Currents Mafia [END]

[Marmot]

Dearest rodent spirit animal, do your thoughts linger on any fears, prejudices, or comforts emerging from the traumas of our last day and our last night?

The fact that nutella was lynched over a low poster bothers me a little. Hindsight probably has a little to do with it.

Why a low poster? You think a Day 1 lynch should be of a low poster?

In a couple recent games, we've lynched low posters on Day 1 who's posts are particularly devoid of useful content. See MacDougall in GoC. See DDL in Felt (I think it was Felt).

So yes, it's a strategy I'd like to consider going forward.

[Epignosis]

I'd like to think the MP kill clears me.

Just swinging by for a second before N1 ends to give a reads update:

FZ.
Luke11646
Marmot
speedchuck

DrWilgy
Dyslexicon
Elohcin
Epignosis
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
Long Con

He posted this before I had a chance to even log in.

He was the one I was most sure was civilian and then he dropped me into the gray category. I wasn't around to suggest that he be killed for this.

Let's see what people make of this.

[Long Con]

That MP went hard against JJJ and was killed must be mentioned.

Quiet you, you're silenced.

I suspect JaggedJimmyJay, yes.

I have little evidence to support this (3J has been mafia, what, once?), but 3J strikes me as the kind that would kill anyone who suspects him and deal with the consequences afterwards. People will always assume he's being set up and carry on.

Perhaps. Who else is that kind of person? How does he strike you that way?

Dearest rodent spirit animal, do your thoughts linger on any fears, prejudices, or comforts emerging from the traumas of our last day and our last night?

The fact that nutella was lynched over a low poster bothers me a little. Hindsight probably has a little to do with it.

Why a low poster? You think a Day 1 lynch should be of a low poster?

In a couple recent games, we've lynched low posters on Day 1 who's posts are particularly devoid of useful content. See MacDougall in GoC. See DDL in Felt (I think it was Felt).

So yes, it's a strategy I'd like to consider going forward.

But Mac's lynch was meta-based. Why are you misrepresenting?

[Epignosis]

MM isn't misrepresenting shit.

[Marmot]

Dearest rodent spirit animal, do your thoughts linger on any fears, prejudices, or comforts emerging from the traumas of our last day and our last night?

The fact that nutella was lynched over a low poster bothers me a little. Hindsight probably has a little to do with it.

Why a low poster? You think a Day 1 lynch should be of a low poster?

In a couple recent games, we've lynched low posters on Day 1 who's posts are particularly devoid of useful content. See MacDougall in GoC. See DDL in Felt (I think it was Felt).

So yes, it's a strategy I'd like to consider going forward.

But Mac's lynch was meta-based. Why are you misrepresenting?

Sure.

But the only reason we went after him was because Epignosis said "This guy, he has very few posts and they suck".

But that was my point. He was a low poster, and his content was unproductive.

[Marmot]

I'd like to think the MP kill clears me.

Just swinging by for a second before N1 ends to give a reads update:

FZ.
Luke11646
Marmot
speedchuck

DrWilgy
Dyslexicon
Elohcin
Epignosis
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
Long Con

He posted this before I had a chance to even log in.

He was the one I was most sure was civilian and then he dropped me into the gray category. I wasn't around to suggest that he be killed for this.

Let's see what people make of this.

Is that your shtick now? Analyzing nightkills in a way that clears you?

[Epignosis]

I'd like to think the MP kill clears me.

Just swinging by for a second before N1 ends to give a reads update:

FZ.
Luke11646
Marmot
speedchuck

DrWilgy
Dyslexicon
Elohcin
Epignosis
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
Long Con

He posted this before I had a chance to even log in.

He was the one I was most sure was civilian and then he dropped me into the gray category. I wasn't around to suggest that he be killed for this.

Let's see what people make of this.

Is that your shtick now? Analyzing nightkills in a way that clears you?

I'm gonna keep doing what works.

[Marmot]

I'm gonna give insertnamehere my vote for now. He was absent most of Day 1. He showed up in the final 30 minutes to participate, stuck around to chat for a second, but we haven't seen him since.

Come offer reads and stuff you.

[Long Con]

Dearest rodent spirit animal, do your thoughts linger on any fears, prejudices, or comforts emerging from the traumas of our last day and our last night?

The fact that nutella was lynched over a low poster bothers me a little. Hindsight probably has a little to do with it.

Why a low poster? You think a Day 1 lynch should be of a low poster?

In a couple recent games, we've lynched low posters on Day 1 who's posts are particularly devoid of useful content. See MacDougall in GoC. See DDL in Felt (I think it was Felt).

So yes, it's a strategy I'd like to consider going forward.

But Mac's lynch was meta-based. Why are you misrepresenting?

Sure.

But the only reason we went after him was because Epignosis said "This guy, he has very few posts and they suck".

But that was my point. He was a low poster, and his content was unproductive.

That's not what I remember Epi saying. I felt like he was more like "Ok, here's something. Voting Macdougall" And then juliets was like "Ok, let's look into this." Etc. But if Epi is fine with your version...

MM isn't misrepresenting shit.

...then who am I to argue? I don't remember low-posting as the thing that took down Macdougall. Obviously it's recent enough that we all remember the specific meta case and how it was constructed, and no one voted him for "low posting", right?

