[ENDGAME] The Office Mafia

[Turnip Head]

What happened?? It gave others the chance to vote twice but would only let me vote once. Poo. I don't understand.

Awww, well it's the thought that counts! But maybe Dom will be a nice guy and let it count count, too!

[juliets]

What happened?? It gave others the chance to vote twice but would only let me vote once. Poo. I don't understand.

Awww, well it's the thought that counts! But maybe Dom will be a nice guy and let it count count, too!

Thanks Scotty for telling me what happened. I'm sorry TH but maybe Dom will let it count like you say.

[Turnip Head]

[snip]

You are musically ignorant. You win a prize:

[Dom]

ROLL CALL

Juliets has been killed.
It is now Day 6. You have 48 Hours to lycnh someone.

[Turnip Head]

Sweet juliets, no

[juliets]

Thanks for the great game Dom! Thanks to all of you I played with who were patient with my RL situation.

[indiglo]

RIP Juliets

[Enrique]

I would also suspect that Spacedaisy was forced to vote Drumbeats on top of bea voting Sorsha and espers voting serge. In case anyone is counting.


In reading back through the votes from yesterday, here's some notes:
Drumbeats looks slightly better.
espers looks slightly worse.
Turnip Head looks worse.
Epi looks slightly better.
Enrique looks slightly worse.
Timmer looks slightly better.

I'm not sure how those compare with the GTH reads from last night.

Everyone else is pretty much in limbo. I have a few people I trust more than others that I don't feel like painting at this time.

I would acknowledge that I wouldn't mind my own office, but im not actively campaigning.

Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?

[Scotty]

RIP Juliets!

I'm actually surprised I'm still alive. Usually when I get this far into a game it either means I'm headed down the wrong path or Mafia merciful to me. I'm leaning towards the former tho.

I would have expected TH or DB to have been killed by this point because of their contributions as well, so I really don't know what to think with the kills this game.

I think we're still missing 1 or 2 Mafia on the front page. I'm thinking there's one more Mafia not shown, and maybe 2 more indie not shown (including the Strangler). We need a successful lynch at this point or we're in deep doodoo. I still stand by my belief that leetic was bad. DB (I assume) stands by his assumption that SVS was bad. Either way we probably still have 4 Mafia left. It's not insurmountable. That's 10-4. If we mislynch today, it's [likely] 8-4, with LYLO in 2 cycles.

Here's some people I think now more than ever we could use more from:
-espers
-DFaraday
-timmer
-Spacedaisy
-serge (provided he didn't up and quit). I would really hope that serge is good and just needed some time to cool off. If he isn't, he's just a sitting duck and Mafia would know this.

Goin to bed. Will be off and on tomorrow. Remember to drink your Ovaltine.

[timmer]

In4abit. I'm ready to break down yesterday's poll, but just to make sure I don't start out on a dumb footing, are we assuming that Sorsha's strangler role was an indy or SK type of role, and not mafia? If she's mafia, I'll blow this sucker open, but if she's an indy it makes things trickier. So, her role is more likely indy, right?

[Scotty]

In4abit. I'm ready to break down yesterday's poll, but just to make sure I don't start out on a dumb footing, are we assuming that Sorsha's strangler role was an indy or SK type of role, and not mafia? If she's mafia, I'll blow this sucker open, but if she's an indy it makes things trickier. So, her role is more likely indy, right?

I can't imagine the strangler being in the same faction as corporate. I'd definitely imagine a potential serial killer that wasn't yet activated.

[Scotty]

Also, like, I'm an idiot?

Can I just add that I am an idiot that rushes into things sometimes? Please? Can everyone just imagine that I am a bit of a ditz this day phase?

I mean what's the deal with airline food?

[fingersplints]

juliets

Timmer - I agree with Scotty. The Scranton strangler is almost definitely Indy. When Scotty mentions possibly needing to activate - could be the Strangler needed to find Toby or something. In the show, Toby was on the jury for the Strangler case. He voted guilty, but later regretted this. He went to the jail to tell the Strangler he thought he was innocent... And was then almost immediately strangled.

[Scotty]

I would also suspect that Spacedaisy was forced to vote Drumbeats on top of bea voting Sorsha and espers voting serge. In case anyone is counting.


In reading back through the votes from yesterday, here's some notes:
Drumbeats looks slightly better.
espers looks slightly worse.
Turnip Head looks worse.
Epi looks slightly better.
Enrique looks slightly worse.
Timmer looks slightly better.

I'm not sure how those compare with the GTH reads from last night.

Everyone else is pretty much in limbo. I have a few people I trust more than others that I don't feel like painting at this time.

I would acknowledge that I wouldn't mind my own office, but im not actively campaigning.

Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?

Yes? Wouldnt you like to respond to my criticisms of your vote?

[Turnip Head]

I think DFaraday might be bad, and here's a few reasons why.

Finally caught up.

I don't necessarily find Quin's statements/actions suspicious, since I get what he was trying to say. It can be beneficial to the town to do things besides directly lynching baddies. In this particular case I don't think Quin's fixation on Pam is particularly helpful, but I don't find him overtly suspicious because of it.

I will be *voting Wilgy* because his voting logic was weak and the follow-up with INH has left me feeling that INH was more genuine. Also, it's been brought up that this is apparently reminiscent of baddie Wilgy in earlier games.

Voting for someone because their voting logic is weak isn't really a reason to vote for someone because weak logic isn't a baddie trait. DF's last sentence here is just groupthink. "People said something about Wilgy, it must be true." I can't be arsed to find links from other games, but I feel like civvie-DF is against this type of metagaming, especially when he's just parroting other people's conclusions about it and not explicitly agreeing with those findings, simply bringing it up as part of his vote.

Both the Epi voters and the leetic voters are pinging me a bit, as I haven't seen any reason to suspect either of them. Although it's possible that Bea and Splints could be forced by Meredith.

What's more noticeable to me is the shift in attitude of the Day 1 Quin voters:

I was out all weekend and had to read Quin in ISO; would it surprise you to hear that his output during the night period made me feel much better about him? Would it surprise you to hear that his vote made me feel even better?

