GY!BE Mafia [E.N.D.]

[Scotty]

I'm still not caught up. 5 or so more pages to read.. I see JJJ has a little case breakdown that I skimmed. Eventually I'll get around to answering it.

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that. I have calmed my jets on a few people I had recently suspected. I'm actually feeling better about Golden, and Mp. I think BWT is still suspicious? Why? I forgot. But he said some stuff some some time ago that was phrased in a weird way that perked uo ym ears like Pluto. Sloon is on neutral ground. Slight mafia still on JJJ. I don't think he was faking his curse, I just think his curser was just unimaginative.

I'm way behind. Long day, may not get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. Blech my mafia time where did it go???

[birdwithteeth11]

So that we have a reference from Mad Max, I've pulled out a couple LoRab posts from that game that I think highlight the differences between here and there. Before I get into this, I want to reiterate that Mad Max and GY!BE have two totally different setups, so it's not unreasonable to think that Townie LoRab would behave differently in both games. That being said, her behavior is worth looking into, and I'm doing this just so others can judge it in their own light.

LoRab posts in Mad Max: Post 1, Post 2

Snippet from Post 1:

Spoiler: show

Do you have a take on the whole Rico/Mac affair?

Pissing contest.

Do you read them as town/town?

I don't have a read on either, and this hasn't given me a read on either. They are both neutral at this point.
...

I am pinged by LoRab's decision not to offer a read on anything.

I don't have any strong opinions. I think the pissing contest has drawn a neutral read. I think JJJ is vaguely pingy. I don't have other thoughts. And, seriously, I have just gotten through one of the most challenging weeks of my life. There are maybe 2 other times in my life that I've been as emotionally exhausted as I am right now. I don't particularly want to go into more detail, but I will if I need to. Those that are friends with me on fb can attest to the fact that I'm having a really, really crappy week. And those that have been playing with me for nearly a decade know that I don't play the emotion card except when I'm really in a bad place.

Processing mafia reads is using a really minimal level of brain wavelength because that's all I have to give right now. If that makes me suspicious, so be it.

She doesn't give much in the way of strong reads, but she does at least make direct and specific references to events in the thread and offers comments on them, even if they amount to nothing more than Neutral reads in her book. That is good, substantive posting which I appreciated. Same thing in Post 2:

Spoiler: show

Glad Epi is dead. I was gut feeling him as bad and this makes my life easier.

Someone tl;dr me for day/night 1.

So, a civ is very likely dead and you are glad about it? Hrm.

You didn't explicitly accuse him, true. But you implied suspicion. And to say, yeah--i didn't really suspect him, and he was just frustrating, quite honestly, doesn't make you look all that good.

So you believe they spent Night 1 accusing Epignosis and then killed him? What's the objective?

Shits and giggles? So that we'll all wonder why Epi? WIFOM? Quite honestly, I brought it up as a question to see what their current thoughts were and how they had changed with Epi's death. INH's response seemed defensive, when I hadn't raised suspicion. And to say that Epi was just frustrating in life and in death didn't ring true.

Curious to see what Zebra and INH have to say now that Epi was killed by mafia. And highly unlikely, in a speed game, that mafia would kill one of their own night 1. So....wanting responses there.

I am still curious what you have to say about all of the proceedings from Day 1. What's your take on things? You asked a few questions during the latter half of the day, but never gave any indication as to where you were leaning, then missed the vote. What were your thoughts as Day 1 was unfolding?

I still read the Rico/Mac thing as neutral on both sides. I neither suspect nor think eithe civ as a result. I did think Scotty was civ, but wasn't around to post about it. Quite honestly, I'm not sure where I would have voted. My brain was also in a fog at the time, so I need to reread day 1 in order to have more thoughts on it.

DrWilgy, do you have any other gut and/or vibe-based reads you would like to share?

The only other player that I have thought about is Sprityo, whom I gut read as bad.

I like your analysis of Rico. I'd like an answer from Rico as to why he thought to interject here. Not sure if this has been explained yet or not, but I'm not willing to go back and check.

Zebra, how would you respond to me voting Rico right now?

Sloonei, mind telling me the exchange that interested you most?

Elohcin's response to Neil Hartley early in the game is something I've been getting hung up on. Something about it strikes me as a feigned effort to appear confused for the sake of casting speculation. I am wary of people who latch onto roleplay as a basis for suspicion early on. LoRab did the same thing, if I remember correctly. I suppose those are the two that I'm thinking about most at the moment, but it's been a slow start for me and I'm still not out of the preliminary reads stage of the process.

Role playing in games always pings me. I wasn't latching onto it, merely mentioning it as a ping. I realize that it doesn't ping everyone, but it does me and always has. It's an easy thing to hide behind. We all read into posts differently and find different things suspicious. That's something that sets off my suspiciometer. Not sure how that makes me suspicious, but I'm not going to change my game because things I do make people suspect me. If that were my nature, I'd play entirely differently, lol (but it wouldn't be me and it wouldn't be fun). Would you rather I not mention things that I notice in the thread? And, for the record, I'm not suspecting JJJ at the moment, as his posts have demonstrated him to be more than a facade.

Again, while she does not manufacture any strong reads early in the game (these posts are from Days 1 & 2 of Mad Max, I believe), she is forthcoming and honest with her thoughts. She lets us know where her head is at and what she's working on. Notice too the first segment of the above post, where she questions INH from a post he had made. I've not seen any direct questioning like that out of LoRab in this game.