I've never been all that opposed to lynching low posters either.

[MacDougall]

keep talking about me

[FZ.]

RIP MP Sorry to see you go. It's been ages since we played together and even though we were fighting most of the time, it was fun. Sorry for losing it at some point For what it's worth, I think the baddies were threatened by you.


I will not be around most of this day phase. I have a wedding I'm attending, and then I'm going away with my family, so no time to mafia. Please don't take advantage of this to lynch me while I'm gone



Now I'm going back to read

[FZ.]

So, looking back I found this post by MP and it made me think:

Long Con, I'm similarly troubled by your contributions at the moment; I don't understand why you're jumping in after the fact and expressing agreement with this Wilgy argument.

Can you do something else for now and explain some of those reads on your rainbow in greater detail, if you don't mind? Even a brief sentence or whatever would be fine. Because I don't understand how you're coming to most of those, including the bad read of me. As far as I'm aware, the only thing you said to me earlier was "MP you're probably bad k" or something like that. So by all means, if there's something you want to talk about, let's do it.

First, we have LC thinking my one post on day 0, is so bad that it's enough to vote for me. Then, he disappears and lets all the rest do the dirty job of actually conversing with me on the matter.
After the lynch is over, he doesn't have anything new to add. All he says about me again, is how that one post at the beginning was just so bad, that he has to stick to his instincts. It doesn't matter that when asked why he didn't play a more active role at the end of the day he says: "I wasn't even that sure FZ was bad" or something in those lines. When having to give something, he resorts back to that first post. No regards to what I said later.

After that, his only contribution is to back Wilgy up in his conversation with Epi. Notice he is not taking a stand about Epi's alignment, he's just agreeing with Wilgy that basically, everyone can have their own opinions...Seriously? Feels like he's trying to be more involved without saying anything.

And it's only when JJJ starts asking questions about my post lynch reaction, that he suddenly thinks that I'm manufacturing an opinion with the appearance of civviness:

Sorry, I'm kind of exhausted after last night, and had a tough day, so not really in the mood for mafia. I did skim a little, and MP, you do have a point with JJJ. I expect more from JJJ when he's a civ. Right now, it feels as if he's asking a lot of questions, but not really stating any thoughts. It's like he's from the UN. There's an example in his post below.


But, to answer your question, JJJ:

Meh. RIP Nutella.

All this shifting of votes at the end of the day feels to me like someone wanted to cause chaos. Wish I knew who. I'm going to sleep. Will think about it tomorrow.

Why are you inclined to view the end of day sequence as being orchestrated by a "someone" as opposed to the collective of voters all involved in that motion? What does that mean to you, and what candidates would you assert there are to fill the role of "someone"?

I didn't like the way votes kept changing. I'm not a fan of that unless you have a good reason to change your vote at the last minute, like your top suspect convinced you there's a chance you might be wrong about them. I disagree with Epi (I think it was him), who said it helps civvies learn more later on. I think it's an easy way to get away with your vote. "It's exciting, I love these kind of votes", "I wanted to see what others would do", and stuff like that. I think it makes it harder to maintain accountability.
To answer your last question, I'd have to go back and read the last few pages of last day, and I'm not in a state to do it right now. Sorry. Maybe tomorrow.

I don't see anything wrong with JJJ's questions. I have the same questions when I read your post. "...someone wanted to cause chaos. Wish I knew who..." I, too, felt like there was no central mastermind inciting chaos. This feels more like you are manufacturing an opinion with the appearance of civ-mindedness... are you accusing Epi of being the one?

So what I see here, is someone that throws around an accusation to appear like he's hunting, disappears and lets others be responsible for the lynch, sticks to that initial suspicion without barely giving anything else, wagons on others' opinions and calls others bad without backing it up (MP).

I think LC is bad. I don't like to vote so early in the day, but I don't know how much I'll be around, so I'm placing my vote here for now. When I have time, I'm going to look at JJJ...because.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

That MP went hard against JJJ and was killed must be mentioned.

Quiet you, you're silenced.

I suspect JaggedJimmyJay, yes.

I have little evidence to support this (3J has been mafia, what, once?), but 3J strikes me as the kind that would kill anyone who suspects him and deal with the consequences afterwards. People will always assume he's being set up and carry on.

Your assertion is half-accurate, in that when I am bad I am generally willing to kill people who suspect me; I don't specifically pursue such a strategy. It depends upon circumstance. In this setup where I have accumulated a lot of experience now, that is not the circumstance. I have been mafia before in this setup, in the championship game of the 2015 MU tournament. Only one thing matters: kill the cop. The lifespan of the cop often determines the winner of this setup independent of hunting or deception or any other standard notions of Mafia.

In that regard, the MP kill ought to work in my favor. I thought that MP, given all of his strategic dialogue surrounding cop cover, was the most obvious cop cover in the game. I suggested earlier that my civilian read on him was so strong because of his mind for cover -- I've seen him do it before to great effect. This is somewhat reminiscent of sig in Triskaidekaphobia (I think, or one of those heists), killed Night 1 after providing cop cover of a different variety, something I also recognized in that game.

