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

[birdwithteeth11]

Way to Characterize My Contributions

in a 50 page game you can only point to 3 counterexamples, my characterization stands completely

But still, with how much posting has already occurred in this game, I'm not sure that argument stands. Epig has been correct about 3 out of 3 mislynches here so far.

And from what I have seen in this night phase so far, it seems like he is finally starting to expound on some of his thoughts. So I am willing to listen.

[birdwithteeth11]

I Don't Have to Have an Alternative Mr. POE- it's Good Enough That I Tell You Who Not to Lynch and Why

I disagree. If you have a better idea of who we could have lynched at the time, why did you not state so? I still don't get that.

[birdwithteeth11]

Epig, all people want out of you, and I don't get why you don't get this, are some alternatives. I mean, I said just like you dI'd that many of the cases yesterday were problematic. But that's where it ended for you. You are stubbornly refusing to take the lead in finding better choices and until you start to, just saying that you were right is going to go nowhere.

Linki: your refusal to find baddies is discrediting you, man. Take some responsibility for your lack of finding bad guys and stop blaming everybody for not seeing you as the uber-civ you claim to be.

If You Find The Civilians, You Only Have Mafia Left Over and It Starts to Get Very Uncomfortable for Them

So wait....are you?....

Okay, I get it now. Stealing MP's strategy. :P

[birdwithteeth11]

And if finding alternatives = the people attacking you, it's another faIL. You tried that with me, as well. If you are fully civ and genuinely want to find badies, going after the people annoyed with your play is destined to not end well, imo.

That said, I am of course paying attention.

To be fair, he did give reasons for why he is suspicious of Trice and JJJ.

I do think he is taking PoE to an ultimate extreme if he is keeping his baddie reads minimal to null though.

[birdwithteeth11]

I'd like to know what others think of Scotty right now. Each time I look at the player list his name stands out loudly to me.

I kind of feel the same way about him as Dom. I think both have struggled to find their grounding in this game. You quote Dom's self-assessment as proof of this. I think Scotty's is a bit different, in the sense that every time he tries to catch up, he fails and falls further and further behind.

I read Scotty as bad earlier. And I do think a baddie could use the "not caught up" excuse for quite awhile before the ruse becomes apparent. But I do not feel like I am seeing that from Scotty yet.

I do feel like he never stated what he saw from me that made me think he was bad though. So I am curious if he does come back soon to know what that is.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Reviewing Sloonei's ISO:

Spoiler: show

Hi.

JJJ is bad.



If anyone wants me, I'll be listening to REM

Hi Scotty.

No. What's your beef?

No beef, mostly tofu

You see, I'm on a special diet of only civs and you aren't on the menu

What is your approach to this game right now?

I thought this post was reflective of a common Slooneian mode of questioning -- when someone is doing something peculiar but not necessarily evil (in this case, Scotty giving me unexplained shit on Day 0), he digs straight for the strategic mindset of that player to better gauge what relevance it holds to alignment if any. That's a nice thing.

Spoiler: show

A collection of posts where Jay expresses things in uncertain/tentative language:

I think INH is right that a cooperative PoE effort in a game where townies must survive to win is inherently challenged, because in games like this town reads are generally harder to come by. However, the only reason that's true is that townies are more hesitant to put forth a visible, vocal effort for fear of standing out and becoming kill targets. That problem is resolved if every townie puts forth a visible, vocal effort.

Maybe that's a pipe dream, but I would encourage the townies out there to still make a concerted effort to play for the town win condition as much as their own survival. To focus too much on survival ensures that the baddies benefit maximally from these rules as I would theorize they typically do. I think it's the #1 reason town won games so infrequently on this site until recently (as that rule has appeared less often).

Rico, please don't interpret this as a complaint. It's just advice.

I am townreading that highlighted bit. That sentiment is constructed in a manner that bluntly stated his beef; at face value, I believe him. Further, I like his last paragraph, because as a member of the mafia he could have easily used this conversation to derail or antagonize as a way to manipulate the thread, but he left it alone.

In summary, INH noted my declaration to use POE, noted a fair criticism of its approach in this game, then after engaging with me a bit further on it, clearly stated his beef with it, that he will be using a different method, and was willing to leave it at that. I see no nefarious avenue for the way he approached this situation, only a fellow member of the town sincerely expressing his concerns and approach to the game.

It's not much, but I think already the strategy conversation at least generated a potentially useful read. What do you think?

I think INH completely misinterpreted/misrepresented my perspective (I won't even be using much PoE myself in this game, he assumed the contrary based on I don't know what). That happens in every game we play together though so shrug. We seem to have some core inability to understand one another that has never ceased.

I think his stance on the issue suits his meta, which is a decent enough look so early in the game that there's nothing better to say.

That's fair, but I think you're somewhat missing the point that I'm making. Don't you agree that there is potential for a mafia INH to have engaged in that conversation in a more antagonistic or opportunistic manner? I don't see the avenue for it based on the way he approached it.

I know it's weak, but I feel like this is significant given how early we are in the game, and I want opinions on this. Am I reading too much into this or am I onto something?

I'm not sure what kind of opportunity you'd expect to be capitalized on here in the event of a baddie INH. Is there something about a discussion of PoE that incites or invites antagonism? I think INH responded to the mention of PoE as I'd always expect him to respond to it -- with disdain. You're right that he didn't turn it into some kind of eruption of a dialogue, but I don't know that that was ever likely in the first place regardless of alignment. It's just generic strategy chatter.

He's on meta so far. That's worth something even if it's weak.

Actually MP, your post count has already jumped to an obscene place. I'm not sure I've seen it quite like this since you started Transistor with 57 posts before the second-highest poster made it to #8.

You over-eager cuz you bad, m8?

Furthermore, I could say that this was a bit of a softball, Jay, fabricated to seem as though you care about uncovering my alignment, but with no actual value in determining that or in generating useful conversation.

What would you say in response to that?

I would say that it probably is a softball, or perhaps it's better described as a poo fling. That's the nature of Day 0. I'm more conscious of the specific point I made than the average player because I was on your baddie team in Transistor. It came to mind so I puked it into the thread. You had 30 posts and I was in second place with I think 8. That's a significant disparity that recalled the even more significant disparity in that other game.

I didn't see disdain from inh. He seemed to be fine with others using it, pointed out that it had a particular weakness in this game, and made it clear he wouldn't be using it. That's all perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, this was part of my point; as a member of the mafia, if he in reality feels so strongly against POE, he could have easily derailed the entire thread by responding in a more emotionally manipulative manner. Instead, he popped in, noticed a potential hole in my strategy, expressed his beefs, and then was basically like 'OK, you do you, I'll do me'. I would expect that a mafia INH might have been more tempted to respond more outrageously, or at least draw out the conversation more. He seemed intent to express his piece and then end it.

I guess I don't agree with this assertion. I don't think "emotional manipulation" is a typical circumstance in strategic dialogue regardless of alignment. Sometimes it gets heated when people don't understand each other like it did in Red vs. Blue, but that's an exception and not the rule in my experience (and in that game everyone involved minus Epi was town).

It's probably a small point of dissent that appears larger in a lengthy discussion, because I don't have a baddie read on INH. The only read-relevant thing I have to say is that he's on meta, and that's still a positive thing even if only weakly so.

I've spent like ten minutes looking at timmer's posts because they make me feel something, I just couldn't decide what.

A) His curious exploration of PoE with MP reflects a genuine interest in a method he hasn't considered, and his decision to forego it for now develops naturally from his stated concerns. That'd be nice.

B) He took the opportunity to discuss strategic matters without really thinking about their merits for his own sake. It creates posts in his ISO and establishes a rapport with an active contributor. That'd be less than nice.

Having typed both out now I feel like A) is more reasonable. So that's nice for timmer.