Also would not surprise me to hear that the night made you feel better about Quin, I feel a bit better about him myself. The vote making you feel better surprises me a bit, but whatever floats your boat

I know I definitely am not. We're less than 24 hours away from Day 2 ending, Quin's posts since after the Day 1 lynch have started to make me feel better about him, and I'm currently catching up and have zero suspicions on anyone. Although part of that may be because this is a very large game and most large games take me a bit longer to start to sink in and get more concrete ideas.

3 of the 4 Quin voters now feel good about him (DB even listed Quin as civ) with basically no reasoning for this shift beyond, "His posts made me feel better about him." BWT's especially strikes me as an easy way to springboard off of what the others said without offering any new thoughts on Quin. I'll be looking at these three for the remainder of the phase to see if anything else stands out to me.

Why is "His posts made me feel better about him" not enough reason for DF? He seems oddly attentive to this issue, as if he was paying attention to who suspected Quin and now he's bummed that they've changed their minds. What exactly did DF think was at play here when he made this point? Did he think Quin's accusers were his teammates? Not likely, because DF had defended Quin himself until this point. This is a contrived reason to look at these three players, IMO.

I agree with DB that this scenario presents a huge benefit for the Mafia. Since the day phase was so short, we're essentially in three straight night phases, where the baddies can keep killing unchecked. Add in Quin's death, and the Mafia basically get 4 kills in a row while we're sitting ducks. Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer. It absolutely seems worth it for a Mafia member to risk themselves for what amounts to an extended period of thread domination and kills free of reprisal.

Besides, the reasons for SVS being civ are all more convoluted than her being bad. The whole "No baddie would risk themselves like that!" angle is pure WIFOM, and the scenario in which SVS just happened to vote super early, and the baddies just happened to know she would vote super early, and just happened to be around to send in a PM fast enough that no other players had even left a placeholder vote all strains credulity more than the notion that SVS is complicit.

Here's the biggest piece of evidence for me. It's clear that in this post, DF's premise is that SVS is bad and took out Quin to get the neverending night. But I want to call attention to one sentence in particular:

Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer.

If SVS is bad as DF presumes, then "a divisive argument over whether she should be lynched" does not "stall things in the baddies' favor"; on the contrary, it keeps the spotlight focused on one of their own and forces the rest of the team to take a stance on her. That doesn't work in the baddies' favor. DF's argument in this sentence doesn't fit the premise of the rest of his post, which makes me think he's just bullshitting to justify a contrived opinion. Read this sentence over again. I argue that what he says here makes no sense and shows that DF doesn't actually believe SVS is bad.

What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?

I was inclined to think bad before the NK, and I'm rather unsure at this point. I'm not ruling out that she was killed by her team, since that's more plausible than you seem to think.

Earlier DF took a hard stance on SVS, saying the case for her being civ was more convoluted than the case for her to be bad, and now that she's dead, he's not ruling out that her own team killed her. Again this doesn't fit the premise of DF's earlier post about the benefits of SVS's move if she's bad, so it feels like more bullsuit.

I think DB makes a good point about Matt wanting to know about the Night phases, and as Matt doesn't seem interested in defending himself, I'll go ahead and *vote Matt*

Matt's lack of defense is not a reason to vote for him, it's an excuse to vote for him. His only other mention of Matt before this vote on Day 4 was back on Day 0, where he hedged his bets:

The only one who looks at all shady here is Matt, but every game I think Matt is suspicious for his weird gameplay, so I don't want to read too much into that just yet.

That was on Day 0 and it's hardly damning, and there's no mention of Matt again until he votes for him on Day 4. DF was looking for an easy vote here and he found it.

I actually agree with INH. I don't see much value in GTH, and I certainly wouldn't base suspicion off of what anyone put in their GTH.

I just thought this was funny because 20% of DF's posts are participating in the GTH exercise



These are just the highlights, but DF's ISO is a breezy 26-post read. I suggest everyone take a look at his full posts to grasp the overall context of DF's contributions to the game, and let me know if you're seeing what I'm seeing. In general, I find his reasoning for his votes to be somewhat contrived and some of his opinions to be likewise contrived.

I'm placing my vote on DF for now.

[fingersplints]

I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

[fingersplints]

I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

[DFaraday]

I think DFaraday might be bad, and here's a few reasons why.

Finally caught up.

I don't necessarily find Quin's statements/actions suspicious, since I get what he was trying to say. It can be beneficial to the town to do things besides directly lynching baddies. In this particular case I don't think Quin's fixation on Pam is particularly helpful, but I don't find him overtly suspicious because of it.

I will be *voting Wilgy* because his voting logic was weak and the follow-up with INH has left me feeling that INH was more genuine. Also, it's been brought up that this is apparently reminiscent of baddie Wilgy in earlier games.

Voting for someone because their voting logic is weak isn't really a reason to vote for someone because weak logic isn't a baddie trait. DF's last sentence here is just groupthink. "People said something about Wilgy, it must be true." I can't be arsed to find links from other games, but I feel like civvie-DF is against this type of metagaming, especially when he's just parroting other people's conclusions about it and not explicitly agreeing with those findings, simply bringing it up as part of his vote.

Weak voting logic isn't necessarily bad, no, but Wilgy's line of reasoning felt less genuine to me than INH's did. And it's not civvie DF who's generally against meta-gaming, it's me in general. I probably just tacked that on to seem like I had more to say about Wilgy.

Both the Epi voters and the leetic voters are pinging me a bit, as I haven't seen any reason to suspect either of them. Although it's possible that Bea and Splints could be forced by Meredith.

What's more noticeable to me is the shift in attitude of the Day 1 Quin voters:

I was out all weekend and had to read Quin in ISO; would it surprise you to hear that his output during the night period made me feel much better about him? Would it surprise you to hear that his vote made me feel even better?