I don't know what motives the mafia did have for killing MP. There are a number of possibilities. If they believed he was a cop candidate though, then that would be a positive reflection for his green reads.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Long Con, when you asserted Marmot was misrepresenting a case from a previous game, what relevance did that bear in your mind to the present discussion?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Dearest rodent spirit animal, do your thoughts linger on any fears, prejudices, or comforts emerging from the traumas of our last day and our last night?

The fact that nutella was lynched over a low poster bothers me a little. Hindsight probably has a little to do with it.

I'm developing an Epignosian aversion to passive voice in Mafia, a la adverbs.

Do you feel any contributors in particular to the nutella lynch should have opted for a low poster or were otherwise suspicious?

[Long Con]

Long Con, when you asserted Marmot was misrepresenting a case from a previous game, what relevance did that bear in your mind to the present discussion?

The relevance was related to his lament that we should have lynched a low-poster. He gave the lynch of Mac (Mac Mac Mac hi Mac!) in GOC2016 as an example of how lynching low posters works.

As I said to Marmot, Mac was lynched based on one of the most convincing meta cases I have ever seen. Several good meta points was the reason he was lynched. People didn't vote on the Mac train with a low-poster reason, they voted him because he was carelessly acting like his bad self, and got caught.

Marmot's claim that he was lynched for low-posting wasn't just wrong, it was blatantly wrong, and that fact is very fresh in our memories despite the disappearance of the GOC game thread. Even moreso due to the fact that it was Marmot himself that found, in my eyes, the clincher piece of meta Mac. I called it "the smoking gun". It didn't make sense to me, so I asked him.

The relevance to this game would be Marmot not being truthful. He said we should have lynched a low-poster instead of nutella, and, when I asked him about it, he gave an answer that contained a inaccurate account of a recent game that he should have a very good memory of. I thought it was worth bringing up to him.

This walk down memory lane reminds me that I meant to ask a follow-up question: I know I quick-skimmed part of Day 1, Marmot - did you advocate the lynch of a low poster during Day 1?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@LC

I see the relevance as being limited in that the discussion of lynching low posters in this context is more about the result than the reasons behind those lynches. Regardless of why Mac was lynched in the 2016 GOC example, he was rightly classified as a low poster on Day 1 and flipped as mafia. In that regard I understand the perception that a recent trend exists for successful lynches of low posters (also including Zebra in Vocaroo). It has happened a lot lately.

I'll leave Marmot to address the rest.

[Epignosis]

Long Con, when you asserted Marmot was misrepresenting a case from a previous game, what relevance did that bear in your mind to the present discussion?

The relevance was related to his lament that we should have lynched a low-poster. He gave the lynch of Mac (Mac Mac Mac hi Mac!) in GOC2016 as an example of how lynching low posters works.

As I said to Marmot, Mac was lynched based on one of the most convincing meta cases I have ever seen. Several good meta points was the reason he was lynched. People didn't vote on the Mac train with a low-poster reason, they voted him because he was carelessly acting like his bad self, and got caught.

Marmot's claim that he was lynched for low-posting wasn't just wrong, it was blatantly wrong, and that fact is very fresh in our memories despite the disappearance of the GOC game thread. Even moreso due to the fact that it was Marmot himself that found, in my eyes, the clincher piece of meta Mac. I called it "the smoking gun". It didn't make sense to me, so I asked him.

The relevance to this game would be Marmot not being truthful. He said we should have lynched a low-poster instead of nutella, and, when I asked him about it, he gave an answer that contained a inaccurate account of a recent game that he should have a very good memory of. I thought it was worth bringing up to him.

This walk down memory lane reminds me that I meant to ask a follow-up question: I know I quick-skimmed part of Day 1, Marmot - did you advocate the lynch of a low poster during Day 1?

Mac was lynched because he was a low poster who, as a civilian before, had called being a low poster suspicious. There's nothing blatantly wrong about it.

[Epignosis]

Dearest rodent spirit animal, do your thoughts linger on any fears, prejudices, or comforts emerging from the traumas of our last day and our last night?

The fact that nutella was lynched over a low poster bothers me a little. Hindsight probably has a little to do with it.

I'm developing an Epignosian aversion to passive voice in Mafia, a la adverbs.

Do you feel any contributors in particular to the nutella lynch should have opted for a low poster or were otherwise suspicious?

Oooh, I'm an adjective now.

The alternative phrasing would be, "The fact that we lynched nutella over a low poster bothers me a little." I'm not sure I'm bothered by the difference.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I have no evidence to support such a linguistic "tell". I might explore it moving forward.

[Epignosis]

Why MP?

I need to reassess.

This post stinks to me.

What is so unfathomable about MP dying if Wilgy genuinely thinks I'm bad? I've killed MP plenty of times.

[Long Con]

Why MP?

I need to reassess.

This post stinks to me.

What is so unfathomable about MP dying if Wilgy genuinely thinks I'm bad? I've killed MP plenty of times.

Also, how was MP not at the top of the "likely to be killed" list? Most Active Civ, tried to protect the cop, seemed like he might BE the cop. If Wilgy needs to reassess, I'd like to hear what his original assessment of MP was, where he was an unlikely kill.