I think Sloonei missed important context in this rundown of posts from me that bugged him (primarily in the origin and nature of the INH-related dialogue I was having with MP). He did suggest on a couple occasions that he wasn't up to the task of keeping up with the early activity in the thread, so that could be forgiven to an extent. I'm also not sure Sloonei's go-to baddie move on Day 0/1 would be "get in a fight with Jay" since he and I tend to be more cooperative than not when we're both town -- to throw a wrench in that immediately would be an unexpected albeit clever tactic.

He and I talked about this at length at the time and I didn't take issue with his explanations. I don't now.

Spoiler: show

Jay, can you give me a rainbow? I'd like a rainbow.

How about gun to heads? That'd be more useful to me right now.

A Person -- bad
Boomslang -- bad
LoRab -- bad
Scotty -- bad
sig -- bad

I like these baddies and my own GTH scum team might look similar right now, so that's good. Boomslang has given me a couple of pings, and nothing about LoRab's small sample of posts has carried over those Super Strong Town vibes that just radiated from everything she did in Mad Max. Scotty has had a fair amount of suspicion brought against him which I am intrigued by. A Person hasn't said a whole lot and I can pick up some lurker scum vibes in there. sig's done nothing to catch my eye, though.

I have nothing in particular to say about this, I'm just putting it here for my own reference as I continue to monitor reads progression.

Spoiler: show

I reread boomslang and I think I got someone else's pings mixed up with him. He seems alright.

He abandoned one of those reads abruptly. At face value I don't think this looks like a backtrack, since his prior stated pings on Boomslang were undefined.

Spoiler: show

This trio of posts from birdwithteeth intrigues me:

I lost interest after reading PoE 3 times

JJJ and MP, are you teammates again?

I don't use POE myself that much if at all, but I do find it an interesting strategy and, while not perfect, can be effective in certain situations.

What makes you think they're teammates? Just because they have similar feelings on certain players, albeit with slight disagreements on other opinions? Because I have null reads on both so far.

Linki @MP - idk. I think it's the PoE discussion along with your mannerisms. Declaring PoE as your playstyle gives you a means to stick to something and have at least have that method of play be true. Your mannerisms make it hard to read you in general.

While I can see the argument for the first part, I disagree very much with the bolded. Since I started playing mafia, I think MP's mannerisms have changed considerably. I used to be able to tell much more quickly in games if he was civ or bad. But I think he has evolved and adapted well enough that he's become a much more difficult read, regardless of playstyle and mannerisms.

That being said, there are some thing he is more likely to do if he is civ vs. bad and vice-versa...

That's exactly what a baddie would say.

Eh, I guess it was the mannerisms were just subject of my thoughts at the moment, but you are correct. This defined PoE playstyle is what has my feathers rustled. Your argument that it produces content doesn't settle my stomachache either as I know you have the potential to out tons of posts as a baddie just as you do while civvie.

Sooooo....you feel his defined playstyle and him stating so bothers you, but then say it isn't indicative-alignment right afterwards?

I thought you were trying to make your mind up on something. Are you sure you aren't just trying to stir the pot early on?

All three posts are responses to DrWilgy about MP. In all three he is either vaguely defensive of MP or vaguely critical of Wilgy, or both. BWT has also been very wishy-washy with regards to Edgar Allan Poe all game long with posts like this one where he expresses skepticism of the strategy but does not condemn it or MP at all.
birdwithteeth, how are you reading Wilgy right now? How are you reading MP? What compelled you to respond to these posts in this way?

Others, how do you feel about these posts?

He had previously placed a vote on BWT and stated his intent to explore that read, and this is the product. I think he exhibits the proper mindset in that his suspicions are stated without restrictive language, and his questions stand real chances of shedding light on his concerns in a meaningful way. I also appreciate that he was trying to lead from the front by promoting his suspicion vocally and seeking feedback.

Spoiler: show

General thoughts:

I can get on board with this INH wagon. I've been warming up to the idea of lynching him today but, as always, I'd like to be able to ask him some more questions before doing that. I also trust the members of the wagon against him.

I fully intend to move my vote off of BWT. His content since I put my vote on him has looked good, and I thought his answers to my questions (about his treatment of Wilgy/MP earlier) were consistent with a reasonable townie mindset.

I can see the case against Scotty and it is not nonsense to me, but I don't feel tremendous about it. Perhaps it's just a personal hang up. I feel like Scotty gets lynched on Day 1 in every game and that's a bummer.

I'm not on board with the sig case. I can't validate it, but I feel like I can vaguely recall him looking for mentions of his name in the thread before anything else in past games. Plus, I don't think that's a totally unreasonable thing to do, even if it's something he's never done before. Self-defense is one of the easiest ways to get involved in the game, and if a player is short on time but wants to make a contribution, being mindful of what others are saying about oneself is a good way to do that.

I agree with Jay's assessment of Epi. He doesn't half-ass a scum game. His gimmick in this game does not strike me as anything shady.

The Marmot is putting wine glasses in front of all of us as he normally does. I'm skeptical but not in any hurry to lynch him.

Putting my vote on Vompatti for now because that's the equivalent of a placeholder. I'm leaning toward ultimately voting for INH, but I don't like giving anyone a big lead in the poll before the final hour.

Yellow: In the end Sloonei joined the INH wagon, and this represents the start of that (not the actual vote, but his expression of interest). I'll follow the progressions given the questions he pledged to ask.

Orange: I think I overlooked this in my compilation of Vompatti-related content. This doesn't really alarm me, because if they're both bad this wouldn't have any value as a distancing maneuver. Vompatti wasn't getting lynched and Sloonei acknowledged it was temporary. It looks more like a genuine "placeholder" as he described it.

Otherwise this post also shows progressions in some of the reads I highlighted earlier. He maintained some degree of concern with Scotty, but not with sig or BWT. The movement of his reads appears natural to me.

Spoiler: show

Epi is way more town than INH. For instance, he is currently arguing against the strongest bandwagon competing against his own. Why would scum Epignosis be calling us dinguses for lynching somebody that's not him right now?

I moved my vote to INH because the drive-bys seem to be coming in now.

Sloonei ended up moving his vote without the questioning. His stated reason appears logical though; he saw to prevailing wagons and picked the one he felt more strongly about. That's what I'd expect from Sloonei.

Spoiler: show

CFD on the Doctor, anyone?

I could conceivably go for any of Scotty, INH, or Wilgy right now, but none of them are here so I'm inclined to just stick with INH. Blindside lynching an absentee is the worst, even if they flip bad.

Wilgy, get in here so I can lynch you!

He toyed with the idea of moving his vote or a CFD, but elected against it. We know Wilgy was town too so that doesn't mean much to me.

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.

If did "just ask." I was trying to get to the bottom of what was my issue. And I have to try to see your posts through all possible lenses. That is how this game works, I think. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're town, but I saw an angle to prod at you from and I took it. I don't find this particular line of defense totally inspiring, unfortunately. Your motivation for sharing other opinions is the same as it always is. Again, I'm not definitively stating that you are bad, just bringing to light something that interested me on Night 1.
It looked to me like you could possibly be putting distance between yourself and INH for the sake of giving a safe reason without substantiating it. I also acknowledge that the thoughts you gave could be genuine ones.

This is not a strong enough point to justify a (final) vote on you, though, so I'd like to get more reads out of you. Your Day 2 participation centered primarily around discussing the possibility/likelihood that we have 1 town insanifier and 1 scum one, and some suspicion against A Person for disliking all the noise in this thread. I'd like to know who else you read as good or bad, please & thank you.

The suspicion that has stuck with Sloonei while his rate of contribution has dropped as been LoRab. He and I have been in a bit of a mindmeld on this one. It follows sensibly that he'd be paying her close attention given his initial suspicions (especially given the important role they both played in the end of Mad Max), and I think his beefs have been fair.