Now compare that forthcomingness to her responses to similar questions in this game:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Spoiler: show

If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

No, it was clear. But it was after you had poked me for a while, and I lost motivation. And, please, show me where I said I was uninformed about the game? I said at one point I skipped 5 pages, but that didn't have to do with that post. So, please, where did I say I was uninformed (other than those pages, which were not directly attached to the lynch or my post lynch post)?

I have been offering thoughts as the game has gone on. If those thoughts aren't good enough for you, that's not my problem. I'm not going to change the way I play to please you. No, I don't have a lot of suspicions--I'm not going to make them up for the sake of stating suspicions. That's not how I roll.

I don't post things for the purpose of people being able to read me. If they can read me, that's fine. If they can't, then they can't. My primary purpose is figuring out the game. Not getting killed is also a goal, but honestly, it's not generally my primary focus. My primary focus is getting baddies figured out and getting them killed, and in order to do so, figuring out some of the game mechanics in order to figure out how to best make the game work.

I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).

It's all good. I mean, when someone is being suspected, someone saying their thoughts is appreciated. And I don't fault people for saying I'm awesome. I mean civ. Saying I'm civ.

Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?

Fair enough. I can see where you got that--but it's not like he said that when he took a step back he thought I was suspicious--just that he would vote for me. But, yeah--an answer would be nice.

Thoughts, anyone?

I agree that Lorab seems a lot more open about her thoughts based on the quotes you pulled in comparison to her openness in this game so far. But I usually don't like referencing past mafia games to try to read someone. I feel like it is too easy to adapt and change one's playstyle from game to game. And while not a lot of people do, there are those of us who can often make radical changes in that regard.

I mean, I guess it makes me feel different about her based on these quotes? But I need to read her in-thread to have a more solid opinion.

[birdwithteeth11]

hello mafia players!

Anything to contribute to the group?

[Scotty]

Did something go bad in the kitchen or is MM trying to solve the game at an early juncture? Seems like a departure from the oddball non-transient early game Civ MM I remember..

[Marmot]

Did something go bad in the kitchen or is MM trying to solve the game at an early juncture? Seems like a departure from the oddball non-transient early game Civ MM I remember..

I usually wait until a mafia has flipped to get more into a game (or after Day 4 or so).

But I also don't like doing the same thing every game.

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright I have to run out for a bit. I will be back later this evening.

[Marmot]

They are both town reads, but not my strongest town reads. MP is a stronger read than Jay.

Yesterday, from AP to Epi to boomslang to Wilgy, it did feel a little like my vote was being followed around. It made me tinfoil and I didn't overly like it. But, having said that... me, MP and Jay agree a lot and disagree little most of the time, and that's because we see the world through very similar eyes.

Curiously, you both haven't agreed much today.

Jay stated a suspicion of ninja for her votes over Days 1 and 2. You responded with you see solvey ninja, and pulled a post to defend it.

Jay stated a suspicion of LoRab, to which you responded that his case has no substance.

Jay called A Person a scumread on Night 2 after you called him a townread.

Jay, what do you think of Golden?

And who knows how much we agreed yesterday. Our votes happened to end up in the same places a lot, but I don't know what was going through Jay's mind.

To be fair to Jay's LoRab case, I didn't say it had no substance. I said it didn't have much substance that I could agree with. Perhaps 'substance' was a bad word to choose because people might think I'm suggesting Jay's case was meaningless. But I didn't mean it was meaningless, I meant that I disagreed with the meaning he ascribed to many of LoRab's posts.

I trust ninja more than I trust Jay. I trust LoRab less than I trust Jay.

True, one can only wonder (or just count your sweetest friend posts).



My main qualm with you at this point Golden, is that I don't see any strong suspicions from you. You made a post on Day 1 stating that meta shouldn't be overlooked, but it's oft overused. But since you were uncursed on Night 2, you've defended multiple players based on meta. You defended sig's actions because despite how scummy they look, that's how sig plays. You defended LoRab because she feels like standard LoRab.

Your defense of nijuu is based on her actions this game (and not her meta), but you used the word particular a lot. :P


Who are you looking to vote today?

[Golden]

You

[Marmot]

What's holding you back?

[LoRab]

I'm still not caught up. 5 or so more pages to read.. I see JJJ has a little case breakdown that I skimmed. Eventually I'll get around to answering it.

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that. I have calmed my jets on a few people I had recently suspected. I'm actually feeling better about Golden, and Mp. I think BWT is still suspicious? Why? I forgot. But he said some stuff some some time ago that was phrased in a weird way that perked uo ym ears like Pluto. Sloon is on neutral ground. Slight mafia still on JJJ. I don't think he was faking his curse, I just think his curser was just unimaginative.

I'm way behind. Long day, may not get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. Blech my mafia time where did it go???

Indeed. But you haven't said anything about your vote one way or another. Are you able to say anything about your vote? I realize that yesterday you would likely not be able to say your vote was forced because of usual rules, but are you able to clarify today? Or do you have anything more to say about your vote?

If I had to vote now, it would be for A Person again.

[Golden]

You aren't very good at representing things fairly in this game, and your suspicions are bunk.

Look at what you have just done to me twice. You misrepresented what I said about Jay, and now you're misrepresenting what I said about meta too.