Mac was lynched because he was a low poster who, as a civilian before, had called being a low poster suspicious. There's nothing blatantly wrong about it.

That is not what I remember. I remember you bringing up Mac's name with little exposition, and then juliets and Llama started to compare his gameplay to other games, with some opinions leaning toward "baddie game style", and then Marmot found the same joke ("My rule #1 on Day 1: Always lynch X") in Mac's previous baddie game. I know these things happened, and I know they were the major reason for Mac's lynch. Maybe there was some "low poster" reasons for you bringing up his name, and maybe low-posting was the main similarity that was found in the meta comparison - as in, Mac posts less when bad. I thought the cases were a little more involved than just that. I don't remember Mac's calling of low-posting "suspicious" as a Civ in a previous game, and the observation that he was low-posting, being any sort of major part in the case against him.

[speedchuck]

I'd like to think the MP kill clears me.

Just swinging by for a second before N1 ends to give a reads update:

FZ.
Luke11646
Marmot
speedchuck

DrWilgy
Dyslexicon
Elohcin
Epignosis
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
Long Con

He posted this before I had a chance to even log in.

He was the one I was most sure was civilian and then he dropped me into the gray category. I wasn't around to suggest that he be killed for this.

Let's see what people make of this.

Is that your shtick now? Analyzing nightkills in a way that clears you?

I'm gonna keep doing what works.

I, uh, don't like either side of this kill analysis, unless meta comes in somewhere. Killing people that that think you're town or scum shouldn't matter in this game, and if it did, it's a pot of wine. I'm going to stay clear of that.

[Epignosis]

I pulled a post from a previous time in which he called low posting suspicious and posted it in the GoC. It was my primary reason for voting him.

[Long Con]

So, looking back I found this post by MP and it made me think:

Long Con, I'm similarly troubled by your contributions at the moment; I don't understand why you're jumping in after the fact and expressing agreement with this Wilgy argument.

Can you do something else for now and explain some of those reads on your rainbow in greater detail, if you don't mind? Even a brief sentence or whatever would be fine. Because I don't understand how you're coming to most of those, including the bad read of me. As far as I'm aware, the only thing you said to me earlier was "MP you're probably bad k" or something like that. So by all means, if there's something you want to talk about, let's do it.

First, we have LC thinking my one post on day 0, is so bad that it's enough to vote for me. Then, he disappears and lets all the rest do the dirty job of actually conversing with me on the matter.

Well, that's one way of putting it, I guess. I left everyone else to do the dirty job of talking to you. Ok, but I didn't twist anyone's arm to talk to YOU, so that's not really an accurate way to portray it. "LC wasn't around much on Day 1" is how I'd say it, in order to, you know, keep it objective and drop the flowery "this is me convincing you" text.

And yeah, I thought that post was bad enough to earn you my vote. I don't need or expect ten posts that all look bad on Day 1, one is more than enough that early in the game.

After the lynch is over, he doesn't have anything new to add. All he says about me again, is how that one post at the beginning was just so bad, that he has to stick to his instincts. It doesn't matter that when asked why he didn't play a more active role at the end of the day he says: "I wasn't even that sure FZ was bad" or something in those lines. When having to give something, he resorts back to that first post. No regards to what I said later.

Yup, that's all true. If you think that I should go back through your posts and give them my regards, then I will do that.

After that, his only contribution is to back Wilgy up in his conversation with Epi. Notice he is not taking a stand about Epi's alignment, he's just agreeing with Wilgy that basically, everyone can have their own opinions...Seriously? Feels like he's trying to be more involved without saying anything.

You're asking "...Seriously?" Well, that depends on how seriously all parties are taking things. Let's take you, for instance.

Whereas a Civ is likely to try and analyze things and figure out what's going on, a baddie already knows what's going on, and has to construct false things to sound true. When you say "he's just agreeing with Wilgy that basically, everyone can have their own opinions", you are displaying a total misunderstanding of the conversation. The Wilgy opinion that I agreed with, was that the thoughts and ideas that fuel what you say in Mafia will differ in the same player based on whether that player is Civ or bad. Epi contends that this theory doesn't apply to him.

So, to answer your question: "...Seriously?" No, I am not seriously agreeing with Wilgy that everyone can have their own opinions, because no one who seriously wants to understand the conversation would suggest that such a thing was discussed.

And it's only when JJJ starts asking questions about my post lynch reaction, that he suddenly thinks that I'm manufacturing an opinion with the appearance of civviness:

Sorry, I'm kind of exhausted after last night, and had a tough day, so not really in the mood for mafia. I did skim a little, and MP, you do have a point with JJJ. I expect more from JJJ when he's a civ. Right now, it feels as if he's asking a lot of questions, but not really stating any thoughts. It's like he's from the UN. There's an example in his post below.

But, to answer your question, JJJ:

Meh. RIP Nutella.

All this shifting of votes at the end of the day feels to me like someone wanted to cause chaos. Wish I knew who. I'm going to sleep. Will think about it tomorrow.

Why are you inclined to view the end of day sequence as being orchestrated by a "someone" as opposed to the collective of voters all involved in that motion? What does that mean to you, and what candidates would you assert there are to fill the role of "someone"?