Spoiler: show

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

I do not see this as indicative of anything. By the looks of it, timmer is only able to play in short windows. That is fine. One of his windows happens to have coincided roughly with somebody prodding him. Nothing about that is alarming to me.

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.

I'll have to look at niju myself before I can comment. I agree with MP RE: your timmer suspicion. I don't know that I'd make the claim that it's "historically inaccurate" because I'm not prepared to substantiate such a claim, but, as I just said above, I've got no reason to buy into your reason for suspecting timmer.
I think sig looked like a player who was trying to place a meaningful vote at the end of Day 2. He was not in an ideal situation and I'd like to hear more complete thoughts out of him, but I don't think he looked terrible yesterday. I don't think he looked great either.

Epignosis: I feel good about him

Okay. Why?

A Person: I like Epignosis's logic, in that AP would prefer to off a talkative player. Also, if I recall correctly, despite AP not posting much in thread, he is a pretty consistent presence in chatzy.

What about the argument that there would be two other baddies making decisions behind the scenes? A Person does strike me as the easy lynch target in the thread, though, and I'm usually hesitant to make a big push against those types of players. That said, he needs to start saying more stuff soon.

Boomslang: I've changed my mind about him

Okay. Why?

Dom: I like his work this game. He's not limiting himself to one-word questions and answers, but engaging with people (myself included) at length.

I dig it, I haven't got any bad vibes from Dom yet (not that I've looked closely). Last game (Mad Max) he WAS doing that one-word question and answer thing, though, and he ended up being town. So I wouldn't make an alignment read based on whether or not that tendency is present.

