[ENDGAME] - The Fellowship of the Ring Mafia (LoTR I)

[DFaraday]

Even if Mac wasn't consistent in his analysis of Sloonei's treatment of Ambray and Nutella, that doesn't mean he's bad. Civs are inconsistent in their positions all the time.

Having said that, I feel good about Epi and think his case on Mac is a good look for Epi.

[Epignosis]

Assuming MacDougall is a civilian, then his opinion on Sloonei (now speedchuck) is genuine.

Would you lynch speedchuck. Why or why not?

[MacDougall]

Even if Mac wasn't consistent in his analysis of Sloonei's treatment of Ambray and Nutella, that doesn't mean he's bad. Civs are inconsistent in their positions all the time.

Having said that, I feel good about Epi and think his case on Mac is a good look for Epi.

I agree with that.

[MacDougall]

At any rate if I am going to be a continual suspect for my poor play you might as well get me out of the way early.

[timmer]

Epig's post on Mac was the kind of thing I would write, but I'm not its conclusive... I'm trying to gauge Mac's response to it as he seems genuinely shocked, but... why? We've all had wall cases built against us. Is this weird for Mac? Anyone who knows him, how does his surprise strike you?

[MacDougall]

Sorry I just didn't expect to have to contend with it and I was balls deep in Buffy at the time.

Mmm.

[insertnamehere]

Apologies for the Day 2 absense.

People I plan on ISO'ing:

Kylemii
Long Con
Epignosis
Mac
Wilgy
Novaseline

Wish me luck.

[speedchuck]

I have not reread anything. I'm voting for Kylemii at the moment.

Before Buffy started, I was watching this game casually, and I didn't like his push toward Glorfindel. Specifically, how he went after people who took the opposite side, and how his reason for going after Glorf was "he didn't answer for himself."

Maybe this was a pity thing on my part, since Glorf clearly didn't want to talk about the subject. But I interpreted Kylemii's posts as him being frustrated, and it felt like scum frustration because of Glorf's truthfulness. If this has already been discussed to death, and I'm opening old wounds in the thread, please point me to a conclusion.

Since that time, from what I can tell in a quick ISO, Kylemii has asked a bunch of questions but not followed up on them much. I don't know where he stands, and that's not comfortable.

[insertnamehere]

I have not reread anything. I'm voting for Kylemii at the moment.

Before Buffy started, I was watching this game casually, and I didn't like his push toward Glorfindel. Specifically, how he went after people who took the opposite side, and how his reason for going after Glorf was "he didn't answer for himself."

Maybe this was a pity thing on my part, since Glorf clearly didn't want to talk about the subject. But I interpreted Kylemii's posts as him being frustrated, and it felt like scum frustration because of Glorf's truthfulness. If this has already been discussed to death, and I'm opening old wounds in the thread, please point me to a conclusion.

Since that time, from what I can tell in a quick ISO, Kylemii has asked a bunch of questions but not followed up on them much. I don't know where he stands, and that's not comfortable.

I concur.

Incoming ISO.

[insertnamehere]

QUICK RECAP OF MY DAY 1 CASE AGAINST KYLE THAT EVERYONE IGNORED

I didn't like his assumptions about the ways the mafia roles worked, nor did I like how he treated Glorf. His responses to Jack's accusations were kinda weaksauce, and his weird barbs against Sloonei for explaining Glorf's deal just come off really weird.

I also don't like the course of events that went: Kyle + Nutella go after Glorf -> Ambray follows Kyle and votes Glorf -> The thread defends Glorf, and public opinion turns against his accusers -> Kyle walks back/downplays what he said and turns on Ambray, claiming that her reasoning for voting Glorf is shadier than his own -> When Ambray shows up and responds, Kyle randomly switches to Faraday, possibly the most inactive player, who will probably not fight back against this lynch.

It's just all kinda spineless and contortion-y, with Kyle changing his stance and flipping on people quite a bit.

You can't just retroactively declare a vote completely unindicative of suspicion. Especially when you switched to Faraday less than two hours before the EOD. I'm not saying that you didn't use your vote to question them, but pretending like that's your sole reason for voting someone is damn silly.