That was in response to MP saying 'it should never be used', essentially. I was the one saying 'no, it should be used'. In fact, I specifically said "In the end, correct gut reads often just come from 'this feels like what I'm used to from this player when bad'."

Sig and LoRab are great examples of why. People have preconceptions about something that is face value a scum-tell. I point to how those people do those things as town. It means that the entire case for why they are bad falls to bits. That's an important use of meta. A good use, too, because instead of using meta to hang someone, I'm pushing people to look deeper before declaring someone as bad. Sig and LoRab may well be bad, but the cases on them so far do look like cases against them when they are good.

What's holding you back?

Nothing

[Marmot]

Nudges LoRab

You can vote now.

[Golden]

I'll admit that I have no suspicions that are particularly strong, though. I feel like I have a lot more town reads than I do baddie reads.

But I don't think getting a 'strong suspicion' is necessarily a virtue. I'd rather be open to arguments to why my weak suspicions are wrong.

[Golden]

What's holding you back?

Nudges LoRab

You can vote now.

Why are you so interested in getting other people to vote 24 hours before the day ends?

[Marmot]

You aren't very good at representing things fairly in this game, and your suspicions are bunk.

That is a generalization. Why are my suspicions bunk?

Look at what you have just done to me twice. You misrepresented what I said about Jay, and now you're misrepresenting what I said about meta too.

That was in response to MP saying 'it should never be used', essentially. I was the one saying 'no, it should be used'. In fact, I specifically said "In the end, correct gut reads often just come from 'this feels like what I'm used to from this player when bad'."

Sig and LoRab are great examples of why. People have preconceptions about something that is face value a scum-tell. I point to how those people do those things as town. It means that the entire case for why they are bad falls to bits. That's an important use of meta. A good use, too, because instead of using meta to hang someone, I'm pushing people to look deeper before declaring someone as bad. Sig and LoRab may well be bad, but the cases on them so far do look like cases against them when they are good.

What's holding you back?

Nothing

You said "[Meta]'s an overused tool that people often rely upon too heavily to their detriment."

I find your reads of sig and LoRab (among others) to be lazy and uninspiring. I think you're using meta, a tool that you described as overused, as a means to give a more definitive read. Additionally, I feel that I have to push to get a strong scumread from you, to which you respond that you're looking at voting me today.

Linki: Votes are changeable. I don't see the point in waiting, especially if you accidentally miss the deadline.

[Marmot]

Unvote MovingPictures07

Vote Golden



Vote for me Golden!

[Golden]

Oh, sorry.. I have both sig and LoRab as slight baddies. Why do you find these reads uninspired? Or did you just presume I have civ reads. Because you didn't ask, you just made massive assumptions.

The things you are trying to call my reads of sig and lorab, are me criticising the reasons for other people's reads. Yes, based on meta. A good use of meta. Do you think I'm wrong that sig looks scummy frequently when town? Do you think I'm wrong that LoRab doesn't normally share a lot of her reads? If so, why do you disagree with these things?

Your suspicions are bunk because you just listed a people who had a bit of heat without bothering to engage with any countercases.

I'm not going to accidentally miss he deadline. I don't feel any pressure to vote now, despite the fact votes are changeable. You are telling me why I can vote. My question is, why do you feel the need to get people to vote now. Does it bother you that I can express my suspicion of you clearly in the thread without voting?

You 'feel that you have to push to get a strong scumread'. I don't have any strong scumreads. Your pushing me won't make me have one. If I had one, I would say what it was.

You are a mild scumread, but you are still my top scumread.

linki - nah, I think I'll vote when I want to vote, thanks.

[Golden]

Lets just put my 'description of meta' in context, shall we? Before you keep saying that I'm the one who says it shouldn't be used.

It's funny you mention Talking Heads because that's the first game that showed me just how flawed meta perceptions can be and how easily they can be manipulated. They almost cost town the game. Since that game actually, I've had an increasing degree of aversion myself.

A note on meta.

It's an overused tool that people often rely upon too heavily to their detriment.

But it should not be entirely dismissed. It has its times and places. In the end, correct gut reads often just come from 'this feels like what I'm used to from this player when bad'.

MP talked about them being flaws and easily manipulated, and that he had an aversion to using them. My post was a direct response to this, with the intent of disagreeing with MP that meta should not be used.

You've turned that around into me saying meta shouldn't be used - which is, in fact, the exact opposite of what I was saying.

[Golden]

timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

nijuu: her Day 2 vote. She voted Scotty because other people were talking about him, not because she read him as bad.
MP: He claimed that my accusation against timmer based on timing is historically inaccurate, but could not come up with an example (these two things don't go together)
sig: Similar to nijuu, his Day 2 vote.

Ninja suspicion - factually incorrect

Trice: Seems like Epi vote was a placeholder at first, but morphed into a "real" vote (as in, one that stuck) after responding to people's questioning the train. I see his reasoning (Epi's lack of on-topic posts, frustration at the song gimmick, etc.) although I disagree with it. Appears like a genuine vote (I wanted to be more eloquent, but I'm running out of steam after a long day).

Wilgy: Errrrrr...why are people saying Scotty's vote is the most suspicious on this train? I get that Wilgy's a nut, but Wilgy offers literally no reasoning for his vote except #lynchepi. So, yeah, that first question is a genuine question. Answer it.