Also would not surprise me to hear that the night made you feel better about Quin, I feel a bit better about him myself. The vote making you feel better surprises me a bit, but whatever floats your boat

I know I definitely am not. We're less than 24 hours away from Day 2 ending, Quin's posts since after the Day 1 lynch have started to make me feel better about him, and I'm currently catching up and have zero suspicions on anyone. Although part of that may be because this is a very large game and most large games take me a bit longer to start to sink in and get more concrete ideas.

3 of the 4 Quin voters now feel good about him (DB even listed Quin as civ) with basically no reasoning for this shift beyond, "His posts made me feel better about him." BWT's especially strikes me as an easy way to springboard off of what the others said without offering any new thoughts on Quin. I'll be looking at these three for the remainder of the phase to see if anything else stands out to me.

Why is "His posts made me feel better about him" not enough reason for DF? He seems oddly attentive to this issue, as if he was paying attention to who suspected Quin and now he's bummed that they've changed their minds. What exactly did DF think was at play here when he made this point? Did he think Quin's accusers were his teammates? Not likely, because DF had defended Quin himself until this point. This is a contrived reason to look at these three players, IMO.

I brought it up because three players used almost identical wording to say the same thing, without even giving a particular reason for it. Not only does it ping me when someone changes their mind about a player out of nowhere, it felt like at least one player was just aping what the others had done.

I agree with DB that this scenario presents a huge benefit for the Mafia. Since the day phase was so short, we're essentially in three straight night phases, where the baddies can keep killing unchecked. Add in Quin's death, and the Mafia basically get 4 kills in a row while we're sitting ducks. Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer. It absolutely seems worth it for a Mafia member to risk themselves for what amounts to an extended period of thread domination and kills free of reprisal.

Besides, the reasons for SVS being civ are all more convoluted than her being bad. The whole "No baddie would risk themselves like that!" angle is pure WIFOM, and the scenario in which SVS just happened to vote super early, and the baddies just happened to know she would vote super early, and just happened to be around to send in a PM fast enough that no other players had even left a placeholder vote all strains credulity more than the notion that SVS is complicit.

Here's the biggest piece of evidence for me. It's clear that in this post, DF's premise is that SVS is bad and took out Quin to get the neverending night. But I want to call attention to one sentence in particular:

Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer.

If SVS is bad as DF presumes, then "a divisive argument over whether she should be lynched" does not "stall things in the baddies' favor"; on the contrary, it keeps the spotlight focused on one of their own and forces the rest of the team to take a stance on her. That doesn't work in the baddies' favor. DF's argument in this sentence doesn't fit the premise of the rest of his post, which makes me think he's just bullshitting to justify a contrived opinion. Read this sentence over again. I argue that what he says here makes no sense and shows that DF doesn't actually believe SVS is bad.

What I was getting at is that, as we saw in the Eternal Night, there were more people supporting SVS than not. So what I thought might happen is we'd have a day spent debating SVS, but then she doesn't get lynched, so then the next day phase we keep debating about her. It would keep the focus away from actually looking for other baddies and provide the baddies with yet another night for an NK.

What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?

I was inclined to think bad before the NK, and I'm rather unsure at this point. I'm not ruling out that she was killed by her team, since that's more plausible than you seem to think.

Earlier DF took a hard stance on SVS, saying the case for her being civ was more convoluted than the case for her to be bad, and now that she's dead, he's not ruling out that her own team killed her. Again this doesn't fit the premise of DF's earlier post about the benefits of SVS's move if she's bad, so it feels like more bullsuit.


Weren't you just saying it's not suspicious for someone to change their mind suddenly and without reason?

And I never took a hardline stance. I was always leaning bad on SVS, but I think I at least humored the possibility that she might be good. As I mentioned repeatedly, I've seen firsthand baddies inexplicably kill their own teammates, so I would never put that past a team. If I were on a bad team with SVS, I certainly wouldn't kill her, because keeping attention on her would be more beneficial to the team, but I know that others would kill her.

I think DB makes a good point about Matt wanting to know about the Night phases, and as Matt doesn't seem interested in defending himself, I'll go ahead and *vote Matt*

Matt's lack of defense is not a reason to vote for him, it's an excuse to vote for him. His only other mention of Matt before this vote on Day 4 was back on Day 0, where he hedged his bets:

The only one who looks at all shady here is Matt, but every game I think Matt is suspicious for his weird gameplay, so I don't want to read too much into that just yet.

That was on Day 0 and it's hardly damning, and there's no mention of Matt again until he votes for him on Day 4. DF was looking for an easy vote here and he found it.

Yeah, I was. I was feeling lazy that day and didn't have time to bother making a real case. I guess you could say I had weak voting logic, not that that's a reason to vote someone.

I actually agree with INH. I don't see much value in GTH, and I certainly wouldn't base suspicion off of what anyone put in their GTH.

I just thought this was funny because 20% of DF's posts are participating in the GTH exercise


Meh, I was free at the time.

These are just the highlights, but DF's ISO is a breezy 26-post read. I suggest everyone take a look at his full posts to grasp the overall context of DF's contributions to the game, and let me know if you're seeing what I'm seeing. In general, I find his reasoning for his votes to be somewhat contrived and some of his opinions to be likewise contrived.

I'm placing my vote on DF for now.

Occasionally I do strain to find reasons for voting because I haven't had time to catch up, or I just wasn't playing well and didn't have any good suspicions. But I stand behind everything I said re: SVS, and given the circumstances, I'm fine with all of my votes in this game except Matt's, which was the sort of lazy bandwagoning I typically decry.

[DFaraday]

I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

Can you elaborate?

[Epignosis]

I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

Epi, I think you have a point about Matt. I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit "no u"ish.

I'm sad rabbit died without me getting a chance to vote him. I'd consider voting for Matt, but for the time being I'm going to vote leetic for now. I haven't played any Mafia this year, and I'm scared of getting modkilled for missing votes.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?

[fingersplints]

I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

Can you elaborate?

When Person A says they are voting Person B or C and D, and then person B comes back as a civvie... It looks like Person A could be saving B or C.

I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

Epi, I think you have a point about Matt. I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit "no u"ish.

