MAD MAX: GAME OVER

#3451

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:Quin lied about me tho
Is there no possible reality apart from "Quin deliberately promoted falsehoods about me"?
i think he could have just not researched it at all bc he thought it'd be an easy lynch

No, I didn't 'research' my GTH reads. I was asked a question and 8 minutes later I posted a reply. I did not conduct research on every living person left in the game within the span of less than 8 minutes to make sure everything was accurate. I made reads based on what I was able to recall at that moment in time, and in your case, I was proven wrong. That is not lying. I don't get your 'Looking for an easy lynch' thing either. In what scenario would that read have lead to your lynch? You mustn't have much faith in people's playing ability if you think a GTH read would be the deciding factor in your lynch. I don't know if this is your whole argument against me because, again, you won't share it. You just keep spouting out how much of a liar I am.

#3452

You stating that Mac suspected me was not and is not a GTH read.

#3453

Dom wrote:You stating that Mac suspected me was not and is not a GTH read.

Yes it was. Prove me wrong.

#3454

Epignosis wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?
My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.
What is your opinion of Dom, Glorf?

And at what point is JJJ's pointed questions of "Are you bad?" are you looking to answer on your long list of things to get back to?
I will happily review my opinion of Dom and get back to you, my friend (I'm not given to throwing out glib opinions on others as is the case of some others in this game).

You obviously missed this post from Jay (only a few hours ago):
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think the Llama Method is more likely to work with some players than others, and Glorfindel is one I would put in that category. That's why I have been pressing those questions. I'd agree that they've not been answered in a way that would indicate his innocence.

I'm still listening though Matty, so answer at will.
And so I shall. I have no idea what he is referring to in his reference to 'the Llama method' but it's probably not that important in this context. You seem uncommonly keen for me to answer those questions all of a sudden...

Moved my vote.

Is that the best you can do Epi? At least Scotty 2.0 went to the trouble of throwing glib accusations with no foundation in fact against me. I personally find your use of that gif demeaning and insulting and below what I'd have expected from someone of your maturity.

#3455

Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote

#3456

Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote

My friend, I've played many games with you here at The Syndicate and you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. In this game however, I am increasingly convinced you are Mafia and your post above (in my opinion) is the icing on the cake. Do you REALLY expect me to buy that in ANY circumstance, you would shift your vote from me knowing that in all likelihood the consequence would be your own lynching?

I (want to) believe at the moment that the questions asked of me by Jay came from a place of genuineness and sincerity. I'm really sorry but the question put to me in the manner that you just did reeks of manipulation.

#3457

Glorfindel wrote:
Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote
My friend, I've played many games with you here at The Syndicate and you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. In this game however, I am increasingly convinced you are Mafia and your post above (in my opinion) is the icing on the cake. Do you REALLY expect me to buy that in ANY circumstance, you would shift your vote from me knowing that in all likelihood the consequence would be your own lynching?

I (want to) believe at the moment that the questions asked of me by Jay came from a place of genuineness and sincerity. I'm really sorry but the question put to me in the manner that you just did reeks of manipulation.

#3458

Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?
My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.

I am sorry Glorfindel, but I do not like this post. I asked you to address Scotty, and you responded by addressing me about Scotty. To me that suggests a reluctance to engage in the case he has made against you, which suggests you are not confident that you can defend yourself against this suspicion.

#3459

I wanted to get Scotty and Glorfindel to interact with each other today because, to my knowledge, they had not done so at any point in the first 6 days of the game. Even before Scotty subbed in, Glorfindel made only one remark about sprityo (that I can see), and it was to place a soft defense of him early on. Given this and their combined uneasiness around the deadline last night, I wondered if they might be a pair of teammates who hadn't wanted to rock the boat at all. This strategy would make sense, as they are both players who've had trouble with time constraints in this game, and I think scum players in such situations tend to take a safer approach to the game than those who can be fully invested.

I've come out of it feeling very confident that Glorf is bad. He's looked unwilling to answer nearly all of the questions he's been asked today and has yet to address anyone's suspicions in any meaningful way. As I said earlier, his read on Scotty looks predetermined to me, like he saw that he was being asked to read Scotty and decided to call him bad. The wall of words was just window dressing.
Scotty, I am less confident about. I still think it's possible they are both bad, and process of elimination has them both as firm candidates right now, but Scotty has looked more authentic today, and his defenses against Glorf's casing has a note of sincerity in it that I wouldn't expect to find if these were two teammates creating some distance between one another.