I didn't like the way votes kept changing. I'm not a fan of that unless you have a good reason to change your vote at the last minute, like your top suspect convinced you there's a chance you might be wrong about them. I disagree with Epi (I think it was him), who said it helps civvies learn more later on. I think it's an easy way to get away with your vote. "It's exciting, I love these kind of votes", "I wanted to see what others would do", and stuff like that. I think it makes it harder to maintain accountability.
To answer your last question, I'd have to go back and read the last few pages of last day, and I'm not in a state to do it right now. Sorry. Maybe tomorrow.

I don't see anything wrong with JJJ's questions. I have the same questions when I read your post. "...someone wanted to cause chaos. Wish I knew who..." I, too, felt like there was no central mastermind inciting chaos. This feels more like you are manufacturing an opinion with the appearance of civ-mindedness... are you accusing Epi of being the one?

So what I see here, is someone that throws around an accusation to appear like he's hunting,

Flowery talk, I don't recall throwing anything when I dissected your post and explained why it made me suspicious.

disappears and lets others be responsible for the lynch,

Guilty as charged. Got any plans today?

sticks to that initial suspicion without barely giving anything else,

"without barely giving"... does this imply an abundance of giving? Anyways, yes, I still am on that initial suspicion, because you are not helping it go away. Quite the opposite.

wagons on others' opinions

I bet when you agree with someone you call it "agreement" But that's cool, I know you have an agenda here, and that is how this kind of thing gets done.

and calls others bad without backing it up (MP).

Yeah, I totally did that. I fuckin' Vompatti'd his ass with that accusation, and then I slammed him right down to third-from-the-bottom on my Rainbow List. I didn't think he was a Civ or a cop, I thought he was bad. *smacks head* dooiiiiiii..... silly me!

[FZ.]

LC, I do not have an agenda. It's funny you say the underlined to me:

Whereas a Civ is likely to try and analyze things and figure out what's going on, a baddie already knows what's going on, and has to construct false things to sound true. When you say "he's just agreeing with Wilgy that basically, everyone can have their own opinions", you are displaying a total misunderstanding of the conversation. The Wilgy opinion that I agreed with, was that the thoughts and ideas that fuel what you say in Mafia will differ in the same player based on whether that player is Civ or bad. Epi contends that this theory doesn't apply to him.

So, to answer your question: "...Seriously?" No, I am not seriously agreeing with Wilgy that everyone can have their own opinions, because no one who seriously wants to understand the conversation would suggest that such a thing was discussed.

It feels as if you are doing exactly what you just suggested I did.


let me ask you a question: What was the point in getting in the middle of that discussion between Wilgy and Epi, if you're not trying to figure out if one of them is bad? Did you just want to contribute to a theoretical discussion? I doubt Epi really contends that it doesn't apply to him, He was talking about something specific. I gathered that from his point of view, being able to notice a pattern of behaviour is something he can do no matter alignment. But that's not really the case, because you didn't suspect Epi for that disagreement, did you? Yet when I didn't suspect Epi for our disagreement, you questioned me about it.
I feel you are playing a very hypocritical game, and I don't think civvie LC would do that. Not to mention, if you're going to lynch someone, and you see that some people changed their minds about that person, maybe you should go back and read their defence and thoughts at EOD. Seems like the civvie thing to do

[FZ.]

I need to go

[Marmot]

I have no evidence to support such a linguistic "tell". I might explore it moving forward.

So when you said you were "developing" such an aversion, that was literally only in the moment when you responded to me that it was developing?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I have no evidence to support such a linguistic "tell". I might explore it moving forward.

So when you said you were "developing" such an aversion, that was literally only in the moment when you responded to me that it was developing?

It is a notion that has occurred to me before that I haven't really pursued. I have encountered the notion of the passive voice as a sort of cue for evasive communication outside Mafia contexts, because it allows a person to comment on an event without personal investment in the comment (i.e. "Bad Thing X has happened" versus "I/we/they did Bad Thing X"). I would theorize that such a quirk has application in Mafia, but I have not explored it really beyond just that hunch.

This instance in your post was the first that I noticed in this game. I noticed your specific post because it conveyed a negative assessment of an event (nutella's lynch) in such a way as to suggest potential reads on players relevant to the event without qualifying beyond that.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

But that's not really the case, because you didn't suspect Epi for that disagreement, did you? Yet when I didn't suspect Epi for our disagreement, you questioned me about it.
I feel you are playing a very hypocritical game, and I don't think civvie LC would do that.

I've a request stemming from this, assuming I follow this dialogue between you and LC:

You assert LC is guilty of hypocrisy for this discrepancy you cite regarding your separate disagreements with Epi. In so doing you grant a moment in which you disagreed with Epi but did not suspect him. Could you please direct me to that moment? I can't figure out what you're referring to specifically. I have further thoughts on the matter but I need to understand the context.

[Marmot]

I have no evidence to support such a linguistic "tell". I might explore it moving forward.

So when you said you were "developing" such an aversion, that was literally only in the moment when you responded to me that it was developing?

It is a notion that has occurred to me before that I haven't really pursued. I have encountered the notion of the passive voice as a sort of cue for evasive communication outside Mafia contexts, because it allows a person to comment on an event without personal investment in the comment (i.e. "Bad Thing X has happened" versus "I/we/they did Bad Thing X"). I would theorize that such a quirk has application in Mafia, but I have not explored it really beyond just that hunch.

