[ENDGAME] The Office Mafia

#851

Voting corporate, because I'd like to hopefully see some baddie roles. I'm assuming corporate and management are similar in that they're the baddies in this game. Tell me now if I'm wrong, I don't really know.

#852

Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.

#853

Serge wrote:We all should vote corporate, yes? I think it'll contain Sabre: Jo Bennett, Johnny California, that tall creepy dude.

That's almost the exact way I referred to him way back

Quin wrote:
indiglo wrote:Welcome 3J and espers!

I am now about to enjoy a lovely football match, and shall then make my evening vote. And there has not been much discussion about the options on the poll, so it seems as though I will just do whatever I feel like doing, unless there is further analysis forthcoming from anyone.

After the football match will come GoT season finale, so I am likely to be scarce for the night. (I hope no one I love dies! )
Oh, I forgot I was going to say something about this.

I imagine that you're voting for more role/s to be revealed from the department you vote for. Sales might give us Jim, Dwight and Andy, Customer Service might give us Kelly, Toby and that freaky tall dude, and Accounting would give us Oscar, Angela and Kevin.

#854

Voting corporate is the best chance we have of revealing more roles that can maybe tell us how the departments are divided. Also, who's on payroll? Oscar? I thought him and Angela and Kevin are all on accounting? Because Toby is HR.

#855

S~V~S wrote:Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.

Only barely. Generally the word "opinion" implies there is some sort of reasoned origin. A gun to head read on a totally neutral player is whatever the brain spits out in a moment -- at least if the person doing the exercise isn't cheating. It's a stance taken instead of "I don't know", because "I don't know" is worthless.

#856

S~V~S wrote:Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.

Also he started it himself, pointing a gun to your own head is weird. I would understand it if we're dropping like flies and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. It just seems too eager.

#857

Open that file!

#858

I was about to ask for some discussion about our current night poll... but didn't have to! Hooray!

I agree, the beef is with corporate, plus I do think seeing some baddie roles revealed could prove helpful.

#859

Serge wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.
Also he started it himself, pointing a gun to your own head is weird. I would understand it if we're dropping like flies and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. It just seems too eager.

I've done it on Day 1 before. A lot of people like to convince themselves that it's impossible to make headway early in a game and they don't even try.

Not me.

#860

I didn't say it's impossible. Sorry if I don't make any effort on Day 1.

#861

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.
Only barely. Generally the word "opinion" implies there is some sort of reasoned origin. A gun to head read on a totally neutral player is whatever the brain spits out in a moment -- at least if the person doing the exercise isn't cheating. It's a stance taken instead of "I don't know", because "I don't know" is worthless.

But it isn't neutral. You base it on past experience if a person has no content. That's opinion, right?

#862

Is this just a formatting mistake in the poll or are we able to select more than one option?

#863

Serge wrote:I didn't say it's impossible. Sorry if I don't make any effort on Day 1.

I'm only trying to convey to you my own strategic mindset. I give a great deal of effort every day and every night because I literally have nothing better to do -- and I enjoy it. I am called "over-eager" rather often in games by people who aren't familiar with my lunacy. This is who I am. JJJ Pride.

#864

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.
Only barely. Generally the word "opinion" implies there is some sort of reasoned origin. A gun to head read on a totally neutral player is whatever the brain spits out in a moment -- at least if the person doing the exercise isn't cheating. It's a stance taken instead of "I don't know", because "I don't know" is worthless.
But it isn't neutral. You base it on past experience if a person has no content. That's opinion, right?

Yes.

Barely.

Like I said.

It's not thoroughly reasoned, but it's a stance taken. Instead of saying "neutral read", a stance is taken. So it's not neutral. Even if perhaps it more honestly would be.

#865

Okay, why the hell am I explaining GTH reads in this game? Serge I can understand, but you've seen me do these 80 times, S~V~S. Where are you going with this?

#866

Quin wrote:Is this just a formatting mistake in the poll or are we able to select more than one option?

Dom, can we open two folders with the most votes?

#867

I'm voting corporate. Hoping it helps us get some good info on baddies.

#868

Hi, sorry for missing the vote. Had the deadline wrong in my head, won't let it happen again.

Fwiw I'd have voted BWT.