My vote is staying on Glorfindel. I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks about these interactions between those two today, if y'all have thoughts.

#3460

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't stand when a 10 minute nap accidentally turns into a 4 hour nap.

One thing giving me problems with the Dom/Quin discussion is the repeated usage of the word LYING LIED LIAR etc... I almost always read that as being a willful refusal to use other less accusatory words like "misinterpreted" or "overlooked" or "didn't understand me". On that front it's probably more Dom doing that than Quin.

I'd also like try and mediate a more peaceful conversation here. I am completely out of the loop on the whole beef Dom has with Quin. I know the answer is in the thread somewhere, but I don't feel like spending the time it would take to look for it. I'd appreciate it if he (or someone else, if they're up for it) could summarize things to give me a better understanding of what's going on between these two.

I'm also still on board if Dom wants to re-open his case against me from yesterday.

#3461

Sloonei wrote:I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks about these interactions between those two today, if y'all have thoughts.

I'm somewhat tempted to get a head start on full-game interactive analyses re: Glorfindel today in anticipation of a Skags flip. That might prove more illuminating than surface-level gut reads about his most recent dialogues. If Scotty is not bad I'm at an immediate loss about who would be, but that flip might unlock a bunch of untapped clues.

#3462

Is that to say that Glorfindel is the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now?

#3463

#3464

Good. I am also feeling highly confident.

#3465

For those feeling so confident, how are you understanding Elo's not rememerbering that he hadn't been replaced?

#3466

LoRab wrote:For those feeling so confident, how are you understanding Elo's not rememerbering that he hadn't been replaced?

Epi mentioned something earlier about Elo appearing to be disengaged from her BTSC partners, based on some hocus pocus spousal telepathy of his. If this was to be the case, it would be reasonable to think that one or more of her partners was inactive at the time. Glorfindel was inactive at the start of the game and had made several apologies about it in-thread, and I do not doubt that he would do the same in private if he was bad. It's possible that Elohcin took these things to mean that Glorf had been replaced at some point. Or she just misspoke, or got something crossed in her mind.

#3467

Sloonei wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?
My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.
I am sorry Glorfindel, but I do not like this post. I asked you to address Scotty, and you responded by addressing me about Scotty. To me that suggests a reluctance to engage in the case he has made against you, which suggests you are not confident that you can defend yourself against this suspicion.

I too am sorry, my friend but I'm not that fond of your post either. You asked whether I had "any response to what Scotty said". That is precisely what I provided you. I didn't interpret your post as asking me to engage with Scotty (nor do I think would any normal person assume that interpretation based on the manner in which you asked your question). I also think your next statement (above) about me being reluctant to engage in the case he made against me is false - he has NOT made a case of any substance against me and neither has anyone else to my knowledge. I am supremely confident of defending myself against such vacuous accusations - the pertinent question here IS - are you prepared to (unwittingly) throw your lot in with the Mafia forces in this game? I confess, for the first time this game, I find myself doubting my judgement of you.

#3468

Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?

#3469

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yes.

I don't care if what I'm about to say is interpreted as being overly emotional or whatever. This response (to me) is the bitterest pill of all to swallow

#3470

Do you know why that is my read?

#3471

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?

Your recent posts (refer this page) indicate to me that are convinced of my guilt in this game, Jay ("the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now")

What difference at all would a response from me to these questions make to your judgement or anyone else's for that matter? I will answer them but I don't doubt for a second that my answer will make the slightest difference to your judgement, those who accuse me without any evidence whatsoever or those who for whom I've been the subject of ridicule so far this Day phase.

#3472

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Do you know why that is my read?

No. At this point, I don't care to hear your justification for your vote. I'd prefer you to wait for my answer to your questions. And even then, I don't think I want to hear them either. Sorry.

#3473

Glorfindel wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?
Your recent posts (refer this page) indicate to me that are convinced of my guilt in this game, Jay ("the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now")

What difference at all would a response from me to these questions make to your judgement or anyone else's for that matter? I will answer them but I don't doubt for a second that my answer will make the slightest difference to your judgement, those who accuse me without any evidence whatsoever or those who for whom I've been the subject of ridicule so far this Day phase.

