Awww, well it's the thought that counts! But maybe Dom will be a nice guy and let it count count, too!juliets wrote:What happened?? It gave others the chance to vote twice but would only let me vote once. Poo. I don't understand.
[ENDGAME] The Office Mafia
Moderator: Community Team
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
- juliets
- Dancing Pancake
- Posts in topic: 23
- Posts: 16423
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:16 pm
- Location: Moobyworld
- Gender: Female
- Preferred Pronouns: she/her/hers
- Aka: jules
- Contact:
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Thanks Scotty for telling me what happened. I'm sorry TH but maybe Dom will let it count like you say.Turnip Head wrote:Awww, well it's the thought that counts! But maybe Dom will be a nice guy and let it count count, too!juliets wrote:What happened?? It gave others the chance to vote twice but would only let me vote once. Poo. I don't understand.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
Spoiler: show
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Epignosis wrote:You are musically ignorant. You win a prize:Scotty wrote:[snip]
- Dom
- mayor of gaytown
- Posts in topic: 87
- Posts: 9997
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:36 pm
- Location: Wherever Niall is TBH
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
ROLL CALL
Juliets has been killed. It is now Day 6. You have 48 Hours to lycnh someone.
Spoiler: show
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Sweet juliets, no
- juliets
- Dancing Pancake
- Posts in topic: 23
- Posts: 16423
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:16 pm
- Location: Moobyworld
- Gender: Female
- Preferred Pronouns: she/her/hers
- Aka: jules
- Contact:
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Thanks for the great game Dom! Thanks to all of you I played with who were patient with my RL situation.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:24 pm Always good to remember that there is no such thing as a Mafia circumstance that is worth real human emotion. Sometimes it will naturally come out, but it can be contained if we just remember that this is a game on a message board forum that 99.99% of the population of the Earth has never heard of before. No matter how successful anyone is, it means just about nothing.
Spoiler: show
- indiglo
- Money Launderer
- Posts in topic: 73
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:43 pm
- Location: U.S.S. Tempest
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
RIP Juliets
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?Scotty wrote: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.
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.
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.
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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?
My siggie.
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.timmer wrote: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?
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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?
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?
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.
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.
Gro-oo-ovy
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Yes? Wouldnt you like to respond to my criticisms of your vote?Enrique wrote:Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?Scotty wrote: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.
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [DAY ONE] The Office Mafia
I think DFaraday might be bad, and here's a few reasons why.
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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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:
S~V~S wrote: 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?DrumBeats wrote: 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 boat3 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.birdwithteeth11 wrote: 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.
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:DFaraday wrote: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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.Enrique wrote:What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?
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:DFaraday wrote: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*
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
I just thought this was funny because 20% of DF's posts are participating in the GTH exerciseDFaraday wrote: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.
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
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.
Gro-oo-ovy
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
I don't think this vote looks great for him either.DFaraday wrote: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.
Gro-oo-ovy
Re: [DAY ONE] The Office Mafia
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.Turnip Head wrote:I think DFaraday might be bad, and here's a few reasons why.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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:
S~V~S wrote: 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?DrumBeats wrote: 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 boat3 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.birdwithteeth11 wrote: 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.
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.
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:DFaraday wrote: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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.Enrique wrote:What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?
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.
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:DFaraday wrote: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*
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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 just thought this was funny because 20% of DF's posts are participating in the GTH exerciseDFaraday wrote: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.
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.
Spoiler: show
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Can you elaborate?fingersplints wrote:I don't think this vote looks great for him either.DFaraday wrote: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.
Spoiler: show
Re: [DAY ONE] The Office Mafia
fingersplints wrote:I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.
fingersplints wrote: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.
I'm noticing a trend here.fingersplints wrote: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.
Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?
Stream my music for free: https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.DFaraday wrote:Can you elaborate?fingersplints wrote:I don't think this vote looks great for him either.DFaraday wrote: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.
What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!Epignosis wrote:fingersplints wrote:I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.fingersplints wrote: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.I'm noticing a trend here.fingersplints wrote: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.
Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?
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."
Gro-oo-ovy
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
This is oftly opportunistic to point out after that case against DF, ain't it?fingersplints wrote:I don't think this vote looks great for him either.DFaraday wrote: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.
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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
Gro-oo-ovy
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
After TH asked us to go back and read his posts? Not reallyScotty wrote:This is oftly opportunistic to point out after that case against DF, ain't it?fingersplints wrote:I don't think this vote looks great for him either.DFaraday wrote: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.