#869

If I literally had a gun to my head and the only way I could get the word out was by posting on the Syndicate, I'd be screwed.

#870

DFaraday wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ DFaraday - My main suspicion on Quin was the discrepancy between saying baddie hunting was his top priority and him focussing very little on it day one. Over the night, and early day one Quin contributed much more to the thread than I have seen from a lot of players, including you, so that is enough to shift him to a civ read for now.
And here's a subtle NO U from DB for no reason. Also, as easy as it is to fall into that mindset (I do it a lot), post count is not indicative of alignment. In Transistor JJJ played the supatownest of supatown games, and was a baddie all along. But of course you know that.

Not at all a no you, just a statement on how much each of you have currently contributed to the thread

#871

Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:Pretty convincing case, and while I'd still really like to push one of the three I mentioned, since I'm not going to be around at EoD, I doubt any of mine will pick up steam, so I'll switch my vote over.
Weren't yo just voting for LoRab, who placed the first vote on Bwt?
I don't always see mine pickin up steam all the timeX either but that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote ther on what I believe in.

I feel like I've agree with what bwt has espewed so far- which tells me either he's dog and I shouldn't trust him or he is someone j currently jive with

That I was, but I wasn't a fan of the leetic votes and 3J made a very solid case on BWT in my opinion. BWT's opinions seemed to be entirely based on what the crowd was already pushing, and came off scummy. Me not being around to try to constantly push votes made it clear that my primary choices weren't going to build up enough steam to happen, considering I had been pushing them for most of the day phase without any votes piling onto it. If mine couldn't go through I was at least going to vote someone I could say with relative confidence is scum rather than the gamble that was leetic. Turns out though I was wrong.

#872

Sorsha wrote:I'm not even caught up to the end of day one yet but I need to come in to vote so I don't miss it like I did day one. Voting for drumbeats. Back later.

Give reasons once you're caught up.

#873

Serge wrote:About Andy's role, if we're operating under the assumption that the management is bad then he can move to the other team when he doesn't use his power?

The assumption is that Corporate is bad. I am about 90% sure that management is civ. Or at least our beginning of the game manage Michael Scott is. Since it seems from Andy's role that his power can pass around after he dies, I could see there being a mafia member or independent that could get it. Its been a while since I've watched the Office, did anybody from corporate ever act as manager of the Scranton branch?

#874

insertnamehere wrote:aaaand leetic self-voted...

maybe his role has powers that only become unlocked after he's lynched?

I know once on Bulba, he won a game as scum by being so scummy that nobody ever bought that he was actually scum. I wasn't a part of it, so I'm not entirely sure how the behavior went down there, but from what I've heard I could honestly see that being the case right now after that self-vote.

#875

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bummer, BWT. See you next time.

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Immediate observation: S~V~S was here to observe the entirety of this EOD development, and never provided any take of her own on either leetic or BWT. She kept her vote in a place where it has no function (on Epignosis).
Perhaps she has no opinion on either strong enough to get involved in a tie? Or a near tie?

Linki it isn't a real gun it is just your opinion.

Link I bleech
Why are you afraid of a tie?
I'm not. I'm afraid of breaking one and being wrong and lynching a civ. I don't like to break ties unless I am really sure.

I don't like this at all. That civ would have a 50% shot at being lynched anyway if you didn't vote. You voting to break the tie would cause the person you perceive to be a more likely scum flip to be taken out instead. From a civilian mindset, there is no reason to not break a tie.

#876

Serge wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Also it isn't a gun, its just your opinion.
Also he started it himself, pointing a gun to your own head is weird. I would understand it if we're dropping like flies and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. It just seems too eager.

From what I've seen it's typical 3J. Imo more info is always better than less, so I'll gladly take a GTH reading.

#877

DrumBeats wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:aaaand leetic self-voted...

maybe his role has powers that only become unlocked after he's lynched?
I know once on Bulba, he won a game as scum by being so scummy that nobody ever bought that he was actually scum.

And with that, leetic is now my new hero in life.

#878

RIP Bwt

Lol, when town mislynches Bwt early for the umpteenth time, I suddenly feel a bit better about my play.

Let's go after Scotty next day phase.

#879

Matt wrote:I suddenly feel a bit better about my play.