I'm sad rabbit died without me getting a chance to vote him. I'd consider voting for Matt, but for the time being I'm going to vote leetic for now. I haven't played any Mafia this year, and I'm scared of getting modkilled for missing votes.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?

What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!

Regarding your second comment, Not true at all. I'm literally never concerned with "how I look" when posting. The last one you posted is actually me trying to say "I'd rather vote this way but I'm clearly forced to vote a certain way."

[Scotty]

I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

This is oftly opportunistic to point out after that case against DF, ain't it?

[fingersplints]

I messed up my letters to DF. You get what I'm trying to say there. You could be protecting someone. I have to look back to find out who the other two are though. And I also still need to read your responses to TH

[fingersplints]

I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

This is oftly opportunistic to point out after that case against DF, ain't it?

After TH asked us to go back and read his posts? Not really

[Turnip Head]

I will be *voting Wilgy* because his voting logic was weak and the follow-up with INH has left me feeling that INH was more genuine. Also, it's been brought up that this is apparently reminiscent of baddie Wilgy in earlier games.

Voting for someone because their voting logic is weak isn't really a reason to vote for someone because weak logic isn't a baddie trait. DF's last sentence here is just groupthink. "People said something about Wilgy, it must be true." I can't be arsed to find links from other games, but I feel like civvie-DF is against this type of metagaming, especially when he's just parroting other people's conclusions about it and not explicitly agreeing with those findings, simply bringing it up as part of his vote.

Weak voting logic isn't necessarily bad, no, but Wilgy's line of reasoning felt less genuine to me than INH's did. And it's not civvie DF who's generally against meta-gaming, it's me in general. I probably just tacked that on to seem like I had more to say about Wilgy.

I like that you owned up to doing this, but it doesn't make it any less sketchy :P A civvie DF would have no need to go against his principles in order to seem like he had more to say. A baddie DF - regardless of what you try to argue here ("it's me in general", implying this isn't alignment indicative) - a baddie DF simply doesn't care as much about those principles.

What I was getting at is that, as we saw in the Eternal Night, there were more people supporting SVS than not. So what I thought might happen is we'd have a day spent debating SVS, but then she doesn't get lynched, so then the next day phase we keep debating about her. It would keep the focus away from actually looking for other baddies and provide the baddies with yet another night for an NK.

I still don't think that makes much sense... baddies don't huddle together and say "If only we can shine the spotlight on our teammate and have her dominate discussion, the rest of us can hide!"... because that's just never a baddie's Plan A... but I'll leave this point alone.

Earlier DF took a hard stance on SVS, saying the case for her being civ was more convoluted than the case for her to be bad, and now that she's dead, he's not ruling out that her own team killed her. Again this doesn't fit the premise of DF's earlier post about the benefits of SVS's move if she's bad, so it feels like more bullsuit.

Weren't you just saying it's not suspicious for someone to change their mind suddenly and without reason?

That's not what you did though. You thought SVS was bad before she died, and then after she died you still seemed to lean that way, only framing it differently. After you made a thing about not indulging in the more convoluted scenario, you twisted yourself into the more convoluted scenario to keep your opinion on SVS's alignment the same.

Thank you for answering my points and you even owned up to a few of the things I mentioned, which was pretty tactful. At this moment though, my opinion hasn't changed.

[Epignosis]

I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

Epi, I think you have a point about Matt. I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit "no u"ish.

I'm sad rabbit died without me getting a chance to vote him. I'd consider voting for Matt, but for the time being I'm going to vote leetic for now. I haven't played any Mafia this year, and I'm scared of getting modkilled for missing votes.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?

What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!

Regarding your second comment, Not true at all. I'm literally never concerned with "how I look" when posting. The last one you posted is actually me trying to say "I'd rather vote this way but I'm clearly forced to vote a certain way."

I don't see how anyone gets "I'm literally never concerned with 'how I look' when posting" from "I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit 'no u"ish.'"

[timmer]

juliets

Timmer - I agree with Scotty. The Scranton strangler is almost definitely Indy. When Scotty mentions possibly needing to activate - could be the Strangler needed to find Toby or something. In the show, Toby was on the jury for the Strangler case. He voted guilty, but later regretted this. He went to the jail to tell the Strangler he thought he was innocent... And was then almost immediately strangled.

That seriously happened lol? Thanks for that. Ok so the poll then isn't very useful as I don't think any mafioso was in deep trouble at any point. I lean baddie on INH but he never had more than two votes. So realistically the baddies are probably spread evenly through early late and mid voters, so I'm not going to spend more time on it today.

[fingersplints]

I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

Epi, I think you have a point about Matt. I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit "no u"ish.

I'm sad rabbit died without me getting a chance to vote him. I'd consider voting for Matt, but for the time being I'm going to vote leetic for now. I haven't played any Mafia this year, and I'm scared of getting modkilled for missing votes.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?

What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!

Regarding your second comment, Not true at all. I'm literally never concerned with "how I look" when posting. The last one you posted is actually me trying to say "I'd rather vote this way but I'm clearly forced to vote a certain way."

I don't see how anyone gets "I'm literally never concerned with 'how I look' when posting" from "I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit 'no u"ish.'"

Well I don't see how you got "I'm more concerned with how I look" from that either, so I guess we are even with not understanding each other. to be fair though, I never said that you were supposed to get that from it. What I said I was trying to get across there was that my vote was forced. I thought the giving no reason, early in the day, and fact that I missed the vote the day before would make it obvious.

[DFaraday]

TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

[Enrique]

I would also suspect that Spacedaisy was forced to vote Drumbeats on top of bea voting Sorsha and espers voting serge. In case anyone is counting.


In reading back through the votes from yesterday, here's some notes:
Drumbeats looks slightly better.
espers looks slightly worse.
Turnip Head looks worse.
Epi looks slightly better.
Enrique looks slightly worse.
Timmer looks slightly better.

I'm not sure how those compare with the GTH reads from last night.

Everyone else is pretty much in limbo. I have a few people I trust more than others that I don't feel like painting at this time.