Sloonei, ever the incessant, infuriating prodster.

~~~

That's enough. In this post history I see a player starting the game with a decent vigor and approaching the thread from a reasonable and productive direction. His contributions have slowed considerably, but that doesn't bother me. It's happened before with Sloonei. I don't see a lot of cause for suspicion here.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'd like to know what others think of Scotty right now. Each time I look at the player list his name stands out loudly to me.

I kind of feel the same way about him as Dom. I think both have struggled to find their grounding in this game. You quote Dom's self-assessment as proof of this. I think Scotty's is a bit different, in the sense that every time he tries to catch up, he fails and falls further and further behind.

I read Scotty as bad earlier. And I do think a baddie could use the "not caught up" excuse for quite awhile before the ruse becomes apparent. But I do not feel like I am seeing that from Scotty yet.

I do feel like he never stated what he saw from me that made me think he was bad though. So I am curious if he does come back soon to know what that is.

I see the difference between Dom and Scotty this way: Dom has struggled to find his grounding as you say, but not for lack of trying. His time in the thread has been limited to shorter stretches, but when he's been here he has seemed to try to push things in some direction or another. He states clear reads, he hurls clear accusations, and he doesn't seemed bothered by the consequences. That's a nice thing. Scotty's appearances however have appeared more lifeless, like he has given up on making use of himself just because he hasn't read every post. That follows what I perceive to be a suspicious post history before his time constraints tightened.

[birdwithteeth11]

trice -- He wasn't as hard on Vompatti for perceived irrelevant content as he was on others (Epi and A Person). He called him a spambot and left it at that. That's not ideal.

That's because that's how vompatti has always been on every website as long as I can remember

knowing now that rico is putting cause of death in host posts instead of just ?????????? for night kills, and that Sleep NK'd golden instead of Moya, it seems rather likely that vomps actually was Moya. I think if we determine that nobody is silenced today it would confirm it

I agree with this. If everybody posts today, I think we can clearly rule that Vompatti was Moya.

Also, I admire JJJ's attempt to try to read into Vomps interactions. Because I wouldn't have been able to gain much from it myself. But I think in-thread evidence of everybody being able to talk today would be the only thing that could sway me one way or another.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

LoRab has started to provide something a little more substantive, but I'd like to see more. One-line reads on Scotty and Epignosis are a start.

Scotty remains a suspect.

I don't like the way trice has handled this Day 4.

I need to look more thoroughly at MP and Marmot. The former has coasted after an explosive start and needs scrutiny. The latter I have given credit for momentary inspirations which need to be qualified by a better review.

We're approaching the final stretch of the phase, so I hope we can start getting this thread moving more. As of right now I'm in line to be lynched, and that sucks. I want to see dialogue engaged in here from everyone.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

trice -- He wasn't as hard on Vompatti for perceived irrelevant content as he was on others (Epi and A Person). He called him a spambot and left it at that. That's not ideal.

That's because that's how vompatti has always been on every website as long as I can remember

knowing now that rico is putting cause of death in host posts instead of just ?????????? for night kills, and that Sleep NK'd golden instead of Moya, it seems rather likely that vomps actually was Moya. I think if we determine that nobody is silenced today it would confirm it

I agree with this. If everybody posts today, I think we can clearly rule that Vompatti was Moya.

I'm not sure I follow this. The Sleep role states that he/she cannot use the silence ability and kill on the same night. Rico's kill post identifies Sleep as one of the killers. This should mean that regardless of whether everyone posts today, Sleep couldn't have silenced anyone. Otherwise Rico falsified his own role description or host post.

[Boomslang]

Checking in now to add evidence to the Vomps-as-Moya train. I agree with JJJ that trice has not looked good today at all. His exchanges with Epi in particular have struck me as misleading; see below.

The Tricycle Could Interact With Me in One of Several Ways- He Could Ask Me to Clarify Something, Expound Upon Something, Offer Alternative Explanations for My Observations, or Disagree With Me for His Own Reasons...Instead His Activity is to Outright Discredit Me, and if He's a Civilian, There is No Good Reason for Him to Do That Unless He's Convinced I'm Bad

But I have several times, you ignore most of them because it would require acting like a good player

You Did Not Engage Me About INH Day 1 (You Voted Me to Punish Me), Day 2 You Did Give an Alternative About AP, but it Hinged on Two Very Specific "If" Statements, Your Theory About Boomslang Was Equally Far-Fetched and Could Literally Apply to Anybody Making Any Vote

I also didn't vote for INH so I don't know what your point is, and no, my theory on boomslang could not have applied to literally anybody making any vote because boomslang was the only person that day voting for a person he supposedly believed was good

Name your three most likely baddies, off the top of your head.

I Don't Have Three Because That's Not the Way I'm Approaching This

more like "that would require naming myself and my 2 baddie teammates"

Note that first quote. In the first point, Epi's not saying trice voted for INH; he's saying he voted for Epi. Trice doesn't address the second point. The third point is misleading, because I had no way to know for sure that timmer wouldn't get lynched. I just suspected it strongly.

And the second quote is just petty.
*votes Trice*

[Marmot]

LoRab has started to provide something a little more substantive, but I'd like to see more. One-line reads on Scotty and Epignosis are a start.

Scotty remains a suspect.

I don't like the way trice has handled this Day 4.

I need to look more thoroughly at MP and Marmot. The former has coasted after an explosive start and needs scrutiny. The latter I have given credit for momentary inspirations which need to be qualified by a better review.

We're approaching the final stretch of the phase, so I hope we can start getting this thread moving more. As of right now I'm in line to be lynched, and that sucks. I want to see dialogue engaged in here from everyone.

The sad mafioso...

I long for a world where crimes don't go unpunished.

[birdwithteeth11]

Sig: rico was brought over from progarchives (not a mafia website) a few years ago by MP, same as me, epignosis, BWT, and A Person

Golden targeted by mafia twice in 3 nights, seems they didn't like what he's been saying.

This Fellow [JJJ -ed] is Not a Civilian

I did not like his reasons for being against the Marmot vote. He broke the tie, and it amounted to him claiming that MP and I only suspected him because he suspected us, which was chronologically inaccurate. It was almost like a brush aside.

I could see a Marmot/Jay team. Heck, I could see a Marmot/Jay/Dom team.

Or maybe Marmot is an innocent bystander.

In any event, epi, I agree about Jay. He worries me. I feel like there is a lack of fire in his opinions. His whole game feels - clockwork, like a man calculating the impact of each post. I can't describe it any other way. He's always bothered me a little but in this lynch it felt much stronger than just tinfoil.

I could see him being NK'd once as a possible misdirect kill, but both mafia and SK trying to kill him implies they were uncomfortable with his reads

Also as per my earlier theory, if one of the insanifiers is civ then that player at least thinks JJJ is bad. I wonder if the role also has an info-getting element? As me and MP have both said this game, civ insanifier use could be reckless if you end up removing teammates' ability to communicate

biggest change in Golden's theories over the course of day 3 was JJJ from Moderate Town & less likely than sloonei to be bad, to worried about JJJ

As much as I was enjoying the slugfest with epignosis, which I will surely resume when he's un-insanified, I would like to know what others think about this as it's the direction I'm looking most right now

I mean, it's certainly possible. I think mafia primarily makes 1 of 2 types of kills:

1) They kill players who do not make any sense i.e. untraceable kills

2) They kill to steer the thread, either because they do not like what someone is saying or they are trying to discredit someone.

I think Golden's death firmly falls with Option #2. The questions I have at this point is: Are JJJ and Marmot bad? And if one of them is bad, what is the possibility they are teammates?

I thought I was figuring some stuff out, and that the Golden death threw a wrench into some of my thoughts. But I'm starting to think his death might be pushing us in the right direction for finding baddies.

[birdwithteeth11]

So N1 Vomp died, we see nothing from him
N2 no death
N3 Golden being killed by Sleep and the SK

So one theory is that the SK was the target N2 and being targeted for Nightkilling activated his power
Mafia/SK missed the kill N2
Kill was blocked

N1 is tricky we have no data on who killed Vomp or his role, so he could in theory have been Moya killed by the SK, I find this to be unlikely.


A Person
Wilgy
INH

are all dead, there is no secret near Moya, however Mladic is one big secret. If we think there was shenanigans I'd bet it was caused by him. Here is the issue though we have no proof whatsoever unless one of these three roles flip again to know if there is a seemer like role. I do think we can gather that we're one mafia down, but who it is we have no clue.

sig, could you clarify why you believe it's unlikely Vompatti was Moya?

I forgot the civvie power that can potential kill and thought it was highly unlikely that Vomp was killed by the Serial killer night 1, who also was able to hit a mafia member. The odds seemed very small. However, if it was the civ role it would explain why the kill wasn't published and it would make sense for a civ to check him for his approval of killing highposters. However, it is still slightly unlikely.

There's so many secrets in this game that I am willing to entertain this thought. But for me, it really comes down to if we have anyone who is silenced or not.

Given Vomps' kill wasn't published but Golden's was, no silenced players would certainly indicate Vomps was Moya.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I thought I was figuring some stuff out, and that the Golden death threw a wrench into some of my thoughts. But I'm starting to think his death might be pushing us in the right direction for finding baddies.

What do you mean by this exactly? What stuff were you figuring out, and how did Golden's death wrench up your perspective?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

The sad mafioso...

I long for a world where crimes don't go unpunished.

I don't know what you mean. You could probably use quotes to clarify your meaning.

[birdwithteeth11]

Dom posting the same way I'm criticizing JJJ and epignosis for - deliberately misleading when not outright lies in their accusations. Wouldn't be surprised if all three are bad, civvies can and do play honest the way virtually everybody else has been

Well I think that outcome is unlikely because right now, I'm running with the assumption that Vomps is Moya (unless we get 1 player who doesn't post today, in which case it is up in the air). Unless you think 1 of these 3 is the indy role.

So if we go with the assumption that we have 2 baddies and the indy is still alive, which of these 3 would you think is most likely to be the indy role and why?

Linki: I was starting to think that the possibility of there being a baddie or two between Golden, yourself, and MP was likely. Given his death and the fact it specifically states that 2 baddies were involved in his death, I am willing to consider my possibility debunked.

Plus I just read all of Night 3 this morning so that's all swirling around in my mind and hasn't really cleared up much yet. Hopefully as the day goes on I will have more coherent thoughts on it. Because I feel like I read a lot of civ on civ action there.

[Marmot]

The sad mafioso...

I long for a world where crimes don't go unpunished.

I don't know what you mean. You could probably use quotes to clarify your meaning.

I don't need quotes to see the hate in your eyes.

Tremble in fear you jagged fiend! The marmots are coming!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

The sad mafioso...

I long for a world where crimes don't go unpunished.

I don't know what you mean. You could probably use quotes to clarify your meaning.

I don't need quotes to see the hate in your eyes.

Tremble in fear you jagged fiend! The marmots are coming!

I need quotes to know what you're talking about. I'll just start reviewing you now.

[birdwithteeth11]

I'd like to know what others think of Scotty right now. Each time I look at the player list his name stands out loudly to me.

I kind of feel the same way about him as Dom. I think both have struggled to find their grounding in this game. You quote Dom's self-assessment as proof of this. I think Scotty's is a bit different, in the sense that every time he tries to catch up, he fails and falls further and further behind.

I read Scotty as bad earlier. And I do think a baddie could use the "not caught up" excuse for quite awhile before the ruse becomes apparent. But I do not feel like I am seeing that from Scotty yet.

I do feel like he never stated what he saw from me that made me think he was bad though. So I am curious if he does come back soon to know what that is.

I see the difference between Dom and Scotty this way: Dom has struggled to find his grounding as you say, but not for lack of trying. His time in the thread has been limited to shorter stretches, but when he's been here he has seemed to try to push things in some direction or another. He states clear reads, he hurls clear accusations, and he doesn't seemed bothered by the consequences. That's a nice thing. Scotty's appearances however have appeared more lifeless, like he has given up on making use of himself just because he hasn't read every post. That follows what I perceive to be a suspicious post history before his time constraints tightened.