I've changed my mind many times in this game. I am not convinced of anything. You'd be better off answering the questions than not answering them.

You know I'm an open minded player. There's a lot of time in this day phase and anything can happen.

#3474

Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?
My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.
I am sorry Glorfindel, but I do not like this post. I asked you to address Scotty, and you responded by addressing me about Scotty. To me that suggests a reluctance to engage in the case he has made against you, which suggests you are not confident that you can defend yourself against this suspicion.
I too am sorry, my friend but I'm not that fond of your post either. You asked whether I had "any response to what Scotty said". That is precisely what I provided you. I didn't interpret your post as asking me to engage with Scotty (nor do I think would any normal person assume that interpretation based on the manner in which you asked your question). I also think your next statement (above) about me being reluctant to engage in the case he made against me is false - he has NOT made a case of any substance against me and neither has anyone else to my knowledge. I am supremely confident of defending myself against such vacuous accusations - the pertinent question here IS - are you prepared to (unwittingly) throw your lot in with the Mafia forces in this game? I confess, for the first time this game, I find myself doubting my judgement of you.

Scotty made a pretty substantive response to your case against him in this post and my hope was that you would respond directly to it. If that was not clear, it should be now and I'd still invite you to give it a response. But instead of doing that, you responded to me asking you about it by continuing to be vaguely but confidently critical of Scotty. You claim to be giving me a response to what he said, but your post doesn't suggest you actually read or took in what Scotty wrote. He provided three counter-arguments to three of your points against him, none of which you address here. Instead you turned it into an OMGUS against me, which I am not buying. I welcome the skepticism if you are town, but I do not currently think you are.

#3475

Sloonei wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?
My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.
I am sorry Glorfindel, but I do not like this post. I asked you to address Scotty, and you responded by addressing me about Scotty. To me that suggests a reluctance to engage in the case he has made against you, which suggests you are not confident that you can defend yourself against this suspicion.
I too am sorry, my friend but I'm not that fond of your post either. You asked whether I had "any response to what Scotty said". That is precisely what I provided you. I didn't interpret your post as asking me to engage with Scotty (nor do I think would any normal person assume that interpretation based on the manner in which you asked your question). I also think your next statement (above) about me being reluctant to engage in the case he made against me is false - he has NOT made a case of any substance against me and neither has anyone else to my knowledge. I am supremely confident of defending myself against such vacuous accusations - the pertinent question here IS - are you prepared to (unwittingly) throw your lot in with the Mafia forces in this game? I confess, for the first time this game, I find myself doubting my judgement of you.
Scotty made a pretty substantive response to your case against him in this post and my hope was that you would respond directly to it. If that was not clear, it should be now and I'd still invite you to give it a response. But instead of doing that, you responded to me asking you about it by continuing to be vaguely but confidently critical of Scotty. You claim to be giving me a response to what he said, but your post doesn't suggest you actually read or took in what Scotty wrote. He provided three counter-arguments to three of your points against him, none of which you address here. Instead you turned it into an OMGUS against me, which I am not buying. I welcome the skepticism if you are town, but I do not currently think you are.

I beg your pardon, my friend? You consider that a substantive post in response to my analysis of his ISO? And no, if your intent was for me to engage with Scotty directly in response to what he wrote in that post, you most certainly were NOT remotely clear! And again, no - I probably didn't give his response the attention it deserved but am of course willing to do so. I also don't accept that I OMGUS'd you. I have consistently believed you to be Town for this entire game based on the depth of your analysis, your thoroughness and your diligence in trying to solve this game. I'd have expected that you'd respect that same level of commitment to this game (which is what I've done my best to provide, consistent with the time I've had available) but it seems you are prepared to look more favourably upon accusations without foundation instead.

I still want to believe that you're Town and if you feel that I've accused you falsely I hope you will understand that it just comes from a place of frustration with the direction this game is headed right now.

#3476

Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:You stating that Mac suspected me was not and is not a GTH read.
Yes it was. Prove me wrong.

...literally how is saying if someone else suspects me a GTH?

Anyway, is no one going to talk about Scotty saying he knows I'm not a good lynch despite him not knowing m yrole/

#3477

Glorfindel wrote:
Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote
My friend, I've played many games with you here at The Syndicate and you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. In this game however, I am increasingly convinced you are Mafia and your post above (in my opinion) is the icing on the cake. Do you REALLY expect me to buy that in ANY circumstance, you would shift your vote from me knowing that in all likelihood the consequence would be your own lynching?