Scotty: From reading his posts on Days 0 and 1 (according to the headings), it appeared like he would vote one of his "gut-baddie" reads (JJJ, Sloonei, actually votes BWT as a changeable vote), but votes Epi. I see that he said vote "something that matters," which I assume is a vote somewhere that already had votes, and he didn't go with INH because...well, actually, I'm not sure why, more than Epi. Gave a bit of a vouch as far as INH's content, but said it could've been suspicious by trying to look good? Anyway, his Epi vote, as others have said, is pretty weird. However, he is helping insanified Golden currently, which looks helpful and civ to me, barring weirdness behind the scenes.

So, I suppose what I get from that is Trice's vote looks the most genuine, Wilgy's absolute nonsense (not helpful), and Scotty's disingenuous. Discuss.

MP suspicion - daft. I came up with an example immediately (LC hounding me about what I did in 17 minutes in Bullets Over Broadway). Why does MP need to come up with a different one? Especially when your Timmer suspicion is the most contrived thing that this game has seen (and is my primary reason for suspecting you) - you completely ignored everything else timmer had said and done.

Sig suspicion - apparently 'similar to ninja', but the ninja suspicion was wrong, and how similar was it?

It just felt like you pulled three names taking a little heat out of the air and said whatever you could think of.

[LoRab]

I will go ahead and vote now. Thanks for the nudge.

I'm away this weekend, btw. Should be able to pop on here and there, but irregularly. Just as a heads up.

[Golden]

I'm inherently suspicious of anyone trying to catch me in semantic loopholes, which is exactly what I think marmot is trying to do.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

I'm unclear on the difference you perceive between your Boomslang vote and MM's. Referencing the relevant material:

Spoiler: show

I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Marmot promoted a vote against Boomslang based upon the quotes I pulled, asserting the inconsistency of his handling of himself and timmer.

Spoiler: show

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for MM here if that is the case?

Not to mention I still don't get the case on timmer. Seems pretty civ to me including his logic.

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

Your initial post here indicates a similar perceived inconsistency -- that Boomslang's words should lead to an MM vote instead of a timmer vote.

What did you feel Marmot's Boomslang vote lacked which your vote did not lack?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

Why are you invoking WIFOM?

Because sometimes WIFOM is logical. There are circumstances where it is legitimately sensible, even necessary, to ask whether a baddie would be likely to do some certain thing or make some certain error. I think the notion that BWT goofed up with a read he expressed and then questioned from someone else over the course of a short time is dubious enough that it should be stated as such. I think a lot of people are just by nature afraid to allow their brains to enter any territory resembling WIFOM, but I am not among them.

I do think the inconsistency is worth exploring; I just don't think it's a clear-cut scum indicator or slip.

[birdwithteeth11]

Lorab re-read incoming.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

First of all, I said I didn't necessarily judge those who voted for him, not that I didn't want to look at anyone who mentioned him. 2 diffrences there: 1 is the meaning of the word necessarily. The other is that bandwagons are often formed by baddies who do not vote for the victim of the bandwagon. So, while people that voted in one direction might not be getting my eye, those aren't necessarily the people that were doing the manipulating. Also, again, "necessarily." I haven't had time yet to read back on those posts, to see where I might find suspicion. So, yes, I don't have a complete read, but I'm leaving room for there to be more of a read in the future.

I agree that it's possible for players to manipulate the thread toward a lynch without directly participating in it. The INH lynch is something you've talked about a few times without following up on though, so I don't know that I can do much with that. You've spent a lot of time lately answering Sloonei and I, so I will recommend you simply get to your hunting task and produce whatever you produce. I'll judge from there.

As I said before, Mad Max was a different set up. So, no, I didn't have a problem naming who I thought was civ in that game. In games where there are baddies outside of the mafia, I tend not to name who I think are civ unless I have reason to do so. And yes, my retort was sharp, but Sloonei's poking had been bothering me--it felt very passive aggressive and I don't respond well to that tactic in general. And to go from poking questions to dramatic In case I die I suspect LoRab suspicion I admit annoyed me. Especially remembering that it came from a player who also nearly got me lynched day 3 in Mad Max. So, yes, I was annoyed. I admit it. But that doesn't make me bad.

What advantage do you feel the baddies enjoy in a setup like this one (with a baddie team and a rogue) when civilians provide civilian reads on one another? How does that help their cause?

I was in a goofy mood and was just having fun and being silly. Also, I was being somewhat oblivious and may not have fully realized he was insanified at the time (see later posts which verify this). Read: I was a little bit buzzed. Also, that isn't sarcasm--banter, yes--sarcasm, no.

Golden himelf seems to have interpreted your words in a way more aligned with your explanation than my interpretation, so I won't press the issue.

I don't see it in any other way. He didn't even say he suspected me at all--then or any other time. And, it may not look like a civ responding to an unexplained vote to you, but it was exactly that. Sorry if my nonchalance bothers you.

I acknowledge that there's not much you can say in response to "that looks fake", so I don't know that this portion of our dialogue has much potential to progress.

Sorry you don't like it. Yes, it was suspcicion. And no, it's not a silly thing, either way. Either it's a civ not acting in the interests of the town. Or it's mafia, posting about whom mafia should kill--when in fact they are killing the opposite. I don't see it coming from a civ-friendly perspective, thus I find it suspicious. That is my chief concern, as it is the most suspicious thing I have seen this game, in my personal opinion.