Kyle, the person at the end of the day with the most votes is lynched. That's how the game works. Unfortunately, there's not a seperate "questioning" poll where you can vote for people you want to have answer your requests. A vote is a vote, and I take it seriously.

Saying that it's solely for questioning is a bit of a dodge and a bit of a scummy move IMO. In fact, literally all of your votes today, Kyle, have been directed at low-posting players (or at least they were when you voted for them) that you want to "pressure." Nevertheless, DFaraday might be pressured all the way to the noose.

I feel like specifically voting for under-the-radar players, ostensibly for "pressure" purposes, then moving to another mostly-silent player if they show up and complain, would be a hella attractive strategy for a scummeister.

You're appearing like an active player without actually going after anyone who'll fight back, and preserving plausible deniability.

It's like when one of those douchebag Youtubers punch someone and then claim it was a social experiment afterward.

Kyle responded to these posts by explaining what "pressure votes" are, not realizing that my problem with him was that all of his "pressure votes" were directed at easy, low-posting targets which allowed him to float through the thread without having solid, objectionable opinions.

WHAT KYLE HAS DONE SINCE THEN

actually I feel like you've tunnelled me like you were doing earlier before, in a game many moons ago, it felt very familiar

Accused me of tunnelling.

I want to elaborate on my jack read. He's been Wilgying, and that's fine. He's also expressed suspicions and that's good, but I haven't seen him trying to actually push any of his reads. every player that isn't Wilgy who starts out with a self-imposed limitation ends up dropping it as soon as it actually starts to inhibit their play.

if the language used in his one actual text post were accurate to the way he felt about me then why didn't he push for my lynch, specially when he said "eyeroll emoji" and "wolf emoji" about me

He then went after Jack, who was targeting him earlier in the thread, ostensibly because he wasn't stopping posting in emojis.

My thoughts on people with self-imposed posting limitations are already well established:

Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

This Jack attack feels like a NO U in thinly veiled BS to me.

so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.

...says the guy who hasn't given a single strong case or clear opinion.

After Jack breaks his emoji-posting pattern, and writes in, y'know, words, Kyle immediately posts this:

i am no longer worried about jack

This continues Kyle's trend of backtracking on any original in-thread stances whenever he gets a whiff of backlash.

Quick sidebar: I feel like Ambray Vs. Mac was Civ Vs. Civ, and that Mac's reactions to Epi's attacks have been pretty genuine.

Kyle's reaction to the Ambray Vs. Mac Day 2 kerfuffle was, predictably a bunch of waffling.

He sure did ask a bunch of questions, which I guess is supposedly civilian-type behavior.

mmmmmmmmm @Ambray @MacDougall

please tell me who you would lynch today if you weren't currently top vote getters, and neither of you could vote for the other

mac when did you begin suspecting ambray?

differently why?

@MacDougall i remember you referencing a difference between phone mac and computer mac before, what game was that in? was that Fiddler?

I can't check rn cus I'm at dinner, did Sofi mention either of Sloonei or Nutella before this post?

most specifically sloonei, did she mention sloon?

@Sloonei do you have any input on sofi v mac?

This may be what Kyle refers to as my prospensity for "tunnelling," but these questions all seem like Kyle looking for someone to tell him what to think, and who to vote for, instead of actual case-building. It also feels like he's trying desperately to sell other players on Ambray and Mac being the two lynch leaders, forcing attention off of other possible candidates. Despite claiming to have ISO'd both candidates, and asking so many questions, Kyle doesn't actually post a clear stance or opinion against either of them until after the vote ended, and after he pulled a literal last minute vote against Ambray.

I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac

For all the shit he gave Jack for posting emojis, Kyle's vote-justification is merely the text equivalent of this:

[insertnamehere]

IN SUMMARY



Kyle has floated and waffled from weak suspicion to weak suspicion, mainly focusing on easy targets who weren't likely to go after him. He asks substanceless questions in attempt to seem semi-active and civilian-esque. He hasn't had one solid opinion, stance, or case this entire game.

Total scummeister.

*votes Kyle*

[Kylemii]

Since that time, from what I can tell in a quick ISO, Kylemii has asked a bunch of questions but not followed up on them much. I don't know where he stands, and that's not comfortable.