I (want to) believe at the moment that the questions asked of me by Jay came from a place of genuineness and sincerity. I'm really sorry but the question put to me in the manner that you just did reeks of manipulation.

tho this makes me want to vote glorf

#3478

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:You stating that Mac suspected me was not and is not a GTH read.
Yes it was. Prove me wrong.
...literally how is saying if someone else suspects me a GTH?

Anyway, is no one going to talk about Scotty saying he knows I'm not a good lynch despite him not knowing m yrole/

Spoiler: show

This was the GTH. Let's not pretend you weren't aware of what I was talking about.

#3479

GTH isn't about evidence from the thread.

#3480

Honestly, Quin, I don't see the point in beating this dead horse.

#3481

Scotty wrote:
Sloonei wrote:unfairly snipping all of glorf's investigative work to get to the conclusion
Glorfindel wrote:
In my view, I think this analysis suggests to me that Scotty is clearly suspicious and not simply for the performance of his predecessor. I think his indiscriminate criticism of my voting record looks suspicious on that basis alone and he seems to have some difficulty making a logical case against it (with good reason). I also find Sprityo's early interactions with Jay mildly suspicious as do I judge his continual sniping at one of my strongest Town reads all game (Sloonei). His reads appear to me to have been limited and (apart from Sloonei) without a lot of structured arguments to support them. Having just gone through all that, I'm prepared to place my vote on Scotty pending other developments.
Hey Scotty, care to address any of these points at all? You gave a sarcastic quip earlier, but I don't get that as a substantive response.
Ok.

I don't know what to respond to. My criticism of his voting record looks suspicious? Hummm says the guy who just analyzed and criticized both my and sprityo's voting record.

My "continual sniping" at Sloonei is because I don't necessarily want to rule him out as bad. Why does Glorf place Sloon as one of his highest town reads?

My reads hve been limited, and that I won't deny. That's my jumping in and not necesssriy reading through most of day 2 and 3. I've been going on guy without making verbose arguments. That's just how I'm playing this as a replacement. If that's suspicious alone, then I apologize.

And @Sloonei regarding placing my vote on Dom and Wilgy instead of Glorf, i chose poorly. I didn't necessarily trust a train that was already formed on Glorf and was looking at more than one option.

OK, Scotty - let's take this from the top. This is your post saying my voting record was suspicious:

Scotty wrote:I don't like Glorfindel's voting record.
Day 1, early Mac vote. Disappears later and lets the wind of time dictate the lynch.
Day 2, no vote.
Day 3, he makes the second to last vote in the poll and votes for LoRab to tie the lynch. Motel room brings down the hammer on Elo. (Good look for MR)
Day 4, (which i just read) he says he broke the tie, but I can't tell. This one I'm not as bothered about, because he had expressed suspicion of INH prior to the vote. This EoD makes me twitch slightly because we DONT have a lynch and so it's hard to analyze if anyone was protecting someone with votes. I'd like to believe that Wilgy is still bad. But Glorf could be an accomplice.

I don't know Glorf's baddie game all that well. I could be looking for truffles in the wrong forest.

Day 1. Yes, I voted for Mac Day 1 because I found his comments contradictory (and posted as much at the time). I placed my vote on him and saw no reason to change it. Would you have been less suspicious of me had I been on the train that mistakenly lynched you?

Day 2. Yes, I missed the vote. I think it's the first that I've missed in all the games I've played on this site and I am embarrassed about that. At the time however, I had some rather important real life issues on my plate as I recall (and again, I'm fairly certain that I'd mentioned as much in the thread). If you choose to discount my circumstances, that's your choice.

Day 3. Yes, I was late to the thread that morning to find the Elohcin and LoRab wagons tied or nearly and cast my vote on LoRab. I'd had suspicions of her that Day Phase (and no longer do) and couldn't see the logic behind Elohcin's wagon. Again, I'd explained that at the time and my posts bear that out.

Day 4. Yes, I did break the tie. You have no evidence to the contrary but are happy to spin doubts about the actual events to support your opinion of me. You make an association between DrWilgy and I saying that if DrWilgy is bad, so am I. Well, DrWilgy wasn't bad...
You claim my record is suspicious? Please explain to me or provide evidence of where my voting behaviour appears duplicitous. In response to my analysis of your ISO (and as a consequence although not explicitly, your voting record) you offer no defence whatsover other than "Hummm says the guy who just analyzed and criticized both my and sprityo's voting record."

