I don't actually know what to think of any of you at this point, so I'm doing some ISOs in alphabetical order. Starting with Boomslang:
Boomslang wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:55 pm
Marmot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:59 pm
Boomslang wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:09 pm
Checking in. Visiting with Blooper's parents, so will give this the attention it deserves tomorrow.
What sort of attention does a game of this magnitude with themes and roles and intricacies from the entire year leading up to this point deserve?
The sort of attention that begins with a read of the thread and a consideration of the mechanics. That leads me to like INH and dislike Sloonei right off the bat: INH is willing to entertain that we should reconsider Day 1 play because of the haiku, while Sloonei just wants to charge ahead with business as usual.
I don't understand why Day 1 Sloonei wanting to treat this game like "business as usual" should be conceived of as a bad look. At the time, I felt this post had the potential of being a disingenuous charge against me. But it's early Day 1 (no one ever talked about the fact that we skipped over Day 0) and a disingenuous push is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sloonei wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:49 am
I don't care about who we may or may not be able to lynch. Today should be pursued just the same as any other Day 1. This is not something I will worry about today.
I also find Sloonei's attitude toward the button rather cavalier. If the button behaves the same way as in the original game and redistributes all roles, I would think the towniest approach would be to press it immediately, rather than at some random time later in the game. That way we remove the possibility of role shuffling early; if roles shuffle after we do a bunch of reading work, then all that progress gets cast aside.
This was the other part of what I perceived to be a potential false effort from Boomslang. But I can see how a player could interpret my stance on the button the way that Boomslang did here, so I am not as concerned. But I still note that the first two swings he took in the game were at me. He interpreted two of my posts in a negative light for reasons that I don't think hold much weight, but I have a slight bias when it comes to my little old self.
Boomslang wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:48 pm
sig wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm
Plus I'm about 70% sure I submitted a haiku and it's very disappointing nobody followed up and answered when I asked if they did.
Ok, what's this "70% sure" crap? You either did or you didn't, and you should be able to check your PMs to verify either way. Also, I must not count as anybody, because I definitely responded in the affirmative about the haiku.
Boomslang wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:25 pm
Running out of time. Sig hasn't changed his self-vote and hasn't explained that cryptic 70% comment. Although he hasn't shown up, Jack also isn't creating confusion in thread. So voting sig.
[VOTE:
Sig] aubergine
The "70%" blow-up is something that has earned Boomslang some scrutiny. It's certainly an
odd thing to get stuck on, but Blooper has assured us this is in line with the Slang's character. It could still be an opportunistic latching-on to a false suspicion, but I am not terribly worried about this episode.
Boomslang wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:34 pm
Kylemii wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:32 pm
Um... I've been throwing up all day and thought the thing ended later.
I don't have time to read, please tell me the cases on sig and jack
Jack hasn't checked in at all. Sig cast a self-vote to tie out of "boredom," failed to provide actionable information about his haiku submission, and ignored my own claim of haiku submission. I don't like any of those things.
Here's a more detailed explanation of his Sig vote. There's room for some prodding here. Boomslang, could you explain why you saw these three points against sig all as negative in that moment?
Boomslang wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:17 pm
Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:37 pm
I am bothered by to think we fac you put INH pushing discussion of the haiku submission as pro civ. I see it as something that would not be in INH's favor. It looks more like looking civ by generating discussion without actually helping the civs at all. No mafia member is going to say, yeah I didn't send one in! Because why would they do that? It just seems like it would only result in muddying the waters, give the baddies something to hide behind.
The fact your see it so differently gives never pause. And in fact you want others to claim too. I dunno Boom. I think I'm putting my vote on you today.
Why does me wanting others to claim or deny haikus make me seem bad to you? Even if everyone claims to send one in, we'll produce a bunch of lie-checkable statements that someone could use to confirm suspicion of suspects come later in the game. I see nothing bad about wanting that information in the thread. Sure, it's not tremendously helpful if that's the only thing we talk about. But I think a discussion of this mechanic plays a welcome complement to other happenings.
In other news, Jack coming out swinging is a good look, although I don't get his statement about wanting to lynch himself if he was the button role (didn't play that game).
Also, bewbs.
I perked up a little at the out-of-left-field reference to a lie detector role. To my knowledge, there's been no public mention of a lie detector existing in this game, so it was jarring to see Boomslang allude to the possibility in this way. I don't necessarily interpret that negatively, but it is, at the very least, a somewhat convoluted justification for a particular focus of his. He could just be used to games featuring lie detectors (I don't know how common that role has been in Boomslang's mafia past, but I've only seen it a handful of times personally).
I like that he offered an immediate and unprompted read on Jack, although the little hangup about the button thing suggests some hesitation waffles.
Boomslang wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:44 pm
Ok, all caught up. I don't like Sig's explanation of the haiku confusion on a personal level, but I guess that's a playstyle disagreement. Not going to push it when we have juicy nightkill responses to make.
I wasn't involved in killing Blooper, but I strongly suspect that whoever did kill her is laughing their asses off at the WIFOM they just created. I'm betting it's one of the older players who understands the couples meta. Coupled with sig's good point about a ballsy scum team being willing to NK their own for the wifom...
Marmot needs to show up and give us something to chew on. Wilgy has also been super blendy so far. About the only thing we've gotten from him is some gentle needling of Sloonei based on a point made by Scotty. And a cryptic comment about Kyle — why is he a "hero and patriot" for voting Blooper?
I also have an eyeball on Lorab right now. "Ugh. I have no idea where to vote. I don't actually suspect anyone" at the end of Day 1 is so noncommittal, then she votes Sloonei for "peer pressure" and the active voices in the thread don't really get on her for that lack of reasoning. She then jumps in, first post of Day 2, to begin the WIFOM about me and the Blooper kill.
I appreciate that he dropped the sig haiku thing here. Slightly good look, with the reservation that a baddie Boomslang would have almost had to have dropped it for the optics.
I'm not uite sure what he is referring to when he says "whoever did the kill is laughing their asses off at the WIFOM they just created." Every kill carries an element of wifom. That's kind of the nature of nightkills. I don't know why this nightkill has to be exceptionally wifomy, Blooper relationship and all.
The rest of this post is Boomslang observing and calling out the low posters. Easy post to make as a baddie. I'll see how these sentiments develop in his other posts.
Boomslang wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:56 pm
DrWilgy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:08 pm
sig wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:07 am
A really ballsy/crazy scum team would. So like wilgy, mac, marmot, but i don't think a more traditional team would
If bloops was on my team, I would've opted to kill either myself or another teammate before her.
Can you give any reason for this, other than a flat denial of the possibility?
DrWilgy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:32 pm
JoH is civilian. Tell me why I think this.
Because he's done some really good comparative analysis to suggest a w/w connection between Sig and Sloonei? Also, despite admitting that he can "tunnel good Sloonei" early in the game, he's choosing to take the risk and put opinions out there. I don't see him going this deep down the tunnel unless he really believes his case.
Here he is engaging with wilgy in what looks to be an effective manner. Townie point.
I also like the read he expresses on JoH here. Townie point.
After this there's some back and forth with Kyle, and a couple jabs at Blooper, plus a vote for her. My guess is Boomslang slept on the couch last night, so he must have had a good reason to cast that vote. I'd like to hear it.
I'd need to look more closely at Kyle's ISO post before I could comment on Boomslang's response to it.
I have a few concerns in here, but not as many as I was expecting tbh. I could see a baddie in these posts, but I also see what could be the first few steps of a confident townie establishing himself in the game. I'll Boomslang a slight town read for now.