I can't handle being in 3 games at once and bring the same level of passion to each. I signed up for what became the third while I was dead in the first and now I'm stuck with 3 games that I can't fully contribute to because I don't have the time or energy. I came back from working in game 2 last night and realized I barely even remember what's happening in this game. Being concerned that you don't know where I stand here is completely fair cus idk either.

[speedchuck]

Since that time, from what I can tell in a quick ISO, Kylemii has asked a bunch of questions but not followed up on them much. I don't know where he stands, and that's not comfortable.

I can't handle being in 3 games at once and bring the same level of passion to each. I signed up for what became the third while I was dead in the first and now I'm stuck with 3 games that I can't fully contribute to because I don't have the time or energy. I came back from working in game 2 last night and realized I barely even remember what's happening in this game. Being concerned that you don't know where I stand here is completely fair cus idk either.

Hm... Dunno why, but I feel like I can empathize with this.

[nutella]

[Kylemii]

Kyle responded to these posts by explaining what "pressure votes" are, not realizing that my problem with him was that all of his "pressure votes" were directed at easy, low-posting targets which allowed him to float through the thread without having solid, objectionable opinions.

this is wrong. my pressure was placed where it could do something. glorfindel was pressured to gauge a reaction, sofi was pressured because I wanted to hear an explanation for her vote. I put pressure votes on players I wanted to verify things about, saying they were just quiet players is false.

Accused me of tunnelling.

you are.

He then went after Jack, who was targeting him earlier in the thread, ostensibly because he wasn't stopping posting in emojis.

you seem to think the only reason anyone should ever make negative comments about each other is to try and get the other person lynched. That's not how I play. The first step to any suspicion is questioning that player and trying to figure out their motivation for doing the things they've done. That's what I did with Jack and it's also why I started to feel better about him. None of that could have been accomplished without the push.

My thoughts on people with self-imposed posting limitations are already well established:

Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

that's irrelevant. obviously choosing to do a posting thing isn't necessarily alignment indicative. that doesn't mean any player who does a posting thing doesn't have an alignment and shouldn't ever be questioned.

so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.

...says the guy who hasn't given a single strong case or clear opinion.

I've been doing plenty of work, you've just been dismissing it all as opportunistic :/ I don't tend to make accusations and big cases in the early game, inh. that's not how i play. I ask questions and gauge responses cus it's what I'm good at. Other people do what they're good at and it creates a well functioning machine that mafias. jack is an actual good mafia player so ofc I expect more from him.

After Jack breaks his emoji-posting pattern, and writes in, y'know, words, Kyle immediately posts this:

i am no longer worried about jack

This continues Kyle's trend of backtracking on any original in-thread stances whenever he gets a whiff of backlash.

"kyle changes his mind about things sometimes when confronted with new data so obviously he's bad" :/

first of all that's overly simplified, I didn't say that about jack because he posted without emojis, I said it because I believed in his response. it made sense as an explanation and jived with something Jack had said previously

the entire point of questioning someone is to figure out where someone stands. you're acting like asking people questions and then ending up not wanting them dead is somehow wrong

Kyle's reaction to the Ambray Vs. Mac Day 2 kerfuffle was, predictably a bunch of waffling.

He sure did ask a bunch of questions, which I guess is supposedly civilian-type behavior.

It's absolutely average Kyle-typebehavior. Read any game I've played recently and you'll see the same thing. If I don't understand something I'm going to ask questions until I have the baseline of knowledge required to figure things out for myself. If you want a link to one I can provide but you can probably just click on any of the more recent games from the last 5 months and see what I mean.

This may be what Kyle refers to as my prospensity for "tunnelling," but these questions all seem like Kyle looking for someone to tell him what to think, and who to vote for, instead of actual case-building.

kind of telling actually? is that how you believe mafia should be played? 20 players make cases on their own in 20 lonely vacuums without input and ignore cases made by the other players?

It also feels like he's trying desperately to sell other players on Ambray and Mac being the two lynch leaders, forcing attention off of other possible candidates. Despite claiming to have ISO'd both candidates, and asking so many questions, Kyle doesn't actually post a clear stance or opinion against either of them until after the vote ended, and after he pulled a literal last minute vote against Ambray.