This instance in your post was the first that I noticed in this game. I noticed your specific post because it conveyed a negative assessment of an event (nutella's lynch) in such a way as to suggest potential reads on players relevant to the event without qualifying beyond that.

I fail to understand how you can have no evidence to support this linguistic tell while you also maintain that you've previously encountered this as a sort of cue.

I remember your defense in Economics to the Adverb Tell. You said that adverbs are your style, and not a sign of mafia extrapolation (which is true). I'm not sure I believe your sudden interest in linguistic tells.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I said it's a cue external to Mafia, in common communication. I believe that passive voice is often a manner of indirect or incomplete communication and thus provides space for evasiveness. I have no *Mafia* evidence that I can specifically recall. It's something that interests me. I remember Economics too when Epignosis first threw the adverbs at me. I shared an example of my own posts from another civilian game in which I used numerous adverbs; that is a defense specific to me (I have an annoying tendency to abuse adverbs as was seen in that game). I don't think the entire concept Epi promoted then was stupid; I do believe there are linguistic tendencies that appear more often in mafia alignments than civilian alignments. They're not easy to identify and they're not Gospel, but they're interesting enough to explore. It's not a "sudden" interest either. I have referred to language quirks rather often in past Mafia games as a hunter such as specific word selection. I actually did that in this very game thread already when I assessed nutella in the latter half of Day 1.

I've explained why it interests me, Marmot. Do you argue that it shouldn't be interesting?

[Marmot]

I find it less interesting than you do because that's how I generally speak. From my point of view, that is normal, not necessarily a tell.

I still haven't read the entire EoD proceedings. I don't know if the lynch outcome was justified by the posts before it. The reason I didn't call out anyone specific is because I don't know who plated what part.

What do you make of insertnamehere and the reason I voted for him?

[Epignosis]

It has happened more than once that MP was killed simply to spare the 100-200 posts a Day phase. INH was annoyed at his difficult in posting and catching up.

How's that for some passive voice?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I find it less interesting than you do because that's how I generally speak. From my point of view, that is normal, not necessarily a tell.

I still haven't read the entire EoD proceedings. I don't know if the lynch outcome was justified by the posts before it. The reason I didn't call out anyone specific is because I don't know who plated what part.

What do you make of insertnamehere and the reason I voted for him?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on EOD once you've had the opportunity to review it.

I thought INH did a nice job of producing rapid fire reads in the latest moments of EOD when he showed up under heavy pressure.

Your point about him is valid though. His appearance was timely and convenient and outside that he's given very little. That's something he should answer to.

[Marmot]

I find it less interesting than you do because that's how I generally speak. From my point of view, that is normal, not necessarily a tell.

I still haven't read the entire EoD proceedings. I don't know if the lynch outcome was justified by the posts before it. The reason I didn't call out anyone specific is because I don't know who plated what part.

What do you make of insertnamehere and the reason I voted for him?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on EOD once you've had the opportunity to review it.

I thought INH did a nice job of producing rapid fire reads in the latest moments of EOD when he showed up under heavy pressure.

Your point about him is valid though. His appearance was timely and convenient and outside that he's given very little. That's something he should answer to.

I did read through his posts. He agreed with the case on nutella and spent a good deal of time discussing whether CFDS were an effective means of lynching.

He said some more stuff, but I'm on my phone so can't really reference it atm.

[Long Con]

I said it's a cue external to Mafia, in common communication. I believe that passive voice is often a manner of indirect or incomplete communication and thus provides space for evasiveness. I have no *Mafia* evidence that I can specifically recall. It's something that interests me. I remember Economics too when Epignosis first threw the adverbs at me. I shared an example of my own posts from another civilian game in which I used numerous adverbs; that is a defense specific to me (I have an annoying tendency to abuse adverbs as was seen in that game). I don't think the entire concept Epi promoted then was stupid; I do believe there are linguistic tendencies that appear more often in mafia alignments than civilian alignments. They're not easy to identify and they're not Gospel, but they're interesting enough to explore. It's not a "sudden" interest either. I have referred to language quirks rather often in past Mafia games as a hunter such as specific word selection. I actually did that in this very game thread already when I assessed nutella in the latter half of Day 1.

I've explained why it interests me, Marmot. Do you argue that it shouldn't be interesting?

I think that this type of language quirk is best used to prop up a gut feeling about someone. Like, anyone can use adverbs, but if that person you find suspicious is using them a lot, then it might become a further reason to suspect them. I could see it being helpful if you have good Mafia instincts, and I could see it going wrong in a Confirmation Bias kind of way.

Not that I have any right to chime in, since I'm not using this opinion particularly to decide who's bad.

[Long Con]

LC, I do not have an agenda. It's funny you say the underlined to me:

Whereas a Civ is likely to try and analyze things and figure out what's going on, a baddie already knows what's going on, and has to construct false things to sound true. When you say "he's just agreeing with Wilgy that basically, everyone can have their own opinions", you are displaying a total misunderstanding of the conversation. The Wilgy opinion that I agreed with, was that the thoughts and ideas that fuel what you say in Mafia will differ in the same player based on whether that player is Civ or bad. Epi contends that this theory doesn't apply to him.