My comments about your sniping at Sloonei relate specifically to what I saw in (Ref: 5.6) where you declare that if Indiglo is good, then that's a far better look for Sloonei. Indiglo WAS good and yet your re-evaluation of Sloonei is that "I'm not sure this makes Sloonei look better...". I interpreted your continued reluctance to accept a player I believed to be good as noteworthy. As to why I thought so highly of Sloonei amongst my reads, I think I've said the same thing almost since we began this game and did so again today. May I ask you (in just a couple of sentences) why you think I'm wrong about our friend Sloonei. What is it about him that you find so suspicious?

Lastly, I accept your concerns about 'subbing in' - I've never done that and I don't really have an appreciation of what it's like. I'd imagine though that it's a tough ask. That being said, can you explain to me where my being thorough (or verbose as you put it) suggests to you that I'm bad

#3482

Dom wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote
My friend, I've played many games with you here at The Syndicate and you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. In this game however, I am increasingly convinced you are Mafia and your post above (in my opinion) is the icing on the cake. Do you REALLY expect me to buy that in ANY circumstance, you would shift your vote from me knowing that in all likelihood the consequence would be your own lynching?

I (want to) believe at the moment that the questions asked of me by Jay came from a place of genuineness and sincerity. I'm really sorry but the question put to me in the manner that you just did reeks of manipulation.
tho this makes me want to vote glorf

And just why is that, Dom? I've been playing Mafia games here for a year now and still people make statement like you just did about my posts - and they just keep getting it wrong...

#3483

rezz plz

#3484

I think it's been long enough now and I'll just clearly state why I suspect you now, Glorfindel:

I think you might have an aversion to lying (Epignosis seems to be of the same perspective considering the .gifs), which is why I have kept asking two questions which leave no room for anything but either honestly or dishonesty. I have worded them in such a way that all possible loopholes I can think of are closed. I get the impression you've been unwilling to answer those questions, as you've acknowledged them a number of times but have still not put answers in the thread, which suggests to me that you don't want to lie (as would be required if you're bad). That's an honorable mindset so I of course don't mean to be critical, but that's where my suspicion is stemming from now.

#3485

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's been long enough now and I'll just clearly state why I suspect you now, Glorfindel:

I think you might have an aversion to lying (Epignosis seems to be of the same perspective considering the .gifs), which is why I have kept asking two questions which leave no room for anything but either honestly or dishonesty. I have worded them in such a way that all possible loopholes I can think of are closed. I get the impression you've been unwilling to answer those questions, as you've acknowledged them a number of times but have still not put answers in the thread, which suggests to me that you don't want to lie (as would be required if you're bad). That's an honorable mindset so I of course don't mean to be critical, but that's where my suspicion is stemming from now.

#3486

There's a good chance I won't be around for the deadline. Enjoy the chaos and madness.

I have a little time right now though so if anyone has any pressing questions or concerns, lay 'em on me.

#3487

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:There's a good chance I won't be around for the deadline. Enjoy the chaos and madness.

I have a little time right now though so if anyone has any pressing questions or concerns, lay 'em on me.

Dom: is he town?

#3488

Sloonei wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:There's a good chance I won't be around for the deadline. Enjoy the chaos and madness.

I have a little time right now though so if anyone has any pressing questions or concerns, lay 'em on me.
Dom: is he town?

The best reason I could call him town (his caps lock outburst when under fire last EOD) is also the most inconsistent type of read (emotion driven) I've made in recent memory. I'd call him town with a gun to my noggin, but I'd also be thoroughly unsurprised to be wrong.

#3489

However, those Glorfindel interactive analyses could prove illuminating. Maybe someone out there has enough time to bother.

#3490

If I am around on Sunday I should have time for something in depth.

There's also a chance I might not be here for tonight's deadline.

#3491

Just to be thorough, I looked back at Star Wars Mafia where Glorfindel was bad. I'm comparing his behavior then to now when under lynch pressure.

Star Wars

Glorfindel wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I need to vote pronto, it seems.