I agree about Dom. He is at least trying to contribute to discussion, and is doing his never-ending prodding in regards to things he does not like and does not care if he gets heat for it or not.

Scotty just seems distant period. And like I said, the "not caught up" excuse can only go so far for so long before I start to see it develop into "you can't lynch me because I don't know what's going on".

So of the two, I definitely feel worse about Scotty right now. But it's more a ping rather than a gut feel.

[birdwithteeth11]

trice -- He wasn't as hard on Vompatti for perceived irrelevant content as he was on others (Epi and A Person). He called him a spambot and left it at that. That's not ideal.

That's because that's how vompatti has always been on every website as long as I can remember

knowing now that rico is putting cause of death in host posts instead of just ?????????? for night kills, and that Sleep NK'd golden instead of Moya, it seems rather likely that vomps actually was Moya. I think if we determine that nobody is silenced today it would confirm it

I agree with this. If everybody posts today, I think we can clearly rule that Vompatti was Moya.

I'm not sure I follow this. The Sleep role states that he/she cannot use the silence ability and kill on the same night. Rico's kill post identifies Sleep as one of the killers. This should mean that regardless of whether everyone posts today, Sleep couldn't have silenced anyone. Otherwise Rico falsified his own role description or host post.

Yeah I went back and looked and I had the baddies' abilities mixed up there.

Still though, I think we can certainly gleam info about Vompatti given that his killers were not made public, but Golden's were. And that leads me to believe that Vomps was not good.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

ISOing the Marmot

Spoiler: show

Vote JaggedJimmyJay because Sloondog's got the right idea!

MPJay,

To answer you both at once, I haven't read much of the game before the last 20 posts or so. I just looked at the poll and followed Sloonei's vote.

Jay is confirmed scum.

I'm concerned that Jay is bad. The possibility is very concerning.

Jay, what would you do with yourself if you were mafia?

Marmot: right now I am arguably under the most pressure in the thread. I would assert that this alone is reason to doubt that your vote is truly just a random goofball "I'll follow Sloonei" maneuver.

Couple it with the fact that it was you he voted for, and you have my entire reason right there.

So you have in fact read my case?

Nope, and I've pointed that out already.

Anything else I can help you with?

Linki: you're a sexy one Ms Sloonei.

I took a fair share of crap on Day 0/1, and Marmot gleefully took part. He spent multiple posts on that pursuit before admitting his vote was essentially arbitrary. In that regard I could assert he was trying to look like a goofy Marmot instead of simply being one, and the effort wouldn't be ideal.

Spoiler: show

What if I told you that this content contest contends continental consent?

Regardless, I'm content.

You should vote inh with me. I hear you are pretty into the actions more than the words, and I did actually vote for him.

Sold!

Unvote JaggedJimmyJay

Vote insertname

He was equally willing to vote INH. His personal investment was minimal.

Spoiler: show

My first ping of the day.

Timmer hadn't posted for about 24 hours

Boomslang asks timmer a question.

Timmer posts a mere 10 minutes later.

Unvote whoever I voted (on my phone, can't remember)

Vote Boomslang for now.

The progression from accusation to vote seems backwards here, as has been discussed already.

Spoiler: show

You recalling that Marmot post inspires a new question.

Marmot: it looks like you were shading timmer for appearing at the convenient moment of being mentioned, but you voted for Boomslang. Why?

I didn't think about it that way, also I'm posting from phone then and now.

But you offer good reason.

Unvote Boomslang

Vote timmer

He corrected that here. In this and subsequent posts, he has blamed usage of his phone and also his suspicion that they were team mates for this. Looking back, I don't really think the initial "error" was such a big deal -- but that he corrected it at my prod in this way bears some appearance of a backtrack.

Spoiler: show

Question for the masses.

I make arbitrary and nonsensical votes, and nobody gives a shit.

I catch something I find suspicious and vote based on that, and people do give a shit.

For those of you whose read of me matches up with these statements, why is it so? I don't understand.

A sort of emotional plea in response to getting crap for his timmer/Boomslang thing. The logic of this plea is generally sound -- it's unusual for a player to be forgiven for "nonsensical" votes while being disparaged for "serious" votes. I would ask, however, why Marmot expects different. This is a reputation he has deliberately cultivated himself.

Spoiler: show

I'ma voting timmer for now.

Vote timmer!

He stayed with that line of suspicion on Day 2, lamenting that he didn't have time to investigate the game more thoroughly.

Spoiler: show

You guys call it random chaos marmot.

I'm serious about the timmer/Boomslang thing. Wish I had more time to chat though, but I've only been able to skim a bit.

I didn't say it was chaotic. I just don't find any value in timing accusations; I historically find them to be too inaccurate. When you get a chance, I'd be happy to hear your elaboration and/or what you're talking about re: Russ in Talking Heads.

I never responded to this post. Oops!

In Talking Heads, Russ popped in with his first post saying "Hey guys, sorry I'm late. I'm busy, but I'm just posting because the host warned me to not not post". I accused him of having BTSC, as that's where his potential warning came from. I don't remember if that was the case at all, but he did flip mafia. It's a little different than this one.



If you find this timing thing to be historically inaccurate, can you give me an example or two of someone else using a similar accusation and being wrong?

I did send him a text saying the game had started and detailing the punishment for non-voters since he was particularly busy RL during that game, so perhaps that's what he's referring to and it was a true statement. I don't know though.

I don't have the time to do that any time before EoD. I cannot even recall any games in which these kinds of accusations occur. I'll consider it though if you really think that'd be the wisest use of my time.

Your point was that it is historically inaccurate. A claim like that should have some evidence to back it up. If anyone else has a good example, I'd like to see it.

I wish I was more available to discuss it when you did have time, but that's not the case unfortunately.

I don't fault Marmot for requesting examples in this dialogue with MP. I'm often one to make the same request when met with what I perceive to be a dubious assertion. The request itself is fair.

Spoiler: show

Damn, this deadline came up fast (only 5 hours away).

The three players I'd vote for today are timmer, Boomslang, and Sockface.

Who else is cooking?

Why me?

Because you disputed my accusation without providing any evidence.

You're not number 1 on my list, but you're on it. In your defense, I didn't ask until just now.


Epignosis offers a good reason to not vote for APerson, so I won't be going that way today.

I am less thrilled, however, that he turned that request for an example into making MP one of his top three scum reads. To make the request isn't inherently a problem, but to be so demanding of a conclusive answer is a little much. It's a very specific thing to expect MP to go dig up in some undefined game.

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 pushed for a Boomslang vote on Day 2, citing the quotes I pulled as a/the reason why. At the time of his vote I believe A Person was the prevailing wagon. The DrWilgy wagon appeared soon after, and Marmot stayed put. Boomslang's alignment is unknown, but it's worth note that Marmot stayed put instead of joining either of the mislynch counterwagons.

Spoiler: show

Three players were on the wagons for each of the players lynched thus far. These same three players have the highest post counts: MovingPictures, Golden, and JaggedJimmyJay.

Discuss.

Shade thrown at MP, Golden, and I without a personal stance stated.

Spoiler: show

nijuukyugou, both of your votes on the first two days have landed on outlier wagons which were unlikely to develop into lynches.

I disagree with this assessment on both accounts.

Okay. What is your read on the ninja?

I have a slight scum-read based on her Day 2 vote.

Day 1, she voted you to put you at 2 votes. inh had 4 votes and timmer had 2.

Day 2, she voted Scotty because players were talking about him, but not voting him. If I recall, she wasn't that suspicious of him herself, but voted him because "he was being talked about but not voted for".


Why do you think neither of those two options would have developed into a lynch?

This exchange is a bit bizarre. I stated a suspicion I had of ninja, and Marmot disagreed. Only at my ensuing prompt though did he clarify that he also found her suspicious, even if for different reasons. He defended her and accused her in the space of a couple posts. I don't know what that means if anything, but I'll take note.

Spoiler: show

RIP Wilgy, and what a crazy Day 2.

I am more inclined to agree with Epignosis on the matter of Boomslang. I think there's a logical problem with his timmer vote that he should talk about, but there's the rub. When I look at the Boomslang controversy, my judgment veers toward that matter of logic -- is it truly damning for a player to make a logical misstep, and which alignment is more proned to making those? I don't know that there's a reliable correlation between being bad and being illogical. If anything there may be a negative correlation.

Boomslang, at your earliest convenience please discuss your current reads on timmer and MM, and describe where your head was at when you made your last post on Day 2.

Honestly, my vote was a logical misstep. "Where my head was at" was a place of sheer panic/preoccupation; I'd just come off a five-hour internship block, was about to head on an hour drive to an hour-plus-long job interview (that I'd just landed the day before and stayed up late preparing for), and at the time was changing into a suit. I didn't have the time or mental capacity to think clearly about my post or vote. I voted timmer out of some fuzzy train of thought relating him, MM, and me and wanting to see what happened after that vote. I seriously doubted that timmer would actually get lynched in the phase. You can believe me or not for this explanation; unlike Hillary Clinton, I can post time-stamped emails if you want them.

That being said, I think we can still gain some info from the debacle. MM immediately abandoning his timmer vote to vote me looks bad. If he truly believed in the timmer case, why would he abandon it instead of trying to recruit more people to the vote? Timmer seemed suitably confused/angry about a vote that was, as I've said, mostly illogical; he then tried to rationalize the vote after the emotional energy subsided. That reads very authentic to me. So I'll stop beating that horse for now.

You acknowledge that your vote was a logical misstep. Why do you suspect me for voting you as a result?

Eh. Kind of a loaded question.

Spoiler: show

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.

Epignosis: I feel good about him
A Person: I like Epignosis's logic, in that AP would prefer to off a talkative player. Also, if I recall correctly, despite AP not posting much in thread, he is a pretty consistent presence in chatzy.
Boomslang: I've changed my mind about him
Dom: I like his work this game. He's not limiting himself to one-word questions and answers, but engaging with people (myself included) at length.

Yellow: He was still calling the timing-based accusation of timmer/Boomslang the "scummiest thing he'd seen" on Day 3. He'd been present enough otherwise in the phases immediately prior that I find this rather dubious.

The other reads presented here are clear stances taken and that's nice. The rationale provided for those reads isn't especially inspired though.

Spoiler: show

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?

This is something I've liked. At this point in the game, Golden was starting to get more negative in his assessment of Marmot, and Marmot responded in kind with this post. This doesn't look like an attempt to discredit his accuser; I think Marmot's assertions are reasonable. We know now that Golden wasn't bad since he was targeted by both baddies, but I still don't fault him for this bit of digging.

Spoiler: show

None of my reads are strong ones (the mafia ones anyway). I see two reasons to vote AP. 1) To off a quiet player and hope we get the right flip. 2) Self-preservation (though I don't feel in particular danger of being lynched). But those are countered by a good point from Epignosis, in that AP would have tried to nightkill a loud player if he was mafia. Also, Vompatti is the last player I'd expect AP to support killing.

My Golden read isn't very strong. My main goal is to try to poke and prod in the hopes of stirring up some activity because of the fact that so many people are feeling pretty ambivalent on their reads.


What else is good? Who should I look at?

I don't have a problem with this either, since it was generally an accurate assessment. I think that's why we bothered with the GTH reads -- reads weren't conclusive and a little proactivity about getting the thread swirling can help with that.

Spoiler: show

And if finding alternatives = the people attacking you, it's another faIL. You tried that with me, as well. If you are fully civ and genuinely want to find badies, going after the people annoyed with your play is destined to not end well, imo.

That said, I am of course paying attention.

He's not just going after people because they're annoyed with his play.

He's going Jay for voting the "low-hanging fruit" and for not being strongly involved in baddie-hunting. Jay read Epignosis as Good in his GTH reads Day 3, and didn't change that until Epignosis mentioned his suspicion of Jay.

He's going after trice for discrediting him. Trice did vocalize his displeasure of Epignosis, so I suppose this might be more accurate.

I've given him some credit for this too. My vote on Day 3 broke the tie between A Person and the Marmot, saving him from destruction. If Marmot is a baddie, this would represent a great opportunity for him to puke heaps WIFOM into the thread by promoting the notion that I'm his team mate. I don't think his posts bear that appearance. I also grant that this is a rather specific notion and thus speculative.

On this Day 4 his posts appear to be influenced in some way. He placed an early vote on me and hasn't appeared interested in my perspective.