I didn't have a clear stance, that's why I was asking so many questions basically up until the end of the phase. I don't make rash decisions. If I don't feel properly informed on a topic then I work to fix that.

I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac

For all the shit he gave Jack for posting emojis, Kyle's vote-justification is merely the text equivalent of this:

yeah? the only votes that mattered at that point were sofi and mac so i voted sofi, cus i thought Mac was more likely to be civ.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I was balls deep in Buffy at the time.

Spoiler: show

[Kylemii]

INH feel free to keep suspecting me but do you have any suspects other than me and sofi?

[DrWilgy]

ITS GONNA TAKE ME ALOT TO TAKE ME AWAAAAY FROM YOUUUU

[Jackofhearts2005]

Hitching my wagon to INH's Kyle train without reading Kyle's defense. I'm sure this will annoy him.

Make no mistake, I suspect Kyle on my own. INH just spells it out better and adds to it. Also, I strongly think INH is town so that helps.

[Kylemii]

Hitching my wagon to INH's Kyle train without reading Kyle's defense. I'm sure this will annoy him.

Yeah, a little.

Make no mistake, I suspect Kyle on my own. INH just spells it out better and adds to it. Also, I strongly think INH is town so that helps.

Inh suspects me for doing things that I do in almost every game. His case isn't the same as yours at all, you should probably read it.

[speedchuck]

I'm feeling pretty good about Nutella from my 30 seconds of perusing her ISO.

[speedchuck]

Dammit I'm tired.

I was looking at Wilgy and then got sidetracked on Nutella because of a post he made about her. Nevermind.

Wilgy looks like whatever. Same as every other game lately. Probably town.

[speedchuck]

Apologies for the Day 2 absense.

People I plan on ISO'ing:

Kylemii
Long Con
Epignosis
Mac
Wilgy
Novaseline

Wish me luck.

Why these six?

[Kylemii]

IN SUMMARY



Kyle has floated and waffled from weak suspicion to weak suspicion, mainly focusing on easy targets who weren't likely to go after him. He asks substanceless questions in attempt to seem semi-active and civilian-esque. He hasn't had one solid opinion, stance, or case this entire game.

Total scummeister.

*votes Kyle*

2 things... did you take time to photoshop my name on top of a waffle? cus that's amazing.

second thing... go back and read through *any* of the recent games I've played other ones. tell me the name of a single player I suspected and used accusatory language towards in the first two phases of any of those games. name one.

Fiddler doesn't count. In Fiddler I was pushed out of my comfort zone in the first few days by a Jay and Sloonei onslaught. I reacted emotionally but I did my best to identify things people did that might be scummy because I didn't want to die. like 90% of the players I accused were civs. identifying scumtells or whatever isn't in my wheelhouse. I wish it were but it isn't. I'm more a more effective player later-game phases.

that's why my gameplay style isn't to accuse people blindly and make them die so I can know if I'm right or not, that's ineffective. my style is to question people and analyze their responses to my questions as well as those posed by others in hopes of expanding the context of their behavior and understanding why they might have done or said what they did.

Maybe I don't fit into your cookie cutter view of how you think a civ should act but... I think that's a good thing. If every player only shouted about their own cases and didn't weigh in on each other's thoughts we wouldn't actually get anything done.

[nutella]

I'm feeling pretty good about Nutella from my 30 seconds of perusing her ISO.

[rabbit8]

About caught up on this game. Ill make a nice big fuck you post tonight. Sorry its been a busy day.
I'm not skating by, FYI. I'll be back in full swing now.

[MacDougall]

About caught up on this game. Ill make a nice big fuck you post tonight. Sorry its been a busy day.
I'm not skating by, FYI. I'll be back in full swing now.

Direct it at not me please. Thanks.

[Jackofhearts2005]

More people need to vote and provide content so I don't feel like a dick if Kyle gets lynched and I'm wrong. (I can see it now. "Jack is bad for trying to distract away from his teammate, kyle"/"Jack is bad cause he knew Kyle would flip good." No.)

[Jackofhearts2005]

[mention]nutella[/mention]
[mention]Kylemii[/mention]

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

[Kylemii]

@nutella
@Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

[Epignosis]

Damn it nutella, get in here and provide some content. I don't know how I feel about you.