I really need to do some digging and ISOing before I can properly adjust my rainbow list, so... I'm sticking with a vote for my most recently expressed top mafia read, Glorfindel. Not that it matters for the result, but in spirit.
OK, MP, Golden, Mac, Zeb and the rest of you... sure, I could spend my time on some analysis, etc. but at this point, please explain to me what exactly would be the point. Just like Simon, you've already made up your minds about me and let's face the facts - because you're unwilling to seriously consider a vote on anyone inside your little clique, I'd pretty much be wasting my time as will you while you blissfully skip down the path to oblivion next day phase on another fanciful quest while the Mafia sit back and laugh at you all...

Mad Max

Glorfindel wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?
Your recent posts (refer this page) indicate to me that are convinced of my guilt in this game, Jay ("the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now")

What difference at all would a response from me to these questions make to your judgement or anyone else's for that matter? I will answer them but I don't doubt for a second that my answer will make the slightest difference to your judgement, those who accuse me without any evidence whatsoever or those who for whom I've been the subject of ridicule so far this Day phase.

The similarity is striking. I am confident enough that his lynch would be productive for town that I am going to proceed with interactive analyses as though he has already flipped as a baddie.

If in the end he does not, well that sucks.

#3492

Interactions between Dom and Glorfindel

Glorfindel:

Glorfindel didn't discuss Dom other than in OT or off-hand contexts related to other players until Day 6.

Spoiler: show

They had this brief exchange. There is animosity, but it also looks pretty softball to me on both sides.

Spoiler: show

Scotty prompted Glorfindel for a perspective about Dom. Glorfindel pledged to review Dom and come back with a perspective. This was about 19 hours ago, so there's still time for a return on this pledge.

Dom:

Dom didn't mention Glorfindel other than in OT or off-hand contexts until Day 6.

Spoiler: show

This was the core of Dom's attack on Sloonei. The relevance of Glorfindel may be incidental since Sloonei is the one who supplied it, but it's still worth noting that Dom pressed the issue.

Spoiler: show

Dom includes Glorfindel on a very broad list of 5 players he'd consider voting for on Day 6.

Spoiler: show

His very next post features this soft defense of Glorfindel.

Spoiler: show

Dom's reads when he was under heavy lynch pressure at the end of Day 6. Glorfindel was listed as bad. It should be noted that these weren't "GTH" reads, or at least that's not what he was asked for. He called Glorfindel bad but had barely discussed him prior to this other than in his arguments with Sloonei.

This means he was sticking Sloonei and Glorfindel in a team together. I think that might be significant, because it reads fake right now. Might be an attempted false link.

Spoiler: show

Even later on Day 6 Dom gives another list of four names he'd lynch. I think baddies are fond of operating in these wide groupings, so this is a bad look.

Spoiler: show

Another softball accusation at Glorfindel in the heat of EOD. Despite feeling obliged to render that accusation, he still attributed his [temporary] Glorfindel vote to "self preservation".

Spoiler: show

"This makes me want to vote for Glorf."

He still hasn't.

~~~

Conclusion

If Glorfindel is bad, I think Dom is bad with him.

#3493

Interactions between a2thezebra / Epignosis 2.0 and Glorfindel

Glorfindel:

He made no game-relevant mention of Zebra that I can find. There's nothing about Epi 2.0 either until Day 7, which I'll cover in his section.

Zebra:

Spoiler: show

Eyeballing Scotty for his Day 0 mud toss at Glorfindel could be called a soft defense. She continued to make a stink about it in a few more posts: example, example

Spoiler: show

A bit of a curious mindset here. I feel like this could be translated to: "Why is Glorfindel bad? I haven't seen a substantial reason to call him town."

Spoiler: show

"Normally I would agree, but [makes excuse]"

Not ideal. I do understand that Glorfindel had more important matters to attend to and don't fault him for struggling to keep up. I don't know that Zebra needed to give him this break though.

Spoiler: show

Okay. Take it or leave it at face value.

Light green on a Night 3 rainbow

Spoiler: show

Holding consistently to the read.

Epignosis 2.0

Spoiler: show

I don't like this. Epignosis and I were talking about potential motives for the MacDougall night kill, and this was a segment of that. Epi observed that people weren't thinking Glorfindel should be implicated by the Mac kill, but he took no actual stance on the matter himself. He looks willing to accept the notion without putting his own viewpoint in the mix, suggesting to me either agrees with it or stands to gain from it. If he agreed with it I'd expect him to say so.

Otherwise it's the I can't lie .gifs of this day phase. While he did correctly pick up on what I was trying to do with my questioning of Glorfindel, I don't think that implies anything about his alignment. The only requirement here is familiarity with Glorfindel the player and the incidents in past games that have brought this to light -- particularly games he hosted (Arkham and Star Wars) and another he played in (Battlestar Galactica).