Great, now channel that feeling into something productive. I know you have it in you. Stop making me pep talk you!

Matt wrote:Let's go after Scotty next day phase.

Sell me. I want to be sold. Make me hate Scotty's guts.

#880

Well I was gonna bring this up the other day, but it really means nothing haha.

I noticed, tho, that in 2 of Scotty's first 5 posts, he really does nothing but reference other games. And I dunno why he'd do that unless he was nervous and didn't know what to post.

Second post

Scotty wrote:Oh man, a completely closed setup, and no player list to boot? Waiting for some random dog named after the Moon to start voting in the poll.

Fifth post

Scotty wrote:Just in case:

Resurrection Ship

You never know!

You think there's anything there or he was just happy the game started and wanted to post anything, even if it was nothing?

#881

That sucks, BWT.

But why didn't you stop the lynch, considering your role, etc???

#882

Matt wrote:You think there's anything there or he was just happy the game started and wanted to post anything, even if it was nothing?

I don't think that's particularly important, no. If you suspect Scotty and desire to lynch him on Day 3, I have to imagine there's something more substantial than this that drives you.

#883

timmer wrote:That sucks, BWT. But why didn't you stop the lynch, considering your role, etc???

*starts seemer conspiracy theory*

#884

Did I ever mention how upset with myself I was when I pushed to lynch ika in TW for like 5 days straight but when he flipped town I gave up on the idea of him being bad? Pretty fucking upset.

#885

That was supposed to be in OT

. As was this.

#886

Matt wrote:RIP Bwt

Lol, when town mislynches Bwt early for the umpteenth time, I suddenly feel a bit better about my play.

Let's go after Scotty next day phase.

You want to go after Scotty right after you instead voted for Splints, who nobody else was on board with, last phase, even though I was pushing Scotty as one of the people I wanted to pursue?

How would you respond to knowing that Id much rather lynch you tomorrow over Scotty?

#887

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Matt wrote:You think there's anything there or he was just happy the game started and wanted to post anything, even if it was nothing?
I don't think that's particularly important, no. If you suspect Scotty and desire to lynch him on Day 3, I have to imagine there's something more substantial than this that drives you.

Oh there definitely is, I've already posted about it a few times. That was just an added bonus.

@DB - Lol @ "semantics". Using the phrase "Matt said he'd likely vote Goldy" to support your argument against me is very different than what I had actually done, which was just think about voting him based on an off the wall theory I had.

To answer your questions...

1) Again it was just a thought. At the time, others were looking at Scotty's way so I thought it might be a neat preemptive move to vote for a teamie while you're getting sussed, in case you get lynched later.

2) I don't necessarily suss FS over Scotty. I keep going back and forth on those two. Like today, I'd like to invest in a Scotty lynch.

Anyway, I didn't try to discredit your argument, I did discredit it based on your false information. Blah.

Linki - I guess I'd respond with "Please don't mislynch another townie, instead let's go with one of my susses?" Derp

#888

Saying you might vote for him and me remembering it as likely is not at all very different. Replace very with slightly or a bit and you've got it right. Using one word, which honestly had little relevance to the point of it that you considering voting Goldy instead of Scotty based upon your Scotty suspicion, to discredit the whole argument is 100% semantics.

Matt and Scotty are scumpartners

#889

K but let's lynch Scotty first so when I flip civ, you don't get to say "Oh well guess not, Scotty must be good to go"

#890

rip teefies.

I went with corperate. feels like the best chance in the list of maybe revealing some baddie roles.

#891

DrumBeats wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bummer, BWT. See you next time.

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Immediate observation: S~V~S was here to observe the entirety of this EOD development, and never provided any take of her own on either leetic or BWT. She kept her vote in a place where it has no function (on Epignosis).
Perhaps she has no opinion on either strong enough to get involved in a tie? Or a near tie?

Linki it isn't a real gun it is just your opinion.

Link I bleech
Why are you afraid of a tie?
I'm not. I'm afraid of breaking one and being wrong and lynching a civ. I don't like to break ties unless I am really sure.
I don't like this at all. That civ would have a 50% shot at being lynched anyway if you didn't vote. You voting to break the tie would cause the person you perceive to be a more likely scum flip to be taken out instead. From a civilian mindset, there is no reason to not break a tie.