Holy shit, guys. Wheaties. Second Breakfast.

[Kylemii]

nutella
Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

the poll doesn't expire til tomorrow and i'm just kinda chilling, i guess. i should probably be putting more effort in since people want to kill me, I'm just tired lol. 3 games is too many games for any mortal man

[Epignosis]

nutella
Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

the poll doesn't expire til tomorrow and i'm just kinda chilling, i guess. i should probably be putting more effort in since people want to kill me, I'm just tired lol. 3 games is too many games for any mortal man

I thought you were voting early and often these days.

[Kylemii]

nutella
Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

the poll doesn't expire til tomorrow and i'm just kinda chilling, i guess. i should probably be putting more effort in since people want to kill me, I'm just tired lol. 3 games is too many games for any mortal man

I thought you were voting early and often these days.

I was. I haven't felt confident enough in a read or the effectiveness of a prod to continue doing it.

[Jackofhearts2005]

nutella
Kylemii

Why aren't you voting?

*switches back to Mac*

the poll doesn't expire til tomorrow and i'm just kinda chilling, i guess. i should probably be putting more effort in since people want to kill me, I'm just tired lol. 3 games is too many games for any mortal man

I misread. Thought we had an hour and a half.

[nutella]

[insertnamehere]

Apologies for the Day 2 absense.

People I plan on ISO'ing:

Kylemii - was suspicious of him D1
Long Con - voted Ambray - don't have a cogent read of him
Epignosis - has a whole thing going with Mac, not 100% sure on my read of that dynamic
Mac - pretty much same reasoning as Epignosis
Wilgy - had a whole thing against Ambray
Novaseline - has left literally no impressions on me as a player, and went after Nutella D1

Wish me luck.

Why these six?

[insertnamehere]

INH feel free to keep suspecting me but do you have any suspects other than me and sofi?

please show me where I called Ambray suspicious? I didn't like her Glorf vote, but I accepted her reasoning. Meanwhile, you used it as an excuse to prop her up for an easy lynch, despite also targeting Glorf yourself.

[mention]Glorfindel[/mention], do you still have a negative read on Kyle? What do you think of my case against him?

[Epignosis]

Apologies for the Day 2 absense.

People I plan on ISO'ing:

Kylemii - was suspicious of him D1
Long Con - voted Ambray - don't have a cogent read of him
Epignosis - has a whole thing going with Mac, not 100% sure on my read of that dynamic
Mac - pretty much same reasoning as Epignosis
Wilgy - had a whole thing against Ambray
Novaseline - has left literally no impressions on me as a player, and went after Nutella D1

Wish me luck.

Why these six?

Is fucking dead.

I swear to God.

[Epignosis]

I see I am going to have to win this game by myself.

[MacDougall]

I am going to vote for speedchuck every day until one of us is lynched.

Yes, Epi, I know it's probably going to be me.

[rabbit8]

About caught up on this game. Ill make a nice big fuck you post tonight. Sorry its been a busy day.
I'm not skating by, FYI. I'll be back in full swing now.

Direct it at not me please. Thanks.

Outlook is bad.....

[MacDougall]

I mean like you can do whatever just don't direct a huge wall at me.

[rabbit8]

At any rate if I am going to be a continual suspect for my poor play you might as well get me out of the way early.

So, this shit is....what?

[MacDougall]

At any rate if I am going to be a continual suspect for my poor play you might as well get me out of the way early.

So, this shit is....what?

If I am here at lylo or whatever then I will cost us the game. Do you even Mafia?

[insertnamehere]

Oh goodie. It's been a while since I've gotten into a wall-post-based battle with a player I suspect that's more or less an irrelevant genitalia measuring contest because no one ever reads these damn wall-posts, unless they themselves are mentioned or accused in them.

Kyle responded to these posts by explaining what "pressure votes" are, not realizing that my problem with him was that all of his "pressure votes" were directed at easy, low-posting targets which allowed him to float through the thread without having solid, objectionable opinions.

this is wrong. my pressure was placed where it could do something. glorfindel was pressured to gauge a reaction, sofi was pressured because I wanted to hear an explanation for her vote. I put pressure votes on players I wanted to verify things about, saying they were just quiet players is false.