~~~

Conclusion

As always with Zebra, there's a hearty helping of WIFOM. I don't struggle much to see team mates here though. It's at least reasonably plausible.

#3494

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Just to be thorough, I looked back at Star Wars Mafia where Glorfindel was bad. I'm comparing his behavior then to now when under lynch pressure.

Star Wars

Glorfindel wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I need to vote pronto, it seems.

I really need to do some digging and ISOing before I can properly adjust my rainbow list, so... I'm sticking with a vote for my most recently expressed top mafia read, Glorfindel. Not that it matters for the result, but in spirit.
OK, MP, Golden, Mac, Zeb and the rest of you... sure, I could spend my time on some analysis, etc. but at this point, please explain to me what exactly would be the point. Just like Simon, you've already made up your minds about me and let's face the facts - because you're unwilling to seriously consider a vote on anyone inside your little clique, I'd pretty much be wasting my time as will you while you blissfully skip down the path to oblivion next day phase on another fanciful quest while the Mafia sit back and laugh at you all...
Mad Max

Glorfindel wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?
Your recent posts (refer this page) indicate to me that are convinced of my guilt in this game, Jay ("the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now")

What difference at all would a response from me to these questions make to your judgement or anyone else's for that matter? I will answer them but I don't doubt for a second that my answer will make the slightest difference to your judgement, those who accuse me without any evidence whatsoever or those who for whom I've been the subject of ridicule so far this Day phase.
The similarity is striking. I am confident enough that his lynch would be productive for town that I am going to proceed with interactive analyses as though he has already flipped as a baddie.

If in the end he does not, well that sucks.

My dear friend, are you SERIOUS? You take two posts in isolation and draw that conclusion? I'm frankly shocked you could be so selective (biased) in your analysis. Did you bother to consider whether or not I made the same kinds of posts on every other occasion I've been mis-lynched in every other game I've played on this site? Of course not. Because that wouldn't support the conclusion to which you've come. Such blatant confirmation bias is not something I'd ever expected from you - but let's not let the truth stand in the way of an easy lynch

#3495

Glorfindel wrote:My dear friend, are you SERIOUS? You take two posts in isolation and draw that conclusion? I'm frankly shocked you could be so selective (biased) in your analysis. Did you bother to consider whether or not I made the same kinds of posts on every other occasion I've been mis-lynched in every other game I've played on this site? Of course not. Because that wouldn't support the conclusion to which you've come. Such blatant confirmation bias is not something I'd ever expected from you - but let's not let the truth stand in the way of an easy lynch

If I'm wrong, then just answer my questions.

1. Are you a member of the team called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team responsible for the kills of Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?

Like I've said, I'm still willing to listen. I've been wrong on multiple reads in this game. I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong on another. But I need answers to these questions.

#3496

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's been long enough now and I'll just clearly state why I suspect you now, Glorfindel:

I think you might have an aversion to lying (Epignosis seems to be of the same perspective considering the .gifs), which is why I have kept asking two questions which leave no room for anything but either honestly or dishonesty. I have worded them in such a way that all possible loopholes I can think of are closed. I get the impression you've been unwilling to answer those questions, as you've acknowledged them a number of times but have still not put answers in the thread, which suggests to me that you don't want to lie (as would be required if you're bad). That's an honorable mindset so I of course don't mean to be critical, but that's where my suspicion is stemming from now.

Indeed, it has been long enough. You know me very well, Jay - better than most on this site and I'm proud of that. An aversion to lying? Maybe... I understood the purpose of your questions but there are broader implications at stake here (of which you'd be aware and I've deliberately left my answer to them this long to see who'd jump on my wagon because THAT is illuminating.

The fact that (in my opinion) the one person I have every reason to be Mafia is on my wagon and against whom I have consistently been putting evidence before you and everyone else this day phase and my arguments have been ignored and disregarded leave me with little hope that we can win this game. You need to ask yourselves some searching questions as to why you've left yourselves open to this kind of deception because if you don't now, you will later.