No need to apologize. :P

The highlighted portion is a meaningful detail which lends some substance to your read. That's a decent thing. I'm less thrilled that it's the item in this game thread which perturbs you most of all; it seems like easy pickings.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

List of players who haven't posted yet today.

• Boomslang
  MovingPictures07 and his eerily related last post.
  nijuukyugou
  sig

Unvote timmer

Vote MovingPictures07 for now. Something feels off.

That would seem terribly transparent of MP. That essentially would mean he did this:

I sure hope any town silencer out there doesn't use that silencing power. *invites self-silence from Sleep deviously*

In this scenario is the post you're talking about actually a necessary component of the strategy you're assigning to him? What benefit does that provide MP in the execution of that maneuver?

[birdwithteeth11]

First post worth quoting:

I'm like 5 pages behind. Trying to catch up. Just wanted to let y'all know that I'm still here.

Hi, LoRab!

Curious to hear what thoughts you have when you get caught up.

Hi! For now at least, I'm skipping those 5 pages. I don't have the time or energy to go back--so if anything happened I need to know about, someone please let me know!!

I don't have much to say. The day 0/1 conversation has been interesting, but I'm not sure I have any conclusions from it. At least not strong ones. I think i'm still wrapping my brain around the game.

Day 0/1 doesn't give us much for where Lorab is. Other than she is behind, has given up trying to catch up, and will stick with more current events and going from there. But she doesn't have any reads yet of any kind.

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

And when asked by Sloonei about why she didn't like the case...

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

I am curious what kind of behavior is indicative of a "baddie" INH now though, Lorab.

Nevermind. She did state why.

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Because I didn't think he seemed bad and I nothing that was said about him made me think he was bad. I don't remember the particular points, but as I read through them, they didn't convince me that he was bad. I also read them with the eye of thinking that he was a player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched (see last game), so that probably colored my reading). But, basically, I didn't think he seemed bad, so I wouldn't have voted for him. What am I missing in your question?

She felt he behaved in such a way that it was easy for other players to manipulate him. Fair enough, given the hindsight of this case.

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

I can actually empathize with Lorab here to a certain degree. I think this post also paints her in a more positive light. The yellow part kind of makes me feel that way.

How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

I think it's a bit odd she assumes Scotty's vote is forced. I mean, I know it's the first time he mentioned her. But I'm not sure how you confirm or deny that one on an evidence basis. Unless Lorab knows something.

I think that some low posters insanified Golden and JJJ

Like I said, sometimes oblivious. Now it's obvious.

I hurt myself today
To see if I still feel
I focus on the pain
The only thing that's real

The needle tears a hole
The old familiar sting
Try to kill it all away
But I remember everything

I think that's a good guess as to who did it.

Of course, we now have the question of if they are a good insanifier or an evil insanifier. For the sake of balance, if there are 2, I'd venture a guess that there is one of each. Also possible that there's a mimicing role, that happened upon being able to mimic the insanifier.

Also, who hasn't posted yet?

First time she brings up A Person, her current vote for today.

Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

Can't really disagree with this. I had forgotten just how negative this makes AP look. Not to mention he has had an opportunity to respond to it and ignored it.

For what it's worth, I think MP is civ.

I also think he should take a deep breath and come back to the game.

I'm voting A Person. At least for now. If they come back and give a reason for their post advocating for killing high posters, then I may reconsider.

Voted for AP on Day 2. Had forgotten about that as well. At least Lorab is consistent!

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

The benefit being so that players say exactly what you're saying now.

I have seen baddies target teammates with insanification and silencing night 1 or 2, exactly for this reason--to make it seem like a teammate is not on that team. That said, I don't particularly suspect either you or JJJ at this moment.

I'm assuming for now that there are 2 different roles that insanified (we'll know that as time progresses) and that 1 is civ and 1 is not, because balance.

Suggests that of the 2 insanifiers, we have 1 that is good and 1 that is bad.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 32#p315932

Since it's a longer post, I'm just leaving the link. You can re-read it yourselves. But it's mostly Lorab responding to some questions directed at her from JJJ. I like a lot of her responses and they make me feel better about her. She expounds a lot on her feelings on Scotty's vote for her. As well as her brushing off the Sloonei vote against her. Sloonei definitely seems like he's been putting the screws to Lorab this game though.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 83#p315983

More responses. I am starting to get a bit more uncomfortable about Sloonei reading back on some of these though. Either Sloonei has blinders on or something else is going on.

I'll respond in greater length to JJJ later, but one quick point before I need to run. Yes, my strategy as a civ is different this game than it was in Mad Max--in that game, we were playing with a mafia team and no other baddies. In this game, there is a serial killer and an unknown player. So, the strategy is entirely different in terms of not helping baddies. In that game, the baddies knew that anyone not on their team was civ. That's not the case here. There's a difference in how I play in different set ups, that difference in particular.

I should point out that I disagree with Lorab's strategy, but I think it's just a difference in how we play the game. But I think this is the crux of Sloonei's argument on why Lorab is suspicious. Because she did not play this way in Mad Max as a civilian. But I think Lorab has given enough reason as to why she is playing this game differently.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 26#p316226

Another long one. But mostly explains her methodology and approach to the game. Again, I disagree with it, but that doesn't inherently make Lorab bad.

I'm still not caught up. 5 or so more pages to read.. I see JJJ has a little case breakdown that I skimmed. Eventually I'll get around to answering it.