Once again, you keep willfully ignoring the crux of my argument, continually making me out to not understand basic concepts that I'm actually accusing you of not using in a pro-civilian way. Yes, I know that you were ostensibly voting for these people in order for in-thread "pressure" reasons. I just think that the justification for these "pressure votes" is weaksauce and unfortunately your "pressure votes" have the consequence of counting as actual votes, meaning that you could have an easy-ass justification for a vote and eventual lynch of un-controversial players who won't publicly drag you through the mud.

Accused me of tunnelling.

you are.

nice attempt at discrediting me

He then went after Jack, who was targeting him earlier in the thread, ostensibly because he wasn't stopping posting in emojis.

you seem to think the only reason anyone should ever make negative comments about each other is to try and get the other person lynched. That's not how I play. The first step to any suspicion is questioning that player and trying to figure out their motivation for doing the things they've done. That's what I did with Jack and it's also why I started to feel better about him. None of that could have been accomplished without the push.

You called him your main scumread. I interpreted that as fact, and not some weird psy-op strategy that none of us, except Jack, was supposed to take seriously. You really seem to enjoy shirking culpability for your own opinions and stances.

My thoughts on people with self-imposed posting limitations are already well established:

Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

that's irrelevant. obviously choosing to do a posting thing isn't necessarily alignment indicative. that doesn't mean any player who does a posting thing doesn't have an alignment and shouldn't ever be questioned.

your only argument was that CIV JACK WOULD HAVE DROPPED THE GIMMICK BY THIS POINT, which is nonsense. But I suppose that's irrelevant since when you say that you scumread someone, we're all supposed to realize that you don't really scumread them, and that this is an elite questioning strategy to extract...nothing from Jack. You got nothing from Jack. Literally all he did to get you to stop "worrying" about him was stopping posting in emojis.

so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.

...says the guy who hasn't given a single strong case or clear opinion.

I've been doing plenty of work, you've just been dismissing it all as opportunistic :/ I don't tend to make accusations and big cases in the early game, inh. that's not how i play. I ask questions and gauge responses cus it's what I'm good at. Other people do what they're good at and it creates a well functioning machine that mafias. jack is an actual good mafia player so ofc I expect more from him.

I'm not arguing with your patented method of question-asking and response-gauging. Sloonei did a shitton of that, and he was a townread for me. I think that I'm dealing with the evil, scummy version of Kyle that does the same amount of inquisitive behavior, but without really doing anything with it. I'm simply not happy with the results you've gotten from your methods, which makes me think you're using them nefariously.

After Jack breaks his emoji-posting pattern, and writes in, y'know, words, Kyle immediately posts this:

i am no longer worried about jack

This continues Kyle's trend of backtracking on any original in-thread stances whenever he gets a whiff of backlash.

"kyle changes his mind about things sometimes when confronted with new data so obviously he's bad" :/

first of all that's overly simplified, I didn't say that about jack because he posted without emojis, I said it because I believed in his response. it made sense as an explanation and jived with something Jack had said previously

the entire point of questioning someone is to figure out where someone stands. you're acting like asking people questions and then ending up not wanting them dead is somehow wrong

You called him your top scumread because he posted in emojis, (and also happened to coincidentally suspect you, but let's ignore that) and then did a 180 when he broke the gimmick and posted in words. Oh wait, no, it's apparently because he mentioned the phrase "tone words," and his response just feels "really genuine."

Not really seeing the startlingly relevant data that causes you to make him a non-scumread, and that justifiied your extensive, advanced interrogation techniques.

Kyle's reaction to the Ambray Vs. Mac Day 2 kerfuffle was, predictably a bunch of waffling.

He sure did ask a bunch of questions, which I guess is supposedly civilian-type behavior.

It's absolutely average Kyle-typebehavior. Read any game I've played recently and you'll see the same thing. If I don't understand something I'm going to ask questions until I have the baseline of knowledge required to figure things out for myself. If you want a link to one I can provide but you can probably just click on any of the more recent games from the last 5 months and see what I mean.