~~~

Overall, there are a lot of questionable moments tempered by a couple more recent moments that I like. It should be noted that the one thing I have been most positive about in my assessment of Marmot is his Day/Night 3 treatment of Golden -- something Golden himself liked considerably less.

He's a valid suspect.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I've gotten an ISO headache. Gonna step away for a little bit.

[timmer]

Do we have THREE insanified/cursed people?

Epig is writing in that gibberish code.

MM is writing like he is telling a story.

And LoRab is spelling the word sad or sadness with her posts.

Is it possible to have this much going on, or does one of them HAVE to be lying? I don't see how this makes sense.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Do we have THREE insanified/cursed people?

Epig is writing in that gibberish code.

MM is writing like he is telling a story.

And LoRab is spelling the word sad or sadness with her posts.

Is it possible to have this much going on, or does one of them HAVE to be lying? I don't see how this makes sense.

Good eye re: LoRab. I hadn't noticed.

I wouldn't say one of them HAS to be lying, but it is a lot of posting modification happening at once. If any of them is faking I'd point to Marmot. Epi's looks just like mine did. LoRab's is a little more in flavor like Golden's was. Marmot is also the guy who'd do anything at any time.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'd like to know where y'all stand on Marmot right now.

[timmer]

Yeah that's about where Im at, as well.

Also, LoRab's first post of today was quite a bit after the start of the day, after it was clear both Epig and MM were posting "funny", so it'd be a strange choice for her, at that point, to invent a third curse.

I'm leaning towards MM faking his curse, and reading through your ISO of him, I'll consider voting him today. In fact, I'll leave a vote on him, for the moment.

I'd like to know where people stand on Dom, as well. I still feel there is a good chance of him being bad, but if I'm still on an island with that, I'll keep it on the back burner.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'd like to know where people stand on Dom, as well. I still feel there is a good chance of him being bad, but if I'm still on an island with that, I'll keep it on the back burner.

I discussed my perspective of Dom here and more recently expanded in an exchange with BWT:

I see the difference between Dom and Scotty this way: Dom has struggled to find his grounding as you say, but not for lack of trying. His time in the thread has been limited to shorter stretches, but when he's been here he has seemed to try to push things in some direction or another. He states clear reads, he hurls clear accusations, and he doesn't seemed bothered by the consequences. That's a nice thing. Scotty's appearances however have appeared more lifeless, like he has given up on making use of himself just because he hasn't read every post. That follows what I perceive to be a suspicious post history before his time constraints tightened.

Overall I'd call him one of my lighter town reads. I'm open to hearing you out.

[timmer]

I'm still focused on my earlier thoughts, with the added bit that Dom took a pass on a clearly snarled up lynch. But in light of his assertions that he hasn't been engaged with the game, I'd say my suspicion is a bit pulled back. I still def. place him on the baddie side of the spectrum, but I feel like MM has shifted gears too many times lately and does not seem civvie at all.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

How do you feel about trice, timmer?

[triceratopzeuhl]

Dom posting the same way I'm criticizing JJJ and epignosis for - deliberately misleading when not outright lies in their accusations. Wouldn't be surprised if all three are bad, civvies can and do play honest the way virtually everybody else has been

"lies"

I don't know your alignment. I'm trying to figure it out. That's why I put up that eight page dissertation on your posts yesterday. You didn't question my honesty then, when I concluded you look more civilian than not. You may not like every accusation hurled at you, but you're treating all of them in this broadly negative light as though there can be no genuine intentions. That's bunk.

No, what's bunk is you making 2 incredibly disingenuous accusations of me ("everybody knows you can't read vompatti but trice is suspicious for not trying to read vompatti" and "Trice's vote for A Person was suspicious even though I voted the exact same way later for the exact same reasons"). Nobody seriously trying to find baddies would use those arguments.

But still, with how much posting has already occurred in this game, I'm not sure that argument stands. Epig has been correct about 3 out of 3 mislynches here so far.

No he hasn't, he voted to lynch DrWilgy. We don't whether he is right about boomslang's alignment (who we haven't lynched). He has been correct about 2 of them though, and I realize now he has been correct about JJJ consistently for several days now.



My thinking this game has started to be very clear, ironically it was JJJ being legitimately helpful that made it all click:

Vompatti being bad and killed Night 1 could be attributed to the Motherfucker = Redeemer role. Each odd night, one in that pair checks a living player. If the living player is mafia there's a 50% chance it'll kill that mafioso.

This fits too perfectly to not be the case. However, JJJ wouldn't be posting it if he was mafia, so he must be the serial killer. He killed Golden right after Golden switched from a moderate town read of him to posting suspicions. I believe JJJ's posting changed perceptibly at a point, and I wouldn't be surprised if it coincided with the activation of his night kill.

