on me that I explained and he ignored or wasn't good enough for him or whatever. Then I figured whatever, not changing his mind am I, and only now has he posted a case which, great, but there's so much stretching in there I want to see his face if\when I flip. This one may have started as a "no u" because Out Of The Blue he started hammering me for one thing and only one thing, but I've since said that his pursuit\frustration reads more genuine to me now.

Rico's case against me is the only one I've probably "blown off" cos 1. I think he seems town so pushing back on a case I find shitty to see if he'll crack doesn't interest me and 2. it's mostly how I've made shitty votes and apart from the reasons I've given in my posts I don't have much to add. If I didnt give much of a reason it's because whoever I voted was an acceptable chance of being maybescum, sometimes based of others' reads after a weekend away from the game.

None of these live on as NO U and most of them haven't been blown off. I've explained myself when questioned and pushed back when the attack feels fake.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Rico's case against me is the only one I've probably "blown off" cos 1. I think he seems town so pushing back on a case I find shitty to see if he'll crack doesn't interest me and 2. it's mostly how I've made shitty votes and apart from the reasons I've given in my posts I don't have much to add. If I didnt give much of a reason it's because whoever I voted was an acceptable chance of being maybescum, sometimes based of others' reads after a weekend away from the game.

Let's follow this logic to it's inevitable end:

Rico suspects motel room. motel room declines to take it as seriously as he should because he town reads Rico and doesn't see a point in pushing his buttons. Rico sees motel blowing him off. Rico's perspective of motel room does not improve. motel room's chances of being lynched increase.

You think this is permissible?

[motel room]

Rico's case against me is the only one I've probably "blown off" cos 1. I think he seems town so pushing back on a case I find shitty to see if he'll crack doesn't interest me and 2. it's mostly how I've made shitty votes and apart from the reasons I've given in my posts I don't have much to add. If I didnt give much of a reason it's because whoever I voted was an acceptable chance of being maybescum, sometimes based of others' reads after a weekend away from the game.

Let's follow this logic to it's inevitable end:

Rico suspects motel room. motel room declines to take it as seriously as he should because he town reads Rico and doesn't see a point in pushing his buttons. Rico sees motel blowing him off. Rico's perspective of motel room does not improve. motel room's chances of being lynched increase.

You think this is permissible?

Probably not ideal but I'm just telling you what I'm thinking. I'll find his case.

[Marmot]

Bullcrap.

I just put up nineteen page cases for you as a mafioso and as a serial killer. I did exactly what I begged Strawhenge to do.

That has nothing to do with Strawhenge.

So yes, dropping the point at the end #legacyofStrawhenge or whatever is is worthless if you can't use anything he has to offer.

Imagine another player in this game skipping the majority of the case and going to the bottom line of your case to see your conclusions, and finding that line in there. Using him as a reason to support your case is irrelevant if you have no reason to believe him.

[motel room]

Bullcrap.

I just put up nineteen page cases for you as a mafioso and as a serial killer. I did exactly what I begged Strawhenge to do.

That has nothing to do with Strawhenge.

So yes, dropping the point at the end #legacyofStrawhenge or whatever is is worthless if you can't use anything he has to offer.

Imagine another player in this game skipping the majority of the case and going to the bottom line of your case to see your conclusions, and finding that line in there. Using him as a reason to support your case is irrelevant if you have no reason to believe him.

Forget Strawhenge. Do you think JJJ is making it up?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Bullcrap.

I just put up nineteen page cases for you as a mafioso and as a serial killer. I did exactly what I begged Strawhenge to do.

That has nothing to do with Strawhenge.

So yes, dropping the point at the end #legacyofStrawhenge or whatever is is worthless if you can't use anything he has to offer.

Imagine another player in this game skipping the majority of the case and going to the bottom line of your case to see your conclusions, and finding that line in there. Using him as a reason to support your case is irrelevant if you have no reason to believe him.

You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.

[Marmot]

You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.

You're right, I don't. You've refused to answer that question.