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that. I have calmed my jets on a few people I had recently suspected. I'm actually feeling better about Golden, and Mp. I think BWT is still suspicious? Why? I forgot. But he said some stuff some some time ago that was phrased in a weird way that perked uo ym ears like Pluto. Sloon is on neutral ground. Slight mafia still on JJJ. I don't think he was faking his curse, I just think his curser was just unimaginative.

I'm way behind. Long day, may not get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. Blech my mafia time where did it go???

Indeed. But you haven't said anything about your vote one way or another. Are you able to say anything about your vote? I realize that yesterday you would likely not be able to say your vote was forced because of usual rules, but are you able to clarify today? Or do you have anything more to say about your vote?

If I had to vote now, it would be for A Person again.

Still asking Scotty for a response.

Also while I'm at it, Scotty, care to explain why you still find me suspicious? Because I'm still not entirely sure why you found me suspicious in the first place.

Her most recent post is her voting for AP again.

Well, that was actually a really insightful read. But I definitely feel a lot better about Lorab and would read her as town. The quantity might not be there, but the quality is there in spades. And I follow a lot of her trains of logic, even if I don't agree with all of them.

I do feel worse about one player in particular, and I am marking my vote there for the time being to try and get him to open up a bit more to us.

A Person

[Golden]

I think it's fair to say at this point that I have no active read of sloonei. Which is different, for me. Part of it might be his day 2 silence is leaving me with a disjointed view of his game.

[birdwithteeth11]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

I believe I just did this a few minutes ago. That pretty much covers the full extent of my intentions. I thought I gave a reasonable explanation as to why I was voting for Boomslang and did not think MM did.

I'm unclear on the difference you perceive between your Boomslang vote and MM's. Referencing the relevant material:

Spoiler: show

I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Marmot promoted a vote against Boomslang based upon the quotes I pulled, asserting the inconsistency of his handling of himself and timmer.

Spoiler: show

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for MM here if that is the case?

Not to mention I still don't get the case on timmer. Seems pretty civ to me including his logic.

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

Your initial post here indicates a similar perceived inconsistency -- that Boomslang's words should lead to an MM vote instead of a timmer vote.

What did you feel Marmot's Boomslang vote lacked which your vote did not lack?

At the time, I felt that my vote for Boomslang came with an explanation and a reason for why I voted for him: his previous positive notions of timmer, and then to turn around blindly and vote for timmer over MM because he felt timmer's death would yield the most info. I stated the only way that could be the case was if timmer and MM were teammates, and I felt that was a very risky proposition to take given the context at the time.

Whereas I thought MM's vote move was given without much if any reason as to why he was doing so.

[Marmot]

timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

nijuu: her Day 2 vote. She voted Scotty because other people were talking about him, not because she read him as bad.
MP: He claimed that my accusation against timmer based on timing is historically inaccurate, but could not come up with an example (these two things don't go together)
sig: Similar to nijuu, his Day 2 vote.

Ninja suspicion - factually incorrect

This is where nijuu actually placed her vote though.

Trice: Seems like Epi vote was a placeholder at first, but morphed into a "real" vote (as in, one that stuck) after responding to people's questioning the train. I see his reasoning (Epi's lack of on-topic posts, frustration at the song gimmick, etc.) although I disagree with it. Appears like a genuine vote (I wanted to be more eloquent, but I'm running out of steam after a long day).

Wilgy: Errrrrr...why are people saying Scotty's vote is the most suspicious on this train? I get that Wilgy's a nut, but Wilgy offers literally no reasoning for his vote except #lynchepi. So, yeah, that first question is a genuine question. Answer it.

Scotty: From reading his posts on Days 0 and 1 (according to the headings), it appeared like he would vote one of his "gut-baddie" reads (JJJ, Sloonei, actually votes BWT as a changeable vote), but votes Epi. I see that he said vote "something that matters," which I assume is a vote somewhere that already had votes, and he didn't go with INH because...well, actually, I'm not sure why, more than Epi. Gave a bit of a vouch as far as INH's content, but said it could've been suspicious by trying to look good? Anyway, his Epi vote, as others have said, is pretty weird. However, he is helping insanified Golden currently, which looks helpful and civ to me, barring weirdness behind the scenes.

So, I suppose what I get from that is Trice's vote looks the most genuine, Wilgy's absolute nonsense (not helpful), and Scotty's disingenuous. Discuss.

MP suspicion - daft. I came up with an example immediately (LC hounding me about what I did in 17 minutes in Bullets Over Broadway). Why does MP need to come up with a different one? Especially when your Timmer suspicion is the most contrived thing that this game has seen (and is my primary reason for suspecting you) - you completely ignored everything else timmer had said and done.

Sig suspicion - apparently 'similar to ninja', but the ninja suspicion was wrong, and how similar was it?

It just felt like you pulled three names taking a little heat out of the air and said whatever you could think of.

I'm not saying there is no instance of this. I accused MP because he called it historically inaccurate, while he himself couldn't offer an example.

Sig's was based on his final Day 2 vote, that being the similarity. How is my ninja suspicion wrong? Is she town?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Yeah, I'm conflicted. On one hand, A Person isn't evidently trying, short of asking the baddies to kill high posters which is actually the opposite of trying. On the other, is that indicative of him being bad? Or just unengaged? i don't like putting votes on people for acting weird, until that weirdness outweighs the cases in front of me.

He's definitely not engaged. I think the better question is "why isn't he engaged?"