Another point that just occured to me:

Spoiler: show

Motherfucker = Redeemer (2) Do not begin the game by sharing BTSC, but can search for each other during each Night (in addition to their individual ability). Can win as a team, if they gain BTSC. Randomly, one player will be assigned to role check a living player every odd Night. If the checked player is Mafia, it will have a 50% chance to also kill him. The other player will be assigned to role check a dead player every even Night. If the checked victim is Civilian, it will have a 50% chance to resurrect him. Both the kill and the resurrect will be activated automatically and work only once, regardless of the outcome. M=R can continue, however, to role check accordingly afterwards. Their assigned roles can be affected by Storm, once they gain BTSC.

I was wondering why no civs have been resurrected yet, but thinking about it - night 1 nobody dead yet, night 2 powers blocked by Rockets Fall On Rocket Falls, night 3 I bet the half which was assigned dead players wasn't the same player who originally killed vomps, and they checked vomps

Or maybe Marmot is an innocent bystander.

In any event, epi, I agree about Jay. He worries me. I feel like there is a lack of fire in his opinions. His whole game feels - clockwork, like a man calculating the impact of each post. I can't describe it any other way. He's always bothered me a little but in this lynch it felt much stronger than just tinfoil.

I think this is Golden's most correct post, because I think Marmot is one of only three people who have been targeted by mafia, for his insanification today (same style as Golden was hit with before). The others are Golden of course, and Sloonei who was silenced by Sleep. Being targeted by mafia didn't necessarily signify civvie before, but once you realize JJJ is the serial killer (so that option is ruled out) it does.

Despite my beef with epignosis I've realized I MUST be wrong for one reason only:

Spoiler: show

Seeing a different nuanced Epi. Sans suspicion.

I know you will change your mind in a heartbeat. My point is that your most recent read of him is good, and that you only voiced suspicion of him after he claimed you are not a civilian. I do agree that Epignosis has been taciturn on who to lynch this game, but there's still the matter that he has been accurate on his civ-reads, and I believe some of his reads have been well-placed.

Moderate Town:
Epignosis

EPIGNOSIS

Moderate town

(I know there's even more examples but "epi" is too short to search the thread for)

I bet you ANYTHING at least one of these people has role-checked him, especially in a game where his playstyle is so cryptic.

I still think Dom is one of the baddies.

List of other people Golden voiced suspicions of within a day or two of his death: A Person, Dom, Lorab, MM, Sig
List of people Sloonei voiced suspicions of before getting silenced by Sleep: Lorab, Scotty, Dom, INH, DrWilgy

Dom and Lorab are the only names in common there

[triceratopzeuhl]

OK my first spoiler is completely unreadable, it's just a copy paste of the Motherfucker=Redeemer role description

[timmer]

JJJ, I was about to reply to you re: Trice, but I need to read up on a few things atm, and need to think a couple of things through. Stay tuned.

[timmer]

My thinking this game has started to be very clear, ironically it was JJJ being legitimately helpful that made it all click:

Vompatti being bad and killed Night 1 could be attributed to the Motherfucker = Redeemer role. Each odd night, one in that pair checks a living player. If the living player is mafia there's a 50% chance it'll kill that mafioso.

This fits too perfectly to not be the case. However, JJJ wouldn't be posting it if he was mafia, so he must be the serial killer. He killed Golden right after Golden switched from a moderate town read of him to posting suspicions. I believe JJJ's posting changed perceptibly at a point, and I wouldn't be surprised if it coincided with the activation of his night kill.

Why reach the conclusion that JJJ would be the SK, here? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the theory that M=R checked Vomps and thus killed him because he was bad is true, and JJJ posted the above, that he could actually be the half of M=R that checked Vomps? If it fits too perfectly, and JJJ said it... why not consider that it is because he did it? Why assume he's bad, here?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

No, what's bunk is you making 2 incredibly disingenuous accusations of me ("everybody knows you can't read vompatti but trice is suspicious for not trying to read vompatti" and "Trice's vote for A Person was suspicious even though I voted the exact same way later for the exact same reasons"). Nobody seriously trying to find baddies would use those arguments.

Hell no.

1) You keep calling my comments about you and Vompatti "incredibly disigenuous" and other similar hyperbolic terms despite the fact that you haven't acknowledged the reason those comments existed in the first place: I know everyone in this game except for you. I have no way of knowing what your experience playing with Vompatti is and for you to ram that down my throat as if it's some kind of horrible crime is what is disingenuous.

2) I didn't vote for A Person for the "exact same reasons" you did. I did not give him an ultimatum he would never meet, and I did not lambaste him for his gripe with the high posters. These were my reasons: I preferred him over a Marmot lynch which was the alternative presented to me as I had to leave the thread, I had a statistical basis to support the notion that people who post as infrequently as he did are bad at a greater-than-random rate.

This is one of the problems with what you've been doing since about late Night 3 -- you're throwing mud at me and now also a vote because of shit like this. You can't express concern about my A Person vote because you voted for him too. That's horseshit.

This all looks like "caught for the wrong reasons".

This fits too perfectly to not be the case. However, JJJ wouldn't be posting it if he was mafia, so he must be the serial killer. He killed Golden right after Golden switched from a moderate town read of him to posting suspicions. I believe JJJ's posting changed perceptibly at a point, and I wouldn't be surprised if it coincided with the activation of his night kill.

No. Everything you're doing right now can be described this way: deciding what your reads are instead of developing your reads.

"JJJ must be the serial killer because Golden was killed"

What kind of civilian thinks about the game this way?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Voting triceratopzeuhl

[triceratopzeuhl]

Timmer, because he got the idea after epignosis threw out the idea that vomps was Moya. It didn't originate with him.


List of people dom has defended or said he thinks are good: Timmer, JJJ, Scotty, BWT, Boomslang, MP, epi

He also defended BWT from JJJ accusations, so you can cross the latter off that list (you can anyway since he's SK not mafia).

Of the above he also leveled accusations of varying degrees at BWT, boomslang and MP on different occasions



Cross referencing with the other two lists I posted, Dom, Lorab, and scotty are the only ones who appear more than once

[timmer]

I'm still not understanding.

Whether JJJ was the first person to mention that Vomps may have been bad and killed by the civ M=R role, or Epig was, how does JJJ mentioning it in the thread make him bad, let alone the SK? Why CAN'T it mean he's M=R? Or any other role, for that matter?

How do you go from what JJJ posted to "he is the SK". I'm missing your logical leap.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Timmer, because he got the idea after epignosis threw out the idea that vomps was Moya. It didn't originate with him.

No.

I note that Golden was killed by both the SK and Sleep. Sleep being one of them is curious, since the original killing mafioso is Moya. Sleep inherits the kill if Moya dies. This would seem to be an indicator that Moya is dead, which raises questions: who among the corpses could it have been? Only Vompatti has an unrevealed role, so if he's Moya that means the SK had a Night 1 kill. If that's the case, perhaps the SK is activated by some manner of day phase mechanism (i.e. receiving a vote or something similar).

The only other explanation I can think of would be a seemer among the lynched townies, something which would seem to be discounted by the lack of a "[secrets]" attached to the Moya role. Otherwise perhaps there's an explanation in the [secrets] of the Sleep role.

Nobody else said a word about this before I did. Now explain why that matters.

[timmer]

Trice, we seem to have 3 people posting in some form of curse. Do you think all 3 are legit? If not, which do you think is lying, and why?

[triceratopzeuhl]

2) I didn't vote for A Person for the "exact same reasons" you did. I did not give him an ultimatum he would never meet, and I did not lambaste him for his gripe with the high posters. These were my reasons: I preferred him over a Marmot lynch which was the alternative presented to me as I had to leave the thread, I had a statistical basis to support the notion that people who post as infrequently as he did are bad at a greater-than-random rate.

again with deliberately misrepresenting reality, my reasons for voting AP:

Again (getting to be a theme), I made several posts about A Person that nobody replied to:

A Person Complained About Volume...He Could Have Killed the Source of the Volume (But He Didn't)

Hypothetical, if he's a baddie but not the one with the nk, and he's as inactive in BTSC as he is in thread, his teammates probably wouldn't pick the kill based on his opinion

Or if his brain isn't made out of meatloaf he could misdirect people with his posting...