#3497

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel, I still need answers to these questions:

1. Are you bad?

2. Are you a member of a team that killed anyone in this group: MovingPictures07, MacDougall, motel room?
I'm going to adjust the first question.

1. Are you a member of the team in this Mafia game called the Skags?

Please still answer both.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sure, go ahead and do the work you've set out to do. Please try to answer those two questions before you leave the thread for the day though. They don't require any research.

Thank you Jay for your patience in awaiting my reply to your questions. I now ask your indulgence one more time - to grant me the courtesy of reading my response carefully and thoughtfully before jumping to any conclusions. I thank you sincerely in advance for your courtesy in this regard.

It's been six days and nights now and things look grim for us and it's in this context that you ask me these questions. Though you may deny it, the truth is that these questions are NOT about my role in this game, they speak directly and unequivocally to my personal character.

In posts I've made in earlier games on this site (and others) I have (somewhat naively) traded on my personal integrity and honesty in never having lied about my alignment in any Mafia game I've ever played. My protestations however have been to no avail and have gone almost completely unheeded. And now, as this game draws to a bitter end, you (someone whose respect I genuinely cherish) come to me asking me to confirm my alignment.

If I recall correctly, my approach (as referred to above) was a topic of discussion between the two of us and Epi in the Town BTSC Chat last game (The Garden of Peaches). In our conversation, you or Epi (I can't recall now who) asked me to consider what that might mean in future games I play for the other members of a non-Town team (and specifically Mafia teams I suppose) of which I may find myself a part. The two of you challenged me to consider the price of my approach with respect to the enjoyment of others who play these games and whose experience of them may be seriously diminished by the selfishness of my approach. I did consider your points carefully and find myself left in a dilemma in respect of my playing Mafia games in the future.

It is for this reason, that I am not going to avoid or dance around your questions. I simply categorically refuse to answer them because to do so, would continue to perpetuate what I now fear is a bad approach to these games on my behalf. When I say that I refuse to answer them, let me be absolutely explicit here, I mean not now and not ever again. I trust you will understand what I've tried to explain here in all sincerity. I accept that some more cynical minds will question why I've taken this stance right now, in this game and whether it wouldn't be easier for me to simply answer your questions and adopt my new approach next game. To me, this is a moral question. If I am unable to stand by my principles in a time when (it appears) it counts the most, then when can I?

As for this game, I'd ask you, my friend to apply the same measure to me that you would to everyone else. Consider my actions and my comments throughout this game and if you find them wanting, then by all means, you should vote for me. If however you find they are reasonable under what you believe to have been my circumstances and ability, then you should look elsewhere. I am committed to this team however and will continue to contribute the best I'm able to make this work out irrespective of your decision.

#3498

Glorfindel wrote:It is for this reason, that I am not going to avoid or dance around your questions. I simply categorically refuse to answer them because to do so, would continue to perpetuate what I now fear is a bad approach to these games on my behalf. When I say that I refuse to answer them, let me be absolutely explicit here, I mean not now and not ever again. I trust you will understand what I've tried to explain here in all sincerity. I accept that some more cynical minds will question why I've taken this stance right now, in this game and whether it wouldn't be easier for me to simply answer your questions and adopt my new approach next game. To me, this is a moral question. If I am unable to stand by my principles in a time when (it appears) it counts the most, then when can I?

Independent of reads in this game, I can respect this. It was actually something I thought we might discuss a little in the post-game conversation after this one ends. As I see it, there are only two solutions to your dilemma:

1. Change your approach by adopting a willingness to lie.

2. Categorically refuse to answer any lie-compatible questions in any game you ever play regardless of alignment.

#2 allows you to maintain the moral code you prefer to play with, and I wouldn't fault you for taking that route (as it appears you have just now). It's similar to Epi's own refusal to answer questions or make statements that are vulnerable to lie detector roles.

My lingering concern is close to what you mention at the end there: why not make this refusal clear the first fews times I asked those questions instead of waiting until now? That's a challenging dilemma for me to tackle now, but I will think on it. At the least I'll stop with these interactive analyses, I've run out of time for those anyway.

In the mean time, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks of this.

#3499

jjj i can see your perspective, but you're wrong.

i'm civ.

#3500

Dom wrote:jjj i can see your perspective, but you're wrong. i'm civ.

Why did you have so little to say about Glorf on Days 1-5?

Who squashed LoRab?