Gro-oo-ovy
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [DAY ONE] The Office Mafia
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.DFaraday wrote: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.Turnip Head wrote: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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
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.DFaraday wrote:Weren't you just saying it's not suspicious for someone to change their mind suddenly and without reason?Turnip Head wrote: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.
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.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.'"fingersplints wrote:What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!Epignosis wrote:fingersplints wrote:I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.fingersplints wrote: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.I'm noticing a trend here.fingersplints wrote: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.
Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?
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."
Stream my music for free: https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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 wrote: 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.
My siggie.
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.Epignosis wrote: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.'"fingersplints wrote:What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!Epignosis wrote:fingersplints wrote:I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.fingersplints wrote: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.I'm noticing a trend here.fingersplints wrote: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.
Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?
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."
Gro-oo-ovy
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.
Spoiler: show
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Okay. I think INH is bad.Scotty wrote:Yes? Wouldnt you like to respond to my criticisms of your vote?Enrique wrote:Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?Scotty wrote: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.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
I really, really don't understand this. Why would it be so bad to lynch the players he suspects?insertnamehere wrote: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.Enrique wrote:Will you vote for one of timmer and Sorsha?insertnamehere wrote: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.DrumBeats wrote: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.
If anyone wishes to engage me on either of those things, feel free to do so, and I will respond.
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.
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.DFaraday wrote: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.
Gro-oo-ovy
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.DFaraday wrote: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.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Hallelu!Enrique wrote:Okay. I think INH is bad.Scotty wrote:Yes? Wouldnt you like to respond to my criticisms of your vote?Enrique wrote:Didn't Drumbeats vote the exact same way as TH... three times last night?Scotty wrote: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.
My siggie.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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?
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?
My siggie.
- LoRab
- Loan Shark
- Posts in topic: 86
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:42 pm
- Location: Phily
- Preferred Pronouns: She series
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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
- Loan Shark
- Posts in topic: 86
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:42 pm
- Location: Phily
- Preferred Pronouns: She series
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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
- Loan Shark
- Posts in topic: 86
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:42 pm
- Location: Phily
- Preferred Pronouns: She series
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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
- Loan Shark
- Posts in topic: 86
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:42 pm
- Location: Phily
- Preferred Pronouns: She series
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
And I wanted to respond to this (posted when I was silenced):
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.
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.DrumBeats wrote:This one I had to split up the types of mechanical discussion and different types of it.
LoRab ISO
Day 0:Spoiler: show
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)
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.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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 wrote:I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.DFaraday wrote: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.
Spoiler: show
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
timmer wrote: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.
Wouldn't you say this is a bit hypocritical though given that you are now mentioning suspicion of me after Epi pointed it out?DFaraday wrote: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 wrote:I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.DFaraday wrote: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.
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."
Gro-oo-ovy
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
- Turnip Head
- Root Vegetable
- Posts in topic: 183
- Posts: 11432
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:37 am
- Preferred Pronouns: they/their
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
bea, DrumBeats, espers, insertnamehere, Serge, and Spacedaisy have all not posted yet this phase. Almost half the player list.
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
- fingersplints
- Hitman
- Posts in topic: 60
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:29 am
- Location: London
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.
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.
Gro-oo-ovy
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
I've been traveling all day, or at least for 5 hours now I think?
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?Turnip Head wrote:bea, DrumBeats, espers, insertnamehere, Serge, and Spacedaisy have all not posted yet this phase. Almost half the player list.
I think it is day 6, it just hasn't been updated maybe?fingersplints wrote:Is it day 5? For some reason I thought it was 6
What were you cursed with Day 4?fingersplints wrote: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.
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
- Scotty
- Jeff
- Posts in topic: 213
- Posts: 17037
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:29 pm
- Location: New York City
- Gender: Male
- Preferred Pronouns: He/him
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Hey Drumbeats, you're online, right? If you don't post in the next 30 minutes can I assume you're silenced?
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather;
not screaming like the people in his car
not screaming like the people in his car
Spoiler: show
- LoRab
- Loan Shark
- Posts in topic: 86
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:42 pm
- Location: Phily
- Preferred Pronouns: She series
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
Given that the top poster hasn't posted this cycle, I'm going to go with his probably having been silenced.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
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.fingersplints wrote:DFaraday wrote:Can you elaborate?fingersplints wrote:I don't think this vote looks great for him either.DFaraday wrote: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.
/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.
Re: [Day Five] The Office Mafia
(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?
@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?