So, to answer your question: "...Seriously?" No, I am not seriously agreeing with Wilgy that everyone can have their own opinions, because no one who seriously wants to understand the conversation would suggest that such a thing was discussed.

It feels as if you are doing exactly what you just suggested I did.

Actually, it doesn't really feel that way to me. Your feelings are incorrect.

let me ask you a question: What was the point in getting in the middle of that discussion between Wilgy and Epi, if you're not trying to figure out if one of them is bad? Did you just want to contribute to a theoretical discussion?

Yes.

I doubt Epi really contends that it doesn't apply to him, He was talking about something specific. I gathered that from his point of view, being able to notice a pattern of behaviour is something he can do no matter alignment.

I think you're wrong again, as I recall Epi was contending that it doesn't apply to him.

But that's not really the case, because you didn't suspect Epi for that disagreement, did you?

No I didn't, that's right.

Yet when I didn't suspect Epi for our disagreement, you questioned me about it.

You mean when you brought up only Epi's name in that post, and I asked if you suspected that he was the Chaotic Fire Drill mastermind? I don't think you are bringing it up in an honest way here.

I feel you are playing a very hypocritical game, and I don't think civvie LC would do that.

Cool, this can tie into my research. I'll do it in another post though.

Not to mention, if you're going to lynch someone, and you see that some people changed their minds about that person, maybe you should go back and read their defence and thoughts at EOD. Seems like the civvie thing to do

Is that 'Civilian behaviour'? Well, I'd better do that then. Did anyone discuss reasons why my suspicion of you should change? I'll go look. If not Civvish, it's at least polite and thorough.

[speedchuck]

I feel like this day consists of too much theory and too little reads, and I'm too sick to do much about it. Hopefully that'll clear up in the next 24 hours.

The thing between Epi, LC, and FZ doesn't feel like three townies going at each other to me. That said, I don't know which one to look at, and my headache has compounded just by catching up. If anyone wants to do some GTH reads between the three, that'd be pretty relevant.

Marmot is still 100% on my good list. Dizzy somewhat less so.

There are 5 people talking in the thread, and ten alive. That makes, what 6 people silent, including me? That's not gonna end well.

[Long Con]

Some thoughts regarding the "hypocrisy" accusation...

...from Felt 2

I cannot recall seeing a time when hypocrisy had any connection to alignment. If anything, I would theorize that baddies are more likely to take care not to be a hypocrite, because their behaviour has a certain level of craft necessary... on the flip side, a Civ barrels forward, unconcerned for the most part with how they look as they find the baddies, and thus be easier targets for the hypocrisy accusation angle.

That isn't to say I want to defend DDL specifically, this is something I wish to monitor over multiple games, because I do see the hypocrisy accusation come up here and there. I don't think it holds water.

^ full post here

The difference was when you used the word "hypocrisy". I brought it up in my last game, that I hadn't seen a correlation between accusations of hypocrisy and being a baddie. It's something I have thought about for a while, probably because of times when I have been accused of being a hypocrite (and therefore bad) when I was a Civ. I think that there are plenty of times when a Civ can be justly accused of hypocrisy, and I don't think that it's necessarily a Mafia tell. This time, it was a baddie that was accused of hypocrisy... but I think that hypocrisy is more of a sign of laziness or a lack of self-awareness, than an alignment tell.

^ Full post here

...from A Mafia Of Unfortunate Events

LC, I'm not twisting the truth, I'm just not bothering to check the votes closely to make sure my sentences are precise. I didn't know whether Glorf voted or not atm and I didn't care. I just cared that you had enough commitment to the game to judge people but not enough to make more commited votes than the one you made. That came across as rather hipocritical.

If you say you are gonna improve later, that's cool, but based on what you have done so far, you are my best vote for day 2.

I can't recall a time when hypocrisy was a baddie tell.

...from Monkey Island

@LC no, I made multiple points. Your response was more or less "so?"

LC

No, you highlighted some text, and then laid a couple of quotes from me down, and then did a smiley. I said "...and?", prompting you to make a point somewhere, and you did not.

The point is that it was hypocritical...

What is hypocritical about it?

If the point is that I cast a vote on a third player when two already had a vote, and then told everyone else not to spread it out more... if you call that hypocritical, I guess I can't argue, although I don't think that's such a grievous sin. I was still playing a bit after I voted, and I realized that spreading out the votes is a good way to make it easy for the baddies to control the lynch. Maybe if it had occurred to me before I voted, then I would have stuck with one of the top two contenders instead. This point I would understand, but I don't think that's the point you're making... when you clarify as little as possible, these unsureties tend to crop up...

^ full post here

So, when you say:

I feel you are playing a very hypocritical game, and I don't think civvie LC would do that.

of course you will get my attention. One takeaway from these examples is that I am Civ in each of them. Of course, I'm sure I contend that I'm not being a hypocrite in each one as well - I'm not saying "Civ LC is a hypocrite!", but each of these accusations of hypocrisy are targeted at Civ LC.

And your own accusation of hypocrisy is as bogus as the most bogus of them. Let's see:

But that's not really the case, because you didn't suspect Epi for that disagreement, did you?