Three options that I can see:

1) He's a civilian who is accustomed to playing in a brand of Syndicate Mafia from the pre-Economics era where games tended to move a little more slowly and conversation was engaged with a little less intensity. He doesn't feel like adjusting to this newer scene and is content enough to express his laziness brazenly as a contest to the style of play he is averse to.

2) He's a baddie who is accustomed to playing in a brand of Syndicate Mafia from the pre-Economics era where games tended to move a little more slowly and conversation was engaged with a little less intensity. He doesn't feel like adjusting to this newer scene and is content enough to express his laziness brazenly as a contest to the style of play he is averse to.

3) He's a baddie who was overwhelmed by the early pace of the game and decided to keep a low profile -- and now as the game has progressed he has felt a need to maintain that profile for the sake of consistency and filling the lurkbait role he's fallen into.

I am hesitant to give him too much credit for the possibility of #1 is that it can apply similarly from the other side (#2). I'll grant though that #2 would represent a careless approach that is less common in baddie team contexts where allies are known. That'd be a let down. #3 is at least a strategically logical notion, though it requires more of what feels like reaching (and it'd be a bit of a let down in its own right).

Having typed all that out, #1 actually feels the most sensible. It's all muddy because the dude has single digit posts, but it's something. I welcome other thoughts on this.

[Marmot]

List of players who haven't posted yet today.

• Boomslang
  MovingPictures07 and his eerily related last post.
  nijuukyugou
  sig

Unvote timmer

Vote MovingPictures07 for now. Something feels off.

That would seem terribly transparent of MP. That essentially would mean he did this:

I sure hope any town silencer out there doesn't use that silencing power. *invites self-silence from Sleep deviously*

In this scenario is the post you're talking about actually a necessary component of the strategy you're assigning to him? What benefit does that provide MP in the execution of that maneuver?

My main goal was to prod him into posting (since he hasn't posted yet).

[Golden]

So she posted her vote LATER than the iso I posted, but you are claiming she was just following others? How does that make sense? It's blatantly clear she suspected scotty on her own.

Although... I have to admit... I'm impressed you knew that. And it does make your suspicion seem more genuine.

Why does someone 'need to come up with an example' to be telling the truth? I'm terrible at remembering games and I personally find that 'give me an example' is the biggest cop out way out of the truth possible. How about this - give me an example of a time when you have seen a 'timing' argument like the one you levelled at timmer actually be correct? Can you give me one of those?

[Marmot]

I'm inherently suspicious of anyone trying to catch me in semantic loopholes, which is exactly what I think marmot is trying to do.

I guess I should townread you since this is your meta.

[Golden]

I'm inherently suspicious of anyone trying to catch me in semantic loopholes, which is exactly what I think marmot is trying to do.

I guess I should townread you since this is your meta.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Jay, what do you think of Golden?

I think he looks more town than not. I don't think it's terribly meaningful that he and I haven't agreed on all of our reads, and I think his stated reasons for disagreeing have generally been understandable. I also don't know that he'd be the type to call for/accept an insanification from a team mate on the first available day phase or use a first night kill on lynch bait like Vompatti. He's not my strongest town read, but I have no immediate issue with him.

[birdwithteeth11]

Yeah, I'm conflicted. On one hand, A Person isn't evidently trying, short of asking the baddies to kill high posters which is actually the opposite of trying. On the other, is that indicative of him being bad? Or just unengaged? i don't like putting votes on people for acting weird, until that weirdness outweighs the cases in front of me.

He's definitely not engaged. I think the better question is "why isn't he engaged?"

Three options that I can see:

1) He's a civilian who is accustomed to playing in a brand of Syndicate Mafia from the pre-Economics era where games tended to move a little more slowly and conversation was engaged with a little less intensity. He doesn't feel like adjusting to this newer scene and is content enough to express his laziness brazenly as a contest to the style of play he is averse to.

2) He's a baddie who is accustomed to playing in a brand of Syndicate Mafia from the pre-Economics era where games tended to move a little more slowly and conversation was engaged with a little less intensity. He doesn't feel like adjusting to this newer scene and is content enough to express his laziness brazenly as a contest to the style of play he is averse to.

3) He's a baddie who was overwhelmed by the early pace of the game and decided to keep a low profile -- and now as the game has progressed he has felt a need to maintain that profile for the sake of consistency and filling the lurkbait role he's fallen into.

I am hesitant to give him too much credit for the possibility of #1 is that it can apply similarly from the other side (#2). I'll grant though that #2 would represent a careless approach that is less common in baddie team contexts where allies are known. That'd be a let down. #3 is at least a strategically logical notion, though it requires more of what feels like reaching (and it'd be a bit of a let down in its own right).

Having typed all that out, #1 actually feels the most sensible. It's all muddy because the dude has single digit posts, but it's something. I welcome other thoughts on this.

I came up with similar ideas as well. But I voted for him already for 2 reasons:

1) I'm playing the Law of Averages here. Which would state there is a 66% chance AP is bad.

2) I want to see if it motivates him to come in here and give us some more substance.

Most of my reasoning is on #2 right now though. Because I do not have a super-definitive read on him yet. But re-reading Lorab actually made me feel better about placing a vote that way.

[timmer]

I've been largely been absent from playing this year. What was Economics, and how did it "change" the syndicate?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that.