I would acknowledge that I wouldn't mind my own office, but im not actively campaigning.

Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?

Yes? Wouldnt you like to respond to my criticisms of your vote?

Okay. I think INH is bad.

[Enrique]

I can see an INH vote, but I haven't had time to seriously look into it. I don't have time for a full ISO but I'll take a gander at the history. Of the three wagons, I think Sorsha is the best, and Serge's is decent as well. I'm not really feeling the timmer wagon right now, but I would also be comfortable switching my vote to LoRab, if we could get enough.

The case on me is just all the old Wilgy stuff + Timmer and Sorsha not liking me talking about them, and viewing any suspicion I have of them as inherently disingenuine and suspicious because they said earlier that they find me inherently disingenuine and suspicious.

If anyone wishes to engage me on either of those things, feel free to do so, and I will respond.

Will you vote for one of timmer and Sorsha?

Timmer and Sorsha have set up a kind of Catch-22 here. If I vote for either one, it clearly means that I'm bad and the only thing behind my cases against them is my apparent seething rage at having them throw my name around.

People have so little faith in the concept of objectivity, especially when it comes to other people.

I'm not seeing the case on Serge, mainly because I led a lynch against him in my last game due to his acting more or less the same way as he's doing here. He was a civ, I was embarrassed, and everybody went home depressed. I haven't seen anything that makes me feel he isn't playing the same exact game as he did there, and I don't want to him to get lynched over it.

Yes, I do find T+S suspicious, but I've also somehow become the dark horse for this lynch out of absolutely nowhere, and if I act genuinely, and vote for the people I find suspicious, those same people will use that to suspect and likely try to lynch me.

So I'm kind of stuck.

I really, really don't understand this. Why would it be so bad to lynch the players he suspects?

[fingersplints]

TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.

[Turnip Head]

TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

I get that idea because baddies have to lie and sometimes abandon their civvie principles to win. You already admitted that what you wrote went against your normal thought process, and you already admitted that you did it so it would seem like you had more to say about your vote... so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with that information.

[timmer]

I would also suspect that Spacedaisy was forced to vote Drumbeats on top of bea voting Sorsha and espers voting serge. In case anyone is counting.


In reading back through the votes from yesterday, here's some notes:
Drumbeats looks slightly better.
espers looks slightly worse.
Turnip Head looks worse.
Epi looks slightly better.
Enrique looks slightly worse.
Timmer looks slightly better.

I'm not sure how those compare with the GTH reads from last night.

Everyone else is pretty much in limbo. I have a few people I trust more than others that I don't feel like painting at this time.

I would acknowledge that I wouldn't mind my own office, but im not actively campaigning.

Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?

Yes? Wouldnt you like to respond to my criticisms of your vote?

Okay. I think INH is bad.

Hallelu!

[timmer]

Read through splints' posts. There is a certain something to them that feels a bit off... a nonchalance. Like, she is commenting on suspicions just fine but no sense of urgency or need.

My mason question for splints is. .. what do you think of INH? Every suspicion of someone else's that you have commented on, you have said some variation of "there are good points there" but I feel like you haven't said much about INH unless I missed it. What do you think of his game so far?

[LoRab]

Catching up. Still need to look at Splints and INH, who seem to both be suspects under discussion. But I did read DF (I happened to go back to his posts first) in catching up after a long day of being AFK. I could see him being bad. He almost always has the same general posting rate within games, but when he's civ, he tends to be much more targeted in his focus and shares more ideas. When he is bad, he tends to be more blendy and comment on ideas more than have original insights. I'm seeing more of the latter DF here. Looking at others now.

[LoRab]

INH: I don't find him particularly suspicious, reading back on his posts. Perhaps it is partly because drumbeats is one of his main accusers, and I don't trust drumbeats at all (in part because I still harbor suspicion of him and also because I think he is entirely wrong about SVS, so I don't trust his judgement).

[LoRab]

And what is the case on Splints? I don't read her particularly well, but she is feeling civ to me, reading through her posts. What's been the case there?

[LoRab]

And I wanted to respond to this (posted when I was silenced):

This one I had to split up the types of mechanical discussion and different types of it.

LoRab ISO

Spoiler: show

hey, y'all! Excited for the game. So you all know, I'm in the middle of a 2 week intensive for a graduate program I'm starting--the program is mostly online, but we're in the midst of our first in person seminar--I will not be able to be playing a whole lot. But after that i'm all good. So, I'll be around when I can, but my days and nights are both a bit insane right now.

Day 0 Fluff - prefacing that she might be inactive due to a graduate program which is definitely a good thing to do. Not alignment indicative at all imo.

Are votes changable?

LoRab -3 doesn't have a muppet avatar anymore

Beware the meeping angels is both muppet and Who, so I'm still muppety--only better.

Day 0 Mechanics and fluff. I'll categorize it as mechanics due to the vote question.

Voted memo, at least for now. Don't want to not get a chance to vote tomorrow.

Night-vote.

Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Missed all of day one. Points out that Creed was civ and apologizes for missing the vote. Then begins her mechanical suspicion of Quin, which was a popular opinion at the time.

Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

Mechanical clarification with Dom

Voted customer service.

Night-vote.

1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Suspicion on Quin based upon how she perceives the lie detector to work.

1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

No, he did not.

If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

More suspicion into Quin based upon LoRab's opinion on how Pam works.

He was pretty clear about it in this post. Maybe you missed it--or did you just forget?

Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.

Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.

I am getting further questions via PM, so let me clarify further.

If someone frames something as a theory, it is NOT checkable. The context matters.

If someone claims something, that is checkable.

Quoting Dom's statement about the lie detects, claiming that it supports her theory when it really could go either way imo.

That is not how LD roles work. And I clarified with the host that it doesn't work that way in this game.

If you post a theory, that is not checkable, because it is not a matter of telling the truth or a lie. If you post a claim, it is either truth or a lie. The LD is not a fact checker--it is exactly what it says it is, a lie detector.

@Drumbeats: That is not what the host told me when I asked, or what he said in his follow up post. Again, it is not fact checking it is LIE detecting.