The fact that you yourself identify this as your prototypical town behavior means that you'd consciously choose to do the same damn thing if you were scum, except less productive and genuine. I believe the following questions are examples of this malevolent, outwardly-inquisitive Kyle.

This may be what Kyle refers to as my prospensity for "tunnelling," but these questions all seem like Kyle looking for someone to tell him what to think, and who to vote for, instead of actual case-building.

kind of telling actually? is that how you believe mafia should be played? 20 players make cases on their own in 20 lonely vacuums without input and ignore cases made by the other players?

You weren't building any opinion of your own, or defining your own viewpoint in any way. You were just continually asking somewhat asinine questions in what looked like a facile attempt to seem active and invested, despite not really caring and knowing that a civ would be lynched either way.

It also feels like he's trying desperately to sell other players on Ambray and Mac being the two lynch leaders, forcing attention off of other possible candidates. Despite claiming to have ISO'd both candidates, and asking so many questions, Kyle doesn't actually post a clear stance or opinion against either of them until after the vote ended, and after he pulled a literal last minute vote against Ambray.

I didn't have a clear stance, that's why I was asking so many questions basically up until the end of the phase. I don't make rash decisions. If I don't feel properly informed on a topic then I work to fix that.

You never once vocalized your thought process or why you decided to vote Sofi outside of basic-sounding fluff like the below quote from after EOD. You claim to have been carefully assembling info to build an informed, cogent viewpoint, but instead your Sofi vote feels like a half-hearted excuse.

I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac

For all the shit he gave Jack for posting emojis, Kyle's vote-justification is merely the text equivalent of this:

yeah? the only votes that mattered at that point were sofi and mac so i voted sofi, cus i thought Mac was more likely to be civ.

Missing in this last minute vote justification: any actual reasons why sofi is more likely to be scum and Mac is more likely to be civ.

[rabbit8]

At any rate if I am going to be a continual suspect for my poor play you might as well get me out of the way early.

So, this shit is....what?

If I am here at lylo or whatever then I will cost us the game. Do you even Mafia?

Dude, I', old AF. What does lylo mean?

[MacDougall]

At any rate if I am going to be a continual suspect for my poor play you might as well get me out of the way early.

So, this shit is....what?

If I am here at lylo or whatever then I will cost us the game. Do you even Mafia?

Dude, I', old AF. What does lylo mean?

Lynch or lose. The period of the game where there are few players left and the civs have to lynch mafia to not lose.

[insertnamehere]

IN SUMMARY



Kyle has floated and waffled from weak suspicion to weak suspicion, mainly focusing on easy targets who weren't likely to go after him. He asks substanceless questions in attempt to seem semi-active and civilian-esque. He hasn't had one solid opinion, stance, or case this entire game.

Total scummeister.

*votes Kyle*

2 things... did you take time to photoshop my name on top of a waffle? cus that's amazing.

Yep. I figured that I needed a visual component to communicate my stance to people who just absent-mindedly scrolled past the words.

second thing... go back and read through *any* of the recent games I've played other ones. tell me the name of a single player I suspected and used accusatory language towards in the first two phases of any of those games. name one.

Fiddler doesn't count. In Fiddler I was pushed out of my comfort zone in the first few days by a Jay and Sloonei onslaught. I reacted emotionally but I did my best to identify things people did that might be scummy because I didn't want to die. like 90% of the players I accused were civs. identifying scumtells or whatever isn't in my wheelhouse. I wish it were but it isn't. I'm more a more effective player later-game phases.

that's why my gameplay style isn't to accuse people blindly and make them die so I can know if I'm right or not, that's ineffective. my style is to question people and analyze their responses to my questions as well as those posed by others in hopes of expanding the context of their behavior and understanding why they might have done or said what they did.

Maybe I don't fit into your cookie cutter view of how you think a civ should act but... I think that's a good thing. If every player only shouted about their own cases and didn't weigh in on each other's thoughts we wouldn't actually get anything done.

As I said earlier, the fact that you yourself identify this as your prototypical town behavior means that you'd consciously choose to do the same damn thing if you were scum, except less productive and genuine.

I believe I'm seeing the disingenuous version of Kylemii.

[rabbit8]

3 civvies are dead? Jumping the gun a little? I hope the word gun triggers someone. Just so you guys know that.