[Marmot]

Forget Strawhenge. Do you think JJJ is making it up?

Making what up?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.

You're right, I don't. You've refused to answer that question.

That's right.

[motel room]

Forget Strawhenge. Do you think JJJ is making it up?

Making what up?

His case, his stance. Either case.

[Marmot]

Spoiler: show

Jay, explain why you trust Strawhenge and what role you think he could be that would give us reason to put stock in his claim.

That's the fun part. It doesn't even have to be about his role! I bet that's been driving you nuts, eh?

But you trusted him too. You had him blue in your rainbow. You said he was showing things you recognized in your "RYM research" that made you feel good. Why did you trust your biggest foe in the game?

If it's not about his role, then what is it?

I think I know what his role is, and if I'm correct, then there is nothing for him implicate me, especially concerning his statement that I am Love during Wartime or Psycho Killer.

I did trust that he was civilian, and I thought it was clear even what role he was (that role being Take Me to the River). That doesn't mean he was correct. See seaside.

we don't know seaside wasn't correct.

This reminded me of something.

If D3 manipulation could be viable - albeit meaning I should have been dead - then yes, I would lean on him having seen civ manipulation rather than Drugs, so something working in your favour. But the only civ manipulation with negatives is Blind's, I think? And if so, why would seaside suss one of you out at all?

I honestly think seaside just saw that your vote total was not what it was supposed to be and then suspected everyone on the wagon as a result. I acknowledge this would mean that he never thoroughly read the roles in the game, but I don't see any other explanation.

I would actually agree with this.

This was on Day 8. I had a reason to make this assertion about seaside since I was one of the people implicated by his claims about the Ricochet wagon of Day 3. Marsh did not have this reason, so for him to agree with this assertion is a surprising thing.

And to respond to this statement, I've read the roles. We know that the only vote-manipulative role that the baddies have is one that cannot be linked directly to them, so it's easy to deduce that not only were the three of you (Diiny, Jay, espers) not likely to be a baddie, but one of you is guaranteed to be a civilian.

My scum-hunting abilities might not be very good, but I'm still observant, and can make deductions, especially role-related ones.

Some of my theories have obviously proved wrong, but not all of them.

Linki: Hold that thought motel room. I am putting together a response to it, I'm just responding to smaller points and real-time chat too.

[Marmot]

You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.

You're right, I don't. You've refused to answer that question.

That's right.

Get off your high-horse dude. Your read of me is incorrect, and you're going to blow this game (for the civilians at least) if you don't quit it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression that I have is that you've got quite a bit of "swag" right now, and you consider yourself top stuff. I resent that attitude, and especially at this junction.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

You don't know what reasons I have or don't have to believe Strawhenge. All you know is that I mounted two big ol' cases against you. You continue to focus on the least important thing I said.

You're right, I don't. You've refused to answer that question.

That's right.

Get off your high-horse dude. Your read of me is incorrect, and you're going to blow this game (for the civilians at least) if you don't quit it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression that I have is that you've got quite a bit of "swag" right now, and you consider yourself top stuff. I resent that attitude, and especially at this junction.

Say what?

There are some pretty clear reasons why I might not answer your question -- there is no reason to jump to me being full of myself. I never play that way. I answer every question thrown my way if I am able to answer it.

Do I have confidence right now? Yes. Do I think I'm "top stuff"? Of course not. That's ridiculous and absolutely irrelevant to everything. You read to me like someone who is frustrated about being caught this late in a game and not like someone who is answering to significant pressure as a townie should.

[Ricochet]

So motel is to be read townie for not caring about my case because he reads me town in my case intentions, despite thinking my case is bullsuit? Does he have that attitude in general? 'Cause at least knowing how much I bark at players hounding me when town, especially when their case is bullsuit, I can't reconcile this attitude with town. I'm not exactly tunneling, given that I'm taking in account his better looking recent record, but bad looking votes plus unreasoning are still reasonable faults.