@Dom: Please clarify in thread.

Further pushing that her idea about Pam is right.

LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

Claims that suspicion on Quin is not mechanics related. This post however is the only one so far where the push on Quin seems like it could be more than just mechanics, so I'll give LoRab this one for content.

So basically I was right. Cool.

New rule: We should all present everything as fact. Get rid of any "I think" or "Maybe" statements in order to allow everything we say to be checked by Pam.


@ linki Quin - you've given me worse reasons to push you than that, but INH is my current vote. You're a close second though, and LoRab is working his way up to third

@ linki LoRab - What are your thoughts on the following people? :

INH
3J
Scotty
Matt
Indiglo
birdwithteeth11

No, you were not right. You were presenting conjecture. That is not a claim. That is not checkable. You apparently missed the "context" part of Dom's explanation.

And, as I said, I have barely had time to spend reading this game. I do not have opinions on most things or players at this point. I like to think about things and come to some conclusions before I form suspicions. I don't often give opinions by request.

Very adamant that she is right about Pam. Also refuses to provide any other reads.

LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

What is your perspective on me now knowing what you now know?

Dom has confirmed what I said, so my opinion has not changed.

Adamant about the Quin suspicion and that Dom has confirmed what she believes.

I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Still pushing that Quin is wrong and bad and she is right. Nothing new either, just restating the same suspicion.

I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

He earlier called me out for feigning ignorance as to the LD's limitations, and right now I'm kind of seeing the same thing here in that he's pretending not to realise he's wrong in the hopes he can latch onto the possibility of voting me later. Or maybe he's misinterpreting what Dom said. But I think it's the former.

Dom was clear. You are not understanding what Dom has said. I believe that you are feigning ignorance. I am not wrong--you are.

Having played in many, many games with LD's, I cannot even begin to comprehend why what you are claiming would begin to make sense. If I thought you were being accurate, I would probably quit the game because it wouldn't make sense in terms of game set up--but I trust that Dom hasn't changed the idea of an LD so much as to make it an entirely different role (which would be an interesting role, but isn't what an LD does or should be able to do).

Does anyone else who has ever played with an LD think that an LD can determine if a conjecture is correct or not, especially when posted in a list of conjectures listed for the explicit purpose of being checked?

Also, I'm female.

linkitis: I will link momentarily.

Yawn. Still pushing it along with the Quin suspicion. Asking for other opinions at least.

I am thoroughly confused by this discussion between Quin and LoRab. They seem to be saying the same thing and disagreeing vehemently over it.

Quin has been listing conjectures for Pam to check in the thread, claiming that those conjectures are checkable by Pam as lies or not.

This is not accurate.

I believe she is intentionally trying to get Pam to waste her role. I find it hard to believe that she doesn't understand the difference between claims and theories and why one would be checkable and the other not.