Well there's also the fact that he hasn't put forth a single suspicion or commented on anything that has happened this game so far

Your only stated reason was "it appears better than a roll of the dice if [my statistical analysis of past games] has any value" (that is, 36% of 25 low posters were bad, slightly higher than random rate), hilarious to try and call that more substantial than my reasons. You never once commented on anybody else's reasons for voting AP, other than to say you wouldn't contest a lynch of him, not until attacking me in desperation today

[triceratopzeuhl]

Trice, we seem to have 3 people posting in some form of curse. Do you think all 3 are legit? If not, which do you think is lying, and why?

I'm pretty sure when roles are finally revealed at the end of the game, Mladic will be rather complication mechanics for cursing people and I don't really know what to think on it. FWIW I didn't even realize Lorab was supposed to be cursed, but if he (she? sorry don't know) is, it's similar in nature to Marmot's (contrast this with random capslocks letters like JJJ/epi) and to Golden's curse earlier in the game. Leads me to believe that if there are 3 curses today, marmot and lorab both come from same source as Golden before, and epi comes from same source as JJJ did, and it's 2 separate sources.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

2) I didn't vote for A Person for the "exact same reasons" you did. I did not give him an ultimatum he would never meet, and I did not lambaste him for his gripe with the high posters. These were my reasons: I preferred him over a Marmot lynch which was the alternative presented to me as I had to leave the thread, I had a statistical basis to support the notion that people who post as infrequently as he did are bad at a greater-than-random rate.

again with deliberately misrepresenting reality, my reasons for voting AP:

Can someone remind me about A Person's usual M.O.? When he's taking on votes and getting eyed does he normally just pop in and post fluff like this?

I don't know but I'm voting for him until I see at least an attempt at finding mafia members

Your only stated reason was "it appears better than a roll of the dice if [my statistical analysis of past games] has any value" (that is, 36% of 25 low posters were bad, slightly higher than random rate), hilarious to try and call that more substantial than my reasons. You never once commented on anybody else's reasons for voting AP, other than to say you wouldn't contest a lynch of him, not until attacking me in desperation today

The data revealed that 56% of them were not good. This is a game with multiple baddie factions. You've also not acknowledged the role of the Marmot counterwagon in my vote, as detailed here:

I have to be off. I'm going to check in on my phone prior to the deadline. Right now I'm not really feeling a Marmot lynch. I get the impression Golden and MP are suffering from a personal bias in that Marmot has voiced more suspicion of them than other have without the most substantive reasoning. It's understandable, but it isn't terribly compelling.

I find myself wondering something: is it ever a good move for a baddie Marmot to turn his attention against Golden in this day phase? Golden had been under no real pressure otherwise and that isn't a lynch Marmot would have an easy time mobilizing, and yet that's where he went with it. That move also increased the likelihood of Golden staying hard in his suspicion of Marmot, something I doubt would be lost on the rodent if he were bad. It doesn't seem like a sensible strategy, even for Lord WIFOM.

[timmer]

@Trice (and thus to JJJ who asked my opinion earlier), I feel like you are a strong possibility to be bad, tbh. I'm not following your reasoning on things, and it feels like you are trying to manufacture a JJJ lynch out of very little. That said, your insistence about him being the SK is so specific... it makes me wonder if you are bad and your team somehow knows the SK identity, and it is indeed him. This is just an idle thought, and even if you flip bad, I'm not then going to pursue JJJ as an SK based on the idea, but your specific pointing of the SK finger at him is making me wonder, a bit.

Either way, I'm not voting JJJ today. I'd rather see MM go as his play has been very shifty, but I think if he is not a lead contender, I'll vote you as an alternate.

But, I'd love to hear some thoughts from other players about this.

[triceratopzeuhl]

JJJ that was one of the very last things I ever said about A Person, immediately after he was actually posting in the thread (so it seemed, he posted once and left. I doubt he even knows he's dead yet) and NOT one of my stated reasons. I would like somebody who isn't bad to comment on my posts please.

I'm still not understanding.

Whether JJJ was the first person to mention that Vomps may have been bad and killed by the civ M=R role, or Epig was, how does JJJ mentioning it in the thread make him bad, let alone the SK? Why CAN'T it mean he's M=R? Or any other role, for that matter?

How do you go from what JJJ posted to "he is the SK". I'm missing your logical leap.

Because I've realized he cannot possibly be civ, and that's simply the part that rules out that he's mafia

If he was an information role as you believe I don't think he would have lynched 3 civs and been so far off in his reads this game

Last day or two he's trying to flood the thread with giant posts despite his earlier position on posting lots:

I would say I'm actively trying *not* to generate content.

I have tried to restrain myself

probably to increase the odds of people missing important points or even choosing to skip or only skim the thread (per epi on MP's early play: every time you click the thread you have to read Moby Dick)

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Because I've realized he cannot possibly be civ

No you haven't.

If he was an information role as you believe I don't think he would have lynched 3 civs and been so far off in his reads this game

I'm not going to claim anything about my role, but I have been off on my reads. That shit happens sometimes. It's also not terribly surprising in this game, especially if Vompatti was Moya. On Day 1 there were 15 good guys in a 19 player game and then after Night 1 there were presumably 14 good guys in a 17 player game. That's a lot of townies and only a few baddies -- getting it right is difficult.

I've only kept trying.

Last day or two he's trying to flood the thread with giant posts despite his earlier position on posting lots:

I would say I'm actively trying *not* to generate content.

I have tried to restrain myself

probably to increase the odds of people missing important points or even choosing to skip or only skim the thread (per epi on MP's early play: every time you click the thread you have to read Moby Dick)

Absolute crap. I made those comments on Day 0 because people use Day 0 to check in to the game. I didn't say I wanted to avoid blowing up the thread for the whole game; I literally said I'd get busy when the lynching started. I've seen numerous games where half the players lurk the whole time because they gave up on keeping up in Day 0. I was trying to foster a decent start for those people to ensure they'd stay involved. Fortunately this game hasn't had a serious lurking problem apart from A Person.

I haven't seen you talk about any of the "giant posts" I've produced lately other than the ones that include your name in them. What do you think of the actual content?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ that was one of the very last things I ever said about A Person, immediately after he was actually posting in the thread (so it seemed, he posted once and left. I doubt he even knows he's dead yet) and NOT one of my stated reasons.

You literally said "I'm voting for A Person until he tries to find mafia" and placed your vote. It was the first A Person vote of the day phase and you didn't move it.

Backtrack.

[triceratopzeuhl]

That was because I had said and quoted and repeated my reasons for suspecting him many many times before that. If it concerned you why didn't you comment on it at the time? Because you don't care about lynching civs

The data revealed that 56% of them were not good. This is a game with multiple baddie factions.

this is also a game where lower than average number of players are bad (21%, compare to e.g. the last game I played, Death Note Mafia, where 55% of players were not civilian). Did you include that game and others like it in your analysis? I said your number crunching was interesting but didn't factor it into my read on AP because I don't believe it is statistically sound, you didn't even mention number of baddies in any of the games you analyzed.

[timmer]

If he was an information role as you believe I don't think he would have lynched 3 civs and been so far off in his reads this game

I've voted for civs, too.

I think you are tilting because you are caught. I'm going to move my vote to you.

[triceratopzeuhl]

I'm tilting for writing out my entire train of thought, including civ reads and analysis of known civvie's suspicions

JJJ isn't tilting for repeating the same lie about me over and over again

noted