Even if you don't suspect either of them? I just saw normal BWT and have no firm opinion on leetic. I would rather not just jump on a bandwagon just to jump on it

I liked the vote I made and had no compelling reason to change it.

And Jay, I know how/what GTH reads are. I just got a perverse pleasure from the realization that bias plays a part in yours.

#892

Rip BWT.

I apologize for my behavior last night. It won't happen again.

Voted Corporate and Receiving.

DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:Pretty convincing case, and while I'd still really like to push one of the three I mentioned, since I'm not going to be around at EoD, I doubt any of mine will pick up steam, so I'll switch my vote over.
Weren't yo just voting for LoRab, who placed the first vote on Bwt?
I don't always see mine pickin up steam all the timeX either but that doesn't mean I'm gonna vote ther on what I believe in.

I feel like I've agree with what bwt has espewed so far- which tells me either he's dog and I shouldn't trust him or he is someone j currently jive with
That I was, but I wasn't a fan of the leetic votes and 3J made a very solid case on BWT in my opinion. BWT's opinions seemed to be entirely based on what the crowd was already pushing, and came off scummy. Me not being around to try to constantly push votes made it clear that my primary choices weren't going to build up enough steam to happen, considering I had been pushing them for most of the day phase without any votes piling onto it. If mine couldn't go through I was at least going to vote someone I could say with relative confidence is scum rather than the gamble that was leetic. Turns out though I was wrong.

I actually see this side of the coin where I totally missed it before. Pretty much everything I liked about BWT was that he was parroting my thoughts instead of contributing new ones. I saw him as civ for that but I can also see why he would garner suspicion.

Matt wrote:RIP Bwt

Lol, when town mislynches Bwt early for the umpteenth time, I suddenly feel a bit better about my play.

Let's go after Scotty next day phase.

Oh here we go again.

Matt wrote:Well I was gonna bring this up the other day, but it really means nothing haha.

I noticed, tho, that in 2 of Scotty's first 5 posts, he really does nothing but reference other games. And I dunno why he'd do that unless he was nervous and didn't know what to post.

Second post

Scotty wrote:Oh man, a completely closed setup, and no player list to boot? Waiting for some random dog named after the Moon to start voting in the poll.
Fifth post

Scotty wrote:Just in case:

Resurrection Ship

You never know!
You think there's anything there or he was just happy the game started and wanted to post anything, even if it was nothing?

Matt, don't you post anything, even if it was nothing?

If you're going after me for my first few posts on day 0, then can you answer why you said HRM in your posts as opposed to DERP until later in Day 1? Scum slip much?

Matt wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Matt wrote:You think there's anything there or he was just happy the game started and wanted to post anything, even if it was nothing?
I don't think that's particularly important, no. If you suspect Scotty and desire to lynch him on Day 3, I have to imagine there's something more substantial than this that drives you.
Oh there definitely is, I've already posted about it a few times. That was just an added bonus.

@DB - Lol @ "semantics". Using the phrase "Matt said he'd likely vote Goldy" to support your argument against me is very different than what I had actually done, which was just think about voting him based on an off the wall theory I had.

To answer your questions...

1) Again it was just a thought. At the time, others were looking at Scotty's way so I thought it might be a neat preemptive move to vote for a teamie while you're getting sussed, in case you get lynched later.

2) I don't necessarily suss FS over Scotty. I keep going back and forth on those two. Like today, I'd like to invest in a Scotty lynch.

Anyway, I didn't try to discredit your argument, I did discredit it based on your false information. Blah.

Linki - I guess I'd respond with "Please don't mislynch another townie, instead let's go with one of my susses?" Derp

Derp

DrumBeats wrote:Saying you might vote for him and me remembering it as likely is not at all very different. Replace very with slightly or a bit and you've got it right. Using one word, which honestly had little relevance to the point of it that you considering voting Goldy instead of Scotty based upon your Scotty suspicion, to discredit the whole argument is 100% semantics.

Matt and Scotty are scumpartners

I made this point before but Matt hasn't done a great job of answering it.
And can you please stop with him being a scum partner of mine? I didn't want to be a part of this to begin with. He keeps bringing my name up without any real evidence and proceeds to vote or threaten to vote somewhere else.