Could you please show me the conjectures you're referring to? Much of the context here is lost on me, because it looked like he was promoting a concrete statement be checked.

~~~

Separate note: I don't care about the bloody lie detector role and I encourage Pam to just do her thing.

Here you go:

Here is where Quin first brings up the idea:

If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

She even says that they are hypotheses (which is the same thing as conjecture or theories). Then, when given an answer, she posts a list of theories, posted for the sole purpose of Pam checking them, as opposed to making claims.

And it is clear that Quin knows what a claim is, as she made one regarding her role.

I made sure to get up super dooper early this morning to catch up, even if it is freezing cold.

If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.

If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

So, let's come up with some hypotheses for our good pal Pam.

There are items in this game.
We will eventually receive a complete role list.
Voting for either of the three options on Day 0 would have had had a different effect on the game.

Add your own.

linkitis: @drumbeats: I happen to be online now. And I'm arguing because I'm cranky and because I strongly believe that I am correct and that this is indicative of Quin being bad. I'm less convinced aobut you. But because you are posting those lists for the purpose of them being checked--not because you are making a claim, I do not think that they are checkable. And I disagree that there is no harm in Pam submitting a statement that cannot be checked. In general, if a statement cannot be checked, then the LD is not able to submit a follow up statement, at least in my experience (as player and host). So it wastes the role for that night. That is why I think Quin's intentions are not good. And why I hope Pam has the sense to use her brain to check actual pieces of posts for truth/lies.

linkitis: @Quin: That doesn't make sense. What you posted, and encouraged others to post, was not presented as fact/claim--it was presented as theory and hypothesis.

Mentions arguing it so hard due to being cranky, which is definitely a possibility. The certainty expressed in that if Pam checks something that isnt checkable Dom will not let her resubmit feels like it might be an attempt to scare Pam away from asking Dom if she could check any of the statements I provided. Keeps pushing Quin.

I can appreciate that.

Can appreciate 3J's theory that they are both wrong. We will see if this changes anything later.

My program has ended, so I'm here for real now. I am way too tired to fully process anything right now. So, need to reread the past couple of RL days and ponder to form opinions. But wanted to let y'all know I'm around and I'll be able to play for real now.

Disappears for a while after that. First post is fluff and promise of future activity. Normal enough but not alignment indicative. Currently has not mentioned Quin's civ flip, but we will see.

German.

Who needs a better theme?

I've read too much Jewish philosophy this past week, mainly of Germans, to want that as a theme. I'm going with jazz. It makes my brain hurt less.

Night-vote

Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

Takes a civilian stance on SVS but acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Still yet to mention Quin. Reasoning for SVS civ read feels very forced to me because it makes no sense imo since we can just go back and look at the polls.

I don't work that way DB. I work backwards.

tbh, I usually need a few days on SVS and you see I keep finding scenarios where she could still be bad, but honestly, if I use Occum, she reads and feels more civ to me than most.

I'm sad Wilgy died now that I know he was the tracker. Go back and look at my answer and ask yourself, would I have been talking about anyone but SVS? Or maybe Wabbit and Epi?

I felt good about JJ before he claimed/notclaimed indi. JJ - the students of Lorab are watching you. I currently see no reason to not keep him around. But I will flip a bitch as fast as you if make me think you are not working with the civs. As long as he's helpful he's ok. There will - if he lives - a long enough time where his survivial won't be ok. I reserve the right to lynch him when it's time for the potential indy to go. I think deep in his heart he is a civ leaning indy. I'm ok with letting him prove me right or wrong.

I trust a few others. Reading my posts will help you figure out who.

I'd like to hear more from indi and lorab and splintsy just cuz it's all us!! And come on -this is a fun time!!!

sig's still playing right? And he's the low poster I *remember* is playing. I"d like to hear from anyone who has less posts than sig.

linki - what the fucking fuck. Ok - more backtracking.

Other than the fact that "students of LoRab" made me guffaw, I'm confused by this post. You speak as if JJJ is still alive, even though this came after the night post (and I know you post as you catch up, so that's fine), but then you talk about the fact that he might not make. And i don't think you ever went back to correct yourself on him not surviving the night. This almost reads as if you knew he was going to die.

This is my favorite post by LoRab so far. Calls suspicion to bea for unique reasons. I'm not sure I agree on the suspicion but it feels more genuine than the mechanical tunnelvision on Quin.

Catching up. Headache. But trying to get through and ponder everything.

I think SVS is more than capable of a crazy gambit, but why I don't think she did this in this particular case is that it wouldn't make any sense for her to post about it. It would be far more strategic to just quietly vote without posting before ending day. And then post about it later. It just doesn't seem like SVS to play this out like she's being accused of.

That's... oddly specific. And I'm not sure I agree that it would be any more strategic.

It was what I thought when I read through that section. Why announce that you're voting if you're trying to be sneaky and end the lynch? Maybe I'm wrong that it would be any more strategic. I still don't think it's a scenario that SVS would play out either way.

More SVS defense on the same logic that I don't get. Now says that she doesn't think SVS would do it either way, despite previously saying that she thought SVS was capable of it. Odd imo.

Noted about timmer. The one I suspect most is Lorab. One mechanics-based suspicion on Quin, who happened to be the person who the mafia benefitted from lynching. I also don't like Lorab's thoughts on SVS because they seem forced regardless of how SVS flips. Acknowledges how SVS is capable of a gambit like this, but then says probably not because SVS announced the vote rather than silently voting (which would be a terrible move for ScumVS).

Sorry you don't like how I play. I can't really do anything about that. I get caught up in mechanics that I think are important--more importantly, when I think another player seems to be bad based on those mechanics, I go after them. As for SVS, I was (probably poorly) expressing why I didn't think she was bad--and I still don't. I know how she plays--I've been playing with her for a long time. The way things played out, specifically how she played them, doesn't feel to me how she'd play out that scenario--at all.

That I disagree with you does not mean that I'm bad. Simply that I think about games differently than you do.

I'll read their posts and let you know where I am with those three, I'm leaning bad on LoRab so far though. The whole "not having time to give reads but having time to argue about the LD" is my basis.

I've barely had time to play. When I did have time, that happened to be the topic that struck me. I often find one thing to latch onto and stubbornly argue about that one piece. And I did form suspicions based on that--Quin (whom I was wrong about) and Drumbeats, who I'm still unsure about and is still pinging my suspiciometer. The way you are describing my play, as someone who has played many games with me, and knows how i play, seems disingenuous, tbh.

Self-defense based mostly on meta. Says that I'm pinging her, but doesn't say why or when, and NO U's Sorsha. Finally mentions Quin and acknowledges being wrong about him.

Voting Matt. Was unsure of him based on what other said about him, but that he hasn't really defended makes me suspicious of him.

Vote on Matt with no specific reasoning other than that he is not defending himself.

Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Night-vote.

Voted no for the tie, just because I'm in that kind of mood. Also, what if the question is, "should we reveal no more roles this entire game." Seems just as likely as all the roles, tbh.

Yeah, should we reveal no more roles doesn't roll off the tongue like should we reveal the remaining roles :P

Exactly. If the question is: Should we reveal no more roles, I think the answer is no. Given we don't know the question, I felt a tie was a good choice.

Defends the night-vote.

Day 0:
Fluff: 1
Mechanics: 1
Night-vote: 1

After:
Mechanic Speculation with suspicion based upon it: 7
Mechanical Clarification: 1
Night-vote: 4
Mechanical Speculation without suspicion based upon it: 3
Content: 5
Fluff: 1