Yet when I didn't suspect Epi for our disagreement, you questioned me about it.

I think this was part of the hypocrisy accusation. I also find this part of your post to be the most twisted. You are trying to make it sound true that I contended that you should suspect Epi for your disagreement. Is this the post you speak of?

Spoiler: show

Sorry, I'm kind of exhausted after last night, and had a tough day, so not really in the mood for mafia. I did skim a little, and MP, you do have a point with JJJ. I expect more from JJJ when he's a civ. Right now, it feels as if he's asking a lot of questions, but not really stating any thoughts. It's like he's from the UN. There's an example in his post below.


But, to answer your question, JJJ:

Meh. RIP Nutella.

All this shifting of votes at the end of the day feels to me like someone wanted to cause chaos. Wish I knew who. I'm going to sleep. Will think about it tomorrow.

Why are you inclined to view the end of day sequence as being orchestrated by a "someone" as opposed to the collective of voters all involved in that motion? What does that mean to you, and what candidates would you assert there are to fill the role of "someone"?

I didn't like the way votes kept changing. I'm not a fan of that unless you have a good reason to change your vote at the last minute, like your top suspect convinced you there's a chance you might be wrong about them. I disagree with Epi (I think it was him), who said it helps civvies learn more later on. I think it's an easy way to get away with your vote. "It's exciting, I love these kind of votes", "I wanted to see what others would do", and stuff like that. I think it makes it harder to maintain accountability.
To answer your last question, I'd have to go back and read the last few pages of last day, and I'm not in a state to do it right now. Sorry. Maybe tomorrow.

I don't see anything wrong with JJJ's questions. I have the same questions when I read your post. "...someone wanted to cause chaos. Wish I knew who..." I, too, felt like there was no central mastermind inciting chaos. This feels more like you are manufacturing an opinion with the appearance of civ-mindedness... are you accusing Epi of being the one?

Doesn't hold water. Or was it the "It feels as if you are doing exactly what you just suggested I did." well, no, I wasn't.

[Long Con]

I feel like this day consists of too much theory and too little reads, and I'm too sick to do much about it. Hopefully that'll clear up in the next 24 hours.

The thing between Epi, LC, and FZ doesn't feel like three townies going at each other to me. That said, I don't know which one to look at, and my headache has compounded just by catching up. If anyone wants to do some GTH reads between the three, that'd be pretty relevant.

Marmot is still 100% on my good list. Dizzy somewhat less so.

There are 5 people talking in the thread, and ten alive. That makes, what 6 people silent, including me? That's not gonna end well.

Ok.

Epi: Civ
LC: Civ
FZ: Mafia
Speedchuck: Mafia

[Marmot]

I feel like this day consists of too much theory and too little reads, and I'm too sick to do much about it. Hopefully that'll clear up in the next 24 hours.

The thing between Epi, LC, and FZ doesn't feel like three townies going at each other to me. That said, I don't know which one to look at, and my headache has compounded just by catching up. If anyone wants to do some GTH reads between the three, that'd be pretty relevant.

Marmot is still 100% on my good list. Dizzy somewhat less so.

There are 5 people talking in the thread, and ten alive. That makes, what 6 people silent, including me? That's not gonna end well.

I may be civilian, but I'm anything but good.

[Dyslexicon]

So my (new) boyfriends parents decided to show up for a surprise visit. Never met them before. So. Situation. Will try to sneak away soooon. Would vote Epi for more or less random reasons.

[Epignosis]

Random reasons. Cool.

[DrWilgy]

Why MP?

I need to reassess.

This post stinks to me.

What is so unfathomable about MP dying if Wilgy genuinely thinks I'm bad? I've killed MP plenty of times.

Also, how was MP not at the top of the "likely to be killed" list? Most Active Civ, tried to protect the cop, seemed like he might BE the cop. If Wilgy needs to reassess, I'd like to hear what his original assessment of MP was, where he was an unlikely kill.
Y'all need to read my posts. There aren't many.

[DrWilgy]

Why MP?

I need to reassess.

This post stinks to me.

What is so unfathomable about MP dying if Wilgy genuinely thinks I'm bad? I've killed MP plenty of times.

Also, how was MP not at the top of the "likely to be killed" list? Most Active Civ, tried to protect the cop, seemed like he might BE the cop. If Wilgy needs to reassess, I'd like to hear what his original assessment of MP was, where he was an unlikely kill.

Y'all need to read my posts. There aren't many.

Fixed.

[Long Con]

You mean this?

@MP, how well did poe work out for you last time?

Bold assertion:

FZ. and nutella are mafia teammates.

Dammit. I was hoping you weren't bad. Now I'm not sure. Why even post this? Why title it a bold assertion? No duh it's a bold assertion.

[DrWilgy]

Yee

[Long Con]

Hardly the strongest convictions. It's a little much to publicly lament their reassessment.

[DrWilgy]

Hardly the strongest convictions. It's a little much to publicly lament their reassessment.

But it really did. I'm unsure of the three I felt that there was a baddie amongst.

Now I have to rejudge that initial thought along with decide whom to vote. (My time is limited to also do so until tomorrow -__-)