[Marmot]

Jay, making predictions of my feelings as I read your responses looks exactly like that. This post in particular looks like you are trying to get a rise out of me, and you are pleased with the thought of that. Why would that make you happy? Why would it be good to be able to emotionally manipulate another player in the game?

My point is, your pride is showing. Check it please.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Jay, making predictions of my feelings as I read your responses looks exactly like that. This post in particular looks like you are trying to get a rise out of me, and you are pleased with the thought of that. Why would that make you happy? Why would it be good to be able to emotionally manipulate another player in the game?

My point is, your pride is showing. Check it please.

There is no "emotional manipulation". There is only me playing Mafia. Sure I was trying to get a rise out of you -- not on any personal level but within the context of this game we've both been playing for an entire month. I'm trying to win, and if you're not on my team then you stand in the way of that. I don't understand why you're concerned with my "pride" right now, and you've still failed to acknowledge the most obvious explanation for my tight-lipped behavior.

You shouldn't care about my pride. You should care about my motives and my correctness. You're not challenging my read, you're challenging my credibility.

[motel room]

So motel is to be read townie for not caring about my case because he reads me town in my case intentions, despite thinking my case is bullsuit? Does he have that attitude in general? 'Cause at least knowing how much I bark at players hounding me when town, especially when their case is bullsuit, I can't reconcile this attitude with town. I'm not exactly tunneling, given that I'm taking in account his better looking recent record, but bad looking votes plus unreasoning are still reasonable faults.

I'm looking at your case now. Trying to figure out how to tackle it cos my response is pretty much, yeah well I did all that but as town. Your case is the least shitty btw. The hardest part for me to respond to is my unexplained mind changes but I guess I want to point out that I've been away for large gaps in the game and reads shift and sometimes I'll rely on trusted players, and also that I reckon if I were scum I'd put more effort into explaining my votes and mind changes to avoid getting called up on it later on like this, but thats just a whole bunch of WIFOM I know.

What about how I barked back at Matt, sig and Russ? Cos I'm getting shat on for that too on the other hand.

[Marmot]

Jay, making predictions of my feelings as I read your responses looks exactly like that. This post in particular looks like you are trying to get a rise out of me, and you are pleased with the thought of that. Why would that make you happy? Why would it be good to be able to emotionally manipulate another player in the game?

My point is, your pride is showing. Check it please.

There is no "emotional manipulation". There is only me playing Mafia. Sure I was trying to get a rise out of you -- not on any personal level but within the context of this game we've both been playing for an entire month. I'm trying to win, and if you're not on my team then you stand in the way of that. I don't understand why you're concerned with my "pride" right now, and you've still failed to acknowledge the most obvious explanation for my tight-lipped behavior.

You shouldn't care about my pride. You should care about my motives and my correctness. You're not challenging my read, you're challenging my credibility.

If I know what you're talking about, then what's the point? It's frustrating to watch things happen in the thread that can't be illuminated. And it's even more frustrating when I feel like you're taking advantage of that situation.

Also, "Trust me guys, I'm the CEO" =/= "Trust me guys, I'm civilian".

[Ricochet]

I'll have a look, but I'm dead tired right now. A demain

[motel room]

Also, "Trust me guys, I'm the CEO" =/= "Trust me guys, I'm civilian".

Where did he do that?

[Marmot]

Also, "Trust me guys, I'm the CEO" =/= "Trust me guys, I'm civilian".

Where did he do that?

It wasn't explicit, but I read that Jay is implying that I should be lynched because he is the CEO. He says Strawhenge should be trusted, but he can't tell me why, except that it should be obvious why.

Feel free to correct this statement if it's wrong Jay.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Marsh, there are a ton of things in this thread that can be illuminated. I illuminated them loudly. Address them as you can and we'll talk about those things. Otherwise you're giving me nothing but insinuations that my word shouldn't be taken as gospel and nor should Strawhenge's -- things that are plainly evident already. Like I said: your focus right now is on my credibility and not the points I've made against you.

That's suspicious. Period.

linki: I didn't tell people to trust me or to trust Strawhenge implicitly. I gave them a case. Two of them.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Off to work.