What's your current read on LoRab?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I've been largely been absent from playing this year. What was Economics, and how did it "change" the syndicate?

A couple people named Sloonei and JJJ showed up.

[Marmot]

So she posted her vote LATER than the iso I posted, but you are claiming she was just following others? How does that make sense? It's blatantly clear she suspected scotty on her own.

Although... I have to admit... I'm impressed you knew that. And it does make your suspicion seem more genuine.

I told you that my suspicion was based on her vote-post. But I'll admit, I didn't see the other post that you pulled.

Why does someone 'need to come up with an example' to be telling the truth? I'm terrible at remembering games and I personally find that 'give me an example' is the biggest cop out way out of the truth possible. How about this - give me an example of a time when you have seen a 'timing' argument like the one you levelled at timmer actually be correct? Can you give me one of those?

I didn't make a sweeping generalization, MP did. And no I don't recall off the top of my head such a situation, one way or the other, another reason I asked him. Something doesn't need to have happened in the past for me to suspect them for it. That's a silly question.

Why is this the biggest cop out possible? What is the truth?

[timmer]

I've been civ and bad where I've kept a low profile, and both ways end the same; you get lynched. But when I've been civ, I've at least perked up a bit, to try. That doesn't mean AP is the same, but I fear the lynched part will come true.

I feel like I'd like to give him one more day to get going, but that said, I can't get my brain to find a main target yet.

Linki: lol I see... the two of you are def great to be in a game with, I like your logical breakdowns of situations, you seem to be better than me at starting from a neutral stance (I tend to see something and assume bad at first)

[Marmot]

Jay, what do you think of Golden?

I think he looks more town than not. I don't think it's terribly meaningful that he and I haven't agreed on all of our reads, and I think his stated reasons for disagreeing have generally been understandable. I also don't know that he'd be the type to call for/accept an insanification from a team mate on the first available day phase or use a first night kill on lynch bait like Vompatti. He's not my strongest town read, but I have no immediate issue with him.

Maybe that's my problem. There isn't much in mafia I won't do, and I might project that mindset onto other players.

You ask me why somebody would do or not do something. I counter with, that's exactly why. You question the usefulness of it, and therefore it is useful.

[Golden]

Linki: lol I see... the two of you are def great to be in a game with, I like your logical breakdowns of situations, you seem to be better than me at starting from a neutral stance (I tend to see something and assume bad at first)

Jay is being so self(-and-sloonei)-centred. Obviously the reason the syndicate changed after Economics was because everyone feared my baddie skills!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'll admit that I have no suspicions that are particularly strong, though. I feel like I have a lot more town reads than I do baddie reads.

Generally agreed. Even without a concerted effort to employ POE, I find myself doing it by accident. The suspicions I have voiced lately are my most substantive, but I don't boast the confidence in those reads I would like for a Day 3. Even still the town reads aren't extremely confident; I get the impression that reads are more likely to gravitate toward the gray center in a survival-oriented game. That mindset permeates the thread in a tangible way. I have only played in a couple like this though.

[Marmot]

Linki: lol I see... the two of you are def great to be in a game with, I like your logical breakdowns of situations, you seem to be better than me at starting from a neutral stance (I tend to see something and assume bad at first)

Jay is being so self(-and-sloonei)-centred. Obviously the reason the syndicate changed after Economics was because everyone feared my baddie skills!

And we have Turnip Head and I to thank for that, lynching civ-Golden Day 1, so he could sub back into the game as mafia.

That's probably not far from the truth. I end up scum-reading you in every game we play, even to the point where I vig-killed you in the Championship Scrimmage.

Linki: GTH reads time?

[Golden]

But I'll admit, I didn't see the other post that you pulled.

OK. I think it's very hard for me to draw the line in the sand between when you were 'chaos, not paying attention' marmot and when you were serious marmot. It feels like you are taking the game seriously now, but it felt like that with those reads.... at the time... but now that you are admitting that those reads were not fully informed, I can see more of where you are coming from.

linki - I'd be up for gth reads.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Jay, what do you think of Golden?

I think he looks more town than not. I don't think it's terribly meaningful that he and I haven't agreed on all of our reads, and I think his stated reasons for disagreeing have generally been understandable. I also don't know that he'd be the type to call for/accept an insanification from a team mate on the first available day phase or use a first night kill on lynch bait like Vompatti. He's not my strongest town read, but I have no immediate issue with him.

Maybe that's my problem. There isn't much in mafia I won't do, and I might project that mindset onto other players.

You ask me why somebody would do or not do something. I counter with, that's exactly why. You question the usefulness of it, and therefore it is useful.

I think that's valid but also limited. This is a matter of strategy that not everyone may agree with, but I tend to think a baddie night kill can accomplish more than just that kind of WIFOM. It just seems like a weak choice to me. Vompatti is God's gift to baddies if he survives long enough; I don't know why people would throw away that advantage. I have a feeling Golden is closer to my own mindset on that point than many others (along with similarly-brained players like Sloonei and MP).

That's something Golden can contest or affirm as he pleases.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Linki: GTH reads time?

Sure.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Linki: lol I see... the two of you are def great to be in a game with, I like your logical breakdowns of situations, you seem to be better than me at starting from a neutral stance (I tend to see something and assume bad at first)

Jay is being so self(-and-sloonei)-centred. Obviously the reason the syndicate changed after Economics was because everyone feared my baddie skills!

A MERE FOOTNOTE.