Defense: 1
Day vote: 1

I feel just about as I expected about LoRab. I could be a bit biased, since both of the only real stances LoRab has taken I disagree with, but I just find the content ratios so out of whack for LoRab. LoRab was way too invested in the Pam case and was VERY confident she was right about her opinion. That certainty + interest is something I read two ways, which is that LoRab could have been mafia who interrogated Dom to know how to word her own posts. Or the other option I see is that LoRab is Pam, which would also explain her interest and level and certainty of knowledge. My only thing that makes me feel otherwise is that LoRab has not taken many hard stances that I would suspect from a lie detector. LoRab has provided very few reads outside of the Quin push, the vote on Matt felt off when the only other suspicions that LoRab mentioned were of Sorsha and myself. I'm getting a scum read on LoRab, the only thing that is giving me pause is that I can see a situation in which LoRab is Pam.

My rating:

3/10

Questions:

How do you feel about Quin's flip?
What is pinging you about me? Point out where please.
Why do you suspect Sorsha?
What was your reasoning for voting Matt in your own words?
Who are your top three suspects and why?

(I'm low on time right now, so I'm going to skip over Serge since he has a lot of posts and hit someone with less to read before I go. I want to hit Sorsha and timmer at least by EoD since they are the other two top votes. I currently want a LoRab lynch though)

I tend to base much of my game on mechanics, so yes, I posted a bunch about mechanics. It was also a discussion that was directly relevant at the time that I was able to be online, so I was able to take part in it. When others responded, I got caught up in the conversation. I tend to get caught up like that, for better or for worse. In this case, I thought, and still think, that it was an important point. I think that Quin, although it would now seem inadvertantly, was encouraging players to post statements that would be uncheckable to the role checker (I still have the same belief about Pam's ability)--and note that you were a player that followed suit, making long lists of posts that I do not believe Pam would be able to check. This would effectively make the lie detector inoperable, if she were to follow suit. So, yes, I thought it important that a civ role was being encouraged to waste her power. It also led to my Quin suspicion--which I was wrong about. It also has given me an ongoing, low level suspicion of you. And yes, re: Quin, I do tunnel--it's a bad habit. You and I haven't played much together, but many players here can tell you that I tend to get stubborn with suspicions.

And, yes, I got caught up in the Pam mechanics. And I did PM Dom for further clarification. I like to understand the rules and roles--it's how I get my brain around the game. To me, Dom's ruling on the role is and was clear--and completely counter to what Quin (and you) seem/ed to think it was. So, yes, I wanted to clarify. I'm not sure why you're so bothered by my wanting to understand if the lie detector was being encouraged to waste her role or not. And I'm not Pam--if I were, I'd not actually been as worried about how the role was going to be interpreted, because I never would have attempted to check those statements. I was more concerned with a civ wasting their power.

And my thoughts on SVS stand. I do not think she is bad. I do not think she would have played out that scenario in the way that it happened if she were bad and if she were trying to play a con. It's not her style. I stand by that belief.

As to your questions:

How do you feel about Quin's flip?

I thought she was bad, so I was surprised. Although it seems as if she simply misunderstood the role. It actually made me suspect you a bit more, because it seems unlikely that 2 different players would misunderstand the nature of a role that exists in many games.

What is pinging you about me? Point out where please.

Mainly that you were posting lists of non-checkable statements for the purpose of Pam checking them. I actually asked Dom specifically about that and he confirmed that statements made for the purpose of being checked would not be checkable, so it seemed like misdirecting a civ power.

Why do you suspect Sorsha?

Her suspicion of me didn't ring true--it didn't make sense for someone who knows my game well to suspect me for the reasons she gave. Also, given her role reveal, it seems as if she wasn't civ, and was probably evil/indy. So in retrospect, I stand behind my blip of eyeballing her.

What was your reasoning for voting Matt in your own words?

Re: Voting Matt: I thought I was pretty clear in my post when I voted. He didn't defend himself. That made me doubt his civ-ness. I feel that civs typically defend themselves when they are being falsely lynched. Therefore, I suspected and voted for him.

Who are your top three suspects and why?

DF and you, probably. I don't have solid suspicions of others at this moment. I tend to focus on 1 or 2 players at a time with my suspicion.

[DFaraday]

TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.

You only mentioned any suspicion of me after someone else made a case on me. As Epi pointed out, you've done this several times throughout the game, but reviewing your vote history, you haven't actually voted any of the people you said that about. I'll need to review your posts to see whether that's a good thing.

[fingersplints]

Read through splints' posts. There is a certain something to them that feels a bit off... a nonchalance. Like, she is commenting on suspicions just fine but no sense of urgency or need.

My mason question for splints is. .. what do you think of INH? Every suspicion of someone else's that you have commented on, you have said some variation of "there are good points there" but I feel like you haven't said much about INH unless I missed it. What do you think of his game so far?

I usually read him almost instantly as bad. But I've felt alright about him this game. Perhaps that in itself should be troubling? I'll read him again later. Not sure when. Hopefully today but I've been having a really awful day.

TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.

You only mentioned any suspicion of me after someone else made a case on me. As Epi pointed out, you've done this several times throughout the game, but reviewing your vote history, you haven't actually voted any of the people you said that about. I'll need to review your posts to see whether that's a good thing.

Wouldn't you say this is a bit hypocritical though given that you are now mentioning suspicion of me after Epi pointed it out?
One big difference is though that TH asked what everyone thought on his case, and I responded... Whereas Epi mentioned me and you "latched onto it."

[Turnip Head]

So...

[Turnip Head]

bea, DrumBeats, espers, insertnamehere, Serge, and Spacedaisy have all not posted yet this phase. Almost half the player list.

[fingersplints]

Is it day 5? For some reason I thought it was 6

[fingersplints]

Has anyone kept track of the silencing?
I'm not sure if everyone is quiet or some are silenced. I'm also thinking Scotty might be cursed with what I got Day 4.

[Scotty]

I've been traveling all day, or at least for 5 hours now I think?

bea, DrumBeats, espers, insertnamehere, Serge, and Spacedaisy have all not posted yet this phase. Almost half the player list.

Do you think that the fact that these people have been basically inactive this phase is a bad look for them? Do you think there's at least a couple baddies hiding in the thickets there like I do?

Is it day 5? For some reason I thought it was 6

I think it is day 6, it just hasn't been updated maybe?

Has anyone kept track of the silencing?
I'm not sure if everyone is quiet or some are silenced. I'm also thinking Scotty might be cursed with what I got Day 4.

What were you cursed with Day 4?

[Scotty]

Hey Drumbeats, you're online, right? If you don't post in the next 30 minutes can I assume you're silenced?

[LoRab]

Given that the top poster hasn't posted this cycle, I'm going to go with his probably having been silenced.

[DrumBeats]

I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

Can you elaborate?

When Person A says they are voting Person B or C and D, and then person B comes back as a civvie... It looks like Person A could be saving B or C.
/quote]

How do you think it looks when Person A never really opens themself up to take responsibility for a mislynch until day 5, such as the following voting record? Keep in mind this person never missed a night vote.

D1: None
D2: leetic (Meredithed)
D3: None
D4: Matt (Maybe Meredithed)
D5: Serge

Sorry I've been out, I've had a busy last few days. I'm going to have to get off again soon, but I'll be back by EoD and my time is going to be back to normal after that.

[DrumBeats]

(On mobile and don't want to backspace for long enough to quote it)

@LoRab - Your post about me still pinging your suspiciometer was way after I made those lists, and you previously were not suspicious of them. Additionally, the use of the word "still" there implies that more recent activity. Was there anything else that pinged you, and what made your thoughts about the lists change?