Matt wrote:K but let's lynch Scotty first so when I flip civ, you don't get to say "Oh well guess not, Scotty must be good to go"

NO U

#893

timmer wrote:That sucks, BWT. But why didn't you stop the lynch, considering your role, etc???

He probably wasn't around to do it. His last post was Tuesday, AM.

Also, forgot to vote. Voting Corporate, and if we DO get 2, also voting Accounting. Is one of the other three options particularly evil, show watchers?

#894

The current problem with analyzing the votes on this lynch is who really knows where the people with forced votes would have voted.
Missed votes from last night:
-espers
-sig
-Zeus (who did vote I guess to see the poll but never a person)

I'm assuming Merideth is to force those 3.

It also looks like BwT didn't vote, which would explain why he didn't save himself. Though even if he did use his power, who's to know if we would have gotten the right one.

#895

I don't us restate leetic's self vote on the end of the day there. Was he silenced? He hadn't posted since last Sunday. But it tells me he is here. If he was silenced, why not vote to save himself?? That's so frustrating because nothing he has done in this game I would look at as civ tactics.

Unless he is independent that WANTS to be killed? You know, like if Toby was lynched and became the Scranton Strangler?

How's that for a Matt-like hypothesis.

Either way, if leetic was silenced yesterday, he should be able to talk and defend himself the next day...
Keyword: "should"

#896

Hey Matt, question for you: you still suspect FS and I for our "defending" of SVS on Day 0. Does that mean you suspect SVS? You never answered this when I asked you like Night 1.
And do you have any other suspicions besides us?

#897

Scotty wrote:Hey Matt, question for you: you still suspect FS and I for our "defending" of SVS on Day 0. Does that mean you suspect SVS? You never answered this when I asked you like Night 1.
And do you have any other suspicions besides us?

I'm not really sure who I suspect. I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm starting to like you a bit more, but I wonder if that's only because I know you're genuinely frustrated with being linked to me as a baddie partner. Tho that part is genuine, you could still be bad.

#898

Since we can apparently vote for 2 options here, I placed my other vote on Payroll. Maybe I can get a raise!

Also, I am getting ready to go out of town from Thursday-Sunday. I will be extremely scarce (more than likely) during this time period, but will work to at least get my bare minimum stuff done (like not missing votes, etc). Just a heads up to everyone!

#899

Matt wrote:
Scotty wrote:Hey Matt, question for you: you still suspect FS and I for our "defending" of SVS on Day 0. Does that mean you suspect SVS? You never answered this when I asked you like Night 1.
And do you have any other suspicions besides us?
I'm not really sure who I suspect. I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm starting to like you a bit more, but I wonder if that's only because I know you're genuinely frustrated with being linked to me as a baddie partner. Tho that part is genuine, you could still be bad.

So here's the thing Matt. I've been flitting about my suspicion of you for not developing any other noticeable reads besides our little doe-see-doe Day 0. I don't know if that's your normal meta Matt, tunneling on one or two people until they get lynched. Hell, that's been my general quid pro quo in a lot of games, but I got away from "tunneling scotty" because it drove me into insanity (lol sorry @Quin from the Sock Mafia).

I still think you could be bad for your tunneling, because the only Bad Matt I remember was from LOST Again where you went after our scumbuddy Bullz, but here I know I'm civ, so this is a stretch to link that behavior to this game.
But I'm keeping both eyes open in case we're literally 2 civs driving each other into a Romeo and Juliet ending. And that's hardly my favorite ending to a Shakespeare play.

Tomorrow, should I still be alive, I would suggest we both look at other people. I'm a little weirded out by leetic's self vote and I figure I'm not doing enough to look at the low posters hiding in the shade.

#900

Matt wrote:
Scotty wrote:Hey Matt, question for you: you still suspect FS and I for our "defending" of SVS on Day 0. Does that mean you suspect SVS? You never answered this when I asked you like Night 1.
And do you have any other suspicions besides us?
I'm not really sure who I suspect. I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm starting to like you a bit more, but I wonder if that's only because I know you're genuinely frustrated with being linked to me as a baddie partner. Tho that part is genuine, you could still be bad.

Also, you didn't answer my question RE: SVS

Who